The cracks have always been there.......that is what the peer review process is designed to combat, however even that can be corrupted (see "climate change") when enough political influence is present, and grant money for research is at stake........which is why I refuse to accept any premise that is drawn from government funded grants.......
doc
That "political influence" has been increasingly present in the scientific process, by both deliberate design under such auspices as "Scientific Integrity", and also by the corrupt practices of the government organizations being directly influenced by political and business agendas (FDA, EPA, etc)
In a related consideration, here is a video about a promising Cancer treatment developed by Dr Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D. Ph.D., and shows the corruption and horrors wrought by our medical institutions.
At the 33mins mark, it discusses the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act:
- But in 1992, Congress put the fox in the chicken coop. It passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorized drug companies to pay "user fees" to the FDA for each brand-name drug considered for approval. Nearly all of the money generated by these fees has been earmarked to speed up the approval process.
In effect, the user fee act put the FDA on the payroll of the industry it regulates. Last year, fees came to about $300 million, which companies recoup many times over by getting their drugs to market faster.
But while it's a small investment for drug companies, it's a lot of money for the agency, and it has drastically changed the way it operates -- creating a disproportionate emphasis on approving brand-name drugs in a hurry. Consequently, the part of hte agency that reviews new drugs gets more than half of its money from user fees, and it has grown rapidly. Meanwhile the parts that monitor safety, ensure manufacturing standards, and check ads for accuracy have languished or even shrunk.
Most tellingly, the office that approves generic drugs is so small that approvl time for generics is twice as long as for brand-name drugs. There is now a backlog of more than 800 generics....
--
The agency's cosiness with the industry is underscored by the composition of its 18 advisory committees -- outside expertts who help evaluate drugs.
Incredibly, many of these advisers work as consultants for drug companies. Although they are supposed to recuse themselves if there is a direct conflict of interest, the FDA regularly grants exempctions from that requirement..
Neither Congress, nor the FDA, requested this "user fee" structure, but rather the pharmaceutical industry did so voluntarily, going to Congress. The result is to make the pharmaceutical interests the "user" of the FDA, and not the public itself.
This 1hr 48min video is well worth viewing.
