Academic Research, Rivalry, Hidden Lies, & Now You Know Why Your Drugs Kill You!

This is a hell of a title. I have been thinking about a good crazy title for several hours because I wanted to shock you with it and to make sure you read this article. So please take a seat and put on your seat belt while reading this.

It is quite well-known that academia has its quirks that force many ethical academicians out of the field because the stuff that goes on. You probably know by now that I also left academia and returned to art as my solace just as Dr. Walter Nelson-Rees has, except that he became an art dealer and I am an art creator; same thing only different ends of the rope. Dr. Nelson-Rees was at the University of California at Berkeley working on cancer research from 1975 through 1981 according to the Discover Magazine article “Trial and Error” by Jill Neimark. The magazine is by subscription only but I highlight some of its key points and bring a parallel with the bad drug syndrome we seem to be facing these days. I will also explain the connection of this finding to my leaving academia. I think you will understand all this now in one swell swoop. So let’s begin.

Cancer Research at its Best (or Worst):

For scientists around the world who want to work in drug research, they often need to work on live cultured cells, cells that have an infinite life (long science story, I will not explain infinite life here). Infinite live cells are valuable assets that are hard to create and thus hard and pricey to purchase. Only a few labs carry cancerous cells specific to a certain cancer that have infinite lives. Thus if a researcher wants to work on say thyroid cancer, he/she must obtain cells with only thyroid cancer to work on. However, some cancers are more virulent than others and with improper care, contamination may result. All is well since one can identify that the cells are contaminated and order new ones. Right?…Maybe not…

Dr. Kenneth Ain is one of the lead thyroid cancer cell repository founders and after discovering the contamination of his cells with another cancer, he sent letters to all institutes and all cancer research laboratories in the country and to 69 investigators directly. Of all of these only 2 responded back to him–the paper does not detail if the response was “yay, thank you” or “so who cares” but note all the rest have ignored it and continued their research on thyroid cancer knowing that the cells they were working on had other cancer infections. HeLa cancer cells – a very fast growing line of cervical cancer cells – are the most likely culprits. They have taken over – by cross-contamination of equipment – many other types of cancer cells in research labs, no matter what the original cancer cell line may have been. Thus if scientists continue their research for thyroid cancer cure on cervical cancer cells I don’t think their results will be reliable and promising… what do you think?

Is this a new story? No. The knowledge that cross-contamination occurs is actually quite old. 1967 (yes, nearly a half a century ago) it was discovered that there was something wrong with the cancer cells in research, since experiments showed inconsistent and unexpected results. HeLa apparently contaminated over 20% of the cancer cell lines used for research and so most cancer research, be it breast, thyroid, melanoma, you name it, used cells that were infected with the HeLa cervical cancer.

Hundreds of publications later and after the many drug trials using the wrong cells, 11 patents and several NIH funded research grants, the whistle was blown again by Dr. Nelson-Rees. This move unfortunately ended his career. He published an article in Science, reintroducing the same truth that years earlier was already announced, that all these papers, drug tests, and drugs that were the results of tests on the contaminated cancer cells were bogus because they used cultured cell lines with cancers unrelated to the disease they were finding cure for. His colleagues were, of course, angry with Nelson-Reese even though they already were told by Dr. Ain long time earlier that the cells were contaminated. To top it off, the then editor-in-chief of Nature (John Maddox) wrote a very critical article on Dr. Nelson-Rees’ effort closing the door behind Nelson-Rees’ option to remain in academia. The NIH terminated Nelson-Rees’ contract, and with his colleagues keeping a distance as if he had Ebola, he left academia and joined the arts.

In 2009, a conscientious cell biologist sent letters to 45,000 scientists telling them to test their research cell lines for contamination. Most of the cells were of course contaminated and so the NIH set up a new standard to fund research that works only on uncontaminated cell lines. But do you suppose they actually followed that standard? The NIH continued to fund research regardless, so the work on the wrong cells continued, with everyone knowing that the work was a total farce… business as usual in medical research!

Today, after nearly 50 years of knowing that many of the cells used are contaminated, research in cancer still continues on those cells! Luckily some of the drugs failed clinical trials and were not made available for the public–those are the ones we know of. How many do we not know of?

I can give you another angle of how many we do not know of based on what happened to me (and I am sure to many others). When I was working on my doctorate, I was nominated by my professor and invited to the University of Paris that held a 2-week special training session for promising doctoral candidates. Each candidate was paired one-on-one with a famous professor–the one I was paired with received his Nobel Prize a few years later. My work in that two-week period indicated that the theory this professor awaited the Nobel Prize for was wrong. Not surprisingly he did not agree with me on the spot. So back at home it took me a year to work out the proof – both using laboratory findings and mathematics – that his theory cannot be right. When I presented my findings to him I received the following short email: “You are right but keep it quiet.”

I think you now have a better idea on how many peer-reviewed journal articles are wrong yet get published anyway; how many laboratory research outcomes are wrong but the drugs are approved anyway, and how many drugs out there were meant to treat a pimple but are prescribed to cure bacterial infections or cancer.

To give you one little example of how bogus peer-reviewed journal articles are:

“In October 2013, Science correspondent John Bohannon published an article reporting a sting operation. He concocted a fraudulent scientific paper studded with anomalies and ethical approval problems, and sent it to more than 300 open-access peer-reviewed journals; more than half accepted the fake manuscript… Of 53 papers deemed ‘landmark’ studies over the last decade, only six held up and were reproducible… There is a rising tide of worry over the spike in fraudulent scientific papers.” (Quote from the article in Discover as linked to above, page 50)

As of the writing of the article in Discover for the November 2014 issue, 22 journals (a drop in the bucket) “require cell line authentication.” Nature, since 2013, requires that every author report the source of the cells they used for research and how the uncontaminated verification was reached.

