Book: The Fiction Of Science

book cover

My book has been published! The hard copy is for sale at,,,, and The Kindle version is for sale at all Amazon websites.
(If you search at the Amazon websites you can best use my name and not the title, as a title search gives many thousands of hits.)

The fiction of science

Welcome to my brand new blog! Whenever I see somewhere in the news, on the Internet or in a magazine that scientists say something I immediately go to high alert. Most people blindly believe whatever scientists say, but I have learnt long ago that many things scientists say are not science at all. Their science is very often not based on facts, but on assumptions at the best and on pure fantasies at the worst. What’s worse, scientists are experts in ignoring all the things that don’t fit their theories, or that could jeopardize their well-paid jobs. And so they keep their jobs and keep producing an awful lot of fiction, that they poorly disguise as science. I will use this blog to point out all the fiction in science, mainly using topics from the headlines.

A new drug to fight viruses

Researchers think they will soon have a “breakthrough” drug to help the immune system fight viruses. But the immune system works on things like good food, lack of poison, fresh air, sunshine and happiness. So how can a toxic drug help?

The new drug would “negate the need for some vaccinations”. That sounds odd. Vaccines are the backbone of the pharmaceutical industry and their only hope in financially uncertain times. So why would they want something that takes away the needs for vaccines?

“They said the treatment could help save the lives of 3,000 Australians aged over 50 who died each year because of the flu,” 3000? Over 50? That almost sounds like the flu is a dangerous disease that can even kill middle aged people. Luckily that’s not true. These kind of numbers are completely made up. It’s not so easy to determine the cause of death, especially when someone has multiple medical problems, which is often the case nowadays. So if someone has lung problems, bad kidneys and a very bad immune system and then the flu makes a visit, then the person doesn’t die from the flu. He/she dies from a very weak body, that can’t handle the flu anymore. And many of these people end up in hospital, which is so dangerous that almost anyone who “died from the flu” probably died from the bad medical treatment.

8721202-3x2-340x227“enhanced viral disease in mice” and was highly likely to have the same effect in humans.” Let’s put this into the category wishful thinking. Many things that work fine in mice and rabbits do not work in humans. Besides it’s often overlooked that the mice die or get health problems after the treatment and that is usually something that does show up in humans as well.

“protein that causes inflammation” Inflammation is a very important reaction. Something you really don’t want to mess with. “reduces the immune system’s ability to clear infection”. Now it gets interesting. The science behind the flu is laughable, as I explain here. Viruses don’t cause disease anyway, so how exactly does the immune system clear an infection with a non-existing pathogen?

“Professor Doug Brooks said viruses had evolved over the past 500 million years”. Professor, I can only shake my head here. You are using the belief in evolution to explain non-existing viruses? I would have thought that someone with the title professor would at least use a bit of science. But you have entered now the area of pure fiction. You should consider writing novels.

“You don’t get all the cell death, all the inflammation and all of the mucus.” So you are saying that all those billions of years of evolution have resulted in a body that doesn’t know how to fight an infection. You are saying that what the body is doing is wrong. That definitely sounds like you have a god complex, but that doesn’t combine well with your belief in evolution.

“with no side effects” No side effects? That would be the first drug that doesn’t have any side-effects. Someone should really draw you back to reality. “unnecessary to create new flu vaccines each year” And why would anyone (except the ordinary person) want that?8721284-3x2-700x467 Even though the flu shot sales go down every year, the profits are still pretty high. Big Pharma won’t let anyone get in between them and their profits. Unless they would expect this new drug to become a blockbuster, which is highly unlikely. “the body could generate its own antibodies”: But professor, don’t you know that antibodies have nothing to do with immunity? That has already been known for a very long time. If you don’t know that, then why would anyone take you seriously?

