Plus, I forgot to mention, there are now paid companies who will write up your test results in a way that will make your drug look very effective. I think we're surrounded.
When I read a paper the first things I check are the affiliation/conflict of interest/funding source sections. The info isn't always complete but it can give an idea. Then I check prior pubs by the authors to see where previous research funds came from.
I commented a couple months ago, on a YouTube video posted by an MD specializing in post menopausal symptoms. I said the drug she was praising, a non-hormonal pill that directly targets the neurons that control body temperature, hadn't been adequately tested before its approval by FDA. She blasted me as a misinformation spreader. I searched on pubmed and found she'd received money from the company manufacturing the drug. And the study on which the approval has been based, done by her and other researchers also funded by the same company, only enlisted 1100 women. The goal was to reduce hot flashes and insomnia but if you looked at the numbers, the relative risk of insomnia was something like 150% in the test vs the control group. Plus there is significant risk of liver damage. The accusation of misinformation spreading is so breathtakingly hypocritical that it's almost comedic. The marketing is in full sway, the researchers are biased, and the accusations of misinformation fly at anyone who calls this out.
I admire your diligence and the depth of your research. If more people would put in just a fraction of your effort we would be a lot better off. Keep digging and keep posting the truth.
Thanks, you've been a big encouragement. Your book told me and my husband just how closely it's worth scrutinizing the sources and all the data they provide.
I've published in my own field in physics. Not saying people don't lie in physics also but to write a summary and conclusion that directly contradict your actual results was pretty unusual, and the reviewers would have called you out.
I'm glad the book was helpful. It was the first thing I ever wrote and it was quite a chore just going through the process. It makes one feel vulnerable to actually put your thoughts into words and then put it out there for others to read.
With the intelligence and logic that you put into your comments, I am not surprised to learn that your field is physics. One of my all-time favorite quotes is from Max Planck:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light; but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
I think that is why the establishmentarians seldom respond to those who question their version of the truth. Their strategy is to ignore it and allow the overwhelming propaganda from the media to bury it.
I'm pretty sure pharma has covered all the bases with generous donations and honoraria to selective researchers and university departments as well.
Plus, I forgot to mention, there are now paid companies who will write up your test results in a way that will make your drug look very effective. I think we're surrounded.
When I read a paper the first things I check are the affiliation/conflict of interest/funding source sections. The info isn't always complete but it can give an idea. Then I check prior pubs by the authors to see where previous research funds came from.
I commented a couple months ago, on a YouTube video posted by an MD specializing in post menopausal symptoms. I said the drug she was praising, a non-hormonal pill that directly targets the neurons that control body temperature, hadn't been adequately tested before its approval by FDA. She blasted me as a misinformation spreader. I searched on pubmed and found she'd received money from the company manufacturing the drug. And the study on which the approval has been based, done by her and other researchers also funded by the same company, only enlisted 1100 women. The goal was to reduce hot flashes and insomnia but if you looked at the numbers, the relative risk of insomnia was something like 150% in the test vs the control group. Plus there is significant risk of liver damage. The accusation of misinformation spreading is so breathtakingly hypocritical that it's almost comedic. The marketing is in full sway, the researchers are biased, and the accusations of misinformation fly at anyone who calls this out.
I admire your diligence and the depth of your research. If more people would put in just a fraction of your effort we would be a lot better off. Keep digging and keep posting the truth.
Thanks, you've been a big encouragement. Your book told me and my husband just how closely it's worth scrutinizing the sources and all the data they provide.
I've published in my own field in physics. Not saying people don't lie in physics also but to write a summary and conclusion that directly contradict your actual results was pretty unusual, and the reviewers would have called you out.
I'm glad the book was helpful. It was the first thing I ever wrote and it was quite a chore just going through the process. It makes one feel vulnerable to actually put your thoughts into words and then put it out there for others to read.
With the intelligence and logic that you put into your comments, I am not surprised to learn that your field is physics. One of my all-time favorite quotes is from Max Planck:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light; but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
I think that is why the establishmentarians seldom respond to those who question their version of the truth. Their strategy is to ignore it and allow the overwhelming propaganda from the media to bury it.