Skip to Content

CrossFit Health is an investigation into the ills of modern medicine and the wilful abuse of the public’s trust in science. The lessons learned from the legal dismantling of fake science, a crooked journal, and perjuring scientists have given us a forensic view as to how everything might have gone so wrong. We’re calling the combination of runaway medical costs and disease rates — which many profit from but none combat effectively — “The Mess.”

In 1987, the American Heart Association claimed cholesterol-lowering statin drugs would “almost eliminate the necessity for bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and eradicate CA (coronary atherosclerosis) by the end of the 20th century.” Unfortunately, as Vladimir Subbotin, an MD and Ph.D. with expertise in disease pathology, explains, “the prognosis stopped short of satisfying the predictions.” In this presentation, delivered at a CrossFit Health event on Dec. 15, 2019, Subbotin shares his explanation for why statins have failed to meet the AHA’s expectations. That failure, he claims, is due to a fundamentally flawed understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease. He presents an alternative hypothesis.

Watch Vladimir Subbotin: An Alternative Hypothesis for Coronary Atherosclerosis

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) grew from the recognition that medical recommendations should become more scientific, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick explains. Unfortunately, several factors confound the endeavor. Kendrick notes life expectancies have begun to decline in the U.S. and U.K. and suggests this may be due, in part, to the unreliable evidence doctors use to treat their patients. Citing prominent voices from the scientific scholarship, he discusses several reasons why our most trusted studies — randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses — are unreliable. “Can EBM be salvaged?” Kendrick asks. “Only if the public and politicians, and of course doctors, wake up to the fact that ‘something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations,’” he concludes.

Read MoreEvidence-Based Medicine, Part 3: Can It Be Salvaged?

Jim McCarter, MD and Ph.D., is an expert on the ketogenic diet, particularly its effectiveness for treating and reversing Type 2 diabetes (T2D). McCarter’s research into the health-related effects of corn syrup and sugar led to his discovery of many misconceptions he had “dating back to medical school.” During this presentation, McCarter focuses on correcting some of these misconceptions about nutrition and metabolic health. He outlines the benefits of ketosis and equips listeners to address 40 common myths about the ketogenic diet.

Watch Dr. Jim McCarter: The Top Myths About Ketosis Debunked by Clinical Trials

“Evidence on medical interventions only has value when all the data can be seen,” Dr. Malcolm Kendrick claims. Unfortunately, despite some scientists’ attempts to draw attention to the selective reporting of clinical data, negative results often remain unpublished. Kendrick argues, “Evidence-based medicine, and therefore the entire medical research database, has been corrupted to the point that it is not just unhelpful but potentially extremely damaging to health.”

Read MoreEvidence-Based Medicine, Part 2: Unpublished Evidence

Carey Gillam is an investigative journalist, the research director of U.S. Right to Know, and author of Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. In this presentation, delivered at a CrossFit Health event on Oct. 13, 2019, Gillam shares her story and some of her most provocative research on the covert tactics pesticide companies use to keep dangerous chemicals in circulation at the expense of public health.

Watch Carey Gillam: Poisonous Pesticides and Companies’ Covert Tactics to Hide the Dangers

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been described as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in helping individual patients make decisions about their care in the light of their personal values and beliefs.” Unfortunately, according to Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, the unquestioned dominance of EBM in medical practice has, in many cases, created more problems than it has solved. In this three-part series, Kendrick discusses various reasons for the ineffectiveness of EBM. Here, he discusses how the widespread influence of the pharmaceutical industry over research priorities produces research that is more profitable than helpful, leading to problems such as the antibiotic resistance crisis.

Read MoreEvidence-Based Medicine, Part 1: Industry Distorts Clinical Priorities

In these contrasting pieces, two authors provide differing argumentation regarding whether the replication crisis, p-hacking, and similar well-documented issues indicate science is broken or working as intended in a self-correcting process.

Read MoreIs Science Broken?

“American taxpayers spend $30 billion annually funding biomedical research. By some estimates, half of the results from these studies can’t be replicated elsewhere — the science is simply wrong. Often, research institutes and academia emphasize publishing results over getting the right answers, incentivizing poor experimental design, improper methods, and sloppy statistics. Bad science doesn’t just hold back medical progress, it can sign the equivalent of a death sentence. ... In Rigor Mortis, award-winning science journalist Richard F. Harris reveals these urgent issues with vivid anecdotes, personal stories, and interviews with the nation’s top biomedical researchers. We need to fix our dysfunctional biomedical system — now.”

Read MoreRigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions

Cristin Kearns was managing dental clinics for Kaiser and researching the link between gum disease and Type 2 diabetes when she came across a brochure with the CDC’s dietary recommendations for diabetics. The bad advice she found in the brochure forever altered the trajectory of her career and led to her development of a large digital archive — a record of instances in which the Sugar Association, a 501(c)6 formerly known as the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), used public relations campaigns and industry funding to influence scientific research, education, and public policy in support of its mission to promote sugar consumption.

Watch How Big Sugar Influences Nutrition Science: A First Glimpse at Sugar Industry Documents

In the final installment in his series on pathological science, Gary Taubes claims institutionalized skepticism is a necessary trait in any legitimate scientific field. He brings this claim to bear on modern research on nutrition and chronic disease and notes a tendency to act on poorly formed or ineffectively tested hypotheses. Scientists who call for the implementation of such hypotheses ask for trust without having performed the rigorous research necessary to earn it, Taubes claims, and when this practice becomes the norm, an entire field of research can become pathological. “A healthy scientific enterprise allows for no shortcuts,” he writes.

