How the system works and why it doesn't.

From pp. 331- of the amazing 1985 book 'The Body Electric' by outstanding researcher / orthopedic surgeon Robert O. Becker, MD, and Gary Selden.

"The basic texture of research consists of dreams into which the threads of reasoning, measurement, and calculation are woven." Albert Szent-Gyorgyi.

Since about 1945 "changes in the structure of scientific institutions have produced a situation so heavily weighted in favor of the establishment that it impedes progress in health care and prevents truly new ideas from getting a fair hearing in almost all circumstances. The present system is in effect a dogmatic religion with a self-perpetuating priesthood dedicated only to preserving the current orthodoxies. The system rewards the sycophant and punishes the visionary to a degree unparalleled in the four-hundred-year history of modern science.

This situation has come about because research is now so expensive that only governments and multinational corporations can pay for it. The funds are dispensed by agencies staffed and run by bureaucrats who aren't scientists themselves. As this system developed after World War II, the question naturally arose as to how these scientifically ignorant officials were to choose among competing grant applications. The logical solution was to set up panels of scientists to evaluate requests in their fields and then advise the bureaucrats.

This method is based on the naive assumption that scientists really are more impartial than other people, so the results could have been predicted decades ago. In general, projects that propose a search for evidence in support of new ideas aren't funded. Most review committees approve nothing that would challenge the findings their members made when they were struggling young researchers who created the current theories, whereas projects that pander to these older egos receive lavish support. Eventually those who play the game become the new members of the peer group, and thus the system perpetuates itself. As Erwin Chargaff has remarked, "This continual turning off and on of the financial faucets produces Pavlovian effects", and most research becomes mere water treading aimed at getting paid rather than finding anything new. The intuitive "lunatic twinge", the urge to test a hunch, which is the source of all scientific breakthroughs, is systematically excluded.

There has even been a scientific study documenting how choices made by the peer review system depend almost entirely on whether the experts are sympathetic or hostile to the hypothesis being suggested. True to form, The National Academy of Sciences, which sponsored the investigation, suppressed the results for two years.

Membership on even a few peer review boards soon establishes one's status in the "old boys" club and leads to other benefits. Manuscripts submitted to scientific journals are reviewed for validity in the dame way as grant requests. And who is better qualified to judge an article than those same eminent experts with their laurels to guard? Publication is accepted as evidence that an experiment has some basic value. and without it the work sinks without a ripple. The circle is thus closed, and the revolutionary, from whose ideas all new scientific concepts come, is on the outside. Donald Goodwin, chairman of psychiatry at the University of Kansasan d an innovative researcher on alcoholism, has even put it in the form of a law of exasperation: "If it's trivial, you can probably study it. If It's important, you probably can't."

Aother unforseen abuse has arisen, which has lowered the quality of training in medical schools. As the peer review system developed, academic institutions saw a golden opportunity. If the government wanted all this research done, why shouldn' it help the schools with their overhead, such as housing, utilities, bookkeeping, and ultimately the salaries of the researchers, who were part of the faculty? The influx of money corroded academic values. The idea arose that the best teacher was the best researcher, and the best researcher was the one who pulled down the biggest grants. A medical school became primarily a kennel of researchers and only secondarily a place to teach future physicians. To survive in academia you have to get funded and then get published. The epidemic of fraudulent reports -- and I believe only a small percentage of the actual fakery has been discovered -- is eloquent testimony of the pressure to make a name in the lab.

There remain today few places for those whose talents lie in teaching and clinical work. Many people who don't care about research are forced to do it anyway. As a result, medical journals and teaching staffs are both drowning in mediocrity.

Finally, we must add to these factors the buying of science by the military. To call it a form of prostitution is an insult to the oldest profession. Nearly two-thirds of the $47-billion 1984 federal research budget went for. military work, and in the field of bioelectricity the proportion was even higher. While military sponsors often allow more technical innovation than others, their employees must keep their mouths shut about environmental hazards and other moral issues that link science to the broader concerns of civilization. In the long run, even the growth of pure knowledge (if there is such a thing) can't flourish behind this chain link fence.

