New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Mark Hyman, MD authors this article: Science for Sale:
Protect Yourself from Medical Research Deception

Huffington Post | A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found over 40 percent of the best designed, peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the world’s top medical journals misrepresented the actual findings of the research.(i) The “spin doctors” writing the papers found a way to show treatments worked, when in fact, they didn’t.

Science for Sale | Doctors and health care consumers rely on published scientific studies to guide their decisions about which treatments work and which don’t. We expect academic medical researchers to determine what needs to be studied, and to objectively report their data. We rely on government regulators to prevent harmful medications from being approved, or to quickly remove harmful medications or treatments from the market.

What most physicians and consumers don’t recognize is that science is now for sale; published data often misrepresents the truth, academic medical research has become corrupted by pharmaceutical money and special interests, and government regulators more often protect industry than the public. Increasingly, academic medical researchers are for hire, and research, once a pure activity of inquiry, is now a tool for promoting products.

Science has always been considered an objective endeavor that removes bias and is inherently true and reliable. While we may acknowledge that some science is inferior in design or execution, and that there are a few corrupt scientists, we mostly believe what is published in the world’s top medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine can be counted on to guide our medical decisions. We still have trust in the scientific method. That trust may be misguided.

The Danger of “Evidence-Based” Medicine
Evidence-based medicine is considered the highest standard of care and is advocated as the basis for all decision making in medical schools and academic centers. The idea is that we must make decisions based on sound medical evidence. That sounds good in theory, but it only works if that evidence can be trusted; if the evidence at hand has been generated independently, without bias and with the sole desire to find the best treatments–pharmaceutical or otherwise. This model fails to work if the underlying motive is profit.

Publication Study | In a recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association French scientists reviewed over 600 studies published in the top medical journals during an entire year, and analyzed in detail 72 of those they considered to be of the highest quality. In their analysis they only included studies with the most respected and reliable design–the randomized controlled trial. The authors of this report did not just read the abstracts and conclusions of the studies they reviewed, but independently analyzed the raw data. Their findings call into question the reliability of the very scientific papers that doctors use to make decisions regarding treatment and that the press counts on to communicate the latest medical findings.

Conclusions | They found that 40 percent of the articles misrepresented the data in the abstract or in the main text of the study. Furthermore they uncovered that in cases where studies had negative outcomes–in other words, the treatment studied DID NOT work–the scientists authoring the studies created a “spin” on the data that showed the treatments DID work.

Here is their conclusion:
  • “In this representative sample of RCT’s (randomized controlled trials) published in 2006 with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.”
In plain language, 40 percent of the studies we count on to make medical decisions are authored by scientists who act as “spin doctors” distorting medical research to suit personal needs or corporate economic interests. “Spin” can be defined as specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers. If the conclusions in 40 percent of the papers published in medical journals are being spun toward independent interests, how can we consider the medicine we are practicing “evidence based?”

Consider the example of the recent large and widely quoted JUPITER trial “proving” that Crestor (a statin or cholesterol-lowering drug) could prevent heart attacks in people with normal or low cholesterol. In this trial researchers twisted the data to suit the commercial sponsor of the study. An independent review of the JUPITER trial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that it was deeply flawed and the actual data did NOT show any benefit for the prevention of heart disease. (iii) If this were an isolated incident, we could overlook it. Unfortunately, it’s a consistent pattern.

Medicine and Science for Sale
Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine recently wrote a scathing analysis of the infiltration of Big Pharma into medical research, education and drug policy. Aside from the $30 billion a year spent on marketing pharmaceuticals to physicians (known as “continuing medical education”), Big Pharma has turned many academic researchers into hired hands.

Groomed to Sell | Thought leaders from academic medical centers are provided grants to do research “contracted for” by Pharma, and the research is often designed, executed and ghostwritten by the funders. The conflict of interest statements of authors on research articles now often runs several pages long. These authors not only receive grants but sit on corporate advisory boards, receive large speaking fees and enter into patent and royalty agreements with Pharma.

