Highly Profitable Conflicts of Interest

“Putting together my next talk on undisclosed conflicts of interest. Authors of ‘my’ go to textbook of medicine ‘funded’ in excess of $11 million without declaration. Makes practicing tricky when you lose trust in your education foundations. #TipOfIceberg”
~ Gary Fettke

We wonder why doctors coming out of medical school lack basic knowledge of treatments that don’t depend upon profitable drugs and invasive procedures. The majority of medical interns fresh out of school get about half the questions wrong on nutrition. Would you turn to someone for authoritative expertise who is as likely to be wrong as to be right in the advice they give you?

That is exactly what is happening when you ask most doctors about diet or about many issues related to diet. For example, look at the sorry state of affairs in the knowledge about cholesterol and statins. It’s standard practice for doctors to recommend statins to patients who, according to research, would not benefit from them. And so there is overprescription of statins, a class of drugs that has worrisome side effects such as neurocognitive decline (your brain needs cholesterol). This is also found with other medical practices that are continued even when doctors know they are ineffective in most cases.

The shocking part is that they’re being well funded to be this ignorant. Drug companies spend more money on advertising than on research and spend more money on influencing doctors than on advertising (they also spend money on influencing nurses, as with pharmacists, who will influence both patients and doctors; and there is the funding that goes to patient organizations).

Such ignorance among doctors doesn’t come naturally or cheaply. It requires systematic planning of a propaganda campaign that goes straight to the most ‘respectable’ gatekeepers of knowledge, such as writers in the textbook industry. This crisis extends into medical research itself, as many researchers follow this same pattern of undeclared conflicts of interest (many of those researchers, by the way, work in universities where they also teach the each new generation of doctors). This could explain at least some of why we are also experiencing a replication crisis in medical research with nutritional studies being one of the worst areas.

So, what exactly is all that money buying? And what is so dark and disturbing that these medical authorities, in not declaring it, are afraid others will find out?

* * *

Undisclosed conflicts of interest among biomedical textbook authors
by Brian J. Piper et al

ABSTRACT
Background: Textbooks are a formative resource for health care providers during their education and are also an enduring reference for pathophysiology and treatment. Unlike the primary literature and clinical guidelines, biomedical textbook authors do not typically disclose potential financial conflicts of interest (pCoIs). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the authors of textbooks used in the training of physicians, pharmacists, and dentists had appreciable undisclosed pCoIs in the form of patents or compensation received from pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies.

Methods: The most recent editions of six medical textbooks, Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (HarPIM), Katzung and Trevor’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), the American Osteopathic Association’s Foundations of Osteopathic Medicine (AOAFOM), Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy (RemSPP), Koda-Kimble and Young’s Applied Therapeutics (KKYAT), and Yagiela’s Pharmacology and Therapeutics for Dentistry (YagPTD), were selected after consulting biomedical educators for evaluation. Author names (N = 1,152, 29.2% female) were submitted to databases to examine patents (Google Scholar) and compensation (ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs [PDD]).

Results: Authors were listed as inventors on 677 patents (maximum/author = 23), with three-quarters (74.9%) to HarPIM authors. Females were significantly underrepresented among patent holders. The PDD 2009–2013 database revealed receipt of US$13.2 million, the majority to (83.9%) to HarPIM. The maximum compensation per author was $869,413. The PDD 2014 database identified receipt of $6.8 million, with 50.4% of eligible authors receiving compensation. The maximum compensation received by a single author was $560,021. Cardiovascular authors were most likely to have a PDD entry and neurologic disorders authors were least likely.

Conclusion: An appreciable subset of biomedical authors have patents and have received remuneration from medical product companies and this information is not disclosed to readers. These findings indicate that full transparency of financial pCoI should become a standard practice among the authors of biomedical educational materials.

* * *

Failure of Nutritional Knowledge in Science and Practice
Flawed Scientific Research
Clearing Away the Rubbish
Cold War Silencing of Science
Eliminating Dietary Dissent
Dietary Dictocrats of EAT-Lancet
Monsanto is Safe and Good, Says Monsanto

Failure of Nutritional Knowledge in Science and Practice

“The idea that the same experiment will always produce the same result, no matter who performs it, is one of the cornerstones of science’s claim to truth. However, more than 70% of the researchers (pdf), who took part in a recent study published in Nature have tried and failed to replicate another scientist’s experiment. Another study found that at least 50% of life science research cannot be replicated. The same holds for 51% of economics papers”
~Julian Kirchherr, Why we can’t trust academic journals to tell the scientific truth

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue”
~Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet, one of the leading medical journals where nutritional studies are published

“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”
~Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine

“Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
~John Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

“Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted.”
~John Ioannidis, The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses

“Nutritional epidemiologists valiantly work in an important, challenging frontier of science and health. However, methods used to-date (even by the best scientists with best intentions) have yielded little reliable, useful information.”
~John Ioannidis, Unreformed nutritional epidemiology: a lamp post in the dark forest

“Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses.”
~Jonathan Schoenfeld & John Ioannidis, Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review

“Some nutrition scientists and much of the public often consider epidemiologic associations of nutritional factors to represent causal effects that can inform public health policy and guidelines. However, the emerging picture of nutritional epidemiology is difficult to reconcile with good scientific principles. The field needs radical reform.”
~John Ioannidis, The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research

“Incoming residents to a pediatric residency program appear to be deficient in basic nutritional knowledge. With the ever increasing burden of obesity and its associated co-morbidities on society, it is imperative that medical education focuses on preparing physicians to appropriately counsel all populations on proper nutrition.”
~M. Castillo, R. Feinstein, J Tsang & M. Fisher, Basic nutrition knowledge of recent medical graduates entering a pediatric residency program.

“Many US medical schools still fail to prepare future physicians for everyday nutrition challenges in clinical practice. Nutrition is a dominant contributor to most chronic diseases and a key determinant of poor treatment outcomes. It cannot be a realistic expectation for physicians to effectively address obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hospital malnutrition, and many other conditions as long as they are not taught during medical school how to recognize and treat the nutritional root causes.”
~Kelly Adams, W. Scott Butsch & Martin Kohlmeier, The State of Nutrition Education at US Medical Schools

* * *

I’ve written about this topic before. In some of those earlier posts, I used a few of the above quotes. But I also came across some new quotes that emphasize the point. I decided to gather them all together in one place without analysis commentary, as they speak for themselves. I’ll allow myself to make a single note of significance.

