Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies

I think you are quite right.

Corrupt hearts seem to have an easy time corrupting virtually anything they touch--even a good strategy for studying the tangible world.

originally posted by: groveacc
a reply to: BO XIAN

You would think Nobel prize system will enhance the development of science. The situation has become opposite. Fraud crept into the system because outsiders do not know the exact details of the scientific investigation they are preforming. The unnamed number of researchers form a closed group of society to manufacture the date that fit the known theory that may be severely flawed. The reason there is no breakthrough in science for a long time is because of this type of corruption. People have the uncanny ability to corrupt and abuse the system whenever they see the chance.
The dark matter problem, free energy device physics, electromagnetic antigravity problems are all already solved and published in the form of a book. The closed group of society will do everything possible for this news to not come out to the public while they are enjoying the false limelight of the public media. Unfortunately, Big Bang theory is one of those miserably failed theories as well as the Electro-Gravito-Magnetism tested by NASA in the experiment of Gravity Probe B with the Stanford University Group.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Yes, the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that it is man made. But if course you, the internet keyboard warrior, know better.

Ignorance at its finest.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Science represents literally no forward progress at all

So what are you posting on ATS with? What type of fabric are you wearing? What type of weather is in your area today? How to you travel between towns? Cities? Countries?

Absolutely the dumbest statement on ATS. Hands down.

a reply to: schuyler

Did you really just say that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is designed to prove a theorem DEFINITIVELY???

I had to stop reading right there because this idiotic belief is how science has been turned into a religious belief system.

The scientific method can prove NOTHING definitively.... Jesus, that's like the most basic priniciple OF the scientific method.

Jaden

a reply to: noonebutme

Really, I'd love for you to give us a lesson in how science has given us one of these things specifically??? You do realize that most technological progress is a result of accident and side effect rather than prediction and believed outcome right?

Jaden

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Soooo


Isn't that actually a problem with the scientific method itself?

If the method can be tinkered with to produce a desired outcome, then how is the scientific method even sound?

The scientific method involves having a hypothesis about how two events are related. That event A causes event B. Eg. Eating spicy pizza makes you feel funny after a few hours.

You need volunteers. A suitable statistical relevant number. At least 10 or 100. Then you need a good selection of pizzas. So 10 pizzas, 5 spicy, 5 non-spicy. Then the fun part is eating them. But in the real world people also drink and eat other things at the same time (crisps and soft drinks) so you have to allow for that. Those would have to be noted as well. Then you wait.

Then you can analyse your statistics. It might be that the people who liked spicy pizza also drank beer. But the report writer would just be looking at the pizza ingredients.

The problem is that research funding becomes involved. Contradict the result of the established incumbents and you suggest that they aren't doing their experiments right. That risks the loss of funding.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Are you really this ignorant or are you trolling?

a reply to: Masterjaden
You're an idiot and your post is an example of your idiocy.

Applied sciences has allowed us to have lightweight and durable fabrics, with wearable electronics. This site here has several articles about it.

Science has progressed the initial, inefficient combustion engine to our current commercial and military standards, allowed for extended lengthy journeys (18+ hours) with better fuel efficiency and safety than their precursors 50+ years ago.

The study of physics, material science and chemistry (to name only a few) has allowed the computer your using to shrink to fit in a portable phone or watch with capacities and computational power far in excess of their predecessors 40+ years ago.. Hell, even 5 years ago.

So to say you want a lesson in specifics?? Go to f**king school. That isnt my job. I learned this in school and reading. Something I suggest you do more of.

EDIT: I acknowledge your post was probably a troll. No one is as stupid as you pretend to be.

a reply to: noonebutme

Lol isn't it. Go try and invent semiconductors or calculate the mass of an electron through trial and error alone.

a reply to: GetHyped

That's exactly what science has allowed humankind to do -- discover knowledge through investigation and analysis using a process that stands up to external scrutiny.

a reply to: BO XIAN


I think John Oliver knows exactly what he's talking about- The corruption within scientific studies, organizations, and the astroturf methods of spreading propaganda to promote an agenda...kinda like this thread.

You wear your zealotry and religious fervor on your sleeve. Most folks don't care about that. I don't. Most clear headed folks don't either and see through your silliness. To each their own. Also, to lambast science and the scientific method in a thread on the internet with a computer using AC electricity while living in a world where you use scientific discoveries on a daily basis is the stupidest thing anyone could do. Mission accomplished. You know...that's what they said when we got to the moon too.

a reply to: TunedAgent

I think John Oliver knows exactly what he's talking about-

Did you see what he was actually talking about? Or are you going by what the OP claims?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TunedAgent

I think John Oliver knows exactly what he's talking about-

Did you see what he was actually talking about? Or are you going by what the OP claims?

