ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why the Scientific Process is Never Wrong, and Why the Food and Pharmaceutical Industries give Science a Bad Name

Updated on July 5, 2016
TessSchlesinger profile image

Globetrotter, author, and thinker with interests in environment, minimalism, health, dancing, architecture, décor, politics, and science.

I have a science degree...

I have a science degree. I have no idea why I have a science degree, because forty years ago, interior design was a trade, not even a university degree. These days it is supposedly a science. I have no idea which idiots called it a science, but interior design is no more a science than an apple tree is. Sciences include physical science, chemistry, geology, and math. These are hard sciences. They work with absolutes. Something is either right or it is wrong. It is either factual or it is not factual. And there are rigorous processes that are utilized in order to arrive at those conclusions.

The Big Bang Theory

Take the time to read a real scientific theory!
Take the time to read a real scientific theory! | Source

Food, Pharmaceuticals, and Lying to the People

When business is researching food, it is doing so for profits. ‘Food scientists’ are no more scientists than I am a scientist because I hold an interior design degree. And just as interior design was a trade forty years ago, so was ‘food science.’

Both food manufacturers and pharmaceutical manufacturers have a vested financial interest in getting their products past the FDA. The standards required to do so are NOT the absolute sort that are required by the hard sciences.

The hard sciences (real science) has a series of characteristics that it must comply with in order to be called a theory. Statistics (which is what both the food and the pharmaceutical industry use) are not part of these characteristics. If something is not consistent, then it not accepted by science. Again, statistics do not demonstrate accuracy - just probability.

For example, If ten men jumped from a 40 floor high building, five of them survived, two were seriously injured, two were mildly injured, and one died, the theory of gravity would be kicked out the door. It would become superseded theory (a theory that is no longer supported by facts). However, those statistics are what is accepted by the FDA.

What this means is through a period of time, when millions of people have taken the medicine and people finally started noticing that 20% of people were badly injured and 10% of people died, that they thought the science was wrong. The science was never wrong. The statistics were there all the time. The problem was that the FDA found those statistics acceptable. Physics, chemistry, geology, and math wouldn't.

In both the food and pharmaceutical industries, statistics are used.The motive is money. Not health. Not well being. And not scientific accuracy.

These are deaths and serious medical conditions caused by pharmaceutical drugs.
These are deaths and serious medical conditions caused by pharmaceutical drugs. | Source

The Pharmaceutical Industry

A pharmaceutical company discovers that Substance A cured seven people, left one dead, had no effect on one person, and one person was slightly improved. Those results are sufficient to get it past the FDA as a healing agent. In order to protect itself, each container of Substance A contains a ‘SMALL PRINT’ document of between 1000 and 1500 words. If you ever take the time to read that slip (very few people do), you will find the ‘side effects.’ What is remarkable about this piece of paper is the number of times that death is listed as a side effect.

Virtually every single anti-depressant has death as a side effect.

This means that people died of taking the anti-depressant while the pharmaceutical company was researching the substance.

This is not science.

If it was science, then the scientists would know who would die, the exact process which caused death, and they would be able to alter the substance so that it never harmed the patient. However pharmaceutical ‘scientists’ do NOT know how or why the substance causes death. They also do not know which potential patients would likely die from the intake of that particular pill.

The corrupt process of how Aspartame got approved

The food industry

Then there is the egg fiasco. Don’t eat eggs. They contain cholesterol, and cholesterol is bad for you. Now I don’t know about you, but already 30 or 40 years ago, I was reading repeatedly that cholesterol in food cannot be converted into cholesterol in the body. I read this so frequently that I was bewildered as to why doctors warned one against eggs. I can only assume that I read more books than they do. Of course, fewer than 5% of people pick up a book after they leave school or university. I assume doctors are no different. So they’re stuck with what the media are telling them.

So let me ask you something. Who benefitted from eggs being taken off the breakfast table?

Why the cereal companies, of course

The Food Pyramid

In my youth, the base of the food pyramid was protein and the very, very top echelon which was the food you should eat least of were starches.

Carbohydrates consist of vegetables and starches. Starches include all grains (pasta, pizza, bread, cake, rice) and potatoes. We were taught never to have more than one slice of bread per day, never to serve rice and potatoes on a dish, and never more than one small potato per meal. Pasta and pizzas were unheard of. So was junk food.

So who benefited by changing the food pyramid so that grains were now the most important food in the world?

Why the grain industry, of course. Food companies benefitted massively.

