Much of the research published or presented in newspaper and magazines was not researched with integrity. Research on any subject should be performed without bias to secure the truth in that subject matter. The research should be conducted with proper and consistent research principals. Research done without these principles is just a tool to brainwash the public or to keep the research institution in business. Research is big money to the men who head the research and the research institution. Where money is, greed often feeds.

An example of flawed research and its impact on society is the research data that eggs were not good for you conducted in the 50's. The Cereal Institute of America conducted that research on dried egg yolk powder. There were many flaws in this research including that it was done only on the yolk portion and that the product was dried and not fresh product. The findings of this flawed research were considered gospel for years and some people still think eggs are not good for you.

Research in recent years have proven the 50's egg research and its conclusions flawed, but it influenced how we eat for years. Since it was the cereal industry that conducted the research, perhaps one should have questioned the integrity present to begin with. Eggs were the main breakfast for most Americans until the cereal industry and all its brands were created. That flawed research study directly benefited the sale of cereal. Much of our cereal products for children are low in protein, fiber, and vitamins. Most are extremely high in sugar and more a desert than suitable breakfast.

Many research institutions and their findings have been found to be flawed and in some cases later proven to be outright fraud. Dr. Jerry Bergman, a well known writer, teacher and researcher with several degrees states in his published paper, Why The Epidemic of Fraud Exists in Science Today, “The study found 94 cancer papers 'likely' contained manipulated data. Two years later, many of the papers were still not retracted. This confirms the conclusion that 'even when scientific misconduct is proven, no reliable mechanism exists to remove bad information from the literature. ''

I encourage you to read the articles below on research fraud for yourself. You will then see just how entrenched science and medicine has become with lies, false data, and flawed conclusions.. Some very famous research as you will discover has been found to be fraudulent. Here are the links to read more on research fraud: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_104-109.pdf , http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_misconduct/foundation/index.html and http://www.rsdfoundation.org/en/Fraud.htm

Here are some distinctions to use when evaluating research studies and articles:

Does the newspaper or magazine tend to be slanted toward conservative views or views only that support standard medicine?

It is a fact that some periodicals are more prone to publish articles slanted toward the right or left. Some are very conservative and will not publish any material that is not generally accepted by the AMA. The publisher and copy editors often edit the article to the point that the original article intent is lost or changed. Sometimes by this method it may reflect views that are completely different from the original intent of the writer.

Who conducted the research? What is the reputation of the research institution?

Have there been cases of fraud in the past with this institution? Is there a conflict of interest? Wonder about the validity of a research paper that smoking does not cause lung disease that is financially supported by the cigarette industry. If you were a research firm getting $400,000 from the cigarette industry to prove that smoking does not hurt your health, what might happen when your research proves it does? Don't you see the conflict of interest in this example?

What were the perimeters of the research study? These perimeters in themselves can mean the success or failure of a study.

Was the study conducted on rats, monkeys, or humans? How many animals or humans participated in the study?

One study giving a certain result does not tell the whole story. Even studies conducted with integrity may be missing criteria that are important and perhaps critical. Understand that there may be issues and factors not seen or accounted for influencing the results of that study and the conclusions reached.

How many patients and what was the ethnic background of the patients who participated in the study? Some diseases are more prevalent in some ethnic heritages.

What was their ages and health status of the participants at the beginning of the research? People who have a history of smoking may not respond the same way to a program as patients who have never smoked. If their immune function is compromised to begin with, they may not respond at all or as quickly. It may take more of a product to achieve results. If the patients are obese, lack sleep, are under stress or nutritionally deficient, they may respond more slowly or not at all. If they do not believe that a program can work, it can influence their response. How were the patients monitored, medically evaluated and for what period of time?

How was the research conducted?

What products and quality of products were used? There is a significant difference in the quality of herbs and vitamin products. This quality or lack of quality will determine the failure or success of the study. The form of the vitamin or herb makes a difference. Certain forms of vitamins are more absorbable than others. Calcium citrate is a higher form of calcium than oyster shell and much easier for the body to utilize. For many people with compromised stomach digestion, tablets are much harder to digest than gel caps or liquids.

Was the dosage level high enough to do any good? If the dosage is too low then the research will be a failure. Was the dosage too high giving in effect an overdose of the product? Any food, vitamin or substance can be given to the point of overdose including water. When dosages are too high there may be allergy reactions or imbalances created. An example would be giving patients a dose of 5000 milligrams of Magnesium when the usual dosage is 100 milligrams. One does not usually drink comfrey tea all day. If you drink too much of it, you may very well have problems with comfrey and any other tea. I can drink one cup of coffee and have stomach pain and mouth ulcers within one day. Your sensitivity to a substance also makes a difference such as the case of orange juice. In many women, orange juice due to its acidic content will cause bladder irritation.

Was the product or regimen given to the patient long enough to secure a result? Often this is the problem on why the study failed in its results. If you have been ill with colitis for 15 years, is it realistic for a month long research regimen to have a positive impact? The answer in most cases is no.

Years ago, I conducted a study under a doctor on the subject of digestive enzymes and their effect on food allergies. I did not realize until I was deep into the study that the doctor's intent was for me to fail. He gave me his most medically difficult patients including one with a mental disorder, one who had their stomach juices rerouted into the colon, one patient with unknown problems that other doctors had failed to help, and none were average patients. They did, in fact, all have food allergies. The compliance was not good with these patients because most had given up on feeling better. These patients had such long standing imbalances and disease states making it almost impossible to succeed. To his irritation, the patients that did stay on the program did see positive changes in the foods, they could eat without problems.

The result of the research project showed that 50 percent of the patients were able to eat more foods without problems. My research was given the thumbs down because he initiated that the results had to be in the 80 percent range to be worthwhile. At that time, the main treatment for food allergies was just to discontinue eating those foods. The research could not have succeeded to his goals with the quality of the patients I was given to enroll.

Unless the research is conducted with the true intent of truth with integrity and authenticity, then it is fraud. Just because it is written does not mean it is truth. Read articles no matter what the subject matter is with the parameters above. Question and consider before you bring it into your belief structure. Remember once it was considered fact that the earth was flat. That was concrete science until that fact was proven false.

Research the references below on fraud including Dr.Jerry Berman's paper from which I took the quote above;

Roman, M., When good scientists turn bad, Discover 9(4):50-58; 1986;p. 58.

Abbott, A., Science comes to terms with the lessons of fraud, Nature

398:13-17, 1999; p. 13.

Campbell, P., Reflections on scientific fraud, Nature 419:417, 2002.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_104-109.pdf (Dr. Bergman's paper)