A lot of medical research is done by doctors. In Rigor Mortis, Richard Harris points out that doctors aren’t generally well educated and trained in research methodology or statistical analysis. My cousin who does medical research confirmed this observation. On top of that, doctors when they were back in medical school also weren’t taught much about diet and nutrition — interns right out of medical school get about half the nutritional questions wrong, which would be a failing grade.

So, combine doctors not trained in research doing research on diet and nutrition which they never learned much about. It is not surprising that nutritional studies is one of the worst areas of replication crisis. The following are the prior posts about all of this:

Flawed Scientific Research
Scientific Failure and Self Experimentation
Clearing Away the Rubbish
Most Mainstream Doctors Would Fail Nutrition

* * *

Bonus Video – Below is a speech given by Dr. Aseem Malhotra at the European Parliament last year and another speech by Dr. Michael Eades. Among other things, he covers some of the bad methodologies, deceptive or misleading practices, and conflicts of interest.

Sometimes research is intentionally bad because of the biases of funding and ideological agendas, an issue I’ve covered numerous times before. It can’t all be blamed on the insufficient education of doctors in their doing research. After the video, I’ll throw in the links to those other pieces as well.

 

 

 

Cold War Silencing of Science
Eliminating Dietary Dissent
Dietary Dictocrats of EAT-Lancet
Monsanto is Safe and Good, Says Monsanto

On Health or Lack Thereof

Millennials’ health plummets after the age of 27: Study finds the generation has unprecedented rates of diabetes, depression, and digestive disorders
by Natalie Rahhal

  • After age 27, all major measures of health start to decline sharply for millennials, according to a new Blue Cross Blue Shield Report
  • Millennials have higher rates of eight of the top 10 most common health conditions by their mid-30s than generation X-ers did at the same age
  • As their health continues to decline, millennials stand to cost the American health care industry and economy steep sums

It's all downhill from here: A depressing graph shows steep health decline that begins after age 27 and continues until death for millennials
It’s all downhill from here: A depressing graph shows steep health decline that begins after age 27 and continues until death for millennials

Effect of Dietary Lipid on UV Light Carcinogenesis in the Hairless Mouse
by Vivienne E. Reeve, Melissa Matheson, Gavin E. Greenoak, Paul J. Canfield, Christa Boehm‐Wilcox, and Clifford H. Gallagher

Isocaloric feeding of diets varying in lipid content to albino hairless mice has shown that their susceptibility to skin tumorigenesis induced by simulated solar UV light was not affected by the level of polyunsaturated fat, 5% or 20%. However a qualitative effect of dietary lipid was demonstrated. Mice fed 20% saturated fat were almost completely protected from UV tumorigenesis when compared with mice fed 20% polyunsaturated fat. Multiple latent tumours were detected in the saturated fat‐fed mice by subsequent dietary replenishment, suggesting that a requirement for dietary unsaturated fat exists for the promotion stage of UV‐induced skin carcinogenesis.

Therapeutic benefit of combining calorie-restricted ketogenic diet and glutamine targeting in late-stage experimental glioblastoma
by Purna Mukherjee, Zachary M. Augur, Mingyi Li, Collin Hill, Bennett Greenwood, Marek A. Domin, Gramoz Kondakci, Niven R. Narain, Michael A. Kiebish, Roderick T. Bronson, Gabriel Arismendi-Morillo, Christos Chinopoulos, and Thomas N. Seyfried

Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive primary human brain tumour that has resisted effective therapy for decades. Although glucose and glutamine are the major fuels that drive GBM growth and invasion, few studies have targeted these fuels for therapeutic management. The glutamine antagonist, 6-diazo-5-oxo-L-norleucine (DON), was administered together with a calorically restricted ketogenic diet (KD-R) to treat late-stage orthotopic growth in two syngeneic GBM mouse models: VM-M3 and CT-2A. DON targets glutaminolysis, while the KD-R reduces glucose and, simultaneously, elevates neuroprotective and non-fermentable ketone bodies. The diet/drug therapeutic strategy killed tumour cells while reversing disease symptoms, and improving overall mouse survival. The therapeutic strategy also reduces edema, hemorrhage, and inflammation. Moreover, the KD-R diet facilitated DON delivery to the brain and allowed a lower dosage to achieve therapeutic effect. The findings support the importance of glucose and glutamine in driving GBM growth and provide a therapeutic strategy for non-toxic metabolic management.

Writer’s block
by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

Anyway, to return to the main issue here, which is that medical science may now be incapable of self-correction. Erroneous ideas will be compounded, built on, and can never be overturned. Because of a thing called non-reproducibility.

In most areas of science, there is nothing to stop a researcher going back over old research and trying to replicate it. The correct term is reproducibility. In every branch of science there is currently an acknowledged crisis with reproducibility.

‘Reproducibility is a hot topic in science at the moment, but is there a crisis? Nature asked 1,576 scientists this question as part of an online survey. Most agree that there is a crisis and over 70% said they’d tried and failed to reproduce another group’s experiments.’ 2

This is not good, but in medical research this issue is magnified many times. Because there is another in-built problem. You cannot reproduce research that has been positive. Take clinical trials into statins. You start with middle aged men, split them into two groups, give one a statin and one a placebo. At the end of your five-year trial, you claim that statins had a benefit – stopped heart attacks and strokes and suchlike.

Once this claim has been made, in this group, it becomes unethical/impossible to replicate this study, in this group – ever again. The ethics committee would tell you that statins have been proven to have a benefit, you cannot withhold a drug with a ‘proven’ benefit from patients. Therefore, you cannot have a placebo arm in your trial. Therefore, you cannot attempt to replicate the findings. Ever.

Thus, if a trial was flawed/biased/corrupt or simply done badly. That’s it. You are going to have to believe the results, and you can never, ever, have another go. Ergo, medicine cannot self-correct through non-reproducibility. Stupidity can now last for ever. In fact, it is built in.

When Evidence Says No, but Doctors Say Yes
by David Epstein

Even if a drug you take was studied in thousands of people and shown truly to save lives, chances are it won’t do that for you. The good news is, it probably won’t harm you, either. Some of the most widely prescribed medications do little of anything meaningful, good or bad, for most people who take them.