Again, this is not science. This is politics and business colluding or profit.

Grains are not good for the human body. Too much starch. The info is there, but the profits are not.
Grains are not good for the human body. Too much starch. The info is there, but the profits are not. | Source

So What is the Scientific Method?

Science is a discipline that uses testing and observation to determine what is 100% accurate. It is NOT a statistic. In addition, in order for something to be accepted as a theory, it is studied by numerous scientists in the field. This is called peer review. In other words, other scientists (even the competition) study your work and point out its errors. By the time something has reached the level of theory, it is about as factual as it can be.

Many confuse hypothesis with theory. In colloquial English, the word theory can be used in more than one way (as with many words, e.g. fly, fly, and fly). Generally when people are speaking about a ‘theory,’ they mean something that hasn’t been proven yet – just an idea, really. That is NOT what it means in science. In science, theory is the highest level that anything that reach. It is the place where it’s about as true as it can be. Do you think that gravity is going to change anytime soon?

However because new information is constantly arriving, falsifiability gives scientists the ability to re-examine theories, and if the new information means that the theory is incorrect, then the theory is withdrawn.

Only a handful of the few hundred theories in existence have been disproved. When a scientific theory is disproved, it is called a superseded theory.

So What is a Scientific Theory?

In order for something to qualify as a scientific theory, it must have the following characteristics.

  1. It must be testable. So you cannot test god or religion or creation. So those things can never be scientific theory.
  2. It must be replicable. This means that other people should be able to do the experiment. Obviously competing companies aren't going to give their work to anybody else to test. So this alone removes it from being science fact.
  3. It must be stable. This means that when others test it, they must get the same results.
  4. A scientific theory must be simple. This means it must be concise.
  5. A scientific theory must be consistent. This means that it can't contradict another scientific theory. If it does, then it means one of the theories is wrong.


Scientific theory is different to general theory

The word theory in general usage does not mean the same thing as scientific theory. They have very different meanings.
The word theory in general usage does not mean the same thing as scientific theory. They have very different meanings. | Source

Do you ever read the pamphlet inside a medicine container?

See results

So, no, science is NOT always proving itself wrong

As a result of the misconception that various industries are presenting humanity with science when it has nothing to do with science, science is rapidly receiving a bad name. Comments include ‘But science is often wrong.’

No, it actually isn’t. It’s seldom wrong. This does not mean it cannot be wrong, but it does mean that by the time something reaches theory stage, money didn’t get in the way, statistics wasn’t involved, and there wasn’t a political bureau that could be bought.

© 2016 Tessa Schlesinger

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • threekeys profile image

      ThreeKeys 11 months ago from Australia

      So..what can we do in view of your findings?

      How do we follow through to question or go against the medicos and the pharmaceuticals so that we receive correct and/appropriate information to make the best informed decisions about our food and health matters?(The most direct and least stressful way I mean.)

    • TessSchlesinger profile image
      Author

      Tessa Schlesinger 11 months ago from South Africa

      I can't answer that. The system makes 'easy' and 'not stressful' difficult. Before I take anything, I google it for a couple of weeks and read everything I can. I enter different combinations of words into the browser like the name of the medication and words like 'review' 'scam' 'dangerous' side effects' 'death' benefits. I also google it in different countries by adding site:com or site:co.uk or site:co.za etc.

    • threekeys profile image

      ThreeKeys 11 months ago from Australia

      Thank you Tess. I am going to read more of your Hubs as I enjoyed this Hub.

      Something is happening whereby the nebellous blankets of haze of disguise and/or deception are being dissolved and there is an awakeinng to the people of the deep levels of deception that has been going on by those that have held power or do hold authouratative positions and/or within the designed System/s. Just today I heard Chinton from the UK say how the Iraqi War never needed to happen. And our ex Prime Minister "kind of half yesing and half noing" admitting to the falseness of going to War with Iraq.

      I look foward to your next new Hub.

    • TessSchlesinger profile image
      Author

      Tessa Schlesinger 11 months ago from South Africa

      Yes, I was living in London at the time that Bush wanted to go into Iraq. Both the British people and the British Parliament voted no. Tony Blair used his position as Prime Minister to go against the wishes of the people. It cost him his premiership and people absolutely hate him. The entire United Nations knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But Bush wouldn't listen. He wanted a war.

      So millions of people have died for the sake of American profit. That's about it.

      Would love to have you as a reader. Thank you. :)

    Click to Rate This Article