From psych drugs to GMOs: How fraudulent science is run by corporations that profit from selling poisons
by: Ethan A. Huff
NaturalNews.com
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
The hijacking of modern science by corporations hellbent on profiting at the expense of public health is no more evident than in published scientific literature. There, you’ll find all sorts of papers claiming that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe, chemicals are good for you and pharmaceuticals drugs are the only medicine worth taking — but how much of all these information are actually valid?
Back in September, it was revealed that British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) doctored studies to promote its popular drug Paxil as a treatment for depression. It turns out this drug isn’t safe or effective in any way, and yet millions of young teens and children have been prescribed this mind-altering medication under the illusion that it might help them overcome mental abnormalities.
Not only were these papers exposed as fraudulent, but major news outlets like The New York Times (NYT) are reporting that they actually demonstrated the exact opposite of what their authors claimed at the time. How can this be when papers of this type are run through the peer-review process prior to publishing?
As we reported back in 2014, some 60 papers that appeared to have passed the peer-review process were pulled from an international journal after it was revealed that they had all been illicitly approved by phony reviewers. Once again, an invisible hand had apparently set up a phony peer-review ring to ramrod these papers through the system to promote ideas or products that favor certain industries.
There’s also the painkiller fiasco of 2009, in which it was uncovered that some 21 peer-reviewed studies favoring high-profile drugs like Pfizer’s Bextra, Lyrica and Celebrex; Wyeth’s antidepressant drug Effexor XR; and Merck’s Vioxx had been completely fabricated. Scott C. Reuben, the former chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, reportedly altered data to support these drugs, but all of it was a sham.
The crime was so bad in this instance that the editor-in-chief of the journal Anesthesia and Analgesia admitted to Anesthesiology News that he’s not even sure his own field properly understands how these drugs actually work. Here’s what he stated, as quoted by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ):
“We are left with a large hole in our understanding of this field. There are substantial tendrils from this body of work that reach throughout the discipline of postoperative pain management.”
“Science” is a biased endeavor that pushes the agendas of its proprietors
The Rest…HERE