So, starting all research published since 2013 in 22 journals plus Nature, we can have a certain level of trust that at least they used the right samples for the research. There are over 25 thousand scientific publications, from which several hundred focuses on cell research in some shape or form, from which 23 make sure the right samples are used for their experiments!

Whether the actual research is correctly reported, still remains in question based on the fake experiment submission and acceptance of John Bohannon’s article. And there is more. Every single journal submission is reviewed by 3 scientists, at least 2 of whom must agree on whether to publish or trash.  In my personal experience as a reviewer, I found that I rejected over 80% of the submissions, mostly because I was the only scientist who actually understood the inaccuracies in the mathematics and statistics required for the complex research. The other 2 reviewers approved and the articles got published anyway!

So much for science, and so much for your health! The fact that very capable and ethical researchers elect to work as artists or art dealers should tell you that the system is far from perfect.

Your comments are welcome as always!


About Be Healthy

Angela A Stanton, PhD, is a Neuroeconomist who evaluates changes in behavior, chronic pain, decision-making, as a result of hormonal variations in the brain. She lives in Southern California. Her current research is focused on migraine cause, prevention and treatment without the use of medicines. As a migraineur, her discovery was helped by experimenting on herself. She found the cause of migraine to be at the ionic level, associated with disruption of the electrolyte homeostasis, resulting from genetic mutations of insulin and glucose transporters, and voltage gated sodium and calcium channel mutations. Such mutations cause major shifts in a migraine brain, unlike that of a non-migraine brain. A non-migraineur can handle electrolyte changes on autopilot. A migraineur must always be on manual guard for such changes to maintain electrolyte homeostasis. The book Fighting The Migraine Epidemic: How To Treat and Prevent Migraines Without Medicines - An Insider's View explains why we have migraines, how to prevent them and how to stay migraine (and medicine) free for life. As a result of the success of the first edition of her book and new research and findings, she is now finishing the 2nd edition. The 2nd edition is the “holy grail” of migraines, incorporating all there is to know at the moment and also some hypotheses. It includes an academic research section with suggestions for further research. The book is full of citations to authenticate the statements she makes to be followed up by those interested and to spark further research interest. While working on the 2nd edition of the book she also published academic articles: "Migraine Cause and Treatment" Mental Health in family Medicine, November 23, 2015, open access "Functional Prodrome in Migraines" Journal of Neurological Disorders, January 22, 2016, open access "Are Statistics Misleading Sodium Reduction Benefits?", Journal of Medical Diagnostic Method, February 3, 2016, open access “A Comment on Severe Headache or Migraine History Is Inversely Correlated With Dietary Sodium Intake: NHANES 1999-2004” Angela A Stanton PhD, 19 July 2016 DOI: 10.1111/head.12861 not open access, subscription is required to read it. Dr. Stanton received her BSc at UCLA in Mathematics, MBA at UCR, MS in Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University, PhD in NeuroEconomics at Claremont Graduate University, and fMRI certification at Harvard University Medical School at the Martinos Center for Neuroimaging for experimenting with neurotransmitters on human volunteers. For relaxation Dr. Stanton paints and photographs. Follow her on Twitter at: @MigraineBook
This entry was posted in Fibromyalgia, Interesting reading, Migraine-Blog, Must Read, This & That, Thoughts and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Academic Research, Rivalry, Hidden Lies, & Now You Know Why Your Drugs Kill You!

  1. Roald Michel says:

    Six month ago I reposted in my group (the one you left, remember?) among other things this:
    “I was engaged in polls, surveys, and many other research projects in the social sciences. Observation? Too many crooks there trying to manipulate data to fit their hypotheses. The only thing they were after was to score, to get published, and do something for their crappy self-esteem. Peer reviews? Hahahaha, yeah right. Same lame characters. What you say? Not all of them are like that? Of course not. There still is integrity and a genuine desire to find the “truth”, the core of a phenomenon, to truly indulge in a fascinating but still to be proven theory. But those scientists are the adventurers indeed, not a herd of ruminants. They challenge the status quo. They don’t belong to the silly establishment.”

    Stuff like that I already dumped on the scientific establishment the time I still was a student. To no avail. They just kept supporting each other and made the world believe they stood tall for the principles of science and would honor and defend same no matter what, building and getting that way undeserved trust and money from “us the people”.

    Ergo, there’s nothing new under the sun. Expectation for the next 1000 years? More of this crap. Unless……..the general public comes to its senses, gets interested in taking its life into its own hands, educates itself, and throws these greedy charlatans, these cargo science worshipers, these slaves of their funding corporations and governments, out of their sacred ivory towers, fake labs, and lame pseudo professional clubs!

    Um…uh…..amen 😀

    Liked by 1 person

    • Amen? OK… let there be. 🙂 You are right in all except the 1000 years… where will we be in 1000 years??? The way things headed, the sole winner of survival: The BACTERIA! Or is it the virus that is not even alive? Well.. one of the two… Hence you are right.. these power mongers will have no say in the final outcome and those few and far in between who do it for the joy of enriching their and others’ lives by health, though a dying breed, can still help. I enjoy being one of these and it feels great to blow the whistle! have you tried? 🙂


I would love to see your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s