We will show that the flaws in medicine cannot be fixed. However, medicine on a wrong foundation cannot benefit patients, but endanger patients.

A. Flaws have been in the whole medicine

Medicine was established on flawed foundation [8-9] as it uses population approach three centuries ago. As extensively discussed in my prior studies, a large number of post-1980 studies [10-56] have produced conclusive evidence that disease and health are controlled by multiple factors. Disease cannot be cured by focusing on one or few factors. Many researches provide irrefutable evidence to reject the reductionist model. Toxicity mechanism studies for drugs and chemicals [29-54] imply that symptom-based causation methods are wrong; the discoveries of vital organ surplus functional capacities [10-13] also imply gradual damages caused by toxic substances do not cause symptoms in most times, especially, in the early stage of damage. Based on all known drug damages, most of the withdrawn drugs [55] do not cause acute adverse reactions because it took years to recognize. While I only cited a few drugs/chemicals as examples, The findings of THOUSANDS of drug and chemical studies have an effect of proving that symptom-based side-effect research method is wrong.

The discoveries of a large number of health influence factors on health [8-9, 13] refuted the reductionist treatment model. The discovery of the stress role on personal health [14-24] implies that diseases cannot be cured by focusing on the body part only. The findings of cellular damages and the findings of a large number of harmful drugs/chemicals [29-54] refute the Independent Action Model [56]. The tightly integrated nature of biological pathways in human biological pathways networks implies that intervention by a synthetic drug cannot correct a diseased pathway without disrupting other pathways in the metabolic network [9, 57, 58]. This can be easily seen from the traffic model. Based on thousands of post-1980 studies, the binary disease category method [9] introduces too many and too big errors. Those factual findings imply that nearly everything about researches and treatments in medicine is deeply flawed. The findings explain why medicine has been failed to find cures [59-67]. The failure is most clearly reflected in cancer research: Drug performance is very poor based on randomly selected reviews for cancer drugs and treatments [68-86]. Drug performance is inflated by all model flaws [9], and their real benefits-to-risks ratios are magnitudes lower [1]. Most early disease theories are very poor or largely wrong [51, 92-97]. Most latent side effects can be observed after long delays: 4 years to several decades for non-naturally occurring cancer [98], at least 10 years for pesticides [99], and about three decades for DES [49-50]. The long latent periods are implied by the cellular damage mechanisms, the massive redundant vital organ functional capacities in healthy humans and a large number of interference factors. The true performance of drugs like chemo drugs is much worse based on long-term studies [63, 100-101].

The implication of the large number of post-1980 research findings is that all disease theories concerning chronic diseases and cancer are wrong or at least very poor. Personal health, which is a measure of life quality, is never something that can be evaluated by doing comparative experiments focusing on one factor at a time in a manner like weighing goods on a balance [1, 9]. The idea, which is based on common sense, turns out to be wrong in every aspect that I have studied. Based on factual findings from potentially millions of studies published in the last half century, I must reject everything from the reductionist, experiment-based research model, disease classification method, most mathematical models, use of statistical models, the use of the binary scale, major disease theories, mechanism-based drug discovery model, outcome-based research approach, symptom-based diagnostic approach, standard medical research model, symptom-based causation method, etc. as long as they are concerned with personal health and chronic diseases [9]. Health is far more complex than any physical system. The complexity of the human body can be attributed to three distinctive parameters: personal genome [25], personal environment [101-104] and personal emotional state [14-24, 314], each of which requires that each disease must be addressed in a specific way [9]. Each human is made of unique a genetic blueprint which precludes use of the population approach. If the population approach were used to repair cars and planes, it would cripple all cars and planes. Those discoveries imply that medicine cannot find cures for chronic diseases [9] but endanger patient lives.

B. Flawed Medicine Has been Hijacked to Advance Trade Revenue but Never Cures

Long before the flaws in medical foundation were understood and challenged, a large number of problems in medical research were noted [105]. The development history of clinical trials reveals that the model was developed by adding various components in different times, as attempts to address inherent problems [106]. In the long history, medicines always mean natural products [9]. After humans gained the ability to synthesize chemicals, synthesized chemicals were used as anesthetic agents, antibiotics, and painkillers. None of those uses have the effect of curing chronic diseases. However, a hypothesis silently entered into medicine without scrutinizing all inherent problems of synthetic chemicals. No attempt has been made to vet potential dangers of synthetic chemicals [9]. There was never a systematic theory or justification for their use.

Drugs must be approved by FDA before they can be sold in the U.S. [107-108]. Since drug merits must be determined by some kinds of research, drug industry must seek to establish and maintain a research framework that favors drug discoveries and approvals. Since there is no plausible theory to show that synthetic drugs can cure chronic diseases [1, 9], drug industry does not need to find drugs that can actually cure diseases; the drug industry must have found that human bodies have massive vital functional capacities for tolerating drug side effects in expected use conditions [10-14] and take advantage of this property in promoting drugs as medicine. What matters is that a drug can produce nominal short-term benefits but does not cause imminent danger. This can be achieved only by using the flawed research models or clinical trials.

The drug industry controls the medical industry by controlling commercial medical publishers [109-116], financing researches [117-128], supporting medical practices [129-130], and “educating” consumers [132-133]. By manipulating various things [134-137], the drug industry can always get the results they want [124, 130]. They sponsor researches, award scholarships to medical students, award fellowships to medical researchers, provide financial assistance to scholars covering traveling expense, conference registration fees, etc. Researches sponsored by drug companies are expected to promote drugs. It is generally understood that if research findings are negative, they would lose future funding. Drug industry also influences doctors by providing free drug samples, sponsoring clinical researches, paying publication fees, paying for speaker fees, etc [129-131, 193]. Drug industry also influences consumers by massive TV and Radio campaigns directed to both patients and doctors [133]. From 1997 through 2016, the drug industry spent $17.7 to $29.9 billion for targeting consumers and doctors.

Drug industry has no duty to humankind [134]. After drug business exists for more than a century, it must have learned how to get required data and conclusions by manipulating journals. They published articles in fake journals [110-115] and do various things to achieve favorable results [119, 122, 134]. It is clear that clinical trials have the magic role of concealing latent side effects. The drug industry has inherent interest in keeping the deeply flawed reductionist research and treatment models that favor drug sales and commercialization. Leading medical publishers have a strong interest in maintaining existing revenues from the drug industry and creating entrance barriers to secure their monopoly revenue [109]. Thus, drug industry and medical journals have a common interest in keeping alive the research and treatment models that favor drug discovery and commercialization. The more articles the medical publishers publish, the more revenues they get from the drug industry. They have formed a de factor revenue-sharing partnership.

The partnership between the drug industry and the publishing industry become extremely important after 1980. Massive post-1980 research findings [46, 69-82, 138-146] started showing failure of drugs. Thus, the drug-for-health hypothesis is constantly under challenge and the need to use alternative health measures arose. Disruptive discoveries provide irrefutable evidence to throw out the reductionist research and treatment models [9]. Acceptance of the discoveries could disrupt drug industry’s revenues and thus the medical publishers’ revenues. The drug industry must cling onto flawed research models that can inflate drug benefits and write off drug side effects, and the publishers must do their part to suppress discoveries that could pronounce the end of drug-for-health era. Moreover, since the medical publishers share medical trade revenue, they must know that putting more people on more drugs can generate more profits than curing their diseases and they have the same incentive to keep alive the drug-for-health medicine. They slowly found themselves in “unethical but profitable business”, and must do everything necessary to protect their revenue. They slowly developed peer review [150], impact factors [173-175] and overwhelming editorial requirements, and successfully sold them to societies, and created irrelevant article standards for deceiving people and societies.

