It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Half of All the [Medical] Literature is False

page: 4
61
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: James1982
The problem with the medical industry is that it doesn't adapt to the times. An old friend of mine who perfected a method of automating string-cheese pulling explained it to me with the following metaphor.

There was a guy who really wanted to be a professional singer. He would go around to bars and clubs playing his guitar and his knee-chimes. And he would sing also. But that was the problem, he was bad at singing. People thought his voice was bad, it was scratchy and kind of wet sounding. He groaned a lot and it made people uncomfortable, but he thought it added depth and emotion to his music. One time someone called him a hobo while he was performing. He didn't hear that person, but the person said it and potentially there was some sort of effect on the guy even thought he didn't hear it.

So after many years of hard work performing in clubs and bars the man tried to figure out why he wasn't more popular. He realized that his wet scratchy voice was disgusting and people hated to hear it. He realized he was low on cat food and made a quick trip to the store later that evening.

Several years later he gave up on his dream, and he started making over-sized baby stuff like cribs and bouncers for adult-babies (people who have a fetish about role-playing as babies) and actually made a decent living, he sold mostly on craigslist but those adult baby people pay pretty good money for stuff that is in effect pretty basic furniture, but obviously most furniture companies are going to avoid producing that type of thing because it creeps people out.


WTF does that # have to do with the topic at all?




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

So, all this time, when many of us have been stating that peer review isn't the end-all b-all of scientific validity,w e were right. I wish this surprised me.

While waiting on the apologies from all who told us we were wrong, I will sit and listen tot he crickets.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Danbones

just a quote from the OP I should have added back there in my response to this article being used to justify vaccines - the editor of the lancet is saynig its a con on the people:

This is quite distrubing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

alpha411.blogspot.ca...



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
This is a really interesting find. I'm a skeptic, but I've been noticing a lot BS lately in scientific literature. This American Life (one of my favorite podcasts) recently had to retract a story they did based on peer reviewed research that was apparently completely fabricated.
I respect the hell outta This American Life but how many other media organizations take the time to go back and look into research that may have been bunk?
I think there's a serious problem somewhere in the process.
edit on 28-5-2015 by SWOTIchris because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

GREAT OP. THANKS.

I think new meds etc. are best . . . being wary about.

I wish I had a lot of hope that things will change soon. I just don't.

There's too much money invested in evil deeds, greed and other less than admirable agenda.



posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Bump.



posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Much worth a bump, especially in our current times.



posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785
I agree
Its what i've been saying for some time, unbiased research is impossible when money is involved and anyone can be peer reviewed....if your face fits
Let's face it...get 5 scientists in a room give them any topic you'd be lucky if you even got 2 to agree with each other.



posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

In the olde days , Gallen a Roman physician used to trade cures with other physicians , if one had a cure they generally kept it to themselves as then they could charge a good fee for curing some aristocrat , but if they had a good client that would pay bigtime, he would trade some of his cures to get the business. His books were used well into the seventeenth century, as the only practical medical literature, but what he used to do was move into conquered lands and get the local cures from the conquered peoples. This was golden information, and a big paycheck.so from the time of Christ until the renaissance is a whopping One thousand six hundred years. Of supposedly no medical knowledge. But when you look at it ,during those years the doctors were local wise women , who made herbs and potions from folk lore sources to cure peoples ailments. Then suddenly they were called witches and had to shut up shop if they knew what was good for them. Then the equivalent to the Roman city state doctors took over again for profit, where curing a patient is a highly unprofitable exercise. Where a plant based cure ,cant be patented, and will never be considered by the current holder of the title witch doctor, because to exist they must stay in business first and foremost, which means making money at all costs. So is the cure rate better than Roman times per Capita the proof is in the proportion of rich people that die as opposed to poor people. Its probably the same ratio as it always was.




top topics



 
61
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join