Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:08.100]  How many times over the last 20 months have we heard the slogan, follow the science?
[00:08.100 --> 00:12.940]  But which science exactly are we to follow?
[00:12.940 --> 00:18.740]  On October 15, 2021, I tweeted the following, I don't know who needs to hear this, but
[00:18.740 --> 00:24.220]  scientists are not cut from finer cloth than the rest of humanity.
[00:24.220 --> 00:31.580]  Many are willing to fudge data, omit inconvenient results from reports, or straight up lie
[00:31.580 --> 00:36.140]  for money, prestige, or advancement.
[00:36.140 --> 00:39.100]  Shall we follow that science?
[00:39.100 --> 00:44.920]  And this is a far, far larger problem than most people imagine.
[00:44.920 --> 01:01.240]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[01:01.240 --> 01:06.000]  I'm now going to share with you the observations of several professionals in the research community
[01:06.000 --> 01:11.880]  who have expressed dismay at the lack of integrity in modern science.
[01:12.560 --> 01:16.080]  I'm going to be looking down quite a bit as I share this with you because I want to make
[01:16.080 --> 01:19.280]  sure I get their quotes, their sentiments correct, so I'm going to be looking down
[01:19.280 --> 01:20.840]  at what they wrote.
[01:20.840 --> 01:27.160]  Let's start with a July 5, 2021 op-ed in the British Medical Journal written by Richard
[01:27.160 --> 01:32.920]  Smith, who was a co-founder of the Committee on Medical Ethics for many years, the chair
[01:32.920 --> 01:38.120]  of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee, and a member of the board of the UK Research
[01:38.120 --> 01:40.460]  Integrity Office.
[01:40.460 --> 01:46.700]  The name of the op-ed is, Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven
[01:46.700 --> 01:47.700]  otherwise.
[01:47.700 --> 01:49.860]  And I'll put a link down in the notes.
[01:49.860 --> 01:53.700]  I'm going to share with you several parts from that op-ed, and let's start with this
[01:53.700 --> 01:54.700]  one.
[01:54.700 --> 02:01.060]  Quote, as he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at
[02:01.060 --> 02:06.940]  the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest
[02:06.940 --> 02:13.140]  reporting of trials after a colleague asked him if he knew that his systematic review
[02:13.140 --> 02:21.260]  showing that mannitol halved deaths from head injury was based on trials that had never
[02:21.260 --> 02:23.340]  happened.
[02:23.340 --> 02:24.700]  He didn't.
[02:24.700 --> 02:30.780]  But he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they had not ever happened.
[02:30.780 --> 02:36.620]  They all had a lead author who purported to have come from an institution that did not
[02:36.620 --> 02:40.540]  exist and who killed himself a few years later.
[02:40.540 --> 02:47.660]  The trials were all published in prestigious neurosurgery journals and had multiple co-authors.
[02:47.660 --> 02:52.860]  None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn't even know
[02:52.860 --> 02:57.140]  they were co-authors until after the trial was published.
[02:57.140 --> 03:03.220]  When Roberts contacted one of the journals, the editor responded that, I wouldn't trust
[03:03.220 --> 03:04.220]  the data.
[03:04.220 --> 03:06.460]  Why, Roberts wondered.
[03:06.460 --> 03:08.940]  Did he publish the trial?
[03:08.940 --> 03:12.340]  Are you ready for the last line of this part?
[03:12.340 --> 03:17.260]  None of the trials have been retracted.
[03:17.260 --> 03:20.140]  Here are some other parts from that same op-ed.
[03:20.140 --> 03:27.660]  Quote, we have long known that peer review is ineffective at detecting fraud.
[03:27.660 --> 03:36.260]  As an aside, on my computer I have 20, 22 different means by which researchers can completely
[03:36.260 --> 03:38.700]  game peer review.
[03:38.700 --> 03:44.540]  So they can use any one or multiple of these 20 or 22, I forget the exact number now, mechanisms
[03:44.540 --> 03:50.340]  by which they can thwart the intent of peer review, which is to somehow substantiate the
[03:50.340 --> 03:51.780]  validity of the research.
[03:51.780 --> 03:58.380]  You can understand why in the op-ed they say, we have long known that peer review is ineffective
[03:58.380 --> 04:00.540]  at detecting fraud.
[04:00.540 --> 04:05.060]  And this, researchers progress by publishing research.
[04:05.940 --> 04:10.900]  The publication system is built on trust and peer review, peer review that we just talked
[04:10.900 --> 04:15.020]  about, is not designed to detect fraud.
[04:15.020 --> 04:18.500]  It is easy to publish fraudulent research.
[04:18.500 --> 04:24.260]  The business model of journals and publishers depends on publishing, preferably lots of
[04:24.260 --> 04:26.940]  studies as cheaply as possible.
[04:26.940 --> 04:33.460]  They have little incentive to check for fraud and a positive disincentive to experience
[04:33.460 --> 04:40.340]  reputational damage and possibly legal risk from retracting studies.
