Have you ever presented solid evidence of something to a skeptic, only to have it rejected with demands for “peer reviewed” studies? Well, peer reviewed studies are looking more potentially fallacious every day.
The Reproducibility Project is an effort at holding science accountable, led by immunologist Dr. Tim Errington at the University of Virginia’s Center for Open Science.
The project attempted to repeat the findings of 5 landmark cancer studies: only 2 could be replicated, with 2 being inconclusive, and one landmark study outright failing the test.
One might guess these “landmark cancer studies” supported the allopathic, pharmaceutical paradigm of medicine.
Polls also recently illustrated a declining confidence in these critically acclaimed, peer reviewed studies.
Last summer, a survey in the journal “Nature” found more than 70% of scientists unsuccessfully attempted to replicate another scientist’s experiment.
Marcus Munafo, professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, “almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety,” according to the BBC.
He said: “I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it’s me, maybe I didn’t run my study well, maybe I’m not cut out to be a scientist. What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened.”
According to Edinburgh neuroscientist Professor Malcolm Macleod: “The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process. Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don’t know if the facts out there actually represent what’s happening in biology or not.”
The mainstream BBC article about this claims the studies cannot be replicated due to error, and not fraud. However, if you understand how science has been docile to the molding hand of industry, you’d know the probability of it being fraud over error.
Image source: Kcl.ac.uk
Typos, corrections and/or news tips? Email us at [email protected]