If someone does start a heretical project, there are several ways of dealing with the threat. Grants are limited, usually for a period of one to two years. The experimenter then must reapply. Every application is a voluminous document filled with fine-print forms and meaningless bureaucratic jargon, requiring many days of data compilation and "creative writing". Some researchers may simply get tired of them and quit. In any case, they must run the same gamut of peers each time. The simplest way to nip a challenge in the bud is to turn off the money or keep the reports out of major journals by means of anonymous value judgements from the review committees. You can always find something wrong with a proposal or manuscript, no matter how well written or scientifically impeccable it may be.

Thanks for bringing us a sample of Dr. Becker's brilliance. We are still witnessing his observations today.

Another quote from Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, 1937, Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, the scientist who isolated vitamin C.

"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought."

Thank you Jackie - that's a great statement by a great man, and it speaks to the work of those we value and admire.

But the current human situation of control and domination is appalling and unforgivable:

The Pharmaceutical "Business with Disease"

"There is an entire industry with an innate economic interest to obstruct, suppress and discredit any information about the eradication of diseases. The pharmaceutical industry makes over one trillion dollars from selling drugs for ongoing diseases. These drugs may relieve symptoms, but they do not cure. We have to realize that the mission of this industry is to make money from ongoing diseases. The cure or eradication of a disease leads to the collapse of a multi-billion dollar market of pharmaceuticals."

Continue: [www4.dr-rath-foundation.org]

About Dr. Matthias Rath:

"Dr. Rath was born in Stuttgart, Germany, in 1955. After graduating from medical school he worked as a physician and researcher at the University Clinic of Hamburg, Germany and the German Heart Center in Berlin. His research focused on the causes of arteriosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.

In 1987, Dr. Rath discovered the connection between vitamin C deficiency and a new risk factor for heart disease- lipoprotein(a). After publication of these research findings in the American Heart Association journal “Arteriosclerosis,” Dr. Rath accepted an invitation to join two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling. In 1990 he went to the United States to become the first Director of Cardiovascular Research at the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto, California.

Dr. Rath worked together with the late Nobel Laureate in various areas of nutritional research. The two scientists became close personal friends who shared common humanistic values, including their determination for peace and justice. In 1994, shortly before his death, Linus Pauling stated: “There is no doubt in my mind that I was thinking about Dr. Rath as my successor.”


Continue: [www4.dr-rath-foundation.org] (this has links to the total website)

Earling

Thanks for the information on Vit C. I am quite interested in the research of Linnus Pauling and Dr. Rath, and you seem to be so well informed.

Dee

Oh yes indeed, it's how the system works and why it's impossible for it to work at all. Good ol' Dr. William Douglass III explains a small part of it: [douglassreport.com]:

Operating under the influence

What doctors admit about drug companies

Doctors these days may as well hang a sign on their door that says, "For sale to the highest bidder."

It's no great shock that the highest bidder is always Big Pharma — what IS shocking is that doctors are willing to admit it.

All doctors need to take continuing medical education courses in order to keep their licenses and certifications. It’s a good idea in theory, but there's a catch. (There always is.) These CME programs are sponsored by — you guessed it! — the pharmaceutical industry.

A researcher from the University of California, San Francisco surveyed docs who attended one of five CME courses given by the International AIDS Society-USA (which, by the way, also receives drug industry funding).

What he discovered is extremely telling — not just about Big Pharma, but about the doctors so many of people willingly trust with their lives.

Of the 770 docs who replied, 88 PERCENT said that industry funding leads to bias in CME materials (materials, mind you, that doctors not only need in order to keep practicing, but that they also rely on when they make treatment decisions later on).

Yet despite the apparently well-known conflicts of interest, less than half said they'd be willing to pay more to make these activities sponsor-free. And just 15 percent of the docs said they think the sponsorships should be removed completely.

When I say "sponsorships," I’m not talking about an ad in a magazine or course book, or maybe an easily ignored mailing.

From the moment the doctors step foot inside these conferences, they're barraged with pharmaceutical marketing materials: hotel keycards, shuttle bus headrests, bottled water, cellphone charging stations, massage parlors, game rooms, floors, stairs, and more.

These relentless ads hit at every moment of the day, from lights on to lights out: Ads on your coffee cups in the morning... and even on your nightstand when you came back to your hotel room at night.

That's not some extreme example. That's business as usual. And if your doctors says he's immune to it, he's not only lying to himself — he's lying to you.