Peer review is the most powerful monopolistic instrumentality because it requires long time to build a huge reviewers pool like those used in Nature, Lancet, and NEJM; and this factor alone could preclude new publishers, open access journals, and open science foundations from completing with them. Impact fact is the second powerful factor for preventing new publishers from entering publishing business. It is like gaining a future power by counting their monopoly power. The medical publishers adopted a large number of technicalities to inflate the perception of “quality”. In fact, all were intended to preclude competition, turn more people into their revenue feeds, and create more diseases expanding their revenue. Based on the nature of their conducts, the medical journals “have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry” [147]. However, their impacts are far more than what a traditional information launders could achieve. They promote junk science, suppress truth, preclude competition, and expand patient population. By using their marketing power, the drug industry and the medical publishers influence legislative process, medical practices, and popular belief, and thus ruined population health wisdom and thus preclude reform. They have inflicted worst damages to patients, public health, species, and the planet.

C. Peer Review, Impact Fact, and Editorial Polices Are Placed to Kill Competitors, Torment Patents and Defraud Societies

The medical publishers have kept selling their articles for being peer reviewed. Most of them have adopted ill-intended peer review to reject articles for any reason. Peer review is known to cause a large number of problems [150-160] and consistently produce erratic, meaningless, and unjust results. Real purposes of using peer review are protecting trade interest, maintaining steady revenue, precluding competition, poisoning population wisdom and precluding reform.

A constructive review is necessary to discern non-scholar articles and improve article quality. A peer reviewer cannot improve quality of a research which has been completed by researchers in years of trials and errors. The argument that peer review can improve research quality is factually untrue and theoretically impossible. It is found that peer review cannot produce consistent results [155] and cannot prevent scandalous articles [112]. Peer review was done for more than half a century, but failed to prevent massive problems in medicine. Medicine continues to refuse to acknowledge the limitations of the population model, flaws in clinical trials, and flaws in statistical models [8-9]. Peer review must have deterred researchers from writing articles for mitigating the impact of Somatic Mutation Theory [92-93], correcting the effects of the Independent Action Model [56] in environment protection, exploring alternatives to the symptoms-based method for studying drug side effects [1], and limiting the use of flawed epidemiological model R0 [68]. Peer review, based on the rule of unanimous consent concept, must have prevented researchers from questioning the drugs-for-health hypothesis and from expunging junk science from the medical literature. Factual discoveries in support of multiple factors disease model started appearing as early as 1980, but peer review must have deterred anyone from bringing this model into the light of day. Peer review is the reason for medicine to repeat its failure in more than a century.

Pear reviewers are selected often by randomly drawing or at author suggestion. Two to three out of millions of potential reviewers are asked to determine research merit cannot be a serious measure but a marketing scam, giving that peer reviewers can have different opinions. Most existing medical theories can be in dispute for more than hundreds of years [1]. From a probability point of view, such a review is much worse than rolling a die and is closer to playing a lottery to see the luck of 2-3 over potentially millions. Peer review may be a good design for entertainment like a million dollars show, but is reckless way to decide the fate of researches that would affect human survival and the planet. No peer has the capacity to judge a discovery upon a brief review before the discovery has been actually tested in the world. Peer review can preferentially suppress research articles presented by individuals and small entities, but never research articles by the drug industry, which can easily select or even purchase journals and fund two reviewers to support their articles. Peer review is incapable of evaluating merit of any complex research, but created erratic results [151, 155]. It is a very unwise idea to get a verdict of two to three peers for an article that is reduced from years of research efforts and that may affect millions of people. Peers are unfit for reviewing “strikingly new work” [159-160, 165]. Medical literature reveals that the medicine could not resolve many disputes (e.g., in cancer theories, stress effects, lead toxicity, etc [1]) in hundreds to thousands years. Yet, the medical publishers have successfully sold to societies the idea that their peers can settle any dispute in a matter of hours. Now, society suffers the current plight because it has accepted or condoned such practices that should have been banned a century ago.

It is well known that peer review is the most powerful tool for killing innovations in medicine [159-160]. I will show that peer review can destroy innovative landscape in several ways. It eliminates innovation incentive by encouraging researchers to use accepted research model. Peer reviewers have created existing articles for new researchers to follow. By reading the published articles, researchers would find what research subjects can pass peer review. The researchers thus unconsciously fall in the trap: good and publishable articles must follow publishable subjects and written in acceptable article styles. New researchers and new authors must develop tolerance for junk science. One example is the model used to predict infectious diseases by R0 [68]. As I have shown, one must accept and promote if even if every assumption in the model makes no sense [68]. The model sounds a good idea when all variables used in the model have not been studied. Inaccuracies in the variables are not about a 2%, 10% or 30% errors, but all assumptions are completely wrong [104]. Yet, peer reviewers must accept such a model year after year because it has been generally accepted. Peer review must disallow authors from criticizing anything that would affect the trade interest. If one criticizes any theory such as R0 in an article, the article most probably reviewed by peers who have written articles on the same theory. No one can criticize junk science and trade problems.

Peer review is the very reason to keep junk science forever; similar research is repeated in the same way, written in the same format, motivated to promote drugs, and ended up with similar failure. Peer review is exactly what enables the drug industry and the medical publishers to achieve the maximum revenues. After having been influenced by published articles, the mindset of new researchers will be downgraded to promote trade interest and enterprise interest. Researchers cannot advocate that chronic diseases must be addressed in a different way. If researchers find limitations in the research model, they must think if their disruptive view can pass peer review. Since peers are drawn from all potential peers, an acceptable research must be one that would please all peers except the sponsored researchers who can buy a journal and peers. The researchers must abandon any innovative idea in fears that their researches cannot be published. This is exactly what the drug industry and the medical publishers want to achieve: keeping the junk science forever. While peer reviewers cannot see disruptive discoveries, they can see whether a new research direction might hurt their reputations, their professional standing and competitiveness in grant seeking competition.

Peers are selected from researchers who may compete with the authors. Thus, authors, researchers, and peer reviewers are potentially competitors. Some people can be authors and peers in different times or in front of different journals. This idea of using peers may come from the jury system. Use of peers to decide civil and criminal cases have a sound rationale because peers used in litigation cannot be competitors of litigants. Jurors are selected from those who do not have any dealing with the parties can cannot be competitors. Medical journals do not care about this kind of serious problems because it is none of their business. They can create all kinds of situations where author rights are infringed by reviewers, often resulting in severe damages to public interest. If researchers and authors would fabricate research data, they would dishonestly reject any articles if they serve as peer reviewers.

