Shocking: 89% of Published Cancer Research Findings Cannot be Replicated ! Fraud on Massive Scale!

• Flawed science at the heart of many modern cancer treatments! 
  by http://www.anh-europe.org/ 
  KEY POINTS
  1. Writing in a Nature magazine editorial, researchers attempted to replicate key early-stage cancer treatment research
  2. They failed in the vast majority (89%) of cases
  3. The authors do not specify which papers and studies they re-examined, so we cannot know whether any drugs were approved based on flawed science
  4. The orthodox cancer research community needs to look closely at its research methods
  5. Alternative views of cancer are largely suppressed, but they offer the best hope for understanding and prevention of this dreaded disease
  –
  What will the cheerleaders of modern orthodox cancer treatment say, now that researchers have shown that nearly 90% of early-stage cancer treatment research can’t be repeated?
  –
  Failing the test of time
  When boffins are struck by a new idea for cancer treatment, the first step is to prove that their idea has legs through the use of basic, ‘preclinical’ science. After all, there’s no point investing many years and millions of hard currency on the cancer industry’s equivalent of the promised, but still non-existent, personal jetpack. And, as a recent editorial in Nature magazine points out, “The results of preclinical studies must…be very robust to withstand the rigours and challenges of clinical trials”. The wider research community, “Assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value, [and that] the data will…stand the test of time”.
  –
  But here’s the rub: when scientists working for biotech firm Amgen tried to repeat the results of 53 ‘landmark’ preclinical cancer studies, they failed a whopping 89% of the time. Scientific results were, in fact, reproducible in only six (11%) cases.
  –
  Swimming down the wrong stream
  So, what does this mean for modern cancer medicine? Since the authors of the editorial don’t disclose any details about which studies they tried to recreate, merely describing them as ‘landmark’ studies, it’s impossible to be at all precise. However, the ‘non-reproduced’ articles generated a mean of 417 citations – i.e. secondary publications that expanded on the original work – compared with 244 for the ‘reproduced’ articles.  Clearly, a huge amount of research has been performed on the back of what look to be red herrings.
  –
  “Some non-reproducible papers had spawned an entire field,” note the editorial writers. Taking clinical research into account, “Many patients had subjected themselves to a trial of a regimen or agent that probably wouldn’t work”. We don’t know how many cancer drug development programmes went ahead as a result of flawed preclinical science, nor do we have an idea whether any drugs subsequently made it to market, or which ones. All of a sudden, though, it makes more sense why cancer survival figures are largely static while endless billions are spent on research, even while incidence and death rates are skyrocketing.
  –
  The show must go on
  This being Nature, the authors feel it necessary to qualify this damning evidence by saying, “These results, although disturbing, do not mean that the entire system is flawed”, citing in support, “Several new cancer drugs…built on robust preclinical data”. They don’t reveal how they know these preclinical data were robust – were the results among those the authors tried to repeat? – but one of the new drugs may have been covered in a recent UK BBC Horizon documentary, entitled ‘Defeating Cancer’. Stop me if you think you’ve heard this one before, but we were informed that fantastic new drugs are becoming available, incredible new technology is coming online and refined surgical techniques offer new hope to thousands. 
  –
  read more!

end