A viewer asks: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick in his book, Doctoring Data, suggests more patients are harmed by over-treatment than helped. He claims published treatment benefits are often exaggerated by hiding behind relative risk (to mask how tiny most benefits are), selective reporting (such as statistical significance without meaningful benefit), or clever framing (such as natural variation in cholesterol or blood pressure) is medicalized as a treatable condition. To what extent is published medical research actually the fabricated appearance of scientific rigor to sell a product?”

We certainly agree with this doctor's analysis of the current limitations of the scientific enterprise when it comes to an accurate, meaningful, and effective means of guidance towards the greater understanding needed to reveal the true causes and solutions for illness. So all of his criticisms are demonstrably valid and are representing the truth of things, that most medical treatments fall well short of making a significant real world difference in the care of the patient. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the greatest offenders and we can tell you that the reason it is the cornerstone and almost the entire strategy of medical practice is because of the Extraterrestrial Alliance wanting that to be so. The more serious problem is turning to the false hope there is a silver bullet chemical substance that can magically counter an aberrant response in the body of the patient to alleviate their suffering and prevent long-term debilitating and life-shortening loss of function. That is a major folly to begin with, we have talked about previously. It is a false assumption and the few successes are clung to with false hope, reinforced by mind control manipulation. That is the source of the difficulty here, reflected in the overreaching through the statistical analyses relied on to tease out what are usually small differences in better patient responses, to present them in the best possible light. All in the medical establishment are programmed to expect and to assume they are achieving great things and that presenting their case to the public through the research efforts will show this. So, when researchers use every lever they can work to establish what can be described as a meaningful positive result, they will be heavily biased to promote it as such. After all, their livelihood may well depend on the outcome of the dictum, "publish or perish," and that provides tremendous pressure for the academic researcher, not to mention other stakeholders providing tremendous levels of funding and expecting a return on their investment. Unfortunately, in the same way medicine is constrained to underperform, it is also manipulated to overpromise, and often given a pass, even in the face of deliberate wrongdoing that can be dismissed as differences of opinion.