(NaturalNews) The hijacking of modern science by corporations hellbent on profiting at the expense of public health is no more evident than in published scientific literature. There, you'll find all sorts of papers claiming that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe, chemicals are good for you and pharmaceuticals drugs are the only medicine worth taking — but how much of all these information are actually valid?

Back in September, it was revealed that British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) doctored studies to promote its popular drug Paxil as a treatment for depression. It turns out this drug isn't safe or effective in any way, and yet millions of young teens and children have been prescribed this mind-altering medication under the illusion that it might help them overcome mental abnormalities.

Not only were these papers exposed as fraudulent, but major news outlets like The New York Times (NYT) are reporting that they actually demonstrated the exact opposite of what their authors claimed at the time. How can this be when papers of this type are run through the peer-review process prior to publishing?

As we reported back in 2014, some 60 papers that appeared to have passed the peer-review process were pulled from an international journal after it was revealed that they had all been illicitly approved by phony reviewers. Once again, an invisible hand had apparently set up a phony peer-review ring to ramrod these papers through the system to promote ideas or products that favor certain industries.

There's also the painkiller fiasco of 2009, in which it was uncovered that some 21 peer-reviewed studies favoring high-profile drugs like Pfizer's Bextra, Lyrica and Celebrex; Wyeth's antidepressant drug Effexor XR; and Merck's Vioxx had been completely fabricated. Scott C. Reuben, the former chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, reportedly altered data to support these drugs, but all of it was a sham.

The crime was so bad in this instance that the editor-in-chief of the journal Anesthesia and Analgesia admitted to Anesthesiology News that he's not even sure his own field properly understands how these drugs actually work. Here's what he stated, as quoted by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ):

"We are left with a large hole in our understanding of this field. There are substantial tendrils from this body of work that reach throughout the discipline of postoperative pain management."

"Science" is a biased endeavor that pushes the agendas of its proprietors

In other words, the field of anesthesiology has been relying on phony science for decades to treat patients. And now that it's been fully revealed that this science is phony, those who've been using it to establish standard practices are at a loss as to whether or not what they've been doing is safe or effective for patients.

This is an endemic problem within many fields of science, whether we're talking about pharmaceuticals, GMOs, crop pesticides, global warming (climate change) or various other areas of medicine. The stacking of science in favor of the industries creating it isn't an anomaly, it seems — it's actually the norm!

Here's what Jonathon Porritt, writing for The Guardian (U.K.), wrote back in 2000 about the nature of what he describes as bought-and-paid-for science, and how it's corrupting the integrity of what society sees as substantiated truth:

"People's suspicions today are stronger than they've ever been, and with good reason, given that such a huge percentage of scientists are now paid by private or public sector employers who often have little interest in open scientific debate ... As is now widely recognised, science is socially constructed by all sorts of rules, peer group pressures, personal values and expectations. Even that reassuring notion of 'sound science' is often shaped by prior social commitments framing the nature and boundaries of the issue under consideration."

Sources:

NYTimes.com

TheGuardian.com

NaturalNews.com

Blogs.WSJ.com