Is Modern Science Polluted?

One of the big problems I see is that in the past 50 years or so researchers have figured out how to model the research to achieve the result they want to begin with.

So if they want to tell us too much milk can be fatal, they can design a test that will prove it to be true. I think this is how a lot of new drugs are done. I watch the drug commercials and I see a list of side effects that is downright scary, and usually longer than the commercial itself. Why would anyone take a drug that can cause these insane side effects? I read them from the fact sheets that came with my father’s prescriptions. With the dozen drug cocktail he took every day he was facing the chance of - headaches, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, muscle cramps, excessive bleeding, vomiting, convulsions, blindness, exhaustion, lack of sleep, ringing in the ears and I can’t remember what all else.

How did all these ever get authorized? Well, usually 2 or 3 of the people on the board that approves a drug are executives of the company that wants it approved. Then the research process is designed to show that it does what they claim it does, if it doesn’t work they change the testing process and try agian until it gets the desired results. Then the approval board is stacked with company men. Who cares if it causes insane side effects? The company has already made so many billions a $50 million fine is laughed off and they start again. Merckk kept selling Vioxx after they knew it had already killed at least 5000 people.

But the “science’ had proven it safe and effective.

I think the same thing is going on in a lot of cases. Drugs, agricultural chemicals, foods, you name it. Design the research process right and you can prove whatever you want to. No scientific curiosity needed.

Then you have the media to help them promote any idea they want. Notice how many foods you see today labeled “glucose free”? This is not because glucose is bad for you, it’s been in every loaf of bread made for 2000 years. That’s what holds bread together. But a few people are glucose intolerant. Far fewer than lactose intolerant. Food companies figured out they could sell it foe more if they label it a specialty item. So they invented a glucose problem out of whole cloth, now everywhere I look I see glucose free on tons of food items.

Not quite the same as organic foods. Why is is organic foods are grown without the extra expense of chemical fertilizers, insecticides and weed killers, but they cost twice as much? IT takes me a little work every winter, but I grow an organic garden for much lower cost than if I had to buy fertilizer, insecticides and herbicides every year. and I Have no weed or insect problems. I never upset the natural balance by spraying insect killers, the predators keep the bugs in check naturally. Mulch eliminates most of the weeds. I spend 20 minutes a week pulling weeds. Most people spend 2 hours a DAY...but if I were to grow a truck patch, I could get organic certification pretty cheap and charge twice as much, for a much lower growing cost. And my stuff, picked ripe on the plant, tastes better than anything I’ve seen in a store in 30 years.

Science is not what it is supposed to be. The so called research being done is tailored to achieve the desired results. Little actual science - question everything - is actually done.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.