A week can be a terribly long time in medicine.  Take, for example, the arguments over the safety of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), designed to ease women through the menopause.

Researchers finally cottoned on in 2002 – and years after the fact – that HRT was dangerous, and that its risks outweighed any benefits.
 
These risks were most famously highlighted in the Women’s Health Initiative Study, which discovered that HRT increased the likelihood of heart problems by 29 per cent, stroke by 41 per cent, and *** cancer by 26 per cent.  The researchers were so alarmed by their findings that they stopped the study early.
As a result, HRT drug sales plummeted, and companies such as Pfizer and Wyeth, which both manufacture leading HRT brands, suffered.  Sales of Wyeth’s  Premarin family of HRT drugs fell sharply from around $1.25 billion in 2003 to $880 million a year later.

Now, for whatever reason, the same research team recently decided to take a fresh look at its own data – and decided that HRT is good for you.  Yes, they’d got it wrong, silly them.  Actually, HRT decreases the risk of heart disease by 24 per cent, and it didn’t increase the risk of stroke at all.

HRT advocates like Dr John Stevenson were incensed.  He said the original findings meant that women were deprived of a great drug, and so went on to suffer heart attacks and other illnesses that “they didn’t deserve”.  Obviously, those who did deserve one got what was coming.

So, cause for much celebrating in the boardrooms of Pfizer and Wyeth – well, for a week anyway.
Then, to spoil the party, a new study, rush released by The Lancet on the web, has found that HRT is bad for you after all, just as the original Women’s Health Study had found.  The Million Women Study has discovered that the drug causes ovarian cancer, and that at least a thousand women in the UK alone have died from the disease as a direct result of using the therapy.  

Overall, HRT increases the risk of ovarian cancer by 20 per cent, the researchers found, and a woman who takes HRT has a 63 per cent greater risk of developing either ovarian, *** or endometrial cancer.
This tallies with the earlier finding that HRT has been directly responsible for the deaths of 30,000 women in the UK, and around 200,000 in the USA, since the early 1990s.

(Sources:  Journal of the American Medical Association, 2007; 297: 1465-77 (revised Women’s Health study); The Lancet, 19 April 2007, published online (Million Women study)).

---

FREE REPORT: 100 WAYS TO LIVE TO BE 100

Click here for your free report ‘100 ways to live to be 100’

How much were the members of Team-1 paid by Wyeth and Pfizer to re-research their own research?? Anu body's Guess?

More evidence...if indeed any was needed...that many,many,scientists and researchers are nothing but prostitutes available to anyone who can pay...they will tell you anything you want to hear and provide all the research to back it up...but when 75% of them are on the payrolls of giant corporations it's not surprising.

Robin

---

Robin Allan
Chek Practitioner
Natural Health Coach

http://www.robinallan.com


robin_allan@hotmail.com

07967-366470

Hi Robin,

Is it the practices of scientists and scientific professionals you have issues with, or is it the actual process and methods of science?

What I mean is, do you have a fundamental issue with the principles underlying the scientific method, or is it more that you beleive that, in practise, scientists are up to no good?

Hi Harradine,

I am not against scientists and science per se,I just do not like the way science,scientists and research have been hijacked by drug companies and medicine as a way to market dangerous drugs and procedures...as a genuine scientist I am sure this must frustrate you too.

As you rightly say...science has done a lot of good in many areas but I just cannot trust it to be used impartialy or objectively anymore in many arenas.

The original story above says it all...either the researchers were incompetent the first time or incompetent the second time or maybe they just lied...the whole thing stinks and undermines the trust people have in genuine science and research.

Robin

 

---

Robin Allan
Chek Practitioner
Natural Health Coach

http://www.robinallan.com


robin_allan@hotmail.com

07967-366470

I understand.  I do find that situation frustrating for several reasons.  Mostly because, if the perception of science is harmed, then science itself is threatened and that I am concerned about.

Many young scientist while working towards a PhD have several career choices.  The best will go on to academia- a highly competitive choice but where true 'blue sky' research is done, (at the best universities).  Largely funded by public money, this is where human knowledge progresses.

