The Top 10 Tricks Used by Corporate Junk Science

The Top 10 Tricks Used by Corporate Junk ScienceBy Makia Freeman

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Corporate junk science is an all-pervading  presence in our society. It’s everywhere. The scientific journals of the entire world, offline and online, have been flooded with so much fake  science that it has, sad to say, become practically impossible  for the average person to wade through all of it and sort out the wheat from the chaff.

The fake science I am referring to here is not unintentional or sloppy work, which is more of a minor problem in the scheme of things (since it will eventually be corrected with due diligence), but rather the deliberately  fraudulent “scientific” studies  which are put out by major corporations with a definite agenda in mind – usually establishing a fake scientific basis of “safety” for their products, whether they be vaccines, mobile phones, GMOs, tobacco, fluoride, soda or soft drinks, etc. It’s nothing more than corporate junk science, and many people, including doctors, scientists and academics, have been taken in  hook, line and sinker by it.

It’s time to shine the light on this ugly phenomenon.

Science is meant to be about the pursuit of truth and understanding how our  world works. It is truly sickening to see the extent to which it has been hijacked to serve corporate interests,  at the expense of harming and killing the rest of mankind.

Research Misconduct  and  False Research

A recent study published on JAMA  entitled “Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration” found some very disturbing things in its sample of 57 studies that it analyzed:

“Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%).”

Take a look at this first finding. It states that 39% which is around 2/5 of studies committed data falsification! How can we possibly trust medical science when the fraud is so blatant and widespread? And it’s not as though the authors of these studies come out and admit it. The study also found that:

“Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.”

Another study at PLOS ONE entitled “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” concluded that:

“It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.”

In light of all of this,  if we want the truth, we need to look at the whole structure of how “science”  works in the real world. We need to get wise to the methods that are used by unscrupulous groups to further their agenda. With that in mind, here is a list of the top 10 tricks used by the corporatocracy to pull the wool over your eyes by manipulating science and substituting their fake corporate junk science instead (thanks to Webster Kehr of for compiling his  instructive list, from which the below points are derived).

1. Substituting Synthetic for Natural Versions of a Nutrient

Those who know a little about nutrition probably realize by now that there is a vast difference between a nutrient found in a food or plant, and its synthetic counterpart artificially made in a lab. All vitamin C is not created equal; some versions are more equal than others. The same goes for other vitamins. It also applies to minerals, since some are derived from plant or animal matter (“organic”) whereas others are derived from rock (“inorganic”). The body can’t assimilate inorganic minerals, so all those so-called “natural” supplements full of rock and fossil-derived calcium are useless, and are actually harming your body by causing calcification.

When the corporatocracy wants a result skewed against an unpatentable  natural solution and in favor of one of their patentable products, they simply use the synthetic (and less potent) version of that nutrient in the study and “find” that it is ineffective. Corporate junk science at its best!

2.  Isolating  Nutrients to Remove their Power of Synergy

Here’s another trick used by corporate junk science. If it’s trying to “scientifically prove” that a natural substance is ineffective, rather than testing the whole substance, it will isolate certain nutrients from it, declare them the only ones with any health benefit, then find them ineffective. This is like taking a clove of garlic, declaring that allicin is the only thing in it that could possibly do any good for human health, and then disregarding the whole plant when allicin doesn’t do everything you expected. The same goes for when  corporate junk science, intentionally or not, tests the wrong nutrient and declares itself finished with testing.

Nature doesn’t work like this. Plants are complex organisms. Some are composed of hundreds of different phytonutrients which work together synergistically to produce wellness in the human body. Real science would test the whole plant  open-mindedly in a variety of ways to try to discover and unlock the secret to its healing potential.

3. Contaminating the Tests

Webster Kehr  mentions a case involving laetrile or amygdalin (colloquially called vitamin B17). He writes that  the “NIH contaminated an already bogus pill being used in a study. Natural laetrile  cannot and has never  given a patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. It simply is impossible. The NIH refused to allow an alternative laetrile vendor to supply natural laetrile for the study – so they could create a custom pill for the study.  In creating their custom bogus laetrile pill, it was not enough for them to not have any natural  laetrile  in the pill. A worthless pill would not have given any patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. They also had to lace the pill with inorganic cyanide so that the patients would have the symptoms of cyanide poisoning.”

As explained in my article “Natural Cancer Cure Laetrile (Amygdalin, Vitamin B17) Works Better than Chemotherapy“, the cyanide contained in apricot kernels, apple seeds, etc. is a selective cancer cell killer. It leaves healthy cells alone, because they can disable the cyanide.

4. Altering  the Treatment Plan

If corporate junk science can’t prove a natural substance itself is ineffective, then it uses the trick of altering the treatment plan, so that people are getting the correct  amount of that substance. This could be as simple as making the dosage too low or too high, or combining the substance with other foods or drink which disable its  healing effects, or heating it, etc. Just like Big Pharma drugs, natural cures require a patent to follow a correct dosage and treatment plan for them to be successful in healing disease.