In a 2013 study, a dozen doctors from around the country examined all 363 articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine over a decade—2001 through 2010—that tested a current clinical practice, from the use of antibiotics to treat people with persistent Lyme disease symptoms (didn’t help) to the use of specialized sponges for preventing infections in patients having colorectal surgery (caused more infections). Their results, published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found 146 studies that proved or strongly suggested that a current standard practice either had no benefit at all or was inferior to the practice it replaced; 138 articles supported the efficacy of an existing practice, and the remaining 79 were deemed inconclusive. (There was, naturally, plenty of disagreement with the authors’ conclusions.) Some of the contradicted practices possibly affect millions of people daily: Intensive medication to keep blood pressure very low in diabetic patients caused more side effects and was no better at preventing heart attacks or death than more mild treatments that allowed for a somewhat higher blood pressure. Other practices challenged by the study are less common—like the use of a genetic test to determine if a popular blood thinner is right for a particular patient—but gaining in popularity despite mounting contrary evidence. Some examples defy intuition: CPR is no more effective with rescue breathing than if chest compressions are used alone; and breast-cancer survivors who are told not to lift weights with swollen limbs actually should lift weights, because it improves their symptoms.

A separate but similarly themed study in 2012 funded by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing, which sought to reduce spending on needless procedures, looked across the same decade and identified 156 active medical practices that are probably unsafe or ineffective. The list goes on: A brand new review of 48 separate studies—comprising more than 13,000 clinicians—looked at how doctors perceive disease-screening tests and found that they tend to underestimate the potential harms of screening and overestimate the potential benefits; an editorial in American Family Physician, co-written by one of the journal’s editors, noted that a “striking feature” of recent research is how much of it contradicts traditional medical opinion.

That isn’t likely to change any time soon. The 21st Century Cures Act—a rare bipartisan bill, pushed by more than 1,400 lobbyists and signed into law in December—lowers evidentiary standards for new uses of drugs and for marketing and approval of some medical devices. Furthermore, last month President Donald Trump scolded the FDA for what he characterized as withholding drugs from dying patients. He promised to slash regulations “big league. … It could even be up to 80 percent” of current FDA regulations, he said. To that end, one of the president’s top candidates to head the FDA, tech investor Jim O’Neill, has openly advocated for drugs to be approved before they’re shown to work. “Let people start using them at their own risk,” O’Neill has argued.

So, while Americans can expect to see more drugs and devices sped to those who need them, they should also expect the problem of therapies based on flimsy evidence to accelerate. In a recent Stat op-ed, two Johns Hopkins University physician-researchers wrote that the new 21st Century Cures Act will turn the label “FDA approved” into “a shadow of its former self.” In 1962, Congress famously raised the evidentiary bar for drug approvals after thousands of babies were born with malformed limbs to mothers who had taken the sleep aid thalidomide. Steven Galson, a retired rear admiral and former acting surgeon general under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, has called the strengthened approval process created in 1962 the FDA’s “biggest contribution to health.” Before that, he said, “many marketed drugs were ineffective for their labeled uses.”

Striking the right balance between innovation and regulation is incredibly difficult, but once remedies are in use—even in the face of contrary evidence—they tend to persist. A 2007 Journal of the American Medical Association papercoauthored by John Ioannidis—a Stanford University medical researcher and statistician who rose to prominence exposing poor-quality medical science—found that it took 10 years for large swaths of the medical community to stop referencing popular practices after their efficacy was unequivocally vanquished by science.

Science institute that advised EU and UN ‘actually industry lobby group’
by Arthur Nelson

An institute whose experts have occupied key positions on EU and UN regulatory panels is, in reality, an industry lobby group that masquerades as a scientific health charity, according to a peer-reviewed study.

The Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) describes its mission as “pursuing objectivity, clarity and reproducibility” to “benefit the public good”.

But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Bocconi University in Milan, and the US Right to Know campaign assessed over 17,000 pages of documents under US freedom of information laws to present evidence of influence-peddling.

The paper’s lead author, Dr Sarah Steele, a Cambridge university senior research associate, said: “Our findings add to the evidence that this nonprofit organisation has been used by its corporate backers for years to counter public health policies. ILSI should be regarded as an industry group – a private body – and regulated as such, not as a body acting for the greater good.”

The New Faces of Coke
by Kyle Pfister

Of the 115 individuals Coca-Cola admitted to funding, here’s a breakdown:

By sector, 57% (65) are dietitians, 20% (23) are academics, 7% (8) are medical professionals (mostly Doctors), 6% (7) are fitness experts, 5% (6) are authors, 3% (3) are chefs, and 1% (1) are food representatives. I was not able to identify sectors for two of the funded experts.

Kellogg Paid ‘Independent Experts’ to Promote Its Cereal
by Michael Addady

Kellogg paid council experts an average of $13,000 per year, according to emails and contracts obtained by the Associated Press. The payment was for expert to engage in “nutrition influencer outreach” and refrain from offering their services to products that were “competitive or negative to cereal.”

Outreach usually meant one of two things: Experts would claim Kellogg was their favorite brand on social media, or they would tout the cereal during public appearances. Kellogg’s spokesperson Kris Charles told Fortune in a statement that the experts’ association with the company was disclosed at public appearances.

Additionally, the experts’ connection to the company may have affected some of their published work. For example, an independent expert was involved in publishing an academic paper in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that defined a “quality breakfast.” Kellogg had the opportunity to edit the paper and even asked that the author remove a suggestion about limiting added sugar (something the sugar industry has also been accused of doing with heart disease research).

FDA: Sampling finds toxic nonstick compounds in some food
by Ellen Knickmeyer, John Flesher, and Michael Casey

A federal toxicology report last year cited links between high levels of the compounds in people’s blood and health problems, but said it was not certain the nonstick compounds were the cause.

The levels in nearly half of the meat and fish tested were two or more times over the only currently existing federal advisory level for any kind of the widely used manmade compounds, which are called per- and polyfluoroalykyl substances, or PFAS.

The level in the chocolate cake was higher: more than 250 times the only federal guidelines, which are for some PFAS in drinking water.

Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Tara Rabin said Monday that the agency thought the contamination was “not likely to be a human health concern,” even though the tests exceeded the sole existing federal PFAS recommendations for drinking water.

Why smelling good could come with a cost to health
by Lauren Zanolli

About 4,000 chemicals are currently used to scent products, but you won’t find any of them listed on a label. Fragrance formulations are considered a “trade secret” and therefore protected from disclosure – even to regulators or manufacturers. Instead, one word, fragrance, appears on ingredients lists for countless cosmetics, personal care and cleaning products. A single scent may contain anywhere from 50 to 300 distinct chemicals.

“No state, federal or global authority is regulating the safety of fragrance chemicals,” says Janet Nudelman, policy director for Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) and co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “No state, federal or global authority even knows which fragrance chemicals appear in which products.”

Three-quarters of the toxic chemicals detected in a test of 140 products came from fragrance, reported a 2018 BCPP study of personal care and cleaning brands. The chemicals identified were linked to chronic health issues, including cancer.

