{"id":485,"date":"2025-03-20T11:18:31","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T11:18:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/?p=485"},"modified":"2025-03-20T11:18:31","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T11:18:31","slug":"scientists-constantly-peddle-lies-to-get-study-grants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/scientists-constantly-peddle-lies-to-get-study-grants\/","title":{"rendered":"“SCIENTISTS” CONSTANTLY PEDDLE LIES TO GET STUDY GRANTS!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not Just Fauci: The Scientific Establishment Peddles Lies Continually<\/h1>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/header>\n
\n
\"Not
Bet_Noire\/iStock\/Getty Images Plus<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

It was just revealed that the Biden administration intentionally buried an \u201cinconvenient\u201d study in order to justify an energy crackdown. Of course, we\u2019re seldom shocked to hear that politics is, well, political.<\/p>\n

But what about when study authors themselves bury, or otherwise obscure, inconvenient data? This not only happens, says a Ph.D. scientist with more than 20 years experience, but is actually common in research. In fact, the picture painted by Dr. Lorene Leiter reveals, the mainstream science establishment is much like our mainstream media establishment: a realm where lies may reign supreme.<\/p>\n

Explaining her background, Leiter states that she \u201cearned a Ph.D. from Rutgers University and worked at the Brigham and Women\u2019s Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.\u201d She began her scientific career as a starry-eyed young idealist, too. Her romantic vision was one of toiling in a basement with Marie Curie-like figures pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. And Leiter did make a major discovery:<\/p>\n

She learned that today, the \u201cpublish or perish\u201d priority trumps all.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo paper, no money for your lab. Period,\u201d Leiter writes<\/a> at American Thinker Wednesday. \u201cAnd the mother lode for money is the NIH.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, that would be the National Institutes of Health \u2014 the entity the now notorious<\/a> Dr. Anthony Fauci<\/a> was part of.<\/p>\n

Get the Cat \u2014 An Infernal Lab Mouse Is Refusing to Cooperate Again<\/h2>\n

Leiter states that our current system ensures scientific fraud. In fact, the incidents of cheating she observed are legion, she says. Know that she\u2019s far from the first to make this observation, too, as I reported in 2014<\/a>. (More on this later.)<\/p>\n

A common cheating method, Leiter relates, is to, \u00e0 la Joseph Stalin, \u201cairbrush\u201d \u201cuncooperative\u201d lab mice from an experiment. That is, let\u2019s say that upon conducting research you find that your hypothesis isn\u2019t borne out. But then you realize you can use the Chinese menu method of result \u201calteration.\u201d Just dispense with \u201cthe data from two mice in Group A and one in Group B,\u201d writes Leiter, and voila!<\/em> Hypothesis alignment is achieved \u2014 and publication is possible.<\/p>\n

As for possibly disclosing the negative results revealing your hypothesis\u2019 invalidity, that\u2019s a nonstarter, states Leiter. First, you won\u2019t be published. Moreover, it\u2019ll be disastrous for the other scientists expending resources studying the same<\/em> hypothesis. (Probably a good way to earn persona non grata<\/em> status among your colleagues.)<\/p>\n

Staggering Deceit<\/h2>\n

Leiter also provides some examples of the scientific fraud. She writes that, for instance,there\u2019s the interaction that wasn\u2019t \u2014 published in a prestigious journal. The \u201cdiscovery?\u201d Molecules A and B bound together! It was a big discovery in cancer research. What the journal didn\u2019t know was A and B never bound directly. Instead, they both bound to Molecule C, giving the appearance that A and B bound directly. This was easily proven by dissolving C. The kicker? The researcher did this experiment before submitting the paper, but mum\u2019s the word to the journal. And wouldn\u2019t you know \u2014 that paper resulted in a big grant from the NIH.<\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s the \u201csmart\u201d gene. A gene in mouse brains was altered to see if it affected intelligence. Success! It made them smarter! The study got so much attention that David Letterman included it in his act. But then\u2026<\/p>\n

Oops. No one could reproduce the results, and a close look at the raw data by a clever new researcher revealed the truth \u2014 the famous paper was bogus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Warnings Abound<\/h2>\n

