Science has brought us a long way, from sending men to the moon to wiping out various diseases. But as great as science is, it’s not infallible. The issue is that scientists, like everyone else, are human. And with that humanity comes a certain amount of pressure and potential biases that can distort even the most rigorous scientific research.
The pressure to publish
No one wants to spend years on a project only to reach a dud at the end. But in scientific research, having your successes published is necessary to catch the attention of big pharmaceutical giants who can offer high-paying jobs in their expensive for-profit labs. With those big bucks, however, come industry-funded studies, conflicts of interest, and immense pressure to please.
Obfuscation: It’s not a lie, but it’s not the truth either
Obfuscation is a way to present some facts or partial facts or manipulate data as relative or absolute numbers in a confusing, unclear, and difficult-to-understand way. This issue is significant enough in scientific research that researchers at Stanford are developing a computer program to recognize it. But even with the current peer-review system in place, many papers containing errors or misleading information manage to slip through the cracks.
- A recent review of 67 pharmaceutical research findings published in prestigious journals found that 75 percent of them were not right.
- In more than 75 percent of their drug trials, drug giant Bayer failed to replicate findings that were published.
- Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced.
The problem with relative numbers
When it comes to a lot of the research surrounding blockbuster drugs, the aim is often to mold the results to fit a preferred theory or outcome. And the ultimate outcome is income. Big drug companies love relative numbers because they can be manipulated in various ways. And Big Pharma has a way of making sure they are manipulated in a way that makes for a healthy bottom-line profit — regardless of how ineffective the medicine truly is.
Hippocratic or hypocritical
The scientific community and its supporters tend to dismiss any alternative medical solutions, such as the use of vitamins, minerals, supplements, exercise, and diet to prevent or alleviate disease. They might label these natural and alternative methods of medicine as pure hocus pocus and conjecture, even though a rising number of their own studies are being proven to be nothing more than hocum.
Take echinacea, for example. A review of 14 clinical trials determined that taking echinacea reducesyour odds of developing a cold by 58 percent and cuts down the length of your cold by one to four days. Even a 2014 scientific review that suggested evidence for echinacea’s effectiveness was weak admitted that it is at least somewhat effective, reducing the risk of catching a cold by 10 to 20 percent.
Question the source
The next time you come across an article or news report claiming that vitamins and alternative medical solutions are useless, consider the source. Question their motives and the research they’re using to back up their claims. Preventing illness yourself can put these big companies out of business — and that’s a prospect that scares them. As more and more people choose alternative healthcare plans, these organizations risk being left out in the cold.