5. Getting Tricky with Statistics

Mark Twain once said that there are “lies, damn lies and statistics”. Corporate junk science often plays around with the numbers to emphasize one thing and hide another thing. Big Biotech often does this with their GMO studies, for instance, never allowing a study to exceed 90 days (after which the deleterious effects of GMOs begin to emerge).

6. The False Worship of Double Blind Studies

Are double blind studies always the gold standard? As Kehr points out, “in many cases, a double blind study makes no sense in the world. For example, how could you do a double blind study comparing a person who refuses all orthodox cancer treatments with someone who goes through chemotherapy? It is a stupid concept, because after one day a person would know which group they were in … How can you compare chemotherapy to Vitamin C in a double blind study? The chemotherapy group would have intense pain, sickness, their hair will fall out, and so on. The Vitamin C group would have no added pain, no sickness (except perhaps diarrhea), and their hair will not fall out, etc.”

7. Selecting Patients Favorable to the Agenda

The selection protocol in determining which patients to choose for a study is important, because by carefully selecting  the patients in a study, you can to a large extent  control the outcome of the study. Kehr gives examples of how the Mayo Clinic choose a narrow range of cancers as opposed to Pauling and Cameron when testing the efficacy of vitamin C as a natural cancer treatment.

8. Bribing the Peer-Review Group

In my article “The Massive Flaw with the Scientific Hierarchy of Evidence“, I highlighted how a distinguished 20-year medical journal editor became so appalled with the flagrant corruption of corporate junk science, she declared that it was  no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published. The peer review process has itself become too corrupted.

This is from Webster Kehr:

“In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and “consulting fees” are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 [per year] from companies whose work they judge. Isn’t that comforting?

9. Controlling the Publicization of the Results

Most scientists are given contracts by the corporatocracy which contain a clause forbidding them to publicize results that the funders don’t like. This means that Big Pharma, Bir Agra, Big Biotech or whoever it is  has  the legal right to suppress the results of any  study they don’t like – including  being able to stop scientists from  submitting such  studies to a journal.

10. Controlling the Funding and Hiding the Funders

Science is, to some extent, by the admissions of one of its branches quantum physics, based on the state of the observer. So, it is unsurprising that it can be manipulated by placing the people who have your point of view in control. An outcome is more likely to be generated when you have people expecting (or subconsciously intending) that result. On top of this, results can be bought and the true  finance behind that bribery can be hidden through front groups, think tanks, shell corporations, fake grassroots (astroturf) organizations and many other means.

The 10 tricks do, of course, exist in addition to  the massive category of data falsification, where corporations omit and distort results at will through all sorts of chicanery (e.g. not reporting patients who suffer side effects and instead labeling them as “non-compliant”).

Corporate junk science is like a cancer parasiting off the host and destroying humanity’s attempt for knowledge and objectivity. The time has come to expose it fully and restore truth.



Previous articles by Makia Freeman:

About the author:

Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance. An avid promoter of freedom, truth and health, his mission is to expose the truth, raise awareness about the conspiracy to enslave mankind and to help create a critical mass of people to stand up against it – and thus restore peace and freedom to the world. - Knowledge is Power

Want to keep informed with news and analysis on the New World Order, Natural Health, Sovereignty and more? Visit for more, follow Tools For Freedom on Facebook or sign up for ‘The Freedom Articles’ blog updates.


Did you find this article helpful?

If so, please consider a donation to help the evolution of Wake Up World and show your support for alternative media.

Your generosity is greatly appreciate.

Wake Up World's latest videos


  • Phillis Stein

    The paragraph that you quote above – my reading of it shows that I suspect the author has made a slight oversight and meant to say “altering the treatment plan, so that people AREN’T getting the correct amount of that substance.” FYI.

    I’ve already come across a LOT of these issues since looking directly at science articles – I have an extremely solid data background, and thus I can now sniff such a “rat” a mile off, in most cases. In fact, in my experience, if the data is extremely complex, many people stuff it up completely even when they are NOT even trying to do so! However, I agree, I’ve already come across numerous studies where I’ve seen many of the above points illustrated, and more – and that’s without getting my hands on any raw data! Some of it could be ignorance – how is a chemist supposed to know which natural products to use, for example? However, yes, we all know there are a LOT of the problems that you have mentioned above. There are many more and, in fact, there is now a team in the Netherlands that is dedicating itself to looking into the ‘science’, and they have been finding many worse problems than this, including studies that weren’t even conducted at all, and where all of the data was simply fabricated.

    This is why I always try to go back to the original study when I’m looking at something (a lesson Iearned from my data days) rather than looking at someone else’s interpretation of that study also. There seems to be a huge problem in terms of the interpretation of studies also, which adds another layer of difficulty for the uninitiated.