“anti-viral drugs that must be taken in the early days of contracting a virus to be effective,” Anti-viral drugs effective? I suppose that depends on your definition of efficacy. Do these drugs kill viruses? Well, they are so toxic that they kill loads of things in the body, also the viruses that the body produces to get healthy. Virus dead, patient dead, drug effective. Hardly the kind of drug that doesn’t have any side effects. If you compare your product to these drugs, then we can only expect the worst.

Let’s face it: the last thing the world needs is another flu-fighting drug. The current anti-viral drugs have already killed many and saved none. There is no reason to think that a drug that interferes with the defense mechanisms of the body will be any better. The best way to get over the flu quickly is to take high doses of vitamin C and D. Cheap and totally safe. (Don’t you know that, professor?) Add a box of tissues and few days off work and you will be fine. The most important thing to do when you have the flu is to stay away from doctors. They will give you all kinds of drugs that only increase your chances of death. And that, professor Brooks, has been thoroughly scientifically proven.

The health of donor children

Whenever you see the word “research” you should always be careful. Usually what follows is a lot of fiction. But sometimes it’s more than fiction. Sometimes research is just a joke. Like the study that looked at how children are doing that have been conceived with donor sperm. 

Considering that many children are conceived this way it’s not likely that such a study will have a negative outcome. That would simply be unacceptable. Not only would a negative study not be published, it won’t even happen. Study results are not hard to manipulate and that happens all the time. But with this study that is so easy that the outcome was clearly predetermined and the study of no value whatsoever. A waste of time and money.

7457756-3x2-340x227The researchers looked at both the physical and mental health of these children. There is absolutely no reason to think that donor sperm children would be in worse physical health than others. Unless only donors with loads of health problems would be used, which is not a likely scenario. But another question is how you can possibly know if donor children are in worse physical health, considering sickness is the standard nowadays and healthy children are becoming an anomaly. When everyone is sick you can’t easily determine whether someone has health problems due to being a donor kid.

“in fact on several of the measures, they seemed to actually be doing better.” Dr. Amor, give me one reason why this would be anything else than wishful thinking and manipulation of the results. What reason could there possibly be that these kids do better? “Researchers also found a child’s family structure — such as same-sex, different-sex or single parent, did not appear to affect their wellbeing.” Really? Any other result would be completely socially and politically unacceptable. This had to be the result of the study. “previous studies focused on newborns.” I would love to see these studies. Did they ask newborns how they felt about having two mothers, or growing up with a man who is not your biological father? These researchers are just creating work for themselves and I wonder who funds this kind of stuff.

“mental health and development through questionnaires answered by their mothers” This is laughable. Questionnaires are known to be a very poor source of information, as people tend not to fill them in honestly. We like to see ourselves as better than we are. Now mothers must answer questions that will say whether they made a good or a bad choice when using donor sperm to get a child. The chance that mothers will give unfavourable answers is close to zero. That is the reason why these kids came out as healthier than others. This is not research, it’s a joke. A high school student would get a bad mark for this kind of study.

7152700-3x2-340x227“they have had health problems which they can’t attribute to their biological parents.” Well, children have more and more health problems that cannot be attributed to biological parents. School age children have been exposed to so much poison, both from doctors and otherwise, that it’s hard to know what could be a biological influence and what’s caused by the environment. Previous generations simply didn’t have this problem.

“Professor Amor is confident in the study’s results.” Of course he is. He can’t really admit that he wasted time and money for a completely useless study. Most researchers are confident in the work they do, no matter how useless it is. “we are confident that our results are representative of the donor-conceived population as a whole,” You mean that all mothers of donor kids would give highly biased answers on your questionnaire? I would think that that is true. But if everyone gives biased answers that doesn’t make your study any more valuable. A lot of rubbish doesn’t make a pearl.

The article doesn’t mention if this study has been published, but I assume so, for else nobody would know about it. It’s generally pretty hard to get studies published. That rubbish like this gets a place somewhere only shows that a lot of research is even worse than this. Why on earth do researchers have the status that they have? They should better get a job as a rubbish collector. Then they would do something useful. Now they just add to the pile.

