Why do I mention deception? I'll be honest, if you're reading this then there's a good chance you're an alternative-thinker and a good juicy deception plot will grab your attention if you're anything like me.

​

So on the previous page, I mentioned how science works and the whole peer-review process. And again, this is the tippy top quality of evidence we have, especially when multiple peer-reviewed studies all verify each other.

​

There is deception in science. Not in its core operation, but how it is occasionally hijacked by those with a conflict of interest to support their ulterior motives, even if the science doesn't actually agree with them. But how? What about this grand and superior evidence-based system I've been writing about? Unfortunately, scientists (not science) aren't perfect and science requires money.

​

Studies have to be funded by someone. Once again, The National Institute of Health comes through with a great read. On the subject of conflict of interest, they write:

​

"Conflicts of interest may be defined as “circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest” . Broadly stated, the primary duty of the investigator in medical research is to obtain scientifically valid results, while promoting and protecting the integrity of research."

​

"The secondary interest of principal concern is usually financial gain, with the worry that such financial interests (e.g., payments from a manufacturer of a drug or device for services other than the research) will influence the professional judgment or actions of the investigator to obtain and present results that inappropriately favor the source of such financial gain. Such bias affecting professional judgment may then influence the manner in which an investigator conducts or presents the research."

​

"in addition to the individual and the research process, is a focus on close, skilled, and non-conflicted review of the outcome or product produced by the investigator and the research itself. This final piece is exemplified by the journal editorial process, particularly peer review. This approach has been advocated as a solution for addressing the myriad of non-financial conflicts that may pose an enormous challenge to identify, catalogue, assess, and address."

​

A lot of quote reading I know. There is much more on the original page to look at. But is this a real thing?

​

The British Medical Journal has openly refused to accept publications funded by the tobacco industry. Here's a quick snippet:

"As editors of the BMJ, Heart, Thorax and BMJ Open, we have decided that the journals will no longer consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry. Our new policy is consistent with those of other journals including PLoS Medicine, PLoS One, PLoS Biology; Journal of Health Psychology; journals published by the American Thoracic Society; and the BMJ's own Tobacco Control."

"as long as funding sources are fully disclosed, readers can consider that information and make up their own minds about the quality of the work. Peer review should prevail, goes this line of thinking: it's not the editor's job to make these kinds of judgments. However, this view ignores the growing body of evidence that biases and research misconduct are often impossible to detect, and that the source of funding can influence the outcomes of studies in invisible ways."