Richard Horton, editor of Lancet, considered one of the most respected medical journals in the world, said this about "science" --

A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, is saying that medical research is UNRELIABLE AT BEST IF NOT COMPLETELY BOGUS! Lancet editor, Richard Horton “… states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants.”

https://www.drugawareness.org/editor-of-lancet-medical-research-is-unreliable-at-best-or-completely-fraudulent/

Richard Horton also said, "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

https://www.thegwpf.com/lancet-editor-half-of-science-is-wrong/

Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, another top-ranked medical journal in the world said this about today's "science" --

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

And, "… she vetted manuscripts that omitted any mention of a drug’s side effects, and studies that were weighted to make a drug look good; she repeatedly heard about studies never submitted for publication because they made a drug look bad."

Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal said this --

"…most of what appears in peer-reviewed journals is scientifically weak."

Check out this statement --

"This is no small issue in the life of an engaged patient. e-Patients who bring googled articles to their office visits are often lambasted or subjected to eye-rolls by clinicians who say that we should only trust academic medical journals. But can we trust them??

"We got a rude update on why published science is shaky in our January 2011 post The Decline Effect: most published studies are never replicated by another lab! That’s absurd – heck, in high school I couldn’t get a science experiment passed if it wasn’t reproducible, but our journals do that??

"If a study isn’t replicated, how can we be confident of what will happen when we put the drugs in our bodies?"

You realize what this means, right? In the vast majority of cases, "peer review" means NOTHING BUT AN UNINFORMED OPINION.

"If we exclude tainted people ["experts" with financial ties to the companies that want to see specific results of trials], the NEJM won’t have enough authors [to publish articles in the NEJM]??"

The author of the article writes, "Knowing what I now know about the publication process, my perspective is as I said above: until a study has been replicated by another lab, I view it as nothing more than a first datum – an educated guess, not validated science. And it seems any science-minded clinician must do the same."

https://participatorymedicine.org/epatients/2012/03/former-nejm-editors-on-the-corruption-of-american-medicine-ny-times.html

"Her name is Dr. Marcia Angell.

"During her 20 years of work, she looked at, perused, and analyzed more medical studies than all mainstream science bloggers in the world put together.

"You want to listen to an actual pro? Listen to her:

"Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

http://www.robertscottbell.com/government/famous-medical-journal-editor-torpedoes-medical-journal-by-jon-rappoport/