Georgi Stankov, June 1, 2015
Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world. I was subscribed to both journals in the 90s when I ran my private institute for clinical research DIAS (Institute for Drug Investigation, Auditing and Statistics) in Munich and discovered the Universal Law.
It is therefore most revealing that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science (and not only FIFA). The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote last month as follows:
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research red tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether…”
And this is what I wrote in Volume III on the General Theory of Biological Regulation in 1998 on the ubiquitous scientific fraud in bio-science and medicine in the “Conclusions” (page 349). Please observe that I wrote this almost two decades ago and since then not only nothing has improved, but everything has gotten much worse. With the exception of this remarkable frankness of the two editors of these peer medical journals, which already indicates the dawn of the new era of truth and full transparency in science, from where it will spread throughout the whole society. And the truth is that we have already won and the victory of new Theory of the Universal Law is a done deal:
The last two chapters have confirmed the dreadful truth that pharmaceutical and clinical research – two of the most ethical disciplines of experimental research – have infringed upon the Law and evolved in the wrong direction. As a consequence many cell-inhibiting drugs that increase mortality and morbidity in humans have been developed and registered.
High-quality clinical trials, conducted in the last several years according to appropriate statistical standards, have documented in an irrevocable manner that medical doctors, pharmacologists, and the like have contributed to a collective scientific holocaust under peaceful conditions that exceeds by far – in terms of the number of victims – recent historical holocausts, such as the extermination of Jewish and Slavonic people by the Germans during the Second World War, or by Stalinists during the Russian civil war and thereafter (Such trials were stopped since 2000, also with the help of these two journals, as to hide the dreadful truth how dangerous most registered drugs are to humans. Note George). This scientific holocaust in the name of medical ethics has been accomplished (un)consciously, on the basis of wrong paradigms, and is by no means comparable to the historical German or Stalinist sin. The result is, however, the same (At that time I was unaware of the Orion/ Reptilian plan to decimate humanity at the End Time. Note, George).
Every specialist in this field who has been educated to believe in these scientific paradigms and has ardently followed them in his job has contributed to this ubiquitous and unique crime in the history of modern civilisation. This accusation includes the author himself before he discovered the Law. There is no other option but to admit this stark and shocking fact.
This scientific holocaust is going on in front of our very eyes – statistically, every second somewhere on this planet a patient is prematurely killed by a treatment with a cell-inhibiting drug or regimen. The rate of iatrogenic killing is growing parallel to the consumption of cell-inhibiting drugs. Based on current prescription statistics, we can estimate that approximately 8 out of 10 patients are treated with cell-inhibiting drugs and are likely to die earlier than without this treatment. As almost every individual becomes seriously ill during his life, especially in advanced age, practically everybody is subjected to a cell-inhibiting treatment and faces the risk of dying earlier than physiologically predetermined.
Like nuclear contamination, all people are equal in the face of this medical peril, independently of their origin, social status, welfare, age, or sex. Therefore, urgent and radical political decisions are called for to curb this self-inflicted evil on mankind, before the present-day diminishing belief in humanity and ethics (see the bombing and exodus in Kosovo) is completely lost and new, more dreadful calamities than those of the 20th century are engendered.
The only way to atone for this collective sin and establish a novel and universally valid ethics is to begin asking questions about the causes of this global scientific agnosticism in medical and biological research. I will leave the answers to the reader and instead present the results of a unique trial entitled “Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists”, which was recently published (N Engl J Med, 1998, 338: 101-6.). As far as I am informed, this is the first trial of its kind. I shall leave the authors to speak for themselves:
“Physicians’ financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry are controversial because such relationships may pose a conflict of interest. It is unknown to what extent industry support of medical education and research influences the opinions and behaviour of clinicians and researchers. The recent debate over the safety of calcium-channel antagonists provided an opportunity to examine the effects of financial conflicts of interest. We searched the English-language medical literature published from March 1995 through September 1996 for articles examining the controversy about the safety of calcium-channel antagonists. Articles were reviewed and classified as being supportive, neutral, or critical with respect to the use of calcium-channel antagonists. The authors of the articles were asked about their financial relationships with both manufacturers of calcium-channel antagonists and manufacturers of competing products (i.e., beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and nitrates). We examined the authors’ published positions on the safety of calcium-channel antagonists according to their financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Authors who supported the use of calcium-channel antagonists were significantly more likely than neutral or critical authors to have financial relationships with manufacturers of calcium-channel antagonists (96%, vs. 60%, and 37% respectively; po<o0.001). Supportive authors were also more likely than neutral or critical authors to have financial relationships with any pharmaceutical manufacturer, irrespectively of the product (100%, vs. 67% and 43%, respectively; po<o0.001). Our results demonstrate a strong association between authors’ published positions on the safety of calcium-channel antagonists and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The medical profession needs to develop a more effective policy on conflict of interest. We support the complete disclosure of relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers for clinicians and researchers who write articles examining pharmaceutical products. (read also note below)”
In my opinion, it is a basic mistake to discriminate between “seducers” and “seduced”. This trend results from misguided religious education. Everybody can be at once a seducer and seduced (U-sets). The only panacea for the present pathological state of ethics in scientific research is not to look for who is the seducer and who is the seduced, as is usually done in jurisdiction, because in the present-day “paradise of scientific ignorance” sin does not make any sense. Instead of wasting time in searching for the culpable, we should resort to the quick and full mental acceptance and strict implementation of the new Unified Theory of Natural Science based on the Universal Law. But this Tantalus act may appear to be an insurmountable challenge to many a scientist, as my experience tells me.
Note: The outstanding characteristics of this remarkable trial is that it cogently demonstrates that human ethical behaviour can be mathematically quantified in an objective manner. This proves the basic conclusion of the new theory that space-time, including society, abides by the Law and can be mathematized. This is the basis of a Unified Theory of Natural Sciences as founded in the present tetralogy (see also vol. IV on philosophy and ethics). This theory will pave the way to a new, better world based on universally valid ethical principles – those of the Law.