Special Interests | Experts like these are also relied upon to create practice guidelines. These guidelines help physicians determine what medications to use and how to keep up with “best practices.” Yet the panels that develop these guidelines are full of scientists and physicians with financial ties to the industry or to the drugs being evaluated. For example, in a survey of 200 expert panels, one-third of the panelists had a financial interest in the drugs they evaluated.

What About Statin Drugs? | Another example: In 2004, the National Institute of Health’s National Cholesterol Education Program, dramatically lowered the ideal “bad” or LDL cholesterol level. This led to guidelines that expanded the number of Americans who “should” take statin drugs from 13 million to 36 million. There was only one problem. Eight of the nine panel members who established these new guidelines had industry ties. An independent group of over 30 scientists in a letter to the National Institutes of Health publicly opposed these recommendations.

Financial Ties | Even more recently, 95 of the 170 psychiatrists and contributors to the new manual for psychiatric illnesses (DSM-V) were found to have financial ties to companies that make psychiatric drugs. Studies have also shown that practice guidelines from independent groups such as the American College of Cardiology are based on inadequate or questionable science. It would appear that our evidence-based medicine isn’t based on very much evidence.

A Threat to Big Pharma: Comparative Effectiveness Research
A new model of research may help us sort out this messy collusion between science, government and Big Pharma. Comparative effectiveness research takes existing treatments and compares them to determine which are the most effective. Unfortunately, fear mongering and lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry for “rationed care” convinced the Senate to leave a critical provision for funding comparative effectiveness research on the cutting room floor. Apparently, independent comparisons of medical therapies, including a comparison of new expensive drugs to older, proven, cheaper drugs, was considered bad for business.

Older Drugs More Effective | This is all the more tragic given recent findings using this model of research. A large independent comparative effectiveness study conducted in July 2010 found older high blood pressure drugs such as water pills or diuretics to be more effective in reducing heart attacks and strokes at dramatically lower cost than “new and improved” blood pressure medication.

Business Practices is Our Medicine | Comparing pharmaceutical treatments to lifestyle or integrated approaches to health is even more dangerous, lest we find that lifestyle treatment for heart disease and diabetes which cost our health care system $750 billion a year works better and costs less than drugs and surgery and has good side effects such as improved quality of life. Unfortunately, in our health care system, business trumps science every time.

Tobacco Industry Tried To Prove No Link To Cancer | Such confusion is not accidental but intentional. The more confusion about medication, the more Big Pharma sells. Propagating doubt is big business. These are the same kinds of techniques Big Tobacco used to great profit, claiming that scientific links between smoking and cancer were “not proven.”

Legal Action Forces Pharma To Tell All | Take the recent Avandia debacle. For 10 years Glaxo Smith Kline, based on their internal research, knew their blockbuster diabetes drug increased the risk of heart disease. But they hid the data. Even though it was legally required, they did not submit the data to the FDA or post it on their website. After legal action forced them to publish the
data on a public website, independent scientists analyzed the data, showed it to be harmful and reported their findings. Despite this the drug became the biggest selling diabetes drug with sales of over $3 billion a year through corporate lobbying at the FDA, medical deception and intense pharmaceutical marketing.

Some Call It Mass Murder | From 1999 to 2009, it is estimated there were over 47,000 unnecessary deaths from Avandia. 600,000 American still take it today. Glaxo Smith Kline was fined a few billion dollars for their deception–a fraction of their profit from the drug–and a small penalty to pay for the mass murder of almost 50,000 people. The Europeans have removed it from the market, but the FDA avoided clear action until this month. However, rather than take the drug off the market, which would have been the responsible thing to do, it is still allowed for limited indications and patients still on it may continue using it (if they haven’t had a heart attack yet and know the risks). Would you want to take it? Would you want your mother or father to take it? Hiding evidence is only one tactic Pharma uses to illegally promote and profit from medication.