Eliminating Dietary Dissent

There was a hit piece in the Daily Mail that targeted three experts in the field, all doctors who are involved in research. It’s not exactly a respectable publication, but it does have a large mainstream readership and so its influence is immense, at least within the UK (even as an American, I occasionally come across Daily Mail articles). Here is the response by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s (Scottish). And by Dr. Zoe Harcombe’s (Welsh). Both responses were sent to the Daily Mail. The hit piece was published in timing with her planned speech before the UK Parliament, an attempt to discredit her and to distract from debate of the evidence. The third target of attack, Dr Aseem Malhotra (British) who also spoke to the UK Parliament (and the European Parliament as well), chose not to respond as he concluded it would be futile and it appears he was correct, in that the Daily Mail chose not to alter its message in the least because of what Kendrick and Harcombe wrote.

This is the same basic battle that I’ve mentioned previously, the conflict between two prestigious British medical journals, the BMJ and the Lancet. It has developed into full ideological warfare. But those defending the status quo are being forced to acknowledge their detractors, which is an improvement over silencing.

In the failed attacks on Robert Atkins (American), Annika Dahlqvist (Swedish), Gary Taubes (American), Tim Noakes (South African), Gary Fettke (Australian), Peter C.Gøtzsche (Danish), Maryanne Demasi (Australia), and Shawn Baker (American) over similar disputes, and among others who have felt the politically correct wrath of conventional and corporatist authority (I could mention Uffe Ravnskov, Nina Teicholz, etc; there is Malcolm Kendrick, Zoe Harcombe, and Aseem Malhotra as well; and, as I’ve discussed before, Adelle Davis, Carlton Fredericks, Gayelord Hauser, and Herman Taller), we see how the powers that be use mainstream institutions (private and public) as weapons. But that isn’t to ignore that there are also some successful examples of silencing such as John Yudkins (British), Jen Elliott (Australian), Maryanne Demasi (Australian), etc. In The Big Fat Lie that is soon to be a documentary, Nina Teicholz discusses other major figures in the healthcare field and research community that were effectively silenced in being discredited and excluded, in that they couldn’t get funding and were no longer invited to speak at scientific conferences; and Gary Taubes earlier discussed the same territory in Good Calories, Bad Calories; but if you prefer a detailed personal account of how a systematic attack is done, read Tim Noakes’ Lore of Nutrition. Anyways, failed or successful, these attacks are cautionary tales in setting examples of what the authorities can and will do to you if you step out of line. It creates a stultifying atmosphere and a sense of wariness among researchers, healthcare professionals, science writers, journalists, and public intellectuals — hence encouraging people to censor themselves.

In a similar area of dispute, there is another ongoing fight where an individual, Diana Rodgers (American), like the others has been targeted. Attacking individuals in trying to destroy their careers or authority seems to be the standard tactic. Fortunately, social media sheds light on this dark practice and brings out the support for these doctors, dieticians, researchers, etc who in the past would’ve felt isolated. It’s one of the positives of the internet.

Yet again, here is an example of conventional idiocy in its attempt to use a mainstream platform to spread disinfo and enforce conformity. Consider Newsweek that, like the Daily Mail, is a low quality but widely read mainstream publication. They decided to do a piece critical of the carnivore diet. And the writer they assigned to do it normally writes about video games and pop culture. Unsurprisingly, written by someone with no knowledge or expertise, the article was predictably misinformed. Every single comment in the comments section was critical (nearly the same in the comments of Nina Teicholz’s tweet), including comments by doctors and other experts. It’s less to do with a specific diet. This same kind of backlash is seen toward every variety of low-carb diet, whether plant-based paleo or plant-free carnivore, whether high-(healthy)fat or moderate, whether ketogenic or not. The reason is that there is no way to have a low-carb diet while maintaining large profits for the present model of the big biz food system of heavily-subsidized, chemical-drenched, and genetically-modified surplus grains as used to produce shelf-stable processed foods.

And it is far from limited to trashy popular media, as the same kinds of dismissive articles are found in higher quality publications like the Guardian, along with major medical organizations such as Harvard and the Mayo Clinic (although there is increasing positive press as the scientific research and popular support becomes overwhelming). Harvard, for example, is closely tied to the EAT-Lancet agenda (by way of Walter Willett, the ideological heir of Ancel Keys and, as I recall, involved in the leak of Robert Atkins’ medical records in a failed attempt to smear his reputation after his death) and the corporations behind it (Harvard, like other universities, have become heavily funded by corporations, as government funding has dried up; the Koch brothers have been key figures in the corporate takeover of universities with influence over hiring and firing of faculty and, by the way, the Koch brothers are heavily invested in big ag which is to say they are financially connected to the government-subsidized “green revolution” and the processed food industry).

Yet a growing movement is emerging from below, not only seen in comments sections and social media, but also in forming new organizations to demand accountability; for example, Gary Taubes’ Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) that is promoting much needed research. In reaction, the self-proclaimed authority figures in the mainstream are trying to enforce dietary conformity. I suspect the fact that so many people are questioning, doubting, and experimenting is precisely the reason elites all of a sudden are pushing even harder for basically the old views they’ve been pushing for decades. They sense the respect for their position is slipping and are in damage control mode. This isn’t only about statins, LCHF diet, or whatever else. It indicates a deeper shift going on (with low-carb diets on the rise) and those who are resisting it because of vested interests. What’s at stake is a paradigm change and the consequences of the status quo remaining in place are dire for public health.

* * *

On a related note, there is also a dark side to how the internet has been wielded as propaganda network. We know how effectively social media can be used to spread disinfo — yes, by whackos and controlled opposition like Alex Jones but even more powerfully by governments and corporations, think tanks and lobbyist groups, astroturf operations and paid trolls.

Wikipedia and Rational Wikipedia seem to have been taken over by defenders of the establishment, a sad fate for both of them. Many Wikipedia pages related to low-carb diets and alternative health (including tame criticism of statins by world reknown scientists) have been heavily slanted or deleted on Wikipedia. This agenda of censorship goes straight to the top — Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has called all critics of conventional medicine “lunatic charlatans” and demands that they be eliminated from Wikipedia, as if they never existed. This is a major change from earlier Wikipedia policy that promoted articles showing multiple viewpoints, but the reason for the change is that Wikipedia is being pressured to be an authoritative source as with traditional encyclopedias since Wikipedia is now used by services like Apple’s Siri.

