The Flaws in Traditional Scientific Research Methodology Uncovered

 

How The Five Pillars of a Dynamic Health Lifestyle Plan was born:

[iframe src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/LKK4cSAOUyld/” width=”500″ height=”315″]

The Importance of Species Differentiation in Scientific Research

During my podcast, Dynamism Biohack, I shared a story about my journey in connecting different scientific fields. I discussed my conversation with Jack Andranka, a young genius who created a pancreatic cancer sensor at the age of 16. I also mentioned a generous offer I received from a leading scientist (whose name I won’t disclose) to coauthor research on a pain biosensor. The main issue I addressed was the fact that science is not human and you can’t replace one species with another and expect the same results.

The Parable of The Marine Biologists and Species Differentiation

The Parable of The Marine Biologists exemplifies this problem. Biologists do not study sharks and create drugs for dolphins, and veterinarians don’t formulate diets for cats and give them to dogs. The reason is species differentiation, a well-known scientific phenomenon that states that cells, proteins, and biomolecules react differently depending on their species of origin. This phenomenon has driven scientists crazy.

The Need for Evolving Scientific Research Methods

I strongly agree with the fact that we should not continue with the same methodology and defend an outdated paradigm. Numerous terabytes of data prove that replacing one animal with another and considering it equivalent to humans is flawed and will never work. Animal scientists are valuable because they serve as a starting point for research. However, substituting animals for humans when developing drugs is hazardous. I don’t have the ultimate answer, but if we don’t engage in open discussions based on unbiased facts, how will the next brilliant mind like Jack Andranka emerge to redefine and update scientific theories and methodologies?

Acknowledging Limitations in Current Research Practices

Regarding coauthoring research on a pain biosensor, the Harvard PhD and I ultimately didn’t collaborate because, as she agreed, it would have worked on a rat due to its physiology. However, it wouldn’t have yielded the same results with a guinea pig, a rabbit, or even a mouse. Surprisingly, even wild rats, different from their laboratory counterparts, display distinct characteristics, as identified when comparing research results. Therefore, lab-bred rats should be seen as a separate species from wild rats, as scientists themselves acknowledge.

Embracing Change in Scientific Methodology

Personally, I decided to stick with my day job as a chiropractor. If scientists’ only fallback is that they can’t conduct human research, it reveals a fundamental flaw in the entire paradigm. The methodology is corrupt, and the theories are incorrect. As a clinical scientist, the right approach should involve acknowledging the results, going back to the drawing board, reformulating hypotheses, and revising the outdated and flawed implementation of the scientific method. Continuing with the same expectations while disregarding the glaring issues will never yield success.

Hope for a New Scientific Paradigm

My hope is that more people, including scientists, hear my message. Perhaps a genius will emerge and develop better methods, leading to a new paradigm. Nanotechnology, for instance, holds promise and, if used appropriately, might enable safe human research with minimal harm. I believe that this new paradigm is just around the corner.

 

For more information check out my shows:

Dynamism Biohack: Awaken The Giant Within

How to Achieve Dynamic Health:

#37: Faulty Rat Science Part I | The Truth About Rodent Research and Human Health

#38: Faulty Rat Science Part II

https://www.newlifefamilychiropractic.net/animal-research/