Or, some will go into industry- chemical, engineering or pharmaceutical companies.  Research there is obviously focused on commercializing science.  Some truly amazing work is done there- but in my experience this is perceived by academics as less 'pure' (i.e research is not published, it is not considered 'blue sky').  Academic scientists are normally quite snobbish about commercializing science.  We see it as less noble, but highly valuable all the same.

I do find public suspicion of science frustrating and dangerous.  Quite simply, science is an incredibly fragile pursuit.  It is the last thing a civilization invests time and resources in, and the first thing it discards as a civilization degenerates.  We spend many centuries living in Dark Ages, where superstition and fear were how we guided thought and reason, rational though did not emerge until about five hundred years ago.  If science is seen as a threat, the fear is that we could turn our back on the principles of the enlightenment and return to dark ages.  A truly horrifying prospect.  And that's not hard to imagine.  People drinking bleach for 'health' has already started.

 Bad science is the biggest threat to science.  That's why false claims are highly damaging.  The underhand practices of pharmaceutical companies, false advertising by profiteering companies claiming falsely' here comes the science bit', and universities offering 'BSc' degrees in subject that simply are not science  (like homeopathy) where students are asked to learn subjects that completely contradict what is being taught in the rest of the university.  Much of the advice on sites like this is demonstrably false and ultimately misleading.  Scientists should point this out where they see it- it is their duty to the public since public money payed to train them into a position where they can spot falsehoods and point them out.  I see a great many falsehoods here.

If I have an aim, it is to defend the purity of science and help prolong its progress.  If it is perceived badly, it will not last and we will lose all its acknowledged benefits. 

Quite rightly you point out that sources of information can be tainted by alternativel interest.  But in all honesty, do you think Lynne McTaggart and Brayn Hubbard are making no money out of this endeavour?  Quite the contrary- this is their livelihood.  So does this make them tainted and untrustworthy?  You also make a living out of giving people advice and accepting their money in return.  Does this make you corrupt?

Harradine:

I understand.  I do find that situation frustrating for several reasons.  Mostly because, if the perception of science is harmed, then science itself is threatened and that I am concerned about.

Many young scientist while working towards a PhD have several career choice.  The best will fo on to academia- a highly competitive choice but where true 'blue sky' research is done, (at the best universities).  Largely funded by public money, this is where human knowledge progresses.

Or, some will go into industry- chemical, engineering or pharmaceutical companies.  Research there is obviously focused on commercializing science.  Some truly amazing work is done there- but in my experience this is perceived by academics as less 'pure' (i.e research is not publishes, it is not considered 'blue sky').  Academic scientists are normally quite snobbish about commercializing science.  Wee see it as less noble, but highly valuable all the same.

I do find public suspicion of science frustrating and dangerous.  Quite simply, science is an incredibly fragile pursuit.  It is the last thing a civilization invest time and resources in, and the first thing it discards as a civilization degenerates.  We spend many centuries living in Dark Ages, where superstition and fear were how we guided thought and reason, rational though did not emerge until about five hundred years ago.  If science is seen as a threat, the fear is that we could turn our back on the principles of the enlightenment and return to dark ages.  A truly horrifying prospect.  And that's not hard to imagine.  People drinking bleach for 'health' has already started.

 Bad science is the biggest threat to science.  That's why false claims are highly damaging.  The underhand practices of pharmaceutical companies, false advertising by profiteering companies claiming falsely' here comes the science bit', and universities offering 'BSc' degrees in subject that simply are not science  (like homeopathy) where students as asked to learn subjects that are truly anti-science.  

If I have an aim, it is to defend the purity of science and help prolonge its progress.  If it is perceived badly, it will not last and we will lose all its acknowledged benefits. 

yes harradine I agree withyou 100% about the corruption of science and the decline of civilization. That is why sites like wddty are so important for disseminating science information that is suppressed or ignored by Big Pharma and the Academics.