Climate change and Antarctica

If climate change happens then the biodiversity of Antarctica is in danger. It’s funny how climate scientists twist themselves into knots to come with scary stories that at least sound like they make any sense. The problem is that the general public has abandoned the topic. So many scare stories never happened that the people are tired of it.

Let’s have a look at the latest attempt. “Areas of Antarctica that are permanently without ice could increase by up to 25 per cent ” Could, if there would be climate change. Have you noticed that climate scientists nowadays always talk in hypotheses? It could happen, it might happen. It’s a bit hard to say that it will happen when you know that the earth is cooling down, admitted by their own IPCC. “a worst-case climate change scenario.” I suppose that’s a scenario that the climate scientsts themselves have made. 4437268-3x2-700x467

“Any expansion of ice-free areas could have serious implications for biodiversity” That’s another “could”. The ice could disappear and this could have bad consequences. Somehow it doesn’t sound very convincing. “so dispersal may increase and things might start to interact”. It’s becoming funny, for here we have a may and a might. It sounds like mr. Terauds just makes wild guesses. “this creates more potential habitat for non-native species,” Potential. So that doesn’t mean it will happen, even if the ice would disappear. It’s just a theory. Species usually are not so eager to migrate to places where they shouldn’t be and where they will have to fight for a place with native species. Non-native species are usually introduced by humans. Oops! There’s a big hole in the theory.

“Scientists predict the Antarctic Peninsula will be the hardest hit by ice melt.” Here I see a serious problem. So far the predictions of climate scientists have been very consistently wrong. So there is absolutely no reason to believe them this time. “it was the region already most affected by climate change.” I don’t know the details of Antarctic geography, but I do know that the ice masses there grow and melt all the time. When one area is losing ice another area is growing and during the last few years the total ice mass has increased. So obviously one part is affected by climate change and the other areas are not. I would like to hear an explanation for this.

“The scientists said reducing global carbon emissions would help arrest the rate of ice melt in Antarctica.” This is such an old, worn out story that it’s becoming very boring. Besides as is generally known, there is no ice melt in Antarctica. The nett ice mass is growing, which is to be expected when the worldwide temperatures are going down. It’s funny how climate scientists miss such things. That in itself already shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. Unless they ignore it of course, which would show that they are just frauds. Either way I don’t think anyone should believe them.

3677008-3x2-700x467“It is the first time scientists have looked at the effect of climate change on Antarctic biodiversity.” Well, you must do something when all other theories keep going wrong. There is a limit to how often you can come with the same scare stories. “research has focused on how melting ice will contribute to global sea level rises.” That’s the kind of worn-out scare stories that I mean. For decades we have heard stories about rising sea levels and floods, but so far the sea has not risen with even one centimeter. It makes it a bit hard to keep repeating that story without making a complete fool of yourself.

“The study was published today in the journal Nature.” I don’t know what kind of journal this is, but if this kind of “research” is an indication of the level of science in the journal, then I hope that no paper is wasted to print it. This is not science. It’s pure fiction and of a very poor quality. Writing the same kind of story again and again doesn’t work for any fiction writer. And it most definitely doesn’t work for climate fantasy fiction.

Possible allergy treatment

Allergies are a very serious health problem, but instead of looking at the causes researchers are very busy looking for treatments. And some Australian researchers have found something that possibly could help in ten years. It says a lot about  medical research that this is presented as a “major breakthrough”. If a vague possibility in ten years is something to celebrate, then you can safely assume that the value of medical research is almost non-existent. Which is actually the reality.