Rational Wikipedia labels as “statin denier” anyone who is skeptical of highly profitable and corporate-promoted overprescription of statins, including critics who are practicing doctors and peer-reviewed researchers (the same false accusation is made by other pseudo-skeptical organizations such as CSICOP) — according to this logic, one of the most well-respected medical journals in the world, the BMJ, are “statin denialists” for being skeptical of the overuse of statins that the scientific research shows can cause much harm. Meanwhile, Rational Wikipedia rationalizes away this concerted effort of propaganda, probably because it’s the same people behind both operations, by way of hard-to-track sock puppets (I know from personal experience and research how deep the hole can go in trying to track down the identity of a disinfo agent, be they paid troll or merely the mentally disturbed). Pseudo-skepticism has come to rule the internet —- some of it as mentally disturbed true-believers but it also includes organizations that are astroturf. And so be skeptical most of all of anyone who poses as a skeptic.

Fortunately, alternatives are emerging such as Infogalactic as a non-censored, balanced, and independent version of Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, an editor or group of editors can’t monopolize or delete a page simply because they ideologically disagree with it. And unlike Rational Wikpedia, there is no narrow institutional ideology informing what is allowable.

This is partly why it is so hard for the average person to find good info. Not only are we being lied to by big gov and big biz by way of big media for the same powerful interests are co-opting the new media as well. The purge and demonetizing of alternative voices, left and right, on YouTube was a great example of this. A similar purge has happened on Pinterest, generally censoring alternative health views and specifically targeting low-carb diets using centralized propaganda as the justification: “Keto doesn’t conform to CDC dietary guidelines” — despite the fact that ketogenic diets are among the most widely and longest researched with massive amount of data supporting numerous areas of benefit: longevity, cancer, epilepsy, autism, insulin resistance, autoimmune conditions, Alzheimer’s, etc. If the CDC is anti-science when particular science opposes highly profitable corporate interests, that is a major problem — but it shouldn’t be surprising that Pinterest, a highly profitable corporation (likely owned by a parent company that also owns other companies involved in agriculture, food production, pharmaceuticals, etc), defends the interests of big biz in collusion with big gov.

There is a struggle by the powerful to regain control of all potential avenues of propaganda and perception management. In terms of public debate, it’s always a matter of the perception of who wins. This is why propagandists, as with advertisers, have long understood that repetition of claims or ideas will make them so familiar as to feel true — what is called cognitive ease. That is why it is so important to silence opponents and make them invisible. Repetition requires total control, as the other side will also attempt to repeat their views. But it doesn’t matter how often alternative views are repeated if they are effectively erased from public view and from public forums. Look widely for info and scrutinize everything carefully. Find the few experts that are genuine honest actors and follow what they put out.

* * *

The Dark Side of Wikipedia
from Full Measure

Astroturfing Revealed–the Ruining of Wikipedia
by Angela A. Stanton

Wikipedia Declares War on Low Carb Diet Experts
by Aarn

Jimmy Wales Admits Free Access To Health Knowledge Has Strict Limits On Wikipedia
by Paul Anthony Taylor

Wikipedia: Cementing The Power Of The Status Quo
from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

Let me tell you a little bit about how the @Wikipedia farce works from someone who spent a lot of time battling there as an editor.
by Mike Carrato

Wikipedia Captured by Skeptics
from Skeptics about Skeptics

The Philip Cross Affair
by Craig Murray

Wikipedia censorship of natural, non-drug therapies
from Alliance for Natural Health

Kendrick, Wikipedia and ‘Dark Forces’ Waging War on Science
by Marika Sboros

Dr Malcolm Kendrick – deletion from Wikipedia
by Malcolm Kendrick

Wikipedia a parable for our times
by Malcolm Kendrick

Who Deserves to be a Wikipedia Article?: The Deletion of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
by Anthony Pearson

‘Fat Head’ Targeted For Deletion By The Weenie At Wikipedia
by Tom Naughton

Follow-Up On The Weenie Wiki Editor
by Tom Naughton

BEWARE: New Plan to Censor Health Websites
by Joseph Mercola

Reddit discussions:
Doctors who are against statin are being removed from Wikipedia
Fat Head movie Wikipedia article up for deletion next !
Malcolm Kendrick and other low-carb and keto advocates are being attacked at Rationalwiki as pseudoscientists

Most Mainstream Doctors Would Fail Nutrition

“A study in the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health assessed the basic nutrition and health knowledge of medical school graduates entering a pediatric residency program and found that, on average, they answered only 52 percent of eighteen questions correctly. In short, most mainstream doctors would fail nutrition.”
~Dr. Will Cole

That is amazing. The point is emphasized by the fact that these are doctors fresh out of medical school. If they were never taught this info in the immediate preceding years of intensive education and training, they are unlikely to pick up more knowledge later in their careers. These young doctors are among the most well educated people in the world, as few fields are as hard to enter and the drop-out rate of medical students is phenomena. These graduates entering residency programs are among the smartest of Americans, the cream of the crop, having been taught at some of the best schools in the world. They are highly trained experts in their field, but obviously this doesn’t include nutrition.

Think about this. Doctors are where most people turn to for serious health advice. They are the ultimate authority figures that the average person directly meets and talks to. If a cardiologist only got 52 percent right to answers on heart health, would you follow her advice and let her do heart surgery on you? I’d hope not. In that case, why would you listen to the dietary opinion of the typical doctor who is ill-informed? Nutrition isn’t a minor part of health, that is for sure. It is the one area where an individual has some control over their life and so isn’t a mere victim of circumstance. Research shows that simple changes in diet and nutrition, not to mention lifestyle, can have dramatic results. Yet few people have that knowledge because most doctors and other officials, to put it bluntly, are ignorant. Anyone who points out this state of affairs in mainstream thought generally isn’t received with welcoming gratitude, much less friendly dialogue and rational debate.

In reading about the paleo diet, a pattern I’ve noticed is that few critics of it know what the diet is and what is advocated by those who adhere to it. It’s not unusual to see, following a criticism of the paleo diet, a description of dietary recommendations that are basically in line with the paleo diet. Their own caricature blinds them to the reality, obfuscating the common ground of agreement or shared concern. I’ve seen the same kind of pattern in the critics of many alternative views: genetic determinists against epigenetic researchers and social scientists, climate change denialists against climatologists, Biblical apologists against Jesus mythicists, Chomskyan linguists against linguistic relativists, etc. In such cases, there is always plenty of fear toward those posing a challenge and so they are treated as the enemy to be attacked. And it is intended as a battle to which the spoils go to the victor, those in dominance assuming they will be the victor.