[04:40.340 --> 04:45.980]  The op-ed goes on to say, regulators often lack the legal standing and the resources
[04:45.980 --> 04:53.420]  to respond to what is clearly extensive fraud, recognizing that proving a study to be fraudulent
[04:53.420 --> 05:01.780]  as opposed to suspecting it of being fraudulent is a skilled, complex and time-consuming process.
[05:01.780 --> 05:06.180]  Another problem is that research is increasingly international, with participants from many
[05:06.180 --> 05:08.620]  institutions in many countries.
[05:08.620 --> 05:14.900]  Who then takes on the unenviable task of investigating fraud?
[05:14.900 --> 05:21.380]  And this, we are realizing that the problem is huge.
[05:21.380 --> 05:28.360]  The system encourages fraud and we have no adequate way to respond.
[05:28.360 --> 05:33.800]  It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported
[05:33.800 --> 05:41.400]  to assuming it is to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary.
[05:41.400 --> 05:48.840]  From a 2015 editorial in the Lancet, it was observed that, quote, much of the scientific
[05:48.840 --> 05:58.160]  literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue, close quote.
[05:58.160 --> 06:05.000]  And from a 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report, it was suggested that false
[06:05.000 --> 06:12.800]  discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69%.
[06:12.800 --> 06:17.960]  In an email exchange between reporter Ronald Bailey and Stanford University biostatistician
[06:17.960 --> 06:24.480]  John Ioannidis, Ioannidis estimated that the non-replication rates in biomedical, observational
[06:24.480 --> 06:30.960]  and preclinical studies could be as high as 90%.
[06:30.960 --> 06:36.080]  In my own book on human physiology, Body Science, I have an entire chapter in which I talk about
[06:36.080 --> 06:38.000]  research fraud.
[06:38.000 --> 06:44.000]  On page 79, in an attempt to quantify the level of fraud, I write, Ironically, even
[06:44.000 --> 06:49.920]  the giant processed food conglomerates have to deal with this tsunami of false research
[06:49.920 --> 06:51.200]  claims.
[06:51.200 --> 06:55.960]  Those enterprises who need solid science from which to develop their latest and greatest
[06:55.960 --> 07:02.360]  products have found that in 43% of cases, their in-house laboratories, which are the
[07:02.360 --> 07:12.280]  best money can buy, cannot replicate the results detailed in published scientific study reports.
[07:12.280 --> 07:16.180]  I take it you're getting the point, whether it's the British Academy of Medical Sciences,
[07:16.180 --> 07:20.840]  whether it's the Lancet, whether it's the British Medical Journal, and there are a number
[07:20.840 --> 07:25.240]  of research ethicists saying the same thing across the globe.
[07:25.240 --> 07:31.760]  The message is this is a pervasive problem in science.
[07:31.760 --> 07:36.400]  In other words, fraud is running rampant in science.
[07:36.400 --> 07:43.160]  But let's bring this back around to something more timely and with more practicality.
[07:43.160 --> 07:51.000]  Let's talk about Pfizer and its $2.3 billion criminal and civil fine back in 2009.
[07:51.000 --> 07:56.480]  In a September 2009 Department of Justice press conference, the attorney speaking for
[07:56.480 --> 08:03.000]  the Department of Justice said that Pfizer was engaged in illegal promotion of various
[08:03.000 --> 08:13.000]  drugs and practices with the intent to defraud or mislead that directly put patients at
[08:13.000 --> 08:14.320]  risk.
[08:14.320 --> 08:20.240]  Michael K. Laux, acting United States attorney for the Massachusetts District, said of that
[08:20.240 --> 08:26.560]  settlement, quote, among the factors we considered in calibrating this severe punishment was
[08:26.560 --> 08:29.560]  Pfizer's recidivism.
[08:29.560 --> 08:36.840]  I was looking at a database of fines attributed to the various pharmaceutical companies, and
[08:36.840 --> 08:39.080]  the way it reads is basically this.
[08:39.080 --> 08:42.800]  Company A, company B, Pfizer, Pfizer, Pfizer, Pfizer, Pfizer, company X, company Y.
[08:42.800 --> 08:46.640]  Pfizer, Pfizer, Pfizer, and so on, all down the list.
[08:46.640 --> 08:52.400]  Pfizer is clearly, as attorney Laux phrased it, recidivists.
[08:52.400 --> 08:58.360]  John Kopczynski is a former Pfizer sales representative, and it was his initial complaint to the United
[08:58.360 --> 09:05.500]  States government that after a four-year investigation produced that $2.3 billion criminal and civil
[09:05.500 --> 09:11.520]  judgment said, quote, the whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales.
[09:11.520 --> 09:18.680]  And if you didn't sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player, close quote.
