Was the research study performed with integrity and non-bias?

Much of the research published or presented in newspapers and magazines was not researched with integrity.

Research on any subject should be performed without bias to secure the truth in that subject matter.

The research should be conducted with proper and consistent research principles.

Research done without these principles is just a tool to keep the research institution in business.

Research is big money to the men who head the research and the research institution.

Where money is, greed often feeds.

The famous ‘eggs are bad for you’ research study. 

An example of flawed research and its impact on society is the egg research conducted in the 50s.

The Cereal Institute of America conducted research on dried egg yolk powder.

There were many flaws in this research including that it was done only on the yolk portion only.

The 2nd research flaw was that the product was dried and not a fresh product.

The findings of this flawed research were considered gospel for years!

Some people today still think eggs are not good for you.

The Cereal Industry Paid for the research against eating eggs.

Can you say conflict of interest?

Research in recent years has proven the 50’s egg research and its conclusions flawed!

This flawed and bad research influenced how we eat for years.

The cereal industry paid for and conducted the research!

We should have questioned this research, its validity, and who funded it!

Eggs were the main breakfast for most Americans until the cereal industry published this research.

That flawed research study directly benefited the sale of cereal.

Our cereal products for children are low in protein, fiber, and vitamins.

Most are extremely high in sugar and are more a dessert than a suitable breakfast.

Many research institutions and their findings have been found to be flawed and outright fraudulent.

Dr. Jerry Bergman, a well-known writer, and researcher states in his published paper,

Why The Epidemic of Fraud Exists in Science Today,

“The study found 94 cancer papers ‘likely’ contained manipulated data.

Two years later, many of the papers were still not retracted.

This confirms the conclusion that ‘even when scientific misconduct is proven,

no reliable mechanism exists to remove bad information from the literature. ”

I encourage you to read the articles below on research fraud for yourself.

You will then see just how entrenched science and medicine have become with lies, false data, and flawed conclusions.

Some very famous research as you will discover has been found to be fraudulent.

Here are the links to read more on research fraud:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_104-109.pdf , 

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_misconduct/foundation/index.html, 

http://www.rsdfoundation.org/en/Fraud.htm

Here are tips to use when evaluating research studies:

Does the newspaper or magazine tend to be slanted toward conservative views? 

Does the paper reflect views that support standard medicine?

It is a fact that some periodicals are more prone to publish articles slanted toward the right or left.

Some are very conservative and will not publish any material that is not generally accepted by the AMA.

The publisher and copy editors often edit the article to the point that the original article’s intent is lost or changed.

Sometimes by this method, it may reflect views that are completely different from the original intent of the writer.

Who conducted the research?

What is the reputation of the research institution?

Have there been cases of fraud in the past with this institution?

Is there a conflict of interest?

Wonder about the validity of the research papers that found smoking does not cause lung disease?

Those research studies on smoking were financially supported by the cigarette industry.

The research firm got paid $400,000 or more from that certain cigarette company.

They suggest to the lab that they need to prove that smoking does not hurt your health.

The research company needs that $400,000 to keep operating.

What might happen if their research proves smoking does cause cancer?

Don’t you see the conflict of interest in this example?

What were the perimeters of the research study?

These perimeters in themselves can mean the success or failure of a study.

Was the study conducted on rats, monkeys, or humans?

How many animals or humans participated in the research study?

One study giving a certain result does not tell the whole story.

Even studies conducted with integrity may be missing criteria that are important and perhaps critical.

There may be issues and factors not seen nor accounted for that influence the results and conclusions of that study.

How many patients and what was the ethnic background of the participants?

Some diseases are more prevalent in some ethnic heritages.

What were the ages and health statuses of the participants at the beginning of the research?

People who have a history of smoking may not respond the same way to a program as patients who have never smoked.

If their immune function is compromised, to begin with, they may not respond at all or as quickly.

It may take more of a product to achieve results.

If the patients are obese, lack sleep, are under stress, or are nutritionally deficient, they may respond more slowly or not at all.

If they do not believe that a program can work, it can influence their response.

How were the patients monitored, and medically evaluated, and for what period of time?

How was the research conducted?

What products and quality of products were used?

There is a significant difference in the quality of herbs and vitamin products.

This quality or lack of quality will determine the failure or success of the study.

The form of the vitamin or herb makes a difference.

Certain forms of vitamins are more absorbable than others.

Calcium citrate is a higher form of calcium than oyster shell and is much easier for the body to utilize.

For many people with compromised stomach digestion, tablets are much harder to digest than gel caps or liquids.

Was the dosage level high enough to do any good?

If the dosage is too low then the research will be a failure.

Was the dosage too high giving in effect an overdose of the product?

Any food, vitamin, or substance can be given to the point of overdose including water.

When dosages are too high there may be allergic reactions or imbalances created.

An example would be giving patients a dose of 5000 milligrams of Magnesium!

The usual dosage of Magnesium is 100 to 400 milligrams.

One does not usually drink comfrey tea all day.

If you drink too much of it, you may very well have problems with comfrey and any other tea.

I can drink one cup of coffee and have stomach pain and mouth ulcers within one day. 

Your sensitivity to a substance also makes a difference such as in the case of orange juice.

In many women, orange juice due to its acidic content will cause bladder irritation.

Was the product or regimen given long enough to secure a result?

Often this is the problem of why the study failed in its results.

If you have been ill with colitis for 15 years, is it realistic for a month-long research regimen to have a positive impact?

The answer in most cases is no.

My experience years ago with research fraud.

Years ago, I conducted a study under a doctor on the subject of digestive enzymes and their effect on food allergies.

I did not realize until I was deep into the study that the doctor’s intent was for the study to fail.

He gave me his most medically complex patients including one with a mental disorder!

One patient had their stomach juices rerouted into the colon by the VA

Another patient had unknown problems that other doctors had failed to help!

None were average patients.  They did, in fact, all have food allergies.

The compliance was not good with these patients because most had given up on feeling better.

These patients had such long-standing imbalances and disease states making it almost impossible to succeed.

To the lead doctor’s irritation, the patients that did stay on the program!

All but two patients did see positive changes in the foods, they could eat without problems.

The result of the research project showed that 50 percent of the patients could eat more foods without problems.

My research was given the thumbs down!

The head doctor had determined that the results had to be in the 80 percent range to be worthwhile.

At that time, the main treatment for food allergies was to discontinue eating those foods.

The research could not have succeeded in its goals with the quality of the patients I was given to enroll.

Unless the research is conducted with the true intent of truth with integrity and authenticity, then it is fraud.

Just because it is written does not mean it is true.

Question and consider before you bring it into your belief structure.

Remember once it was considered a fact that the earth was flat.

That was concrete science until that fact was proven false.

Research the references below on fraud including

Dr.Jerry Berman’s paper from which I took the quote above;

Roman, M., When good scientists turn bad, Discover 9(4):50-58; 1986;p. 58.

Abbott, A., Science comes to terms with the lessons of fraud, Nature

398:13-17, 1999; p. 13.

Campbell, P., Reflections on scientific fraud, Nature 419:417, 2002.

creation.com/images/pdfs/tj…tj/j18_3/j18_3_104-109.pdf (Dr. Bergman’s paper