If peer review had been used to review patent applications, it would have wiped out nearly all inventions from the world. Ill-intended peer review serves to help medical journals to achieve triple illegal goals: precluding competition, protecting revenue stream by ruining public health and harming patients, and enlarging patient population as their revenue feeds. Every claim to improve research quality is factually impossible. It is why all obsolete disease theories can live forever, and dangerous medical drugs can come out one after another from production pipelines. Peer reviewer is also used as a device to deceive audience. To divert public attention to failure of drugs for curing diseases, the medical publishers use peer review to diffuse the attention of people and societies from true impacts on public health to peer review process. Instead paying attention to research discoveries and their impacts on patients, arguments are often revolved around peer review and its great merits. Whenever they made this argument, such argument also automatically belittle those non-peer reviewed articles as junk science. I saw often that when a controversial article was published, a critique did not address substantive issue, but only pointed out lack of peer review as the only attack. Peer review serves as the device of discrediting anything that might impair medical enterprise revenue.

When reviewer identities are disclosed, if something is wrong, it is possible to hold the reviewers accountable for bad faith decisions. To achieve the maximum lethal power to preclude disruptive researches, some medical journals use double-blind peer review method where both the author identity and reviewers are not disclosed. With this shield, peers can kill any disruptive discovery which would affect millions to billions of lives even without being disclosed. With such a protection, a peer reviewer can vote to reject any article if he does not like, cannot understand, or impair his reputation [145]. This kind of peer review is the most powerful device for protecting journal monopolistic position and medical trade interest. Maintaining high research quality is only a marketing slogan that has successfully deceived people and societies.

In addition to the ill-intended peer review, many medical publishers screen all articles by in-house reviewers [145] as the first step and suppress articles that might harm their revenue. When they reject articles, they claim rejected articles do not fit into their scopes. However, if price is right, they publish any articles, including set a fake journal [112]. An offer for buying a million dollars reprints cannot be rejected. By using in-house review, the medical publishers kill disruptive discoveries that could threaten their revenue streams and monopolistic positions.

Both editorial review and peer review can completely compromise whole field knowledge by their veto power. A large number of research articles do not support drug art but could provide powerful evidence to refute the drug-for-health hypothesis. As noted in an article, “In the case of clinical trials, withholding negative results from publication — publication bias — could have major consequences for the health of millions.” [177]. Real problems are much worse. In reality, the overall success rates of drug researches from Phase I for all developmental candidates over 2011–2020 was 7.9% [178]. This implies that more than 90% drug candidates fail. The unpublished data implies that the drugs-for-health hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. By killing such studies for whatever reason, the medical journals keep medical researchers on a track of drug researches with no chance of success. Moreover, since each health problem is a multiple factor problem, no research attempt is completely useless. Even if a research is done in experiment with a wrong analysis, it may still contain some data pieces that show certain aspects of health issue. The very wrongness could be valuable finding for preventing repeating the same error. The failure of cancer drugs is the most powerful evidence for seeking new direction. To make changes in the research direction, the number of failures is important. One hundred of articles may be not enough, but millions of findings of past failures may become a compelling evidence for exploring new direction. It is possible that bad discoveries can be used in combination of other discoveries to address a critical problem. Thus, an old study on infection’s role on cancer may still reflect one factor: toxic metabolic by-products of certain infection agents may be one causal factor for certain type of cancer or can impair the immune system. This piece of evidence may still be valid. By using peer review and editorial review, they keep obsolete and wrong disease theories, dangerous practices, the Voodoo spell, and the drug-for-health movement [132] going forever.

The medical publishers developed impact factors [166-168] which can amplify the influence of money. This great invention can advance monopolistic influences. Now, we see a publication model which can publish more and more articles on drugs and turn drugs discoveries into the best science. “Science” value is artificially inflated by duplicating and repeating publication of the same researches [169-174]. Assuming one company republished the same article in several journals that cite each other, it will increase impact factors for all of those involved journals. Moreover, drug industry pays journalists for writing about drugs, drug discoveries, new promises for cures, and sponsored commercial articles in popular media, the same article naturally has high impacts for all kinds of predictable or unforeseen reasons. Impact factor has a compounding effect: the journals with more drug articles must have higher impact factors, and the high impact factors help them to attract more drug companies as future clients. It is like a circular electronic positive feedback driven by money. By promoting this kind of deceptive scheme, we see that a bizarre phenomena: a trade magazine may an impact factor of nearly 60 or more, but open assess journals for public interest might have less than one. However, impact factors does not tell whether the article is promoting public health, defraud patients and ruin the planet. Nearly all high impact journals advance drug industry interest at the costs of public health. The journals with monopoly power can increase their revenue-generating capacities by taking advantage of their achievements from prior monopolistic conduct and the fruit of information laundering. It is like the more money, the better science; and strong monopoly power, the better science. If a medical publisher now designs this publishing scheme anew, it would invite worldwide condemnation. However, they achieved their current monopolistic standing by slowly gaining their monopoly power. The circumstances have diverted critical attention of people and societies to other things but not the illegal acts and severe consequences, and thus have escaped from antitrust scrutiny by federal enforcement agencies.

To further deceive people and societies, medical publishers have created other devices such as formality standards, in-house formality review, article specifications, conflict declaration, etc. all in the name of promoting article quality. Other devices include requirements concerning article structure, length, citation number, table number, figure number, reference format, even subtitle length, evidence-based finding requirements, etc., each of which is tailored to articles for promoting drugs based on unrealistic and abstract drug mechanisms. They must know that an article challenging the foundation of medicine would need much larger space and an article concerning true health science cannot be limited to 4,000 to 6,000 worlds, but those journals provide no exception. The restrictions are to preclude challenges. One can present a new theory in 6,000 words. To throw a flawed theory out, the researcher cannot just rely on one piece of evidence, but must present tens to hundreds of pieces of evidence. To determine whether surgeries and chemo are good for patients [63], a thorough investigation would require much more space. Even their article structures have an effect of precluding true health science and suppressing articles that challenge the drug-for-health concept. They stress way of expressions, writing elegance, section formats, manner of presentation, etc. except the merit of curing diseases and effects on patients. Irrelevant requirements, unnecessary formality, and burdensome technicalities are all used to defraud audience, patients and societies. Medical journals have run their business for decades, and must know how to use barriers for preventing changes. As a result, each major problem in cancer treatments can be found only when they are reviewed together. Their ill-intended publication requirements could keep each dangerous treatment forever. One more thing they have done is to prevent popular media from bypassing their control. This has been achieved by the Ingelfinger Rule [182], which bars media from discussing articles that have not been published, clearly for monopoly purpose.

[omitted]

D. Emergence of Monopolistic Information Laundering Enterprise

By years of concerted actions, drug companies, monopolistic medical publishers, and popular media have formed a gigantic information laundering enterprise. In this system, medical knowledge is disseminated in serial steps with clear biases in favor of promoting junk science and false revenue-generating information. The first layer of the biases was selection of research projects by drug sponsors. The drug sponsors promote drug-for-health concept by using paid medical publishers. The second layer of the biases is caused by trade medical journals: when their primary revenues come from the drug business, they must do everything to promote drugs and have absolute incentives to suppress every discovery that could negatively affect their drug-related revenue. Those two industries have enough force to turn the medical science into junk medicine or trade journals. Leading trade journals such as Nature, NEJM, Science, JAMA, etc. have decisive control over living medical knowledge. The third layer of the biases is injected by popular media (e.g., TV, radio, websites, and other digital media) which are all owned by private entities. They distribute information for money, a big part of which come from the drug industry. Those trade journals must promote flawed medicine, drug-for-health concept, trade arts, toxic drugs, and whatever with highest revenue generating potential. Medical publishers and popular media share common financial interest [109]: each time when a trade medical publisher promotes a new drug concept, the concept will bring great revenue opportunities to the popular media. The fourth layer of the biases can be found in polices and practices of social media. They support the drug-for-health concept but bar any claim of treating and curing diseases. Their polices and practices have a net effect of destroying health culture and health wisdom. The fifth layer of the biases is found in monopolistic search engines. Junk sciences, trade art, scam protocols, trade articles, etc. cannot be discovered by consumers without search engines. Paid by drug vendors and other interest holders, search engines enable consumers and doctors to find information on trade articles, drugs benefits, drug theories, and drug sources, often by grabbing consumers attention by sponsored advertisements. Search engines also promote contents and services for medical practices, hospitals, medical information service companies, state and federal agencies, etc. Billions of dollars drive this system at multiple points to disseminate flawed and fraudulent medical information to people and societies. Since junk science and false information are also imposed on societies by legal means, many practicing doctors, experts, and organizations are involuntary participants. As a result, a piece of junk science or trade art may be presented to consumers millions to billions of times, but millions of contrary scientific discoveries are suppressed or ignored. This is why people cannot see the view that the cancer treatments are intended to extract the maximum revenues and maximum pains from cancer patients.