Read MorePathological Science, Part 3

"In recent years, hospitals and medical centers across the country have stopped selling sugar-sweetened beverages in an effort to reduce obesity and diabetes. Now a new study carried out at the University of California, San Francisco, has documented the health impact of a soda sales ban on its employees. Ten months after a sales ban went into effect, U.C.S.F. workers who tended to drink a lot of sugary beverages had cut their daily intake by about half. By the end of the study period, the group had, on average, reduced their waist sizes and belly fat, though they did not see any changes in their body mass index. Those who cut back on sugary beverages also tended to see improvements in insulin resistance, a risk factor for Type 2 diabetes."

Read MoreSugary Drink Ban Tied to Health Improvements at Medical Center

In part two of his series on pathological science, Gary Taubes estimates the extent to which self-deceit has infiltrated scientific research and further investigates whether entire disciplines have become pathological. His inquiries lead to meditations on the necessary characteristics of rigorous scientific study. One indication that health-related research has become pathological, he suggests, is its experts’ tendency to view “placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized-controlled trials as the ‘gold standard’ of scientific evidence.” This view, he argues, represents “a lack of understanding of the scientific endeavor,” because “these trials are simply what’s necessary to establish reliable knowledge.”

Read MorePathological Science, Part 2

In this three-part series, Gary Taubes investigates what Irving Langmuir terms “pathological science,” or the “science of things that aren’t so.” Taubes distinguishes pathological science from fraud, which is characterized by a person’s attempt to deceive others, arguing rather that participants in pathological science delude themselves. He compares this self-deceit to what Richard Feynman famously called "Cargo Cult Science." And while researchers and philosophers of science have long expressed concern over the possibility of self-deceit distorting scientific truth, Taubes questions whether the problem has grown rampant today. “The possibility exists that entire disciplines may be essentially pathological,” he writes.

Read MorePathological Science, Part 1

In October 2013, cardiologist and professor of evidence-based medicine Dr. Aseem Malhotra published an editorial in the BMJ entitled “Saturated Fat Is Not the Major Issue.” There, he contradicted popular wisdom about saturated fat consumption contributing to heart disease and claimed the medical establishment’s focus on lowering cholesterol to improve heart health had led to the overprescription of statin drugs with negative side effects. Though the scientific evidence was on his side, many in the scientific and medical communities were not. Here he describes the history and inner workings of the ongoing conflict and the lessons to be gleaned from it.

Read More The Great Statin Scam – Time to Clean up the Mess

“Two drug companies have argued that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) should stop making public any information on clinical trials that businesses consider commercially confidential. These cases, taken by Merck and by PTC Therapeutics, are now waiting on a final judgment from the European Court of Justice. Yannis Natsis, patient representative on the EMA board, said that the EU was at the forefront of clinical trial data transparency worldwide but that this position was threatened by the pending judgment. He said, ‘This will mean that data secrecy will over-ride the public interest of disclosure which is now the default option. It will be a major blow to patient safety, scientific progress, and society at large. Pharmaceutical companies—one of the most secretive business sectors—have long fought against clinical trial transparency, harming patients. The public interest needs to prevail over narrow commercial interests.’”

Read the articleEuropean drug regulator fears return to days of data secrecy

The benefit of preventive drugs such as statins is often quantified as the “number needed to treat,” or NNT, which reflects the number of subjects who would need to be given a drug for one negative clinical event to be prevented. For example, if the NNT for a statin preventing cardiovascular death is 40, it suggests that for every 40 patients given a statin, one cardiovascular death will be prevented. This number, however, distorts the likely reality of the benefit distribution by suggesting a single subject receives the entire benefit while other subjects receive no benefit. This 2014 review aimed to quantify the clinical impact of statins differently, assessing the mean extension of life due to statin treatment. The analysis found the median benefit associated with statin use was 3.2 days in primary prevention and 4.1 days in secondary prevention. In other words, statins extended life expectancy by less than a week. Separate research suggests if the benefits of statins were explained this way, the majority of subjects would not choose to take them.

Read MoreThe Effect of Statins on Average Survival in Randomised Trials, An Analysis of End Point Postponement

In September 2019, "The Chair of the British Parliament Science and Technology Committee, Sir Norman Lamb MP made calls for a full investigation into cholesterol lowering statin drugs. It was instigated after a letter was written to him signed by a number of eminent international doctors including the editor of the BMJ, the Past President of the Royal College of Physicians and the Director of the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine in Brazil wrote a letter calling for a full parliamentary inquiry into the controversial medication. Here, lead author Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra makes the case for [why] there’s an urgent need for such an investigation."

Read the articleDo statins really work? Who benefits? Who has the power to cover up the side effects?

"Last March, Canada's department of health changed the way it handles the huge amount of data that companies submit when seeking approval for a new drug, biological treatment, or medical device — or a new use for an existing one. For the first time, Health Canada is making large chunks of this information publicly available after it approves or rejects applications. … Researchers who independently re-evaluate drugs say the reports are critical because the data they need is not readily available in medical journal articles. One analysis showed that only about half of clinical trials examined were written up in journals in a timely fashion and a third went unpublished. And when articles are published, they contain much less data than the reports. ... In addition, ‘journal articles emphasize benefits and underplay or, in some cases, even ignore harms’ that can be found in the clinical study report data.”

Read the articleCanada's Decision To Make Public More Clinical Trial Data Puts Pressure On FDA

Comments on undefined