For all those who believe scientists and doctors when they say something is safe, vaccinating our children being a classic example, not to mention medicating everyone at levels never known before in all of human history, and rejecting effective and safe medical modalities like Acupuncture, Homeopathy, Herbal and Nutritional medicine, bear in mind that these pronouncements are coming from an industry which, according to noted medical professionals who should know, is WRONG half of the time.
Even if one applied 50% across the board that means vaccination is dangerous half of the time or for half of the children all of the time, that medications are at best useless or at worst dangerous and deadly half of the time or for half of the people all of the time, and that other medical modalities like Homeopathy work for half of the people or all of the people half of the time.
Modern science/medicine is only ever half-right at best and on some counts is going to be completely wrong.
Don’t take your scientist or doctor’s word, do the research, become informed, because ‘snake oil salesmen’ still abound in the world of orthodox medicine as they have always done.
And scientists and medical professionals of integrity are finally admitting to it.
Quote: The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices.
The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.
Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale.
We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication.
National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.