After decades of operation, the information laundering enterprise has (1) turned junk science into best science or painted flawed research and treatment models as “gold standard”; (2) turned trade magazines such as NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Lancet, Science, etc. into “scientific journals” to mislead people and societies; (3) turned trade motivated researches into “scientific” researches to conceal game-changing subjects selection biases; (4) misled societies to believe that a declaration of conflict of interest can eliminate monetary influences; (5) suppressed scientific discoveries that could hurt trade interest and enterprise revenue; (6) exaggerated the benefits of drugs and belittled the vital roles of lifestyles, personal daily activities and personal health wisdom; (7) used ill-intended peer review, impact factors, article formality, etc. to protect their revenues and monopoly positions; and (8) transferred personal health properties into the “population properties” and thus increase revenue feeds.

In order to achieve the maximum efficiency, they must raise the “scientific merit” of laundered information. By years of joint propaganda, they were able to eliminate the key distinction in revenue-seeking motivation between science and trade art. Each researcher has unlimited choices of research subjects, selecting a research subjects by funding or revenue completely eliminate scientific merit. By examining subjects of articles in NEJM, Nature, JAMA, Science, Lancet, etc, I found that a very high percentage of articles belong to trade articles. I estimate that more than 90% of articles concerning medical treatments are based on flawed models, junk science theories and rejected old theories, or otherwise motivated to promote drug revenue. When they cherry-pick one thing as a treatment over potentially millions of other better choices, they find “tallest dwarf” from a room full of dwarfs, but present it as the best treatment.

Information launders started developing theories to promote the drug-for-health business. By years of propaganda, they have successfully persuaded societies to accept the drug discovery paradigm: finding a drug to intervene a known metabolic pathway or a disease pathway as a way of treating a disease. However, all drug discovery theories are deeply flawed because (1) there is no real successful case in more than a century of tries, (2) all of drug theories cannot work, for crashing with well known metabolic pathway network in cells, and (3) none of drug discovery theories can stand over the multiple disease causes model. None of drug discovery theories can plausibly show how to correct one pathway without disrupting other metabolic pathways. The appearance of this drug developing paradigm was due to lack of understanding of life in the early time, but information launders now try to keep alive this unworkable drug paradigm by suppressing challenges and contrary discoveries.

E. Failure of Governments to Stop Monopolistic Information Laundering

Since flaws are found in the foundation of medicine, any reform or change would adversely affect a large number of persons with vested interest. It is anticipated that nobody can ever fix the flawed medicine without government intervention. Government can influence private behaviors by changing laws and regulations on drug approval, research funding programs, medicare laws, U.S. patent laws, tax laws, etc. In addition, antitrust law and wire fraud are powerful tool to stop information laundering.

Up to now, federal agencies have done nothing to ban information laundering despite overwhelming problems in medicine. Repeated failure in finding cures, aborted reforming attempts, and unmanageable medical spending are just obvious symptoms of this failed medical system. Federal agencies including NIH do not fund researches for public health and fail to examine obvious problems in the research landscape [185]. NIH has consistently supported researches by relying on deeply flawed research and treatment models [189-190] and using deeply flawed score-based grant evaluation process [188] to promote the “drug-for-health” health culture. All of those problems can be seen by searching NIH funded researches or examining the products of NIH-funded researches. NIH staff is dominated by medical professionals trained in medicine and NIH heavily relies on the same kind of peers in reviewing grant applications. Due to influence of trade articles, NIH has long become a trade promoter rather than a strategic ashier for new health science. U.S. patent law also provide highest protection for toxic synthetic drugs but do not provide patent protection for products and processes coming from nature [189-190].

After influenced by information laundering for decades, junk science has become mainstream “science”. NIH could not see massive problems and fails to see the need to counteract medical enterprise interest. NIH keeps funding drug researches, drug mechanism researches, vaccine researches, narrow basic researches, etc [186, 187, 191] for the purposes of finding fast “treatments”. It keeps throwing funds to hot and popular researches like competing for hot researches, but has failed to fund research projects that are unpopular, disruptive and adverse to vested interest or that could expose fundamental flaws, establish a new health science, or lead to an alternative health service trade or industry. I have more than ten research projects for just mRNA vaccines [1], they would affect everyone’s health and lives, but my researches do not fit into any funding program due to use of restrictive criteria, unnecessary technicalities and specifications, or trade-protecting peer review.

NIH has not seen the scandalous nature and impacts of the publish-for-money model. NIH has not done anything to insure all failed drug trials are brought into light to refute the drug-for-health hypothesis. NIH must agree that systematic suppression of research model problems must have game-ending impacts on public health, species, and the planet. Yet, NIH has done nothing in its long history to fix the big cancer that control the direction of medicine. Being the victim of information launders, NIH can only follow the path carved out by information launders. NIH supports peer review, endorses the publication model, favor the use of impact factor and have never do anything to examine the monopoly intention of overwhelming editorial policies. NIH does not come up with a very simple solution: take article selection right away from information launders and hand it to its own review staff. By implication, NIH must support revenue-promoting criteria as article quality.

By failing to correct the flaws in the foundation of medicine, NIH cannot use its fund to fulfill its mission to improve public health. Most federal agencies use the same lottery-like peer review in running grant programs [187-188]. Fund-eligible researches must be of the same kind of failed researches, win support from any peer reviewers, and fit into an article style designed for a reductionist science model. When the whole medial enterprise is established on the flawed foundation, no bad conduct in conducting research can be more culpable and dangerous. The medical journals may suppress research articles [192], drug companies and doctors may engage in corruption [180], researchers may use fake data [181] or commit all forms of research fraud [193]. When both the foundation and awarding process are flawed, no research conduct can add more harm to people and society. A research fraud involving $112.5 million [194-196] is not surprising. When a research change data, he or she most probably know the change would make difference to outcomes. The impacts of such conduct are only on competing grant applicants, but not necessarily public health and the planet. If this fund had been awarded to other researches, it could have been resulted in more dangerous drugs.