Illegal Marketing Practices & Criminal Acts | Another is illegal marketing practices. Yet another Big Pharma company, Novartis, was fined $422.5 million this week for criminal activities. They were illegally marketing their drugs to doctors. Drugs can only be marketed for the conditions for which they were approved. If a medication, such as Trileptal (one of six illegally marketed Novaritis drugs) is approved for seizures, it cannot be marketed for chronic pain. This is exactly what Novaritis and
others do. This is not an oversight, a mistake or unintentional criminal activity on the part of drug companies, but a deliberate and focused strategy that feeds profits. Perhaps, they think of these criminal “fines” as part of their marketing budget. Novaritis earned nearly $10 billion per year for the drugs it marketed illegally. The $422.5 million fine is a small “marketing expense,” a slap on the wrist. They should be fined the entire amount they earned from the illegal marketing of those drugs. Or better yet, the company executives that approve these policies should serve jail time. If an individual knowingly harms or kills another human being, they are convicted and serve time. Pharma
just pays a “fee” that is insignificant in the face of their total profits.

Here Are The Numbers | Novartis is not alone. They are in good company. Here’s how much the top Big Pharma companies were fined for the exact same illegal practices for which most pleaded guilty.
  • Pfizer:2.3 billion
  • Eli Lilly:1.4 billion
  • Allergan:600 million
  • AstraZeneca:520 million
  • Bristol Myers Squibb: 515 million
  • Forest Laboratories:313 million
Getting the Science Wrong: Misleading Media Reports
To get beyond this kind of industry deception, doctors and health care consumers need to be wary and read between the lines. In an era of sound bites and sensationalism, we do not receive intelligent and critical analysis, and most importantly a coherent synthesis of scientific research. The data in any one study is part of a scientific story of how the world works, and medical research is the story of biology. Each study must be evaluated in the context of what we know, existing data, and
what makes sense from a biological perspective. We won’t always be right, but we can stop the ping-pong game of what’s good and what’s bad for you that facilitates the newest, not necessarily the best, treatment, and provides fodder for journalistic sensationalism that fuels the 24/7 news cycle.

Journal Abstracts Don't Tell The Full Story | Often headlines are taken from the abstracts or summaries of research articles. Studies show that half the time, the abstracts don’t accurately represent the findings of the research. Even when the summary is correct, studies show that the media incorrectly reports the research findings or doesn’t place them in the historical context of other key research on the subject. No wonder patients and doctors are confused.

Too Close For Comfort | Business interests and the incestuous relationship between scientists and industry have corrupted the landscape of medical research. The media doesn’t do a good job of investigative journalism. But there are things you can to do change protect yourself.

How to Protect Yourself From the Spin Doctors
1. Follow the money: Be a detective and look up the articles mentioned in the news. Find the study, see who wrote it, and determine what financial conflicts of interest they have. Also check who
funded the research.

2. Do your homework: Be suspicious of media reports of scientific findings. Does the finding make sense in the context of other studies and is it the best possible approach. Educate yourself by
learning to use PUBMED (the National Library of Medicine) and reviewing different perspectives.

3. Does it pass the “sniff test”: Is the treatment suggested just a “me too” drug that has not been proven to be any better than existing treatments? Does it make sense to you or does something
smell rotten? Trust your intuition.

4. Advocate for an arm’s length relationship between industry and academia. Write your Senators and Congressmen to develop new regulations and legislation that will build a fire-wall to protect
us. Grants are fine, but Pharma should have no participation in study
design and should not be allowed to interpret or publish results.

5. Demand a no revolving door policy between industry and government regulators. Former drug company executives should not be on FDA committees or involved in regulation or

6. Advocate for comparative effectiveness research. Preventing this research allows Pharma not to play fair.

7. Campaign for finance reform: If done effectively, can limit the influence of industry on government.

Be A Discerning Reader of the News | Don’t let yourself be confused by poor reporting in the media. Learn to see through the collusion between Big Pharma and medicine by staying ahead of the medical spin doctors using these steps. For more information on the extant comparative effectiveness research between lifestyle medicine and pharmaceuticals see my recent blog posts on
To your good health,
Mark Hyman, MD