“The researchers believe a simple injection that will “turn off” the immune response” Does that really sound like a good idea? Turning off the immune system has been done before, with disastrous results. Why do they think that this time they can do it better? The body does everything for a reason and messing with this process seems like a bad idea. The result could be “you will have to live the rest of your life in a sterile room, but at least you don’t have asthma anymore”. 8585606-3x2-700x467

“Learning how to turn off this immune response has been a challenge for immunotherapy for a long time,”Dr. Steptoe, do you really have any idea how the immune system works? Or are you just trying loads of things till you have found something that works? If it would be the first, then you would also know what causes all these allergies. So unless you are particularly blind, it must be the second. Endless experiments are likely to give some result at some point, but if you don’t know what exactly you are doing, then the effects in patients will likely be very bad.

“occur when immune cells known as T-cells react to the protein in allergens.” Allergies are a new phenomenon. So dr. Steptoe, have you first investigated what causes these T-cells to react like this? I give you a hint. Allergies didn’t exist till the needle and syringe had been invented. Injecting people with all kinds of plant and animal proteins, could that possibly be the reason why the T-cells have got confused? Just a suggestion of course.

“The challenge is that these T-cells develop a form of immune ‘memory'” It sounds to me like this memory is a very useful feature. Turning it off might not be a good idea. And isn’t the whole vaccine business based on immunity and this memory? I can see a few problems here.

“We have now been able ‘wipe’ the memory of these T-cells in animals with gene therapy” Gene therapy? If anything is a recipe for disaster it’s messing with genes. Nobody has any idea what genes are or what they do, so this kind of research is completely based on trial and error, hoping to find something that works. Do you notice that dr. Steptoe forgets to say what the fate of the animals was? Always pay attention to what is not said. If the animals would be doing great, he would have said that. As he doesn’t mention it the animals probably died soon after the gene therapy.

asthma“It does it in a highly targeted way, without turning off the memory that is protective” Ah, he had thought about this. But I don’t believe him. Not with probably a bunch of dead lab rats and ten years to figure out what they are doing. The doctor is doing a lot of wishful thinking. “the important immune response you get from vaccinations, ” If he believes this he is a useless researcher. If he knows this is rubbish he has an alternative agenda. In both cases his research cannot be trusted. Oops!

“when a safe one-off treatment may be available that has the potential to eliminate any experience of asthma in vulnerable patients,” “may”, “potential”, “experience” and “vulnerable patients”. And that will take ten years to find out. Can I laugh? Any researcher worth his wages knows that vaccines are chockful of plant and animal proteins, which after injection cause the immune system to start doing things it shouldn’t do. Injections are completely unnatural and so you can expect trouble. Going against nature always leads to disasters, but people do not have the habit to learn from history. And medical researchers are the worst of all. Their work is for 99.99% useless and I cannot imagine they don’t know this. But they keep going on doing the same stuff, hoping that this time it will be different. It won’t be. It cannot be. As also this piece of “breakthrough” reasearch belongs in the rubbish bin.

A cancer prediction test

Sometimes you really wonder what is behind certain medical research. Are these people really believing that they are doing something good? Or are they just trying to create more patients? After all the cancer screening tests that already exist scientists have now developed a test that can predict who will get lung cancer and who won’t. How this can be a good thing is unclear to me.

“which smokers and ex-smokers are most likely to get lung cancer,” There is a statistical problem here. Countries with high rates of smokers do not have substantially higher numbers of lung cancer. And loads of people with lung cancer never smoked. This makes the correlation between the two quite weak. So a test that can predict who will get lung cancer based on smoking habits can never be reliable. This is a very common problem in scientific research: if the basic assumption is incorrect, the rest of the research automatically becomes useless.870074-3x2-340x227

“the lack of a safe nationwide screening process contributes to this problem.” This assumes that screening programs are successful in saving lives, but it has been proven many times that the mantra “early detection saves lives” is incorrect. Considering how many people die way too early from the cancer treatments it would be more correct to say that early detection takes lives. But I get side-tracked.

“She said in seven cases out of 10, the prediction was correct.” That means that 1/3 of the predictions was incorrect. That sounds like a pretty useless test to me, but if this were true it would be a better test that most medical tests. “on the basis of a variety of risk factors” I would like to see the whole list and I would like to know how the results are interpreted. This kind of juggling with numbers has a lot of options for adjusting the results to the need. Considering that cancer diagnoses are not particularly reliable and considering that many cancers disappear on their own, I see a lot of problems.