National Library of Medicine accepts only articles that have been published by commercial publishers and articles that NIH has funded or under some agreements [197]. Its admission criteria for articles into the library database are not related to research motivation, actual subjects, or patient safety. The library excludes articles automatically by established criteria which can be traced to the journal ability to leap trade revenue and enterprise revenue. Essentially, it uses all flawed, burdensome, and fraud-favoring criteria to exclude open access journals that do not use ill-intended peer review. When the revenue-seeking ability of the journals is in conflict with the ability to cure diseases, its admission criteria favor the former and thus promote information-laundering operation. NLM policies actually favor drug-promoting articles from trade magazines, articles advancing junk science, and preclude articles that would be vitally important to public health and human existence. NLM would never care about my reprint articles that refute the foundation of medicine and explain why most of the $40 billion federal research fund is wasted. When the operation of a federal agency is based on established policies and procedures without any exception in addressing issues that are dooming civilization, the agency cannot catch any opportunities for changing the fake of mankind. My articles directly affect the evaluation of vaccines and drugs, yet, NLM does not have a single living person to take a look and make a determination why it must be entered into its collection. NLM cannot think of a possibility that a discovery may affect the whole field of medicine and human survival, and but assume that all good researches can come from the monopolistic publishers supported by biased peer reviewers under the publish-for-money paradigm. So, I must find that the failure of medicine and approval of the dangerous mRNA vaccines can be attributed to performance of dysfunctional federal agencies.

Junk medicine has influenced all aspects of the medical industry like a malignant cancer. The cancer has found its way into all federal laws and regulations. It forces all federal agencies to take similar actions in the same way. Every aspect of flawed medicine is recognized, favored, promoted, or even legally enforced as the only valid medicine by all federal agencies including NIH, CDC, FDA, DOD, U.S. army, U.S. Navy, EPA, etc. There is absolutely no fix. Even if one agency wants to fix, there is no point to start with, and any intended change must have severe tension with other agencies. All parts of society are interconnected like a steel ball without any access point. When medicine is about to destroy human species, none of them could do anything directly. The only possible remedy is to stop information laundering to slowly restore true science. All federal agencies have done what they are supposed to support information laundering operation, but none of them has done what they should to stop it. After the medical literature has been filled with junk science, this slow path cannot give human species a realistic hope.

F. Information Laundering Destroys Population’s Health Wisdom

The biggest effect of information laundering is impairment of population’s health wisdom and people’s thinking capacity. This problem is reflected in every aspect of medicine such as early diagnosis of cancer, use of drugs to achieve health and personal behaviors of people in the pandemic. Under the influence of laundered information, few people (except some doctors) can see problems that are very obvious to outsiders. Most people believe in the merit of early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The only people who would object are doctors and researchers who have done researches in early diagnosis and over treatments of cancer [198-203]. All trade articles claim that cancer patients can have much better chance to achieve five-year survivals and thus powerfully “promote” this strategy. This claim is in fact true based on junk science.

Several lines of studies have refuted the claimed benefits of early diagnosis of most types of cancer. Most naturally occurring cancers have very long latent periods [63, 98-99] and could take 70 years to achieve a detectable tumor size. The total development time for most naturally occurring cancers is at least 10 years but often more than 20 years. It is also known that some cancers can stay in the same sizes for very long time [202] and dormant cancer is found in most people by the age of 85 [203-204]. Moreover, the growth speeds of most types of cancer can be dramatically altered by overwhelming factors including lifestyle [205], diets [206], emotional state [21-24], exercise [178-181], etc. Other factors influencing cancer growth speeds include chronic diseases [207], surgery [208], mechanical vibration [209], temperature [210], drugs [211-212], heavy metals [213-214], plastics [215], chemicals [216-217], bacteria [219-220], etc. Abnormal climate speed up carcinogens’ spread [218] while tormenting temperature fluctuations can impair human daily immune capacity[27]. Fear of death among cancer patients is the biggest factor accelerating cancer growth [21-24, 221]. A large number of factors could be altered to slow down cancer growth rate while all medical treatments actually greatly speed up cancer growth speeds, and damage whole person health.

Simulations could be conducted to show early cancer diagnosis has worsened the cancer epidemic. The problem can be seen from a hypothetical example: a person has an early undetectable tumor, which could start threatening his life after 10 to 30 years, depending on his diet, exercise, emotional state, etc. An early diagnosis has an effect of labeling the person with an incurable disease and ruins his emotional state instantly. The high stress then dramatically speeds up his cancer growth speed [63], like a Voodoo spell [221]; with all toxic and dangerous treatments, the person might survive more than 5 years, which becomes “achievement” statistic of the medical trade. If the person is not diagnosed with the cancer, he could easily live for another 10-year productive life, and if he is lucky, the early tumor might self resolve, keep dormant until his death, or undergo grow-and-shrink cycles in response to fluctuations in his overall health and emotional condition [27]. In this cited article, I reviewed many articles on cancer self resolution, which is beyond dispute. Early diagnosis thus deprives the patient of all potential slowing down or reversing opportunities. While early diagnosis can dramatically increase five-year survival rate, extended survival time cannot come from toxic chemo, cancer-inducing radiation and harmful diagnosis, and aggressive surgeries diminishing vital organs.

The increased survival time actually comes from the normally very long latent time of cancer. When a cancer is diagnosed early, some of the latent time was transferred to the survival time. Early diagnosis naturally creates a larger cancer population. By using early diagnosis, medicine turns cancer lifetime incidence rate from a very rare disease to 1/20 and finally into 0.4. With the massive toxic substance exposure, cancer will soon strike all human beings in each person lifetime with the first diagnosis ages going down to fifties, thirties, teens and newborns…. Based on irrefutable evidence, exposure to toxic substances [1], early diagnosis, and use of chemotherapeutic agents make the cancer epidemic worse. My question: is the cancer treatments are best? Medicine lacks incentive to root out the causes of cancer, but passionately promote extremely toxic drugs and increase the number of cancer patients as revenue feeds. It has no right to answer my question. When cancers are diagnosed in a very high frequency, a lot more people must die sooner from cancer. Most of them die after 5-year survivals. When medical trade and medical publishers are motivated by money, every treatment option is promoted for revenue, and its treatments cannot help patients except by accident.

The laundered information can ruin human mental state or thinking capability [83]. It is well known that cancer patients cannot weigh between 99% of big risks with potential 1% of benefits and may be willing to accept anything for hypothetical 1% chance of success. They are willing to receive toxic drugs just a few days before death [222-224]. Over treatment of cancer patients is the biggest problem. Patients could not see the dangers of over treatments, do not try hundreds of non-medical options, but cling onto drugs for a miracle which simply do not exist. Routine CT scanning and radiation treatments can increase the risks of getting cancers [225-226]. Cancer patients may demand CT scans to reach a level of exposure which could be enough to cause a new cancer. The high stress from ruined life and fears of death is the most severe factor. In addition, the increased sedentary lifestyle during cancer treatments also promotes cancer growth [179-181]. When all of those factors are considered together as a whole, anyone should see over treatments also shorten their lives. However, this practice turns potential cancer patients into revenue feeds and most probably dramatically increase the total number of cancer deaths.