(i) Boutron, I., Dutton, S., Ravaud, P., and D.G. Altman. 2010.
Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with
statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA.
303(20): 2058-64.
(ii) Mora, S., Glynn, R.J., Hsia, J., et al. 2010. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in women with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or dyslipidemia: results from the
Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention
Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) and meta-analysis of women from
primary prevention trials. Circulation. (9):1069-77.
(iii) de Lorgeril, M., Salen, P., Abramson, J., et al. 2010. Cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular diseases, and the rosuvastatin-JUPITER controversy: a critical reappraisal. Arch Intern
Med. 170(12):1032-6. Review.
(v) Abramson, J., and J.M. Wright. 2007. Are lipid-lowering guidelines evidence-based? Lancet. 369(9557):168-9.
(vi) Tricoci, P., Allen, J.M., Kramer, J.M, et al. 2009. Scientific evidence underlying theACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA. 301(8):831-841.
(vii) Einhorn, P.T., Davis, B.R., Wright, J.T. Jr., et al. 2010. ALLHAT Cooperative Research Group. ALLHAT: still providing correct answers after 7 years. Curr Opin Cardiol. 25(4):355-65.
(viii) Woodcock, J., Sharfstein, J.M., and M. Hamburg, 2010. Regulatory action on Rosiglitazone by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. N Engl J Med. 10.1056/NEJMp1010788
(ix) Dentzer S. 2009. Communicating medical news–pitfalls of health care journalism. N Engl J Med. 360(1):1-3.

Mark Hyman, M.D. is a practicing physician, founder of The UltraWellness Center, a four-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in the field of Functional Medicine. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on YouTube, become a fan onFacebook, and subscribe to his newsletter

Views: 481


You need to be a member of Homeopathy World Community to add comments!

Join Homeopathy World Community

Comment by Dr. MAS on December 20, 2010 at 10:17pm

Again you are commenting on info given but again you have completely oversighted the practical demonstration which these machines are doing. First let me confirm, have you ever see, ktronic machine's  working with your own naked eye and closely observe the method? then we can further discuss

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on December 20, 2010 at 4:46am

First things first.

Quote from the article.


The C200- Remedies

Still in the days of Hahnemann Clemens Franz Maria von Boenninghausen (1785-1864) potentized remedies up to C200. In 1859 he wrote, "Just like allopathy, which used experience – because experience is the one and only means of deciding i.e. knowing to which degree the dose can be increased safely, homoeopathy also relied on experience to find out up to which amount the dose could be reduced to still have a healing effect.”

Boenninghausen also motivated Lehrmann, another of Hahnemann’s students, to manufacture C200 potencies following Hahnemann’s method. At each step Lehmann shook the vial vigorously 25 times. (4)

After all, the reason for using higher and higher potencies was the desire to reduce the initial aggravation of symptoms, which occurs in the course of any homoeopathic treatment. Before long it was realized that this goal could not be reached but that a new effect occurred with these remedies:

The period of action was extended considerably and the remedy then developed effects which had been hidden in the range of lower potencies. (5)"

This shows that the remedies are way beyond Avogadro.


"There is no evidence, however, in reports of the year 1829 based on personal contacts with Korsakoff that Hahnemann criticized this method."

So Hahnemann accepted this. Thus everything you said about it not being Hahnemann's method is show here to be specious sophistry.


"This pioneering work also showed the homoeopaths of that time that it was not only possible to prepare higher potencies than Hahnemann’s C30 remedies but also increase their efficacy by doing so."

beyond 12C there are no molecules and you claim they cannot have effect. "increase their efficacy by doing so." That shows you you were stating an opinion, which is untrue in the light of the article quoted.


The article talks about potentising machines. That is a succussion machine. Potentisation is succussion, as Hahnemann asserts. The dilution part is mere dilution. Succussion confers the power.


"The increasing success of his remedies was proof of his theory that by potentizing a C30 the spirit of the remedy becomes an integral part of the carrier to such an extent that it cannot be destroyed by external influences."

This shows that my proposition of remedies being spiritual entities is confirmed. So your critique also falls flat for that blog.


"Using a spectrometer, they found out that the dilution level of Skinner remedies amounted to only a fifth of the dilution levels of remedies prepared using the Hahnemanian multi-flask method, a C30 thus approximately corresponded to a C6."

That is what you refer to, but that is about fluxion potencies. Modern labs do not make fluxion potencies, so your argument is again 'specious sophistry. It is not even Korsakoffian.