He even says it in the video - "in science, you don't just get to cherry pick the evidence to justify what you were going to do anyway. That's religion, you're thinking of religion." Verbatim.

Wow...haha. Bo XIAN, how did you miss that part?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Wow...haha. Bo XIAN, how did you miss that part?

By not actually going to the source?

a reply to: TzarChasm

At 2:19:

Is science bull#? The answer is quite clearly, no.

a reply to: Phage

Careful. I got pinged twice for pointing out the OP's hypocrisy.

Have a look at the thread he started straight after this one....

a reply to: Chadwickus

Well we are now up to 11 pages with no on having discussed the issue and most posters trying to squirm around it.

The issue is NOT scientific method.

The issue is corruption, fraud and misconduct as practiced by some scientists. Certainly scientists involved with politicized issues, like climate change, obesity, tobacco, sugar toxicity, low fat diets, harms caused by smoking marijuauna.

When the government is involves, there is almost always corruption and fraud.

That is why the government feels the need to use RICO laws to silence healthy debate.

Tired of Control Freaks

There are no conspiracy theories - just follow the "money trail" and you will see the "conspiracy theories" being scientifically proven every time by the "laws of profits".
The same thing goes for scientific studies pointing towards approving whatever the hand that feeds them wants.
This timeline is from rense.com and shows just how corrupt the scientific community can become depending on who is signing the paycheck.:

"December 1965-- While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.

Spring 1967-- Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.

Fall 1967-- Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.

Spring 1971-- Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney's findings in a similar study.

February 1973-- After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame's safety.

March 5, 1973-- One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that "the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame". She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.

May 1974-- Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney's 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.

July 26, 1974-- The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.

August 1974-- Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame's approval.

March 24, 1976-- Turner and Olney's petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame's manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle's testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and "manipulated" test data. The investigators report they "had never seen anything as bad as Searle's testing."

January 10, 1977-- The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and "concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA's history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.

January 26, 1977-- While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.

March 8, 1977-- G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.

July 1, 1977-- Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney's office and takes a job with Searle's law firm. (see Jan. 26th)

August 1, 1977-- The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle's studies and weren't autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle's reports.

December 8, 1977-- U.S. Attorney Skinner's withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.

June 1, 1979-- The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.

September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."

January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's NEW FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

March, 1981-- An FDA commissioner's panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.

May 19, 1981-- Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.

July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its' proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.

October 15, 1982-- The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.

CONTINUED

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

July 1, 1983-- The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.

July 8, 1983-- The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its' degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.

August 8, 1983-- Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.

September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.

Fall 1983-- The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption."


"Survey of aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding sources," 1998, unpublished: Walton found 166 separate published studies in the peer reviewed medical literature, which had relevance for questions of human safety. The 74 studies funded by industry all (100%) attested to aspartame's safety, whereas of the 92 non-industry funded studies, 84 (91%) identified a problem. Six of the seven non-industry funded studies that were favorable to aspartame safety were from the FDA, which has a public record that shows a strong pro-industry bias. Ralph G. Walton, MD, Prof. of Clinical Psychology, Northeastern Ohio Universities, College of Medicine, Dept. of Psychiatry, Youngstown, OH 44501, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Northside Medical Center, 500 Gypsy Lane, P.O. Box 240 Youngstown, OH 44501 330-740-3621"

Who wants a nice refreshing diet soda ???????????????
Scientifically proven to be great for your kids.
Just ask Donald Rumsfeld  who went on to approve bigger and better things for this world.


groups.yahoo.com...
three

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Soooo


Isn't that actually a problem with the scientific method itself?

If the method can be tinkered with to produce a desired outcome, then how is the scientific method even sound?

How then can they even be called a scientific study if the 'scientists' aren't actually following the scientific method?

No offense but you either are extremely naïve or you have some agenda to push against science.

Anything can be manipulated also in science. Consider that the people who here on the TV/Radio or read anywhere "A new study shows.." (by now a very effective and much abused sentence in media) these people (you, me and everyone else) only get to hear the conclusion and only get to see what these supposed scientist want people to see.

One thing you fail to address is the method's in the science community in attempt to keep things honest is peer review but of course corruption creeps everywhere. More often then not these dishonest studies are not peer reviewed by the proper sources and therefore also not published by those, again assuming no corruption came into play which does of course happen like it does everywhere where the stakes are high for any number of reasons.

And if they had not been honest then they have not been following scientific methods and so the studies are not to be considered scientific. Which is why there are systems in place to verify them.