As mentioned earlier, Leiter isn\u2019t alone in blowing this whistle. As I related in 2014<\/a> in \u201cBlinding Me With Science: Fraud and Folly for Fame and Funding\u201d:<\/p>\n

BMJ.com (formerly the British Medical Journal<\/em>) has done much good reporting on this topic. [Its] Bob Roehr wrote in 2012:<\/p>\n

Retraction of biomedical and life science research papers for fraud or misconduct is more widespread than previously thought and is roughly 10-fold more common today than in 1975, shows a new study\u2026.<\/p>\n

The study looked at all 2047 retractions listed in the PubMed index as at [sic] 3 May 2012. It tallied the reasons stated by the journal in making its retraction and also examined reports filed with the US government\u2019s Office of Research Integrity and other sources. That resulted in reclassification of 118 of 742 retractions (16%) given in an earlier study of retraction from error to fraud.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Also in 2012, BMJ\u2019s Aniket Tavare reported, \u201cOne in seven UK based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication, found a survey of more than 2700 researchers conducted by the BMJ.\u201d In the same vein, BMJ\u2019s Tony Sheldon wrote just three months later, \u201cA Dutch survey claims that one in seven doctors have seen scientific research results that have been invented. In addition, nearly a quarter have seen data that have been massaged to achieve significant results.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not-so-mighty Mouse<\/h2>\n

What\u2019s more, the problems with today\u2019s research are baked in, asserts Leiter. For example, consider that the most commonly used mice in research now are the \u201cC57BL\/6\u201d variety. These are purposely inbred rodents (brother\/sister pairings) designed to have no genetic variability. One result of this is \u201cfixed\u201d recessive genes and \u201cfixed\u201d mutations \u2014 some of which are dangerous. As Leiter writes:<\/p>\n

Interestingly, C57BL\/6 mice don\u2019t hear well; they prefer alcohol to water; and they are more prone to obesity. What else is wrong that has yet to be discovered? The defect may not be overt, but is it affecting your experiment without you even knowing it?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Leiter makes more points related to using these dysgenic creatures:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • \u201cOutbred\u201d mice would mirror humans more in exhibiting great genetic diversity, but aren\u2019t usually used. For this variability would necessitate much larger sample sizes and far greater monetary expense.<\/li>\n
  • Lab rodents never see sunlight and have one dimensional diets. How does this affect their immune systems?<\/li>\n
  • Lab mice usually have no toys and languish in small cages; meaning, there\u2019s little exercise or stimulation. Does this create a mental state (depression?) conducive to health?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    She then illustrates the problem with an example:<\/p>\n

    Suppose you discover that a certain diet made a mouse sicker. Was it the diet itself, or did the diet push the mouse over the edge because it wasn\u2019t healthy to begin with? Or what if another diet made the mice healthier? Were they so sick (albeit not to the naked eye) that just about anything would improve their health?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Solutions<\/h2>\n

    Finally, Leiter presents some possible ways to remedy the scientific corruption. She states:<\/p>\n

    For starters, minimize cheating by perhaps setting up a lab with the purpose of randomly reproducing studies submitted for publication. You never know if yours will be picked, so you better not cheat. If you\u2019re caught, you\u2019ll lose your NIH funding.<\/p>\n

    Second, abolish the \u201cpublish or perish\u201d scam that encourages cheating and bad science. A good start is being able to publish negative data.<\/p>\n

    Third \u2014 how about a think tank? We don\u2019t have to fill it with Ph.Ds \u2014 just great minds\u2026. Imagine ideas that could emerge among people from all different backgrounds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Really, this corruption and waste sound like problems Elon Musk and DOGE should perhaps tackle. After all, just imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted funding fraudulent research. And is any of this surprising? It is, in fact, precisely what we might expect when we combine science and state.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Not Just Fauci: The Scientific Establishment Peddles Lies Continually Bet_Noire\/iStock\/Getty Images Plus It was just revealed that the Biden administration intentionally buried an \u201cinconvenient\u201d study in order to justify an energy crackdown. Of course, we\u2019re seldom shocked to hear that politics is, well, political. But what about when study authors themselves bury, or otherwise obscure, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scientific-lies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=485"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":486,"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485\/revisions\/486"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}