A question of bad science

It’s a sad comment on the quality of “science” being conducted by supposedly reputable scientists. 

Our cover story this week looks at promises made to the alcohol industry by researchers at the National Institutes of Health. According to documents, NIH promised positive results in advance of a major study on the benefits of moderate drinking. Once the researchers got caught, the study was cancelled but not before millions of our tax dollars were spent. We look at the internal emails.

We also have a story that looks into allegedly slanted science in the case of Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup.  Lisa Fletcher examines documents that allegedly show the company used “ghostwriters” whereby the company conducted research, then published it under a different name to make it seem independent. Monsanto denies the practice but it has become common in research today.[hr]

We never waste your time rehashing stories you’ve already seen all week.

Watch us on TV or replays online anytime, livestream Sundays at 9:30a ET www.fullmeasure.news[hr]

Full Measure TV station list here: https://sharylattkisson.com/full_measure_station-list/

Order the New York Times bestseller “The Smear” today online or borrow from your library










Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 thoughts on “A question of bad science”

  1. I recently (re)discovered you and your work, and I’m very glad to have done so. I believe yours is an important voice of warning to the general public that not everything that is generally accepted as true is as it appears, or is as it is presented in the popular media, or even as it is taught in schools. My wife, a registered dietitian, feels that her low opinion of many nutritional studies is validated by this and other reports you’ve done.

    One of my interests over the last 20 or 25 years has been the field of climate science, particularly the claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I have an engineering degree, so I probably have a better background than most for evaluating the truth content of what the general public is told, and I’m convinced we’re being sold a bill of goods. Social scientists would probably agree that many of the behaviors of climate alarmists exhibit hallmarks of a con game. I’ve also found a number of credible sources who agree that much of the science and all of the alarmism are fake. Have you considered looking into climate science and the alarmist PR machinery associated with it?

Scroll to Top