It’s no secret that professionals from the scientific community and medical field have essentially turned whistleblower on their professions to enlighten the average citizen that what they may be reading is not entirely true.
Over the years, professionals such as Dr. Richard Horton, the editor in chief of the Lancet, have come forward against some of the more well respected peer-reviewed medical journals, declaring that a lot of the research published is unreliable on best case scenario, if not completely untrue.
“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,” says Dr. Horton.
The industry sponsored studies in question are those that are used to develop medical treatments and vaccines readily distributed throughout the medical community, and assist in training provided to students and staff.
Dr Horton also calls himself out as partially responsible for the spread of mistruth within the scientific community, going on to suggest that journal editors “aid and abet the worst behaviors,” by publishing “data [that is] sculpted to fit a preferred theory,” bordering on misconduct.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine,” says another notable and prestigious physician, Dr. Marcia Angell, who was a finalist for Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal. (Dr Angell, who currently teaches at Harvard University, withdrew her position to focus on her personal publications to highlight these conflicts.)
Since Angell’s publication, peers have attacked her stance, covered by an article in Forbes to denounce her arguments against Big Pharma.
Harvey Marcovitch has also written a paper for PLOS Medicine on the potential health implications and conclusions as a result of improper publication of research articles. Marcovitch recognizes the many conflicts surrounding editors of scientific and medical journals, and that the problems must be acknowledged by the community as a whole.
“Professional medical associations have a duty to bring their members the best scientific evidence on the efficacy and suitability of drugs and devices. These efforts must be separate from and not affected by industry promotions,” states Marcovitch, in context with the worrying trend of publication for the sake of financial support as opposed to scientific evidence.
Corruption in the center of what is truly important? Our lives are in the hands of the fraudulent.
Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here
This Article (Editor In Chief: Half of Medical Literature Published is False) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.
