6 Reasons Why Most Scientific Research is Fake, False or Fraudulent

Test Tubes Fake ScienceChristina Sarich, Staff
Waking Times 

How often do scientists smugly quote the latest research on a topic only later to be made the fool by insider revelations that published research in peer-reviewed journals is abjectly false? This happens so frequently now, that it has become clear: Science is broken, and most scientific research is fraudulent.

It isn’t broken like a bike needing a new tire, or even an outdated paradigm that has reached its tipping point, as in the time of the renaissance. Modern science is broken for reasons that might shock you.

First, there’s a replication crisis. More and more studies simply cannot be replicated, so any false theories are not thrown out, but left floating as acceptable ‘fact’ in the hallowed scientific ethers, when they are nothing more than studies paid for and promoted by the companies who have a marked interest in proving their personal hypothesis.

Take for example a recent review of 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals.  A review of the studies found that three-fourths of them weren’t right. Bayer simply couldn’t replicate findings that were published in more than 75 percent of their drug trials. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced – but the problem isn’t just in the pharmaceutical industry.

Even in physics, supposedly the most complex and most reliable of all sciences, two of the most flaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, as well as the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted.

Why the gross negligence in a field that has been heralded as sacrosanct? The errors in science have been due to simple arithmetic miscalculations or excel spreadsheet mistakes, but they are also due to industry greed and outright fraud.

Science has even discredited itself – in one study meant to hoodwink the very prestigious British Medical Journal, a paper with eight major errors was submitted. Not a single one of the 221 scientists who reviewed the paper caught all the errors in it, and only 30 percent of reviewers recommended that the paper be rejected.

Second, scientists can manipulate data almost any way they deem fit. Data can be excluded, included and re-arranged to support the presupposition of any scientist.

Third, the scientific community doesn’t listen to women, young people, or those whose ideas go against the current scientific dogma. The greatest scientific pioneers were once weirdoes with wiry glasses and grandiose ideas that they set out to prove with the scientific method. Now, we have an aged scientific population, that is mostly white and male, worried about getting tenure at their institutions or that have been lobbied directly by pharmaceutical and biotech industries to promote a certain plan that affects our entire sociological structure.

Next, its all about the fame and money. These two things alone kill objectivity. Industry-funded studies completely ignore conflict of interest and skew any possible hope for real scientific results. This is why institutions like the FDA, supposedly founded on scientific study, are a complete fraud.

Finally, its about the social pandering to guys in white lab coats. We’ve made scientists Gods while ignoring that they are people with greed, lust for power, and other very human traits.

There aren’t just cracks in the current scientific community, there are gapping gulches that need to be addressed. William A Wilson writes:

Even if self-correction does occur and theories move strictly along a lifecycle from less to more accurate, what if the unremitting flood of new, mostly false, results pours in faster? Too fast for the sclerotic, compromised truth-discerning mechanisms of science to operate? The result could be a growing body of true theories completely overwhelmed by an ever-larger thicket of baseless theories, such that the proportion of true scientific beliefs shrinks even while the absolute number of them continues to rise. Borges’ Library of Babel contained every true book that could ever be written, but it was useless because it also contained every false book, and both true and false were lost within an ocean of nonsense. [First Things] 

Skeptic of science, Michael Shermer, says that science is “a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.”

Science is modifiable and falsifiable, just like religion. So why have we made it the modern day, untouchable dogma? We can’t treat beliefs as facts, but when science is broken we do. How do we trust science again when it is so shattered? Perhaps its time to trust our guts again, and not every testimony given in the latest scientific journal.


About the Author

Christina Sarich is a writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian with an expansive repertoire. Her thousands of articles can be found all over the Internet, and her insights also appear in magazines as diverse as Weston A. Price, NexusAtlantis Rising, and the Cuyamungue Institute, among others. She was recently a featured author in the Journal, “Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and Healing Arts,” and her commentary on healing, ascension, and human potential inform a large body of the alternative news lexicon. She has been invited to appear on numerous radio shows, including Health Conspiracy Radio, Dr. Gregory Smith’s Show, and dozens more. The second edition of her book, Pharma Sutra, will be released soon.

This article (6 Reasons Why Most Scientific Research is Fake, False or Fraudulent) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Christina Sarich and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Can We Really Trust Medical “Peer-Reviewed” Research?

By Dr. John L. Reizer

Editor at NoFakeNews.net

 reizer3In a recent article that I published here on NoFakeNews.net, I discussed at length the possible dangers associated with human beings ingesting Fluoride. I believe that because of the common practice of water fluoridation in the United States and other locations throughout the world, many people suffer poor health due to Fluoride poisoning.

Predictably, a number of Internet trolls immediately jumped on my comment board and inundated the website with copy and paste posts that allegedly originated from “peer-reviewed” studies. The research plastered all over my website, of course, defended the mainstream public health mindset that Fluoride is a safe substance in appropriate concentrations, etc.

Every once in awhile, I purposely author and post one of these controversial articles on my website in an effort to measure the response by various trolls that are working for the establishment that wants to desperately remove credibility from websites like mine that might influence readers to see a different perspective about a subject than what the powers that be have authorized.

In almost every situation where I have released articles about the harmful effects associated with Fluoride, amalgam fillings, and especially vaccinations, the copy and pasted materials used to defend conventional paradigms appear scripted in nature. The written words used by the posters to attack my position are almost always the same.

For example, a few years ago I published a very similar article to the one I released here on June 14, 2015 about water Fluoridation. In the article that I published in 2012, a dentist wrote the following commentary:

“The great 16th Century alchemist, Paracelsus said, ‘Every substance is a poison and only the proper dose determines a poison from a cure.’

The poster in the 2012 article was trying to make the point that Fluoride is only a poison if it is administered to humans in inappropriate concentrations. If you believe that piece of advice I have some swamp land in the Everglades to sell you.

Then I received a comment regarding my article from June 14, 2015 from another dentist and he wrote practically the same thing:

“16th Century European doctor and alchemist, Paracelsus, stated it well: ‘All substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.’”

I began thinking earlier today that these posters are working off the same damn script. The materials were pre-written along with the “peer-reviewed” research so that any dentist, doctor, or pretender could easily copy and paste them to a given website in order to defend the position in question being attacked. It is a brilliant strategy and demonstrates just how prepared the mainstream paradigm managers are in their efforts to keep members of society locked inside the box when it comes to certain subjects.

Regardless of the number of “peer-reviewed” research pieces being copy and pasted on this website or any other alternative news productions, it is important for readers to realize that a lot of scientific research is flawed and does not accurately represent the truth about the questions being examined.

There are tremendous amounts of bias in medical research due to the heavy influence that pharmaceutical companies have on institutions of higher learning and the federal government of the United States. This situation is fast becoming a serious problem for the scientific community as was reported in 2012 in an article published in the Washington Post.

According to another article written and published in The Atlantic magazine, “Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong.”

A publication put out by the University of California at Berkeley reported, “Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies.” With statistics like these how can there ever be “peer-reviewed” research that is truly unbiased and representative of the truth regarding medicines and their effectiveness or ineffectiveness with regards to human subjects?

In the cases of Fluoride, Mercury, and vaccines, I have always found that it is probably better to rely on a little bit of common sense versus “peer-reviewed” research that often seems to defy the parameters of logic.

What do you think about this subject?



The health information that has been written on this website is not intended to replace a professional relationship between a patient and a health care specialist nor is it intended as medical advice. Readers are encouraged to make health care decisions based upon their own independent research!