Medicine is a trade for money but not a science for saving patients. Each disease or drug theory quickly brought new treatments to the world, but there is no way to end the wrong treatments after the theory was later rejected. Surgical removal and killing cancer cells were once justified by the somatic mutation theory (AMT), but this theory is most probably wrong in a super majority of cases, based on a large body of later discovered evidence [92]. All of inference factors discussed indicate cancer is in the tissue environment or reaction media or memory. Moreover, cancer spreading takes place in the earliest stage [90] and thus cutting tumor with large margins could not stop the cancer from spreading. In addition, aggressive surgery cannot be justified by the massive background mutations in all humans, exercise benefits on cancer survival, lifestyle effects, and cancer self-resolution. Mutation is most probably not cancer cause at least in most cases [51, 93], but cells’ adaptive response in a tumor environment for survival. There is no sound justification to remove tumors with large margins and killing all cancer cells as the primary purpose. All of cited evidence plus more I have not studied yet strongly implies that the old prior-1908 rule against surgery was correct. Medicine trade does not consider what would be better for cancer patients, lack incentive to explore the causes for cancer self resolution, and continue to promote gene tests and surgical operations together with all aggressive and harmful treatments as usual. Such cancer treatments thus deprive patients of the opportunities of using alternative measures, prevent cancer from self resolving, and inflict emotional pain like a Voodoo spell.

Cancer patients are the biggest victims of information laundering: the early- and over-diagnosis and over treatments shorten their lives and toxic drugs and aggressive treatments ruin their whole body health. The drug industry and the medical publishers do not disclose their financial gains from promoting their treatments and suppressing the indisputable fact that cancer is highly amendable to lifestyle, activities, exposure to toxic substance, emotional state, etc. They did not support any one to explore from self-resolution cases to find better approach. Information laundering results in a deeply flawed standard of care for cancer and thus imposes practicing doctors with a duty to prescribe harmful drugs and treatments [227-229]. The financial bias of practicing doctors could be enough to select unworkable drugs, but malpractice law forces them to choose the worst. That is why we see a strange phenomenon: 75% doctors would not prescribe chemo for themselves [198], but they must prescribe chemo to their patients. Even a super majority of doctors would not believe in laundered teaching. Influenced by laundered information, cancer patients are willing to accept drugs. Chemo therapy’s contribution to five-year survival rate was about 2-2.3% [72], but exercise can extend survival time by very larger amount of time [179-184]. When population could not see information laundering, cancer patients cling onto toxic drugs, harmful diagnosis, and aggressive surgeries.

Laundered medical information has destroyed human willingness to consider new discoveries and scientific truth. Since my works are suppressed systematically, I tried to disseminate my mRNA vaccines risks by sending email to people. People have developed immunity against truth. After they have been bombarded with flawed and fraudulent knowledge thousands of times, they all believe they know science. Everything contrary to mainstream beliefs is treated as misinformation. A super majority of recipients could not read my email before they got the first shot, the second shot, and booster shots….. The impacts of information laundering is far more than misleading people to their detriment, and have a magic effect of creating an immunity against truth. Those who conduct a search in Google likely gets hundreds of messages that the search engine wants to sell: commercial circulars, articles from the enterprise, articles from trade magazines, articles from drug companies, etc. They thus lose the last chance to avoid the dangers of the vaccines. When people reported serious problems like lasting fatigue, relapsed viral infection, lost thinking capacity, and lost energy, they still believe they could not have been caused by the vaccine. After medical information has been laundered for decades, consumers cannot be re-enabled to see problems in medicine and make sound decisions. The laundered information has actually ruined the population’s thinking capacities by systematically altering background information necessary for conducting correct analysis. They do not know that the life model and everything revolving it is wrong. Thus, people are willing to take drugs, chemo, surgeries, and aggressive treatments for any claimed benefits.

Information laundering has impaired every aspect of our life. Flawed studies advanced by interest holders have persuaded people to accept all kinds of dangerous substances: use of fluorides in city water to damage the kidneys and bones of the population; installation of automatic traffic cameras to waste energy and generate massive durable wastes; people are persuaded to take vitamins supplements in meta dosages which are often hundreds of times of required daily needs; disinfectants are spread on buildings often resulting in dangerous vapor levels, CDC 6-feet rule has caused store owners to keep customers standing long lines under ruin, snow, and cold wind blow…. When people have trusted in junk science, they naturally accept all kinds of dangers like committing chronic suicides. Each dangerous idea can quickly find its way into the population, destroying their health. Information laundering suppresses new discoveries supporting medical reform. By turning junk medicine into science, they eliminate the need for medical overhaul. By using their monopoly power, they can suppress all views urging for reform. By continuously swapping between junk science and true science, they eliminate new discoveries for starting reform. Thus, the flawed foundation of medicine cannot be improved, nor repaired, nor replaced, nor destroyed, and nor ignored. The reductionist approach continues controlling medicine. No existing laws and regulations have the force to compel the medical enterprise to practice science. Business is always driven by revenue; and consciousness for other lives and health is none of their business objectives. After the information laundering has molded every aspect of society, nothing can be done to improve medicine. Even federal agencies like NIH and CDC have become information laundering partners.

G. Junk Science Exerts Terminal Impacts on Humans and the Planet

I will show how the information laundering enterprise has exerted terminal impacts on public health, humankind, other species and the plant. I will show by how much the laundered information has written off the true toxicity of all toxic substances and how information launders have misled societies to act to the greatest detriment.

The flawed research model has made completely wrong prediction of the total toxicity of all toxic substances on the species on the planet. First, humans consider toxicity of synthetic chemicals only based on how they affect humans only. Thus, humans do not care whether a toxic chemical might kill a large number of non-human species. Many chemicals are found with higher lethal power to kill other species. Nature revenge by bringing all disasters from the destroyed ecosystem. Second, all drugs and chemicals are evaluated according to Independent Action Model and thus fail to see their combination toxicity. Third, the side effects or toxicity is determined by the symptom-based method, use of binary disease method in population trials or observations. Since each human being starts with huge vital organ functional reserves and can tolerate chronic poisoning without causing any symptoms during early exposure. All cellular damages that cannot be repaired pass down to daughter cells. Forth, each toxic substance can damage cells roughly proportional to its concentration and exposure time. When the substance is present in the body, damages happen in different locations of cells and different cells purely by chances; while damaged cells can be repaired by the immune system, some cells may lose cellular functional capacities or die, and thus organ functional capacities will decline with time. If the change is so small, its impact will be seen only after very long time. In other situations, exposure to toxic substances may continue if the toxic substances come from air, water, and soil. Even if exposure stops, damages continue being accumulated because those remaining in the body continue damaging cells with time. The total damages are proportional to time up to the life time of the host person. Most clinical trials cannot last personal life time, and thus massively write off damages by toxic substances.

Two factors that warrant discussion are lack of toxic symptom and combination interference effects of other weak factors. A well known fact is that people under chronic poisoning of kidneys, heart, liver lungs, etc. do not feel discomfort until the organ is unable to meet the required functional capacity, and most early cancers do not have subjective signs. Weak toxicity of nearly all toxic substances cannot be detected also due to interference of lifestyle factors. For example, most nutrients such as vitamin D have beneficial effects on some persons but toxic effects on others. Even though population data falsely show vitamin D has no effect due to canceling out between the positive effects and negative effects, it can interfere with any treatment in the personal level. The second factor, society fails to combine the toxic effects of all toxic compounds (by non-linear model, discussed below). While weak effects of drugs, chemicals, and compounds cannot be detected, each of which must cause cellular damages slowly. Because a person has a large number of cells, each chemical damage cells randomly. The overall damages must be the non-linear sum of all damages caused by all toxic substances. The total damages caused by a thousand compounds must be larger than the damage caused by one toxic compound. While the degree of damage by each chemical is small, their accumulated damages in each person’s life time must be much larger than prediction based on independent action model. The total amount of cellular damages depends on the number of toxic chemicals and exposure of time.