As to Korsakoff:

"The arithmetical mean shows the residue which on average remains in the individual vials after they have been emptied. As expected, it is increasing with the increasing inner surface of the vial. It is worth mentioning the fact that the calculated average residues are in all cases considerably higher than the residues required for centesimal potentizing (0.07ml / 0.15ml / 0.20ml). The adaptation of these mean values to the required mean value increases significantly with the increasing size of the vials."

The "residue" here is not the original material of the tincture but the few drops that remain after each emptying of the vial. It is water with a 30C potency for instance.That is proper scientific understanding.


"thus it could be demonstrated that when using 20ml vials the residues deviated from the mean value only by ±8,59% on average."

meaning that there was 8.6% more water with dissolved remedy in Korsakoff's method than Hahmenann's. This deviation is also visible in NMR detection. The sinus curves of Korsakoff's are a little less steep than of Hahnemann's remedies. That is all it means.



The initial potency for this machine is a C200, made by hand from a C3-trituration using the multi-vial method. The remedies are exclusively prepared for use after prescription by a homoeopath and are specified as follows:

Sulphur 10MK Rem

A centesimal step takes 24 seconds, that is 1M in 6.66h, 10M in not quite 3 days and one MM in 10 months."

I suggest you read that about ten times, so you understand that the remedies do not just get some extra succussions and are then sold as high potencies.


"At the moment the only machine of this kind is being tested in the Tuxer Alps near Navis/Tyrol at an altitude of 1660m."

So where is the assertion that all pharmacies use the machine? Where is your proof? It does not exist.

Comment by Dr. MAS on December 20, 2010 at 3:53am

I am not talking about your experience. I am providing you info that

This is K-tronic machine made by labotics and used by all major pharmacies


ktronic machine


It does not prepare medicines according to HAHNEMANN method. It directly prepare medicine from 6c to 30c and hence it remains under avogadros limit

Many pharmacies prepare medicines by using different techniques. Sometime, as a result, the potency that is airthematically 30c is actually 6c.

Read this para


Hahnemanian multi-flask method, a C30 thus approximately correspond...


Please click on this link and read in detail first before commenting further.

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on December 18, 2010 at 1:14am

I have in another thread given you the organisation HOMINT, with which many world-class phamrmacies are affiliated. They have a standard of making remedies according to 6th edition of the Organon.

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on December 18, 2010 at 1:13am

I have named the pharmacies. I am never deceived. I have seen the remedies being made. I am not stupid.

Comment by Dr. MAS on December 18, 2010 at 1:06am

Sir, You have been decieved. Name the pharmacy.

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on December 15, 2010 at 4:44am

I both made them when non-existent in the market and purchased them from pharmacies where I have seen the people make the remedies from the ground up.

Comment by Dr. MAS on December 15, 2010 at 3:43am

Did you purchase these potencies from the market or you prepared them at home?

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on November 27, 2010 at 5:20am
Dr Mas you are beginning to be come a tedious little child. I have given you sufficient proof, and you still demand more, like a petulant child. If you always disregard proof and come again and again with the same questions I can no longer take you serious. Therefore, from now on, I shall remove your posts from my blogs.

It is absolutely useless to educate you, because you refuse to be educated. Therefore, you are wasting my precious time, which I rather use to cure people successfully as I have done for 30 years already, with potencies beyond Avogadro, such as the 1M, 10M, 50m, and CM.
Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on November 27, 2010 at 5:14am
"Both Arsenic CM and Pulsatilla CM are chemically the same. Both Dilutions have no arsenic and pulsatilla. It has been proved by your honour that these dilutions do not contain anything except Alcohol. The question is how a simple alcohol can produce two different sets of (Puls and Ars) symptoms?"

They are not chemically identical. They are both supramolecularly different and this can be shown by NMR and RLS. Especially RLS will show the spectrum of Arsenic and Pulsatilla and not water or alcohol.

Therefore, since they ARE DIFFERENT - contrary to my supposed proof, which I never gave - they will produce different sets of symptoms.

Now I DEMAND that you prove your assertion that I proved that they do not contain anything. You make all kinds of assertions about what I have said and proved, without providing any evidence. I now DEMAND you provide that evidence.

HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...