Conflicts of Interest in Science
Lancet on commercial influence in research (Weeks)....


20 May 2001

Hi everybody:

HA!!!  Do I like this (below - from Dr. Weeks)....!!!  I put it in that very special category of "things I wish I had said!"

It reflects precisely the OVER HYPED (by the science community) and UNDER PROVED (by the science community) so-called "peer review" mechanism by which (the science community) holds itself APART from ANY system of "checks or balances" whatsoever ... by either the government or the public ... IN MATTERS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

As a consequence ... government sits and waits (before implementing public health "defensive" measures) until "scientific consensus" that is worth no more than the 20 percent accuracy attributed below ... tells the government it is FINALLY time to act.....!!!

THAT is the story of lead, tobacco, arsenic, mercury, EMF, you name it!!!

Guru says --
The brutal truth is ... in matters of public health ... the public must LEARN that NOT EVEN SCIENCE CAN BE TRUSTED to be free of conflict of interest or other corrupting influences.....  THE PUBLIC MUST LEARN TO ACT ON ITS OWN TO PROTECT ITSELF.....  AND ... that need is greater today (and will grow greater in the future) as society's capacity for technological and chemical/biological invention speeds up ... and as the mechanisms of our governmental (and communications - the "press") machinery are the more easily manipulated (CONTROLLED!!) through an oligarchic process that is being controlled by the institutions (corporations, wealthy individuals) with the $$$$$$$ that are driving the system........


Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Lancet on commercial influence in research
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:18:49 -0700
From: "Bradford S. Weeks, MD" <>
To: <>

Hi Roy,

Great web site. I appreciate your coordinating this knowledge.

Perhaps your readers would like to know the 80% rule in peer-reviewed scientific literature. That is,  "Within 5 years, 80% of all publications in peer-reviewed scientific literature  are found to meet one of the follow three criteria: fraudulent (motivated by things other than science), erroneous (over their head) or irrelevant (never again referenced)."  This alert does not address the biases involved in which articles are accepted for publication nor does it address the lack of experts who are unbiased as so many of them are being paid for services rendered.

We need to take all scientific literature with a few bushels of salt. After all, we are all the experts - if we care to step up to whatever plate we are feeling passionate about do our empowered research and ask the important question.

Bradford S. Weeks, M.D.
PO Box 740
Clinton WA 98236
Tel  360/341-2303
Fax 360/341-2313
"The wise know that a change in travel plans is an opportunity to take a dancing lesson from God. So, if life is a journey, why is not illness a chance to get on God's dance card?"

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Beavers []
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 7:51 AM
To: guru
Subject: Lancet on commercial influence in research (Reuss)(Preece).

.......Response from EMF-L......

It is very nice to hear from Alan.....  His remarks below deserve to be seriously considered.......  No doubt he is correct in his basic

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Lancet on commercial influence in research (Reuss). <fwd>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:05:43 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
From: Alan Preece <>
To: Roy Beavers <>

Dear Roy
I could never defend the right of a drug company to suppress research, but I can see their need to avoid poorly designed or inadequate research about their product appearing in the public domain without adequate peer review.

There is an incorrect assumption that any "scientific" publication is properly reviewed but we all know of instances of research being accepted in "the lesser known" journals when it was turned down by the mainstream.  One of our concerns on the Local Research Ethics Committee was that poorly designed research that might come to the wrong conclusions should NOT be allowed to proceed - but how little research ever gets reviewed by Ethics? Unfortunately once published, picked up by the media, duff research becomes gospel and is rarely if ever retracted.

Thus I can see their point - certainly articles have appeared in the most respectable journals that would not have passed the more technical ones, suggesting the reviewers may have been out of their depth.

However please keep up the good work passing on all those useful snippits!

Warm best wishes
Alan W. Preece
Bristol Oncology Centre
(44) 117 928 2469 (2470 -FAX)

Back to Top