If I correct all errors introduced by (1) intention to destroy other species, (2) the independent action model, (3) the buffering effects of organ functional reserves (the cellular damages model), (4) damage-delaying effects, and (5) interference factors of life factors, the real stress of all toxic substances including drugs, chemicals, and toxic substances on life would be millions to billions times of the predicted impacts by the reductionist approach. However, due to diversity of life and differences between different persons, there is no reductionist index which is good for all species and all humans. Any yardstick must be based on a target life and specific individual being. The numeric value of the total stress of all toxic substances depends on the model to be used. While the there is no good model, it is clear that medicine has made disastrous and game-ending mistake that has an effect of putting humans and other species on brink of extinction.

I predict that when the total load of all toxic substances in human cells have reached certain levels, human being defined by current human genomes cannot survive like normal persons, and they must be re-selected in the continuous evolution. I believe that the total loads of toxic substances have exceeded thresholds for living normal life in some individuals, but will rapidly hit more and more people, and eventually cover all people in the population. The persons who cannot tolerate toxic substances will experience one or multiple cancers, CNS diseases, chronic diseases, or otherwise live miserable life. Human beings will die prematurely and probably miserably. No life can survive well over as predicted by my new model with the five corrections. Old people may escape from miseries by dying before the massive chemicals could reach them. The “forever chemicals” dispersion model implies that no one can escape no matter where the person lives. The adverse climate can bring toxic substances from oceans to lands. My model explains why species are rapidly extinct, humans are on the brink of extinction, and rescuing the current human genomes would require detoxification of the planet. To survive, everything in the remaining period of human species must revolve around environment, ecosystem and climate, or see everything rapidly degrading with time. Humans do not have another half a century of inaction.

Information laundering has gained the maximum destructive power by gaining monopoly power and forming the big enterprise. After having gained monopoly power, large corporation participants run their businesses like federal agencies according to their “established policies and processes”.

The terminal impacts of information laundering are intensified by using automated computerized processes. The information laundering enterprise is like a huge machine, which presents and broadcasts junk science, flawed disease theories, dangerous drugs, and harmful treatments in a non-stop basis. All forms of media including search engines, websites, TV, radios, newspapers, movies, video, school lectures, etc. promote laundered information. To conduct tests, when I typed “mRNA vaccine risks”, all I got were how great the mRNA vaccines are. In response to early cancer diagnosis, all returned records urged me to seek doctors immediately. Junk medicine finds its way into all social fibers, all person activities, all human personal decisions, all social phenomena, and all kinds of physical objects such as textbooks, magazines, novels, etc. and intangible things such as language, vocabularies, songs, movies, plays, video games, etc. Junk science and laundered information thus run and influence all walks of life, business transactions, and legal processes. Junk science slowly ruins people’s thinking capability and helps them to develop “immunity” against any other health sciences and hurts people, species, and the planet perpetually.

When the population has developed immunity against true science, no media could and would promote “other sciences” that may disturb their paid audience and paid advertisers. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Fox, etc. must promote only junk science to maintain their revenue streams from existing clients. Information launders have secured federal regulations to ban any claim of “treating or curing diseases”. All media participants rigidly honor this drug-protecting rule. The logic is like this: since drugs cannot cure diseases, nothing else could and thus no claim is allowed. By using the rule, they can raise drug’s relative benefits. By precluding even any attempt to find cures, their actions are like bringing death spells to themselves and humankind. The implication of the rule is that all diseases must be incurable.

Information launders have far more influences in science than NIH, FDA, CDC, etc. A rule set by a corporation may enable its automated computerized process to deliver flawed and fraudulent information millions to billions of times to poison the minds of the public. To promote their revenues, they must ignore, consciously disregard, and actively suppress thousands of important research articles by public interest groups. By monopoly or concerted actions, they use junk science to control medical practices, run human lives and businesses, and influence legislative processes. Misguided by junk science, each person’s activities may hurt self or others, each business transaction may harm the actor’s own health, other persons’ health, other species and even the planet. The laundered information has a collective effect of persuading billions of people to commit chronic suicides. No one told how the rapidly approved DES caused the worst nightmare in FDA history, no one told the truth the 1976 flu vaccination has hurt and killed people, and no one can have an article exposing flawed medicine published. If consumers can find risk information on mRNA vaccines, many of them could have chosen to avoid the vaccines, and thus avoided earlier deaths or future health uncertainty. Information laundering has cut off their every chance and sent all of them on destructive track.

Under influences of laundered information, medicine has developed a standard of care with a compelling force. In the U.S., junk science has found its ways into health care laws and regulations, environmental laws and regulations, food and drug laws, federal tax laws, state tax law, state business law, hospital regulations, medical board regulations, etc. Junk science has controlled medical practices, influence health culture and personal belief, promoted dangerous vaccines and drugs, and spread voodoo spells. Information laundering is responsible for failure of medicine, lack of cures for chronic diseases, and uncontrollable medical spending [59-64]. Enhanced by legal power, junk science has inflicted damages to people, societies, species and the planet.

Information launders have expanded their monopolistic power through influencing the legal system. A similar plight was caused by elixir which tormented ancient people in China for thousands years, killing at least 12 emperors. However, society was unable to enforce the man-killing magic pills to all people. Thus, they did not have compelling effects, and the most likely victims of “longevity pills” were the rich and powerful. However, when junk medicine has been laundered as science-based medicine and enforced by laws and regulations, we find ourselves on the worst situation we can imagine. The enterprise has developed sophisticated devices for stiffing innovations and stonewalling reform. No one can escape from the reach of laundered science.

Information laundering has impaired the daily actions of most federal agencies. When science and junk science has been swapped, we must see “travesty of science” and reproach of truth. Every federal agency that is supposedly run by science is now run by junk science; and every agency that supposedly promotes science actually promotes junk science. The U.S. patent system supposedly promotes science, but promotes synthetic drugs and provides little protection for natural products and nature-related processes [198-190]. Laundered junk science has caused NIH to distribute federal research funds to drug researches by a mismatched staff using flawed evaluation methods [187-188]. Junk science has caused FDA to establish flawed science framework which can inflate drug health benefits and massively write off drug injuries and latent side effects. Laundered information also turns NSF into a promoter of junk science rather science. When life model is wrong, nothing can be right.

As a result of information laundering, federal agencies and state agencies are promoting and enforcing junk science as the only science. The drug industry, the medical publishers, FDA and U.S. patent office jointly provides biggest incentives for developing, producing, and marketing synthetic drugs and chemicals while other federal and state agencies are participants. At the same time, the drug industry also buys monopolistic popular media to bloat drug benefits and suppress anything that could hurt drug selling revenues. They have fostered the population belief that only drugs can give health. Under this bizarre business and legal environment, genius, federal tax dollars, state tax dollars, private money and other social resources find their ways into this gigantic enterprise for developing, testing, and marketing synthetic drugs and toxic chemicals. When the foundation is wrong, reductionist science must exert terminal impacts on all species and the world.