After debating some people on a blog post by a mainstream doctor (Paleo-suckered), it became clear to me how attractive genetic determinism and biological essentialism is to many defenders of conventional medicine, that there isn’t much you can do about your health other than to do what the doctor tells you and take your meds (these kinds of views may be on the decline, but they are far from down for the count). What bothers them isn’t limited to the paleo diet but extends seemingly to almost any diet as such, excluding official dietary recommendations. They see diet advocates as quacks, faddists, and cultists who are pushing an ideological agenda, and they feel like they are being blamed for their own ill health; from their perspective, it is unfair to tell someone they are capable of improving their diet, at least beyond the standard advice of eat your veggies and whole grains while gulping down your statins and shooting up your insulin.

As a side note, I’m reminded of how what often gets portrayed as alternative wasn’t always seen that way. Linguistic relativism was a fairly common view prior to the Chomskyan counter-revolution. Likewise, much of what gets promoted by the paleo diet was considered common sense in mainstream medical thought earlier last century and in the centuries prior (e.g., carbs are fattening, easily observed back in the day when most people lived on farms, as carbs were and still are how animals get fattened for the slaughter). In many cases, there are old debates that go in cycles. But the cycles are so long, often extending over centuries, that old views appear as if radically new and so easily dismissed as such.

Early Christians heresiologists admitted to the fact of Jesus mythicism, but their only defense was that the devil did it in planting parallels in prior religions. During the Enlightenment Age, many people kept bringing up these religious parallels and this was part of mainstream debate. Yet it was suppressed with the rise of literal-minded fundamentalism during the modern era. Then there is the battle between the Chomskyites, genetic determinists, etc and their opponents is part of a cultural conflict that goes back at least to the ancient Greeks, between the approaches of Plato and Aristotle (Daniel Everett discusses this in the Dark Matter of the Mind; see this post).

To return to the topic at hand, the notion of food as medicine, a premise of the paleo diet, also goes back to the ancient Greeks — in fact, originates with the founder of modern medicine, Hippocrates (he also is ascribed as saying that, “All disease begins in the gut,”  a slight exaggeration of a common view about the importance of gut health, a key area of connection between the paleo diet and alternative medicine). What we now call functional medicine, treating people holistically, used to be standard practice of family doctors for centuries and probably millennia, going back to medicine men and women. But this caring attitude and practice went by the wayside because it took time to spend with patients and insurance companies wouldn’t pay for it. Traditional healthcare that we now think of as alternative is maybe not possible with a for-profit model, but I’d say that is more of a criticism of the for-profit model than a criticism of traditional healthcare.

The dietary denialists love to dismiss the paleo lifestyle as a ‘fad diet’. But as Timothy Noakes argues, it is the least fad diet around. It is based on the research of what humans have been eating since the Paleoithic era and what hominids have been eating for millions of years. Even as a specific diet, it is the earliest official dietary recommendations given by medical experts. Back when it was popularized, it was called the Banting diet and the only complaint the medical authorities had was not that it was wrong but that it was right and they disliked it being promoted in the popular literature, as they considered dietary advice to be their turf to be defended. Timothy Noakes wrote that,

“Their first error is to label LCHF/Banting ‘the latest fashionable diet’; in other words, a fad. This is wrong. The Banting diet takes its name from an obese 19th-century undertaker, William Banting. First described in 1863, Banting is the oldest diet included in medical texts. Perhaps the most iconic medical text of all time, Sir William Osler’s The Principles and Practice of Medicine , published in 1892, includes the Banting/Ebstein diet as the diet for the treatment of obesity (on page 1020 of that edition). 13 The reality is that the only non-fad diet is the Banting diet; all subsequent diets, and most especially the low-fat diet that the UCT academics promote, are ‘the latest fashionable diets’.”
(Lore of Nutrition, p. 131)

The dominant paradigm maintains its dominance by convincing most people that what is perceived as ‘alternative’ was always that way or was a recent invention of radical thought. The risk the dominant paradigm takes is that, in attacking other views, it unintentionally acknowledges and legitimizes them. That happened in South Africa when the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to destroy the career of Dr. Timothy Noakes, but because he was such a knowledgeable expert he was able to defend his medical views with scientific evidence. A similar thing happened when the Chomskyites viciously attacked the linguist Daniel Everett who worked in the field with native tribes, but it turned out he was a better writer with more compelling ideas and also had the evidence on his side. What the dogmatic assailants ended up doing, in both cases, was bringing academic and public attention to these challengers to the status quo.

Even though these attacks don’t always succeed, they are successful in setting examples. Even a pyrrhic victory is highly effective in demonstrating raw power in the short term. Not many doctors would be willing to risk their career as did Timothy Noakes and even fewer would have the capacity to defend themselves to such an extent. It’s not only the government that might go after a doctor but also private litigators. And if a doctor doesn’t toe the line, that doctor can lose their job in a hospital or clinic, be denied the ability to get Medicaire reimbursement, be blacklisted from speaking at medical conferences, and many other forms of punishment. That is what many challengers found in too loudly disagreeing with Ancel Keys and gang — they were effectively silenced and were no longer able to get funding to do research, even though the strongest evidence was on their side of the argument. Being shut out and becoming pariah is not a happy place to be.

The establishment can be fearsome when they flex their muscles. And watch out when they come after you. The defenders of the status quo become even more dangerous precisely when they are the weakest, like an injured and cornered animal who growls all the louder, and most people wisely keep their distance. But without fools to risk it all in testing whether the bark really is worse than the bite, nothing would change and the world would grind to a halt, as inertia settled into full authoritarian control. We are in such a time. I remember back in the era of Bush jr and as we headed into the following time of rope-a-dope hope-and-change. There was a palpable feeling of change in the air and I could viscerally sense the gears clicking into place. Something had irrevocably changed and it wasn’t fundamentally about anything going on in the halls of power but something within society and the culture. It made me feel gleeful at the time, like scratching the exact right spot where it itches — ah, there it is! Outwardly, the world more or less appeared the same, but the public mood had clearly shifted.

The bluntness of reactionary right-wingers is caused by the very fact that the winds of change are turning against them. That is why they praise the crude ridicule of wannabe emperor Donald Trump. What in the past could have been ignored by those in the mainstream no longer can be ignored. And after being ignored, the next step toward potential victory is being attacked, which can be mistaken for loss even as it offers the hope for reversal of fortune. Attacks come in many forms, with a few examples already mentioned. Along with ridicule, there is defamation, character assassination, scapegoating, and straw man arguments; allegations of fraud, quackery, malpractice, or deviancy. These are attacks as preemptive defense, in the hope of enforcing submission and silence. This only works for so long, though. The tide can’t be held back forever.

