A short history of fake studies
Saccharine, fats, and glyphosate.
Perhaps you have been wondering, which studies are fake? Why do we have so few studies that show Ivermectin and HCQ don’t work, and many more that show they are effective against COVID-19?
Here’s a short list of fake studies from the past.
The saccharine study in the 1970s fed rats a dose of saccharine 100 times more than a human would ever get. The rats got tumors. This is not a realistic dose. Study paid for by the sugar industry.
Two studies paid for by the sugar industry, one in the late 1970s, one in the early 1980s said “fat is bad”. So people started demanding products with low fat. What happens when you have low fat products and you can’t get them to pass market testing? You add sugar. This benefits the sugar industry.
The Monsanto study about glyphosate, which goes under many other trade names. The study effectively said, that glyphosate affects the Shikimate pathway in the cells of plans, and since mammal cells don’t have a Shikimate pathway, glyphosate is safe for human consumption. But they never tested the additives to the formula, which they call “adjuvants”. Later studies showed the additives could be toxic, and at least one bacteria in the human gut DOES have a Shikimate pathway.
In order to discredit a product, a corporation can pay for a study, and make them use a rat which is bred specifically to produce tumors. So they feed the rat this product, then say “Oops, this product caused tumors!” No it didn’t, the rat naturally produces tumors. There are also different kinds of rats bred to have diseases which is used to study these diseases or the treatments.1
Sprague-Dawley rats are used to study high blood pressure.