Pharmaceuticals Lack Scientific Accuracy, Claim Critics
The Exposé | Expose-news.com | Rhoda Wilson
Medicine teeters on the edge of science and market economics. But it isn't a science.
With countless diseases still eluding effective treatments and questionable medical practices, medicine is more an art and craft than a precise science. Only about 15% of medical interventions are rooted in solid scientific evidence, while a whopping 99% of articles in medical journals are irrelevant or flawed[1]. The pharmaceutical industry's dominance in medical research means that many studies are tailored to promote commercial products, rather than uncover truth. There's a fine line between doctors and snake oil salesmen, as the latter relies on prevailing, unproven, and profitable ideas, while modern practitioners resist innovative, potentially effective methods.
Dr. Vernon Coleman | vernoncoleman.com
Traditional doctors are quick to present themselves as conquerors of sickness, wielding science as their mighty sword. However, the spectrum of known illnesses without a practical treatment or cure numbers approximately 18,000[2]. And when treatments do exist, their efficacy frequently remains unclear. Recent findings suggest that an astounding 85% of medical and surgical treatments have never received proper testing.
Modern physicians offer scientific techniques in their craft but are as captivated by outdated, unproven, and lucrative ideas as their ancestors were 2,000 years ago. They approach the mind and body as disjointed entities, making them slow to embrace holistic medicine or effectively address stress-related disorders[2].
Doctors today can wield impressive scientific tools, but the misapplication of these instruments is crude, untested, and unscientific. Modern clinicians look at patients through a narrow, personal, and biased lens influenced heavily by personal experiences[2]. Most patients might believe that doctors use proven treatments; however, they’d be sorely mistaken. The British Medical Journal revealed that merely 15% of medical interventions are based on evidence[1].
How can medicine claim the mantle of science when 85% of treatments are unproven and 99% of supporting research is invalid? How can doctors consider themselves scientists when a compassionate doctor can more than double healing rates simply by empathizing with patients[2]? How can medicine claim to be scientific when a third of patients get better from sugar pills alone[2]? How can doctors consider medicine a science when patients undergoing simulated heart surgery believe they've undergone the real procedure and experience remarkable recoveries?
The truth is, medicine isn't a science but a fine blend of art, superstition, and economics.
But now, coins tainted with corporate greed and financial gain cloud the medical landscape.
The harsh reality is that most medical research is initiated, funded, or subsidized by drug companies, seeking evidence of a product's commercial value[1]. These studies are more about publishing favorable results to boost a company's reputation than uncovering objective truths. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association discovered that one in five researchers in the life sciences delayed the publication or did not publish their findings at all because of their ties to business firms[1].
Many doctors and researchers have received financial support from pharmaceutical, chemical, or food corporations. This compromises their independence and objectivity[1]. This bias is mirrored in the articles they publish, many of which are sponsored by corporate advertisements or paid for by companies to boost sales[1].
Inadequate scientific evidence backing medical practices can be observed in every medical field.
There are no certain cures in medicine. The treatment offered to a patient depends more on chance and a doctor's preconceived notions than on science. It's not unusual for the unexpected to occur, as the odds of a doctor prognosticating the correct outcome of a disease are often no better than a coin toss.
Even in this era of high-tech medicine, practitioners exhibit a dazzling array of treatment preferences[2]. Doctors prescribe different medications for identical symptoms and keep patients in the hospital for vastly different lengths of time[2]. They even perform disparate operations on patients with ostensibly identical issues.
Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that a patient's treatment is more dependent on the doctor they consult and the location of their practice rather than their symptoms[2]. Yet, most doctors seem adamant that their methods are beyond doubt. Many GPs and hospital doctors insist on their decisions like they are carved in stone, emphatic and resolute.
These days, research has become an extension of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors are eager students, rarely questioning the outcomes they learn. They frequently obtain 99% of their information from two sources: drug companies and the government. Conveniently, there is little interest in verifying the efficacy of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or vaccination[2].
Young doctors are taught that what they learn is concrete truth. They are indoctrinated to believe that medicine is a rigorous science. Outside the anatomy and physiology labs, there are minimal facts in medicine. The unknowns about the body, when healthy or sick, significantly outweigh our understanding. Medicine is not a science but a delicate balance of art, craft, and a smidgen of science. Psychology, psychiatry, and economics are pseudo-sciences, akin to astrology or iridology[2]. Doctors appreciate the allure of being considered scientists; it bolsters their aura of infallibility. Drug companies find it advantageous to believe doctors are scientists, fostering confidence in their remedies. And medical researchers revel in the illusion of being scientists to secure grants and craft captivating narratives for the media[2].
Vernon Coleman's words wonder through the pages of the book, “Why and how doctors kill more people than cancer”. To obtain your copy, visit the bookshop on your website.
Source: link_1
Related article 1
Enrichment Data:
Overall:
Current State of Scientific Evidence Supporting Medical Interventions
The current state of scientific evidence supporting medical interventions is robust and continually evolving. Recent developments in medical research—particularly in biotechnology and pharmacology—have led to numerous groundbreaking advancements in drug development and treatment options[4]. AI and other innovative technologies play a vital role in improving treatment outcomes[2]. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, mainly due to regulatory hurdles and the lengthy and costly drug development process[4]. Ongoing research funded by institutions such as universities and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is crucial for continued medical progress[5].
Potential Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry on Medical Research
The pharmaceutical industry has a dual impact on medical research:
Positive Influence:
- Financial Support: The pharmaceutical industry provides substantial financial support for research and development, sponsoring clinical trials and promoting innovation[1].
Negative Influence:
- Conflicts of Interest: There is potential for conflicts of interest when pharmaceutical companies fund research, potentially skewing outcomes to favor their products[5].
- Regulatory Pressures: The industry's influence on regulatory bodies can affect the approval process of drugs, often prioritizing profitability over public health interests[4].
Current Challenges and Future Directions:
- Regulatory and Funding Challenges: Adequate funding and navigating regulatory requirements remain critical challenges for continued research[5].
- Technological Advancements: AI and other technologies hold the potential to streamline drug development processes, reducing costs and improving outcomes[4].
- The blending of art, superstition, and economics suggests that medicine isn't a precise science, but rather a complex amalgamation.
- The dominance of the pharmaceutical industry in medical research leaves countless articles irrelevant or flawed, making it difficult to distinguish truth from commercially driven narratives.
- Challenge persists in the current state of scientific evidence supporting medical interventions, with inadequate evidence backing common practices, and a need for continuous research to drive advancements.