The establishment is under siege and they know it. Their only hope is to be able hold out long enough until the worst happens and they can drop the pretense in going full authoritarian. That is a risky gamble on their part and likely not to pay off, but it is the only hope they have in maintaining power. Desperation of mind breeds desperation of action. But it’s not as if a choice is being made. The inevitable result of a dominant paradigm is that it closes itself not only to all other possibilities but, more importantly, to even the imagination that something else is possible. Ideological realism becomes a reality tunnel. And insularity leads to intellectual laziness, as those who rule and those who support them have come to depend on a presumed authority as gatekeepers of legitimacy. What they don’t notice or don’t understand is the slow erosion of authority and hence loss of what Julian Jaynes called authorization. Their need to be absolutely right is no longer matched with their capacity to enforce their increasingly rigid worldview, their fragile and fraying ideological dogmatism.

This is why challengers to the status quo are in a different position, thus making the altercation of contestants rather lopsided. There is a freedom to being outside the constraints of mainstream thought. An imbalance of power, in some ways, works in favor of those excluded from power since they have all the world to gain and little to lose, meaning less to defend; this being shown in how outsiders, more easily than insiders, often can acknowledge where the other side is right and accept where points of commonality are to be found, that is to say the challengers to power don’t have to be on the constant attack in the way that is required for defenders of the status quo (similar to how guerrilla fighters don’t have to defeat an empire, but simply not lose and wait it out). Trying to defeat ideological underdogs that have growing popular support is like the U.S. military trying to win a war in Vietnam or Afghanistan — they are on the wrong side of history. But systems of power don’t give up without a fight, and they are willing to sacrifice loads of money and many lives in fighting losing battles, if only to keep the enemies at bay for yet another day. And the zombie ideas these systems are built on are not easily eliminated. That is because they are highly infectious mind viruses that can continue to spread long after the original vector of disease disappeared.

As such, the behemoth medical-industrial complex won’t be making any quick turns toward internal reform. Changes happen over generations. And for the moment, this generation of doctors and other healthcare workers were primarily educated and trained under the old paradigm. It’s the entire world most of them know. The system is a victim of its own success and so those working within the system are victimized again and again in their own indoctrination. It’s not some evil sociopathic self-interest that keeps the whole mess slogging along; after all, even doctors are suffering the same failed healthcare system as the rest of us and are dying of the same preventable diseases. All are sacrificed equally, all are food for the system’s hunger. When my mother brought my nephew for an appointment, the doctor was not trying to be a bad person when she made the bizarre and disheartening claim that all kids eat unhealthy and are sickly; i.e., there is nothing to do about it, just the way kids are. Working within the failed system, that is all she knows. The idea that sickness isn’t or shouldn’t be the norm was beyond her imagination.

It is up to the rest of us to imagine new possibilities and, in some cases, to resurrect old possibilities long forgotten. We can’t wait for a system to change when that system is indifferent to our struggles and suffering. We can’t wait for a future time when most doctors are well-educated on treating the whole patient, when officials are well-prepared for understanding and tackling systemic problems. Change will happen, as so many have come to realize, from the bottom up. There is no other way. Until that change happens, the best we can do is to take care of ourselves and take care of our loved ones. That isn’t about blame. It’s about responsibility, that is to say the ability to respond; and more importantly, the willingness to do so.

* * *

Ketotarian
by Dr. Will Cole
pp. 15-16

With the Hippocratic advice to “let food be thy medicine, and medicine thy food,” how far have we strayed that the words of the founder of modern medicine can actually be threatening to conventional medicine?

Today medical schools in the United States offer, on average, only about nineteen hours of nutrition education over four years of medical school.10 Only 29 percent of U.S. medical schools offer the recommended twenty-five hours of nutrition education.11 A study in the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health assessed the basic nutrition and health knowledge of medical school graduates entering a pediatric residency program and found that, on average, they answered only 52 percent of eighteen questions correctly.12 In short, most mainstream doctors would fail nutrition. So if you were wondering why someone in functional medicine, outside conventional medicine, is writing a book on how to use food for optimal health, this is why.

Expecting health guidance from mainstream medicine is akin to getting gardening advice from a mechanic. You can’t expect someone who wasn’t properly trained in a field to give sound advice. Brilliant physicians in the mainstream model of care are trained to diagnose a disease and match it with a corresponding pharmaceutical drug. This medicinal matching game works sometimes, but it often leaves the patient with nothing but a growing prescription list and growing health problems.

With the strong influence that the pharmaceutical industry has on government and conventional medical policy, it’s no secret that using foods to heal the body is not a priority of mainstream medicine. You only need to eat hospital food once to know this truth. Even more, under current laws it is illegal to say that foods can heal. That’ right. The words treat, cure, and prevent are in effect owned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical industry and can be used in the health care setting only when talking about medications. This is the Orwellian world we live in today; health problems are on the rise even though we spend more on health care than ever, and getting healthy is considered radical and often labeled as quackery.

10. K. Adams et al., “Nutrition Education in U.S. Medical Schools: Latest Update of a National Survey,” Academic Medicine 85, no. 9 (September 2010): 1537-1542, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555760.
11. K. Adams et al., “The State of Nutrition Education at US Medical Schools,” Journal of Biomedical Education 2015 (2015), Article ID 357627, 7 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/357627.
12. M. Castillo et al., “Basic Nutrition Knowledge of Recent Medical Graduates Entering a Pediatric Reside): 357-361, doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2015-0019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26234947.

Despite Growing Burden of Diet-related Disease, Medical Education Does Not Equip Students to Provide High Quality Nutritional Care to Patients
by Millie Barnes

The reviewed studies consistently found that medical students wanted to receive nutrition education to develop their skills in nutrition care but perceived that their education did not equip them to do so. Students cited both quantity and quality of their education as reasons for this — poor quality and under prioritization of nutrition in the curriculum, lack of interest and expertise in nutrition among faculty members, and few examples of nutritional counseling during clinical years to serve as models for emerging doctors.

Furthermore, students uniformly reported having a lack of required nutrition knowledge, which was also found through testing. For instance, one study found that when nutrition knowledge was assessed in a test, half of medical students scored below the pass rate.

Five studies assessing curriculum initiatives found that they had a modest positive effect. However, most nutrition initiatives were employed opportunistically as a once-off activity, rather than being integrated in a sustained way into the medical curricula. Innovative initiatives — such as online curriculum, hands on cooking experiences, and learning from other health professionals such as dietitians — showed short-term and long-term benefits for patients and health systems. Therefore, the authors call for more funding for innovative curriculum initiatives to be developed and implemented.

