\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.myhealthandfitness.com\/US\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/RigorMortis-198x300.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHarris has cautioned us to take things we read with a grain of salt. It\u2019s sort of like the adage, \u2018believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see!\u2019 If you are not familiar with reading scientific articles they can be misleading, especially when what you are reading is not the best science to begin with.<\/p>\n
As an example, for many years research on breast cancer was conducted on misidentified melanoma cells. This indicates that thousands of papers published in credible scientific journals were studying the wrong cancer. Because most scientists were studying the wrong cell, it is difficult to know how much our research in cancer has be set back and is no small wonder we still do not have a cure. We are much closer to curing diseases such as AIDS, which came on the scene long after cancer and doesn\u2019t kill nearly as many people globally, especially when considering breast cancer among women.<\/p>\n
Another egregious example is a study that said it invented a blood test that could detect ovarian cancer. Think of it, an early diagnosis would be the result and many lives could be saved \u2013 a breakthrough in science, but no, sadly, this was not the case. Why? Reproducibility studies showed that the real reason the blood test worked so well was because in the original research\/study, the researchers tested two separate blood-sample batches on two separate days. This resulted in the women with ovarian cancer being tested on say, the first day, while those without ovarian cancer were tested the second day. Consequently, the test did not measure the differences in cancer, but in daily differences in the testing machine.<\/p>\n
You may be asking yourself at this point why many scientific tests and studies are bogus. It\u2019s simple to point out the reasons.<\/p>\n
Science is difficult to do correctly, some scientists twist their results to fit the latest funding craze since hot topics get funding \u2013 global warming is an example \u2013 and less interesting topics get little or no funding.<\/p>\n
Then, there is always the bias that creeps in, unconscious or not. The fact go out the window in favor of tweaking the numbers so they rosily fit the pre-conceived theory of what the scientist should see from the study. For one, science is hard.<\/p>\n
Additionally, there is the \u2018publish or perish\u2019 issue at universities. If you do not make it from assistant to associate professor within about 5 years, you\u2019re out and another scientist is in. This creates much pressure on the individual. The pressure is great enough in some instances for the data to be falsified.<\/p>\n
The biggest issue however is funding. Scientists call it discretionary dollars. This money was widely available up until about the mid-1990s then, Congress put a clamp on it due to the rise in entitlement program costs, which required giving less money to all other Congressional funded issues. This created a pool in which promotions in the scientific ranks, mostly universities, were only awarded to those who brought in the most money and made \u2018hot\u2019 discoveries. It also created the craze of manipulation of data so that in many instances, the data was cherry picked, ignoring other data that pointed the research in a different direction. One of the most egregious acts of this was the famous \u2018Climate Gate\u2019 where the International Panel on Climate Change would not entertain research data showing counter result to theirs and they got caught in a major email scandal showing how they suppressed this data, much like the recent scandal of emails involving Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton.<\/p>\n
The constant search for research funding, has tipped the scale between unbiased research and agenda pushing research in many ways. It\u2019s more important to be first than right, although no one will likely find out for years. Bogus research will always fail the test of time.<\/p>\n
And, if funding is further cut, which it will be, the research findings that you read about each day in health and related areas will likely not be reproducible, but they will continue to push advances in science in health and weight loss that are simply not there. Especially as the money pool shrinks.<\/p>\n
There is a book (advertised below) that talks about this issue, which is worth reading. The real problem with all of this is that it becomes difficult for people to know who to believe and trust. It is also the reason I look at formal science from before the 1990s and compare it to what is being said today. The physiology of the body is like mathematics. Over the decades, it has not changed much, but we have learned more about it. The question becomes does a new study back what has happened in older studies and make sense?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.myhealthandfitness.com\/US\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/GreatBetrayal.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.myhealthandfitness.com\/US\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/JoinToday-e1505408936237.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n