Sodium Chlorite(MMS)

[j.]

How research science comes about is -- the principal investigator and his team propose research to the government in the form of an intention to *research exactly what the government wants to know about.*. There is a review board at the government agency that sifts through these grant applications which, before the age of the internet, would be a stack of paper knee to thigh-high. In other words, these grants are applications to answer exactly the questions the government is asking; a process that can take three to six months to compose. In order to receive funding, one must prove that one *already* has the facilities in place to conduct it -- for example a research lab, and millions of dollars of equipment and labor -- in place before the fact, to even be considered.

When the grant is awarded, it is awarded in yearly chunks to cover only *exactly* what the researcher has documented he needs to get his experiments done. There is a meticulous budget that is approved by the funding agency and no deviation is allowed.

Five years pass.

At the end of the five years, the researcher will present his findings to the grantor and MUST publish what his experiments have uncovered in the five years and five million dollars' worth of painstaking work.

And the publication will say -- "Effects of banana starch molecules on the gut motility in the common mus musculus.'

And that's it. For all of that, what you get is the results of one investigation. After this, there is an audit of the entire protocol over the entire period. If any money has been spent without approval, if *anything* is amiss -- the researcher has to give the money back. It happens and I've seen it happen. And if a researcher has to give the money back, then people lose their jobs *because they lose their funding.* And their invitation to apply for more grants. So they don't lie. And they don't misappropriate funds. And they compete to do the best research they can given the limitations they are working under.

If scientific and medical research is misguided or contaminated by special interests of one kind or another, then it takes an outsider like Ray Peat to point this out. I admire him very much for his intelligent reading of the body of knowledge that exists already under this imperfect system. Because frankly it's all we've got.

Following meticulously all the rules once the research topic has been already selected is worthless if the topic wasn't selected appropriately.

When a researcher is investigating a relatively worthless project (e.g., if someone in favor of X-rays wants to investigate some minor and isolated beneficial property they have), the researcher is contributing to the mess because funds are limited and the money that funds a worthless project can't fund appropriate projects at the same time.

While some might say that asking the researcher to avoid a project for this reason is too much because the system is set up in a way that makes it almost impossible for them to not do harm, it's nevertheless true that they do harm. So the ethical thing unfortunately might be quitting the profession or doing something like what Ray Peat does. It is hard, but saying that medical researches are ethical people is a joke.

 

[messtafarian]

I agree with you j.; the question is then who decides what scientific avenues are worth pursuing. My only point here was that it was *highly unlikely* the International Red Cross conducted such a test.

And that the scientists I know are ethical people; also the scientists * I know of* are ethical people. I do not know if the scientists I do not know are ethical people or not.

 

[Mittir]

And that the scientists I know are ethical people; also the scientists * I know of* are ethical people. I do not know if the scientists I do not know are ethical people or not.

I agree with your observation. I have known people who worked in biology related field and worked with NIH.
RP himself said there is still good science around and it is mostly in universities. He also said that big pharma tries
to suppress science that goes against their interest. But they have not been able to do that yet completely.
RP writes all his articles using published scientific journals and books to make his point.
He would not be able to do that if these scientific sources were not around. I think it is a waste of
time talking to people who does not know how science works. There is good science and there is bad science.
But conspiracy theory is not science.

 

[messtafarian]

Dr Peat's great talent is his careful reading of published research with an educated and discerning eye. He's not conducting independent scientific research at this point that I know of; nor is he exposing anything that is not in plain sight in the literature. I don't know how anyone would back up their claims otherwise.

On another note -- unless the experimental methods are extremely flawed -- a lack of double blind controlled evidence, for example -- all of it is valuable. The conclusions that are drawn might not be but those are flaws in the conclusive logic, not necessarily the research.