[09:18.680 --> 09:23.600]  Prosecutors said that they had become so alarmed at the ever-increasing criminality in the
[09:23.600 --> 09:30.680]  pharmaceutical industry, that's why they made the decision to increase fines into the billions
[09:30.680 --> 09:36.600]  of dollars range in order to try and rein in big pharma criminality.
[09:36.600 --> 09:45.820]  In another case, Pfizer paid a fine of $430 million for manipulation of studies to suppress
[09:45.820 --> 09:48.880]  data of adverse effects.
[09:48.880 --> 09:54.000]  And then later, about nine years later, they paid an additional $325 million.
[09:54.000 --> 09:55.000]  So what are they up to?
[09:55.000 --> 10:00.440]  Some $750 million for suppressing study data the public was entitled to know before the
[10:00.440 --> 10:02.300]  product hit the market.
[10:02.300 --> 10:04.320]  This one is particularly disturbing.
[10:04.320 --> 10:06.240]  This took place in 2011.
[10:06.440 --> 10:12.520]  Pfizer was forced to pay compensation to families of children killed in the controversial Trovan
[10:12.520 --> 10:14.560]  drug trial.
[10:14.560 --> 10:21.360]  During the worst meningitis epidemic seen in Africa, in 1996, Pfizer ran a trial in
[10:21.360 --> 10:25.960]  Nigeria of their new drug, Trojan.
[10:25.960 --> 10:34.760]  Five of the 100 children who took Trojan died, and it caused liver damage and lifelong disabilities
[10:34.760 --> 10:37.080]  for those who survived.
[10:37.080 --> 10:43.440]  Pfizer holds the dubious distinction of having the second highest level of fines in the pharmaceutical
[10:43.440 --> 10:45.160]  industry for all time.
[10:45.160 --> 10:48.480]  Want to know who's in third place?
[10:48.480 --> 10:50.680]  Johnson & Johnson.
[10:50.680 --> 10:57.080]  But don't let any of this concern you because whatever suppression of facts, whatever fraud,
[10:57.080 --> 11:02.460]  whatever criminality, whatever illegality they engaged in to make hundreds of millions
[11:03.100 --> 11:07.540]  I'm certain they absolutely would engage in nothing like that.
[11:07.540 --> 11:13.540]  They have absolutely no liability issues to be concerned about and the potential to make
[11:13.540 --> 11:17.060]  tens of billions of dollars.
[11:17.060 --> 11:25.060]  So when you hear somebody saying, follow the science, ask them to distinguish for you between
[11:25.060 --> 11:32.700]  valid factual science and fraudulent science and watch their eyes glaze over because they
[11:32.700 --> 11:37.620]  have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
[11:37.620 --> 11:44.940]  If you would like to get the 100% straight scoop on physiology with an emphasis on nutritional
[11:44.940 --> 11:50.380]  physiology, do yourself a favor, run over to DrReality.News, grab yourself a copy of
[11:50.380 --> 11:52.180]  body science.
[11:52.220 --> 11:56.500]  I don't know how many thousands of people have read body science, but the reviews have
[11:56.500 --> 12:02.660]  been there on the website, but I see them on social media all the time and readers rave
[12:02.660 --> 12:06.940]  about what they learned in body science and on the website you can look at the reviews
[12:06.940 --> 12:10.300]  there which are a fraction of those that I've seen over the years.
[12:10.300 --> 12:18.980]  In other words, you will be getting fraud-free, 100% valid, 100% accurate, 100% honest science
[12:18.980 --> 12:20.780]  in body science.
[12:20.900 --> 12:27.940]  Also, if you'd like to see the 100% accurate law concerning who Congress has really imposed
[12:27.940 --> 12:33.660]  the income tax on, as opposed to the establishment narrative that you've heard your whole life,
[12:33.660 --> 12:37.500]  pick up a copy of income tax shattering the myths because when it comes to government,
[12:37.500 --> 12:42.340]  they conduct the same exact kind of fraud we've been talking about here in the medical
[12:42.340 --> 12:43.900]  research community.
[12:43.900 --> 12:48.340]  And perhaps the number one example of the government attempting to defraud the entire
[12:48.420 --> 12:53.460]  population of the United States is their false narrative concerning the income tax and who
[12:53.460 --> 12:55.540]  it's been imposed upon.
[12:55.540 --> 13:01.260]  Just give you a little hint, Congress has imposed the income tax on a tiny, tiny, tiny,
[13:01.260 --> 13:06.200]  tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the American population which of course as you know is
[13:06.200 --> 13:09.500]  dramatically different than the false narrative you've grown up with.
[13:09.500 --> 13:12.940]  So if you want to find out the truth about that, grab yourself a copy of income tax shattering
[13:12.940 --> 13:14.140]  the myths.
[13:14.140 --> 13:19.340]  By purchasing a copy of body science or income tax shattering the myths, you help me be here
[13:19.340 --> 13:22.020]  to deliver these kinds of facts to you.
[13:22.020 --> 13:22.520]  Thank you.