Restoring Trust in Medical Research

“There is a Lot of Science + Much of It May Not Be Reliable
Reading” a Clinical Trial Won’t Get You There
(Posted on April 27, 2015 by Sheri & Mike, Authors of Basics for Evaluating Medical Research Studies)
http://delfini.org/blog/?p=723
' There is a Lot of Science + Much of It May Not Be Reliable
Each week more than 13,000 references are added to the world’s largest library—the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Unfortunately, many of these studies are seriously flawed. One large review of 60,352 studies reported that only 7 percent passed criteria of high quality methods and clinical relevancy [McKibbon]. We and others have estimated that up to (and maybe more than) 90% of the published medical information that health care professionals rely on is flawed [Freedman, Glasziou].”
“ We cannot know if an intervention is likely to be effective and safe without critically appraising the evidence for validity and clinical usefulness.”

Dr Stefan Lanka:
"The definition of what can be called a scientific statement and the resulting obligations are clearly defined. Summarised:
A. Every scientific statement must be verifiable, comprehensible and refutable.
B. Only if the refutation of a scientific statement by laws of thought, logic and, if applicable, by control experiments has not succeeded, a statement may be called scientific.
C. Every scientist is obliged to check and question his statements himself."
Dr Stefan Lanka has put forward 7 argument , each on its own is sufficient to refute the existence claims of all 'pathogenic viruses .'
(https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-virologis...)

In view of the above it is time to rethink science , is it progressing or regressing ie ‘following science’ .

Science usually changes in 2 way .
1. Changes in basic concepts and ideas which happens rarely as generations have been indoctrinated into a certain way of thinking
2. Changes within the acceptable idea and dogma which is based on the assumption that the initial idea , research was correct without questioning the basic concept .
( “ it follows that there are two different types of change: one that occurs within a given system which itself remains unchanged, and one whose occurrence changes the system itself.”
― Paul Watzlawick, Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution”)

“Science Makes Progress Funeral by Funeral”
‘ As the great Max Planck, himself the originator of the quantum theory in physics, has said, science makes progress funeral by funeral: the old are never converted by the new doctrines, they simply are replaced by a new generation.’
(https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/25/progress/)

The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption- David L Sackett, BMJ 2000, May 6
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118019/#!po=10.0000)
“ There are still far more experts around than is healthy”
“It then dawned on me that experts like me commit two sins that retard the advance of science and harm the young. Firstly, adding our prestige to our opinions gives the latter far greater persuasive power than they deserve on scientific grounds alone. Whether through deference, fear, or respect, others tend not to challenge them, and progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert. The second sin of expertness is committed on grant applications and manuscripts that challenge the current expert consensus.

Reviewers face the unavoidable temptation to accept or reject new evidence and ideas, not on the basis of their scientific merit, but on the extent to which they agree or disagree with the public positions taken by experts on these matters. Sometimes this rejection of “unpopular” ideas is overt (and sometimes it is accompanied by comments that devalue the investigators as well as their ideas, but this latter sin is by no means unique to experts). At other times, the expert bias against new ideas is unconscious. The result is the same: new ideas and new investigators are thwarted by experts, and progress toward the truth is slowed.”

“According to Popper, scientific theory should make predictions which can be tested, and the theory rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct..”
(Karl Popper- Theory of Falsification
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Karl-Popper.html)

In conclusion, why does medical science still operate within scientifically disproven and refuted medical theories and concepts ?
Using a basic scientific principle ie. following logic : .If you come up with theory A and disprove it and you use theory A to produce scientific research B,C, D etc all you produce is false or frauduleent science .

A major paradigm shift is needed to redirect medical scientism back to golden standards of scientific research.