Believe in science but the music is played for one who pays for it

Believe in science, they say. But what, then, is the science of pharmacy today? If it could be called that at all, then the last coffin nail has been driven into it in the last year and a half. But even this process did not start yesterday or a year ago.

As early as 2005, Professor John Ionnidis wrote a very popular and then often quoted study on why most so-called published scientific documents are untrue.

Since then, it has been downloaded tens of thousands of times and read by countless researchers and those who really want to believe in science. Of course, not those who started believing in it during the kovidshow when they were told it from the TV screen. The main conclusion at that time was already expressed as follows:

It is becoming increasingly clear that statements about research in many areas of science are merely more accurate measurements of existing false doctrine.

Marcia Angell has been the once respected editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years. Her statement is similar.

Namely, we can no longer trust much of the clinical trials that are published or trust authoritative doctors and their guidelines. I am not happy to draw such a conclusion, but I came to it slowly and gradually during my 20 years of experience in this very job.

Peter Gotszhe writes in his book "Deadly Medicine and Organized Crime":

The main reason that we take so many medicines is that the Farm does not sell us medicines, but lies about them. Virtually everything we know about them is just what these companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors. If you do not believe that the system is out of control, then explain why medication is the third leading cause of death in the world?

Richard Smith, once the editor of another prominent medical journal in the British Medical Journal, also wrote several years ago that a statistician, Doug Altman, had published an article in that journal 20 years ago that much medical research was poor. quality and misleading. His article was called The Scandal of Poor Medical Research, and he wrote that it was based on inappropriate parameters, incorrect methods and misinterpretations. It was already in 1994. Richard Smith, on the other hand, adds that 20 years later, nothing has gotten better, but worse. And then came covids ..

So what happened? Medical research has also become an industry. In addition, a very generous and rich industry. Many medical journals now charge thousands of dollars to authors for having their research published there. This means that it is very difficult for any independent researcher to publish something at all, unless he or she has a sponsor, such as a university or a pharmaceutical company. Then he must be wealthy enough and do it for his own money. Not only that, but also readers are often charged for reading the full study. They charge a download fee, make money with ads, but the authors themselves usually don't get anything. And all this brings good profits.

If this process is controlled by money, then it inevitably leads to conflicts of interest and fraud. Who pays, orders music here as well. And they are the producers themselves - a farm or a food company can afford to pay a lot of money to publish these studies in the relevant journals. These are the only studies that represent their interests, not a critical approach and evaluation. In addition to the financial system, there is another defense mechanism and if someone dares to speak out against the 'official' version, he is subjected to attacks by 'bought' colleagues.

Today's pseudoscience looks real enough - there are white robes, laboratories, computer programs, scientific degrees and conferences. But internally there is something else entirely. These scientists are not quite so foolish as to tell open lies, although this sometimes happens. However, there is much more to this arsenal - exaggeration, selective choice and manipulation - all of which are growing rapidly. Everything was bad, but the plan demony took all common sense to another dimension. If, at the very beginning of the affair, someone said that vitamin D, for example, was important in preventing illness, he was attacked by 'fact chakras' claiming to be nonsense and false news.

And then on June 17, a study appears stating that Israeli scientists have found that vitamin D deficiency in hospital increases the risk of death. So it is still necessary - you just have to say it in other words, then everything is fine and the fact chakras do not have the command to attack if this is in their own interest. How many times have the guidelines of all the major global health organizations changed in the meantime without any logical basis?

But today, it is not even possible to start a scientific discussion on these topics, because there are none - everyone who opposes these anti-scientific nonsense is simply deleted from the platforms and thrown out of their careers.