Information laundering has fostered the drug-for-health culture. Misled by laundered information, people are willingly to ingest any drugs or to be exposed to any chemicals for any trivial or falsely claimed benefits in a way like committing chronic suicides. When people keep buying drugs and using things made of toxic chemicals, business success attributing to consumer purchases encourages more corporations to produce more and more dangerous drugs and chemicals. In the last half a century, toxic chemicals produced by corporations might have enough force to wipe out all species several times. Now, cancer is about to strike every human with a trend to find its way to newborns and fetuses, chronic diseases have inflicted more than half of the U.S. population, erratic climate keeps tormenting humans, ecosystem is in the process of irreversible ruining, and the planet has been crowned with a title of “toxic planet”, junk science still tells people that nothing needs to be done and provides corporation with incentives to develop more synthetic chemicals.

Information laundering has put the world is in a self-destruction process without fix. If a problem cannot be addressed by NIH, it cannot be corrected by any of other federal agencies or state agencies. When I predicted that mRNA vaccines would pose a large number of dangers and dramatically shorten human lives, I could not get any person’s attention. My articles were suppressed by monopolistic media and search engines. The current information dissemination paradigm guarantees that the people must go through the worst plight. This human tragedy and all potential future ones have been built in the process-based business model. Whether the vaccine is safe could be determined by several unbiased experts in a matter of a few days, but the majority of controlling people have lost basic thinking capacity. With population health and national economy at risk, NIH could not determine what is right and what is wrong. NIH has to entrust the population lives to existing knowledge disseminated from published articles, which are the products by information laundering. By using this approach, NIH continues to endorse flawed disease theories, flawed researches, and biased opinions. NIH cannot conduct an initial determination of any critical issue even if the pandemic is about to destroy national economy and the world order. Similarly, FDA relies upon its established process to make its decisions. Despite the pressure for open science movements and all problems in publish-for-money publication, none of the federal agencies has done anything to make changes. The lives and health of billions of people must be decided by a few biased, incompetent peer reviewers.

Laundered information has convinced societies to keep producing drugs and toxic chemicals. By relying on clinical trials, symptom-based research method, and independent action model in toxicology, and short clinical trials, societies have been misled to believe all drugs and chemicals are safe. Societies failed to adopt necessary policies to limit synthetic chemicals long time ago. Wrong negative findings for a large number of chemicals provide excuses for keeping inventing and dumping toxic substances into the seas, oceans and lands. Societies are dumping 220 billion tons toxic chemicals [278] into the environment each year. By the time massive toxic chemicals have dispersed into every corner of world, the toxic substances could have enough power to wipe out all species. Societies have not seen the seriousness of problems because monopolistic information launders keep promoting deeply flawed sciences. This gigantic information laundering system has gained an eternal life by precluding any challenge and contrary thinking. All aspects of human activities and social practices are controlled and run by monopolistic information launders, junk science has the absolute power to destroy civilization. The impact of information laundering is worse than that of any criminal act.

Laundered junk sciences have exerted terminal effects through the current business practices. For each culprit product, a large number of vendors are promoting the product often by using trade journals, search engines and popular media. It was inevitable forcing asbestos into everything including cigarette filters and clothing, creating a culture for abusing DES, promoting GMO in the world destroying food chain, selling chemotherapy, early cancer diagnosis, and over treatment of cancer to cancer patients, convincing governments to add renal toxins to public water; causing deployment of traffic cameras with little public safety benefits, creating the abusive cellular phone use culture to ruin public health, creating a new culture of ingesting mega vitamins to “achieve health”, and seeing a population of people willingly accepting dangerous mRNA vaccines. When a large number of monopolistic entities promote in the name of science, they can turn any dangerous product into health-givers or safety protectors. If history can be repeated, all personal injuries crises can be repeated with much more deaths and personal injuries, given the increased monopoly power and powerful internet marketing.

An example showing how business practices exert terminal impacts on human species is how businesses promote cellular phones. The business of millions of entities depend on cellular phone uses. Search engines have played the biggest role by turning each cellular phone into a point of marketing or reciprocal of laundered information. Phone users receive advertisements, marketing messages, commercial email, etc. and are induced to buy harmful products and services. They have jointly created a bizarre culture where people use their phones all times, on doorways, inside bathrooms, on crosswalks, during breaks, during driving, during sleep or even in dreams. Their daily phone use times may be more than 1 hour, 2 hours, 8 hours…. The more they use their phones, the more junk science, false information, and dangerous products they are exposed to. Naturally, toxic chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, emotional stress, and time burdens hit the users in combination. However, junk science tells the users that each of their products or services is safe, but never tell how the combination may hurt the users badly. With time passing, their metabolic pathways are altered, their hormone processes were disrupted, their circadian cycles are lost, and their immune systems are compromised by their combination effects.

The business practices have been developed long time before the factual findings of multiple factor disease model were published. After 1980, studies started revealing reductionist science is deeply flawed. That would give mankind an earliest warning. Unfortunately, in parallel of those discoveries, the drug industry, trade medical journals, and popular media/search engines also slowly gain their monopoly power to launder medical information for their revenue. Thus, information launders have suppressed or disregarded important discoveries and prevent societies from addressing all big problems in effective ways. With all serious problems concealed, no one could have seen a need to consider why business practices are bad and what changes must be made in order to keep human species to survive. After societies have missed nearly half a century, now we suddenly see that the business practices influenced by reductionist science is an absolute destroyer of public health and all species.

The terminal impacts of the business practices can be traced to monopoly power and internet. It is well known that monopolistic businesses use fraudulent slogans, scam devices, predatory pricing, unproductive measures, stolen intellectual properties, etc. to keep their monopolistic positions. Monopolistic enterprise lacks motivation to do good for people and societies. With the internet, they can quickly find their partners to take concerted actions without singing on an illegal agreement. They can establish allies for promoting junk medicine, setting predatory prices for copyrights and patents, and using obsolete technologies. When one corporation issues a ban the claim of treating and curing diseases, all of them follow and thus create a voodoo spell climate for all. When monopolistic information laundering enterprise has formed, it must promote junk science, mold population’s belief, and use deceptive and scandalous devices to defraud people and societies. The danger can be summarized in one sentence: Human health is maintained by a sophisticated process balance, the business practices of monopolistic entities under the influence of the reductionist junk science exert an absolute force to destroy the balance by the combination effects of their products and services.

Corrected against the enlarged monopoly power and internet effects, Asbestos, DES, Lead Paint, etc. would kill far more people if they were repeated. In addition, those died from asbestos would have died from other toxic substances, and all people must suffer from all kinds of damages whether they know or not. All monopolistic entities must seek maximum profits, but have no incentive to seek science and improve productivity with no concern for human species and the planet. The business practice model explains why cancer treatments and mRNA can be promoted for acceptance. As long as monopolistic medical journals and monopolistic media continue exist in the world, societies can never find solutions to all problems in environment, ecosystem and climate. Humans must live miserable life.

Uncontrolled production of dangerous drugs and toxic chemicals is responsible for prevalence of chronic diseases, deterioration of public health, poor ability to control pandemics, prevalent cancer instances and deaths, destruction of ecosystem, irreversible climate changes, species extinction, formation of the toxic planet, and accelerated process of human extinction. We find ourselves in the world without cures but with every rescue path being blocked by information launders. It is under this junk science framework, from which dangerous mRNA vaccines were approved at the speed of light, and then imposed on the population. It is under this junk science framework that FDA cannot evaluate the vaccines safety when the evidence of adverse effects is piped up.