Scientific Failure and Self Experimentation

In 2005, John P. A. Ioannidis wrote “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” that was published in PloS journal. It is the most cited paper in that journal’s history and it has led to much discussion in the media. That paper was a theoretical model but has since been well supported — as Ioannidis explained in an interview with Julia Belluz:

“There are now tons of empirical studies on this. One field that probably attracted a lot of attention is preclinical research on drug targets, for example, research done in academic labs on cell cultures, trying to propose a mechanism of action for drugs that can be developed. There are papers showing that, if you look at a large number of these studies, only about 10 to 25 percent of them could be reproduced by other investigators. Animal research has also attracted a lot of attention and has had a number of empirical evaluations, many of them showing that almost everything that gets published is claimed to be “significant”. Nevertheless, there are big problems in the designs of these studies, and there’s very little reproducibility of results. Most of these studies don’t pan out when you try to move forward to human experimentation.

“Even for randomized controlled trials [considered the gold standard of evidence in medicine and beyond] we have empirical evidence about their modest replication. We have data suggesting only about half of the trials registered [on public databases so people know they were done] are published in journals. Among those published, only about half of the outcomes the researchers set out to study are actually reported. Then half — or more — of the results that are published are interpreted inappropriately, with spin favoring preconceptions of sponsors’ agendas. If you multiply these levels of loss or distortion, even for randomized trials, it’s only a modest fraction of the evidence that is going to be credible.”

This is part of the replication crisis that has been known about for decades, although rarely acknowledged or taken seriously. And it is a crisis that isn’t limited to single studies —- Ioannidis wrote that, “Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta-analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted” (from a paper reported in the Pacific Standard). The crisis cuts across numerous fields, from economics and genetics to neuroscience and psychology. But to my mind, medical research stands out. Evidence-based medicine is only as good as the available evidence — it has been “hijacked to serve agendas different from what it originally aimed for,” as stated by Ioannidis. (A great book on this topic, by the way, is Richard Harris’ Rigor Mortis.) Studies done by or funded by drug companies, for example, are more likely to come to positive results for efficacy and negative results for side effects. And because the government has severely decreased public funding since the Reagan administration, so much of research is now linked to big pharma. From a Retraction Watch interview, Ioannidis says:

“Since clinical research that can generate useful clinical evidence has fallen off the radar screen of many/most public funders, it is largely left up to the industry to support it. The sales and marketing departments in most companies are more powerful than their R&D departments. Hence, the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination of this clinical evidence becomes an advertisement tool. As for “basic” research, as I explain in the paper, the current system favors PIs who make a primary focus of their career how to absorb more money. Success in obtaining (more) funding in a fiercely competitive world is what counts the most. Given that much “basic” research is justifiably unpredictable in terms of its yield, we are encouraging aggressive gamblers. Unfortunately, it is not gambling for getting major, high-risk discoveries (which would have been nice), it is gambling for simply getting more money.”

I’ve become familiar with this collective failure through reading on diet and nutrition. Some of the key figures in that field, specifically Ancel Keys, were either intentionally fraudulent or really bad at science. Yet the basic paradigm of dietary recommendations that was instituted by Keys remains in place. The fact that Keys was so influential demonstrates the sad state of affairs. Ioannidis has also covered this area and come to similar dire conclusions. Along with Jonathan Schoenfeld, he considered the question “Is everything we eat associated with cancer?”

“After choosing fifty common ingredients out of a cookbook, they set out to find studies linking them to cancer rates – and found 216 studies on forty different ingredients. Of course, most of the studies disagreed with each other. Most ingredients had multiple studies claiming they increased and decreased the risk of getting cancer. Most of the statistical evidence was weak, and meta-analyses usually showed much smaller effects on cancer rates than the original studies.”
(Alex Reinhart, What have we wrought?)

That is a serious and rather personal issue, not an academic exercise. There is so much bad research out there or else confused and conflicting. It’s about impossible for the average person to wade through it all and come to a certain conclusion. Researchers and doctors are as mired in it as the rest of us. Doctors, in particular, are busy people and don’t typically read anything beyond short articles and literature reviews, and even those they likely only skim in spare moments. Besides, most doctors aren’t trained in research and statistics, anyhow. Even if they were better educated and informed, the science itself is in a far from optimal state and one can find all kinds of conclusions. Take the conflict between two prestigious British journals, the Lancet and the BMJ, the former arguing for statin use and the latter more circumspect. In the context of efficacy and side effects, the disagreement is over diverse issues and confounders of cholesterol, inflammation, artherosclerosis, heart disease, etc — all overlapping.

Recently, my dad went to his doctor who said that research in respectable journals strongly supported statin use. Sure, that is true. But the opposite is equally true, in that there are also respectable journals that don’t support wide use of statins. It depends on which journals one chooses to read. My dad’s doctor didn’t have the time to discuss the issue, as that is the nature of the US medical system. So, probably in not wanting to get caught up in fruitless debate, the doctor agreed to my dad stopping statins and seeing what happens. With failure among researchers to come to consensus, it leaves the patient to be a guinea pig in his own personal experiment. Because of the lack of good data, self-experimentation has become a central practice in diet and nutrition. There are so many opinions out there that, if one cares about one’s health, one is forced to try different approaches and find out what seems to work, even as this methodology is open to many pitfalls and hardy guarantees success. But the individual person dealing with a major health concern often has no other choice, at least not until the science improves.

This isn’t necessarily a reason for despair. At least, a public debate is now happening. Ioannidis, among others, sees the solution as not difficult (psychology, despite its own failings, might end up being key in improving research standards; and also organizations are being set up to promote better standards, including The Nutrition Science Initiative started by the science journalist Gary Taubes, someone often cited by those interested in alternative health views). We simply need to require greater transparency and accountability in the scientific process. That is to say science should be democratic. The failure of science is directly related to the failure seen in politics and economics, related to powerful forces of big money and other systemic biases. It is not so much a failure as it is a success toward ulterior motives. That needs to change.

* * *

Many scientific “truths” are, in fact, false
by Olivia Goldhill

Are most published research findings false?
by Erica Seigneur

The Decline Effect – Why Most Published Research Findings are False
by Paul Crichton

Beware those scientific studies—most are wrong, researcher warns
by Ivan Couronne

The Truthiness Of Scientific Research
by Judith Rich Harris

Is most published research really wrong?
by Geoffrey P Webb

Are Scientists Doing Too Much Research?
by Peter Bruce

Psychedelic Drugs Medical Treatments

I was surprised to see this video from the mainstream media. It’s a news report about an important topic and they even discuss actual scientific research. Scientists have been researching the effects, uses and benefits of psychedelics off and on for about a half century now, but it’s nice to see the mainstream media finally catching up.