“But unlike breast, cervical and bowel cancer, regular screening for lung cancer can do more harm than good.” Someone has missed the scientific facts here. Breast cancer screenings are so bad that some countries have already completely abandoned them. Bowel cancer screening only leads to a lot of unnecessary colonoscopies, a dangerous procedure. And though pap smears had some value, they are replaced now by HPV test, the most useless test of all. Add to that the high numbers of false positives and all cancer screenings do a lot more harm than good.

“Dr Weber said the tool could be used in the future to determine which heavy smokers” Dr. Weber, can you first prove to me that smoking actually causes lung cancer? As I stated before, lung cancerthe correlation is quite weak, so you will have to give me something that explains this. Not “must be” science, but facts. Without that your research is completely useless, no matter the outcomes.

“test the effectiveness of CT scan screening among high-smokers identified by the algorithm.” CT scans cause cancer, so this sounds like a bad idea. Wouldn’t it be likely that the screening causes the cancer, just like with mammograms? Oncology is full of cancer causing treatments and screenings and I don’t think there is really a need to add any more.

Dr. Fong states one more time that other cancer screenings are so successful, showing that the has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. The person who leads a trial doesn’t know what cancer is, what causes it, how dangerous and useless screenings are and that the number of people who die from cancer keeps increasing. Why should we take one word seriously of anything he says? This has nothing to do with science. It’s just a fanciful way to keep some researchers in a job.

Coeliac disease and viruses

Medical researchers are completely obsessed with viruses. Every disease needs to be explained by a virus. And as viruses are everywhere you can always find one to blame if you search long enough. Now they say that coeliac disease might be triggered by a reovirus.  I had never heard of reoviruses before, but new categories are invented all the time.

“New research suggests an infection with a common strain of reovirus, which is often symptomless, could be behind why some people’s immune systems react to gluten” The research suggest that it could be. Forgive me that I’m not impressed. Considering that viruses have never been proven to cause any disease, not even flu or measles, blaming them for gluten intolerance is at best a stretch.wheat

“found mice engineered to be genetically susceptible to gluten intolerance”. Genetically engineered mice get sick easier. Why am I not surprised? Nobody knows what genes are or how they work, so messing with them will cause disease. You don’t need to have a degree in science to understand that. “were infected with the reovirus strain T1L ” Wait a moment here. I would like to know how the  mice were infected, considering that viruses are not infectious. Were they injected with something? Did they sniff something that was infected? Did they eat infected food? These things make a huge difference.

“The virus in question is so harmless that people often don’t even realise they have been infected” I find the story of the undetected infection fascinating. How would you know you had this undetected infection? I assume they do an antibody test, which are known to be useless. It’s so annoying that antibodies have nothing to do with immunity or infection. It badly disrupts research involving germs. But as a scientist you can choose to ignore scientific facts and go on with your fantasies.

“But if the first exposure to a food with gluten occurs during a reovirus infection” Professor Dermody, I have a question here. What if that first exposure is at eight weeks old, because there are both traces of gluten and reoviruses in a vaccine? Would that be a good explanation for coeliac disease? Or maybe you don’t know that some vaccines contain gluten? Oops.

“research was a “big leap” in understanding how coeliac disease can develop.” Dr. Tye-Din, during the last few decades we have seen an explosion of auto-immune diseases. Don’t you think there could be a common cause? Or would it be more likely that every one of those have a different cause? If you repeatedly inject babies with cells from other humans, wouldn’t that be a good explanation for auto-immune diseases? I’m not a scientist, but this sounds a lot more likely than a virus that has been around forever.

celiac“a reovirus vaccine could be developed for at-risk children”. And there we get the explanation for this particularly bad quality research. One reason for the obsession with germs is the quickly expanding and highly profitable vaccine market. There are vaccines in development against asthma, eczema, diabetes, epilepsy and a variety of other auto-immune diseases. Considering that vaccines are in most cases the direct cause of the diseases this is a particularly nice model for both  researchers and pharmaceutical industry. But it has nothing to do with science.

