I used to work for a doctor who did medical research. I well remember the day we learned that one of the doctors in the lab had falsified data in his research upon which my boss relied in publishing papers. It was a terrible scandal and a huge mess to clean up: recreating the actual results, writing retractions to explain the truth, etc.…
I used to work for a doctor who did medical research. I well remember the day we learned that one of the doctors in the lab had falsified data in his research upon which my boss relied in publishing papers. It was a terrible scandal and a huge mess to clean up: recreating the actual results, writing retractions to explain the truth, etc. I learned through that experience that even doctors can and will lie and create false data in order to gain credibility and advance their career. I think that is one reason I had a lot of doubts about C-19 and even more about the so-called vaccines. I also lived through the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and experienced (upon returning to the US) how politicized these outbreaks could be and how the media and politicians used fear to push their agenda. No one cared about the truth.
Falsified academic research has become very common, look at the decades old foundations of Alzheimer's research, and the resignation at the top of Stanford.
There's even a ton of computer generated nonsense studies (literally made-up nonsense) that gets published in journals. The ChiComs famously generate most of it. Credentialism is more corrosive than you think.
Once the esteemed scientific establishment loses credibility through these cases of fraud, how can they ever regain trust? We want to be able to trust “authorities” or “experts”, but I have become skeptical of so much of what I hear. I have a hard time knowing what is true about medicine, and particularly about vaccines and pharmaceuticals anymore.
As the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” An EASY button would be nice, but I haven’t found it. Thankfully Substack authors and other online communities provide guidance to chart your own course while trusting your instincts.
The WSJ ran an article suggesting that docs should call low risk prostate cancer something other than cancer lest it cause alarm or cause men to demand treatment. Aargh! Snuck in a “medicine has (already) lost credibility...” even though I do understand the issue.
There’s an arrogance in the medical establishment (obviously not all doctors; I’m sure we all know solid, trustworthy physicians) that enjoys a lofty position and insists that patients bow to their authority without explaining the actual science. I know most people just want to be told a diagnosis and treatment. But more and more of us want to understand the details and to know if there are natural remedies that might be less harsh or with fewer side effects than the pharmaceuticals we are pointed to. I think that arrogance can be part of the overall scientific community (“Trust the science”!?), and that needs to end.
True! Like I said, I understand the issues, and risk/benefit needs to be carefully explored. Using the 4K score is useful, and covered by MC, but actually getting the test done is another matter.
I used to work for a doctor who did medical research. I well remember the day we learned that one of the doctors in the lab had falsified data in his research upon which my boss relied in publishing papers. It was a terrible scandal and a huge mess to clean up: recreating the actual results, writing retractions to explain the truth, etc. I learned through that experience that even doctors can and will lie and create false data in order to gain credibility and advance their career. I think that is one reason I had a lot of doubts about C-19 and even more about the so-called vaccines. I also lived through the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and experienced (upon returning to the US) how politicized these outbreaks could be and how the media and politicians used fear to push their agenda. No one cared about the truth.
Falsified academic research has become very common, look at the decades old foundations of Alzheimer's research, and the resignation at the top of Stanford.
There's even a ton of computer generated nonsense studies (literally made-up nonsense) that gets published in journals. The ChiComs famously generate most of it. Credentialism is more corrosive than you think.
Once the esteemed scientific establishment loses credibility through these cases of fraud, how can they ever regain trust? We want to be able to trust “authorities” or “experts”, but I have become skeptical of so much of what I hear. I have a hard time knowing what is true about medicine, and particularly about vaccines and pharmaceuticals anymore.
As the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” An EASY button would be nice, but I haven’t found it. Thankfully Substack authors and other online communities provide guidance to chart your own course while trusting your instincts.
The WSJ ran an article suggesting that docs should call low risk prostate cancer something other than cancer lest it cause alarm or cause men to demand treatment. Aargh! Snuck in a “medicine has (already) lost credibility...” even though I do understand the issue.
There’s an arrogance in the medical establishment (obviously not all doctors; I’m sure we all know solid, trustworthy physicians) that enjoys a lofty position and insists that patients bow to their authority without explaining the actual science. I know most people just want to be told a diagnosis and treatment. But more and more of us want to understand the details and to know if there are natural remedies that might be less harsh or with fewer side effects than the pharmaceuticals we are pointed to. I think that arrogance can be part of the overall scientific community (“Trust the science”!?), and that needs to end.
True! Like I said, I understand the issues, and risk/benefit needs to be carefully explored. Using the 4K score is useful, and covered by MC, but actually getting the test done is another matter.
International Urology and Nephrology
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/ec0061e4/qufTCui01kmTBxOs1GqDbQ?u=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-023-03786-9
There ARE almost two kinds of prostate cancer; figuring out which kind you have is not as simple as one would like.