“based on genetic predisposition” And how exactly would this genetic predisposition be determined? So far there is no vaccine on the market that takes predispostion into consideration and if there would be a vaccine against auto-immune diseases that would also be pushed onto everyone. There is no reason to expect something else. There is no money in a vaccine for a small group.
“It could help unlock the triggers for other food allergies and autoimmune diseases.” I wonder how difficult it is to do research with an elephant in your lab. Overstimulating the immune systems of babies is a highly likely cause of auto-immunity. Injecting cells of other humans is another one. That’s two gigantic elephants. But dr. Tye-Din prefers to ingore both of them.

The question is not where auto-immune diseases come from. That has been well-established. The big question is why there are still people who do not have auto-immune diseases. That is so hard to explain that I wonder if many vaccines made in China might actually only contain water. Right now this seems the most scientific explanation.

Most scientific research never gets published. This study was published, which is a strong indication about the scientific level of medical research. All this stuff belongs in the  garbage bin. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. Or the MB’s on a computer.

Bacteria and stomach ulcers

A scientist thinks he can eradicate Heliobacter pylori bacteria, which are blamed for stomach ulcers. But he makes a variety of mistakes. The biggest one is to blame bacteria for diseases, instead of seeing them as friends with an important job. The importance of bacteria has been known for a long time, but this knowledge has seemed to have disappeared since scientists became obsessed with bacterial diseases.

“the bacteria Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) which lives in around 50 per cent of humans.” Here’s the first indication that the bacteria are not responsible for the ulcers. Not a lot of people get stomach ulcers, but 50% of the people have the bacteria. So blaming the bacteria is clearly incorrect. At best the bacteria play a role in the disease, but that’s it. You don’t need to have a degree in science to see this.8415688-4x3-340x255

“have identified how the bacteria produces a waxy shield which protects it from stomach acid” And why do you think the bacteria do this? Obviously prof.  Marshall thinks that bacteria are just there to cause us trouble. It hasn’t occured to him that these bacteria might play an important role and need to protect themselves so that they can do their work. This is called tunnel vision, a common phenomenon among scientists. Ignore everything that doesn’t suit you.

“development of treatments to stop the bacteria surviving in the stomach,” And why, professor Marshall, do you think this will be a good idea? Do you think that these bacteria have evolved with the one and only goal to cause stomach ulcers in humans? Or could it possibly be that we need these bacteria badly? Eradicating them sounds like a recipe for disaster.

“we could screen thousands of different natural products that might inhibit the stickiness of the bacteria,” Natural products? Since when do scientists look for natural products? And why would anything that exists in nature stop bacteria from doing an important job? Nature is balance and nature knows that it can’t do without bacteria. Scientists might be stupid, but nature is not.

“H. pylori causes ulcers in around 10 per cent of people” So 90% of the people with the bacteria do not get ulcers. It would make an awful lot of sense to focus the research on the 90%, instead of on the 10%. Find out why those 90% live in perfect harmony with their bacteria.8414628-3x2-340x227

“H. pylori is classified as a class 1 carcinogen in Australia,” I won’t ask for the research that has led to this classification. It’s just too absurd to even talk about. Bacteria are as old as the world. Cancer is a new disease, that was almost non-existent 200 years ago. The science behind cancer-causing germs is worse than quackery. It’s complete fiction without a shred of science or even common sense.

And for this people get a Nobel prize. But that’s not surprising. Loads of medical Nobel prizes have been awarded for things that later proved to be completely wrong and caused a lot of damage to patients. Will anyone ever learn from the blunders from the past? Not as long as there is a lot of money for medical research, I’m afraid.