March 19, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
13:17
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Mike Adams. | |
| Are you kidding me? | |
| Do you think that disease is a spontaneous, random chance? | |
| No, disease has a cause. | |
| The Health Ranger Report. | |
| If you don't believe in cause and effect, then you don't believe in reality. | |
| Every disease has a cause. | |
| It's time for the Health Ranger Report. | |
| And now, from naturalnews.com, here's Mike Adams. | |
| Welcome to healthrangerscience.com. | |
| Today, we're talking about laboratory fraud in the scientific community. | |
| And because my lab is audited and inspected from an ISO-accredited accreditation group, and we are ISO 17025 certified, you know, validated, inspected, everything, I know what it takes to run a lab with scientific integrity, and it's a big deal. | |
| It takes a lot of work. | |
| But from being involved in the scientific community and talking to people and hearing stories, what I've come to learn is rather shocking. | |
| That there is laboratory accreditation being done now by some other groups where labs can be accredited by Skype video instead of an in-person audit. | |
| Now, I probably don't need to explain why that is so shocking and disturbing. | |
| I mean, when my lab is audited, and my lab is cwclabs.com, by the way, if you want to check out the website, and I recently had a science paper published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal called LCGC, which stands for Liquid Chromatography slash Gas Chromatography. | |
| I've got a paper in there. | |
| That was accepted and published in the, I think it's the May 2017 issue, by the way. | |
| So I know what mainstream science looks like. | |
| You know, I mean, we're accredited, we're published, we do mainstream science all the time. | |
| We are inspected and audited in person. | |
| But other labs are being, quote, accredited via Skype video, where the accreditation group is just contacting them via Skype to, quote, look at their lab. | |
| Now, some of these labs are... | |
| It's just theater on the other end of the Skype video. | |
| They're setting up theater for the auditors to make it look like they're engaged in science, to make it look like they've got instruments in the background, that they're running something, but they're not really doing anything. | |
| It's totally bogus. | |
| And I've heard stories of accreditors that would show up at a lab that has been previously accredited by some of these sort of black hat organizations, and they would find that the labs don't even have the instruments in their possession for which the and they would find that the labs don't even have the instruments in their possession for which the lab has been They don't even have the instruments. | |
| Now, obviously, you can't conduct a laboratory analysis on something if you don't own the instrument that runs the test. | |
| It's like I run heavy metals analysis using ICP-MS. If you don't have an ICP-MS, and by the way, they'll run you like 300 plus grand. | |
| If you don't have one, you can't do heavy metals analysis. | |
| You can't just look at the food sample and take a guess and wave a magic wand and say, oh, that's five parts per million lead. | |
| No, it doesn't work that way. | |
| You can't do voodoo over it. | |
| You've got to use an instrument, and the instruments are very expensive, and they're very expensive to run, very expensive to keep up, like the ICP-MS that I have, for example. | |
| You've got to run a vacuum on it 24-7. | |
| So you've got a rough pump and a vacuum turbine inside as well. | |
| You're actually running two different vacuum systems on it. | |
| That has to run 24-7, because if it loses vacuum, the very delicate sensor inside... | |
| It goes bad because it can't be in touch with atmosphere. | |
| It has to sit in a vacuum all the time. | |
| So you're running electricity. | |
| To do this right takes a lot of money. | |
| And there are apparently quite a few labs out there that want to get paid to conduct analyses, but they don't actually want to own the instruments necessary to conduct those analyses. | |
| I mean, you'd be shocked. | |
| If you think science is rock-solid and trustworthy and run by ethical people, you're delusional. | |
| Science is just as corrupt as everything else. | |
| Just as corrupt as the pharmaceutical industry. | |
| Just as corrupt as government. | |
| There's a lot of people operating under the banner of science who are nothing but con artists and fraudsters. | |
| And some of them have PhDs, too. | |
| A lot of universities are engaged in totally fraudulent science. | |
| And don't even get me started on the whole climate change thing, the hockey stick graph, which was complete fraud fabricated by hacking the software modeling, the modeling software for atmospheric temperature variations and feeding it data that was weighted in a dishonest way in order to produce a hockey stick temperature variation outcome. | |
| Totally bogus, complete fraud. | |
| They know it's fraud. | |
| Nothing but con artists behind all of that stuff. | |
| So everywhere you turn in science, what you see is a lot of fraud. | |
| And, you know, before I ran a lab, I thought that all labs were honest. | |
| Well, silly me. | |
| It turns out that's not the case at all. | |
| I mean, you know, I live in Central Texas, and there's a lab in Austin that got shut down by a federal judge. | |
| Totally shut down. | |
| They were doing all of the forensic science for the Austin Police Department. | |
| And it turned out that they were faking most of their science. | |
| And they didn't even have technicians who were qualified to run the instruments that were being used to generate fake evidence to convict people, sending people to prison for felony convictions based on totally fabricated science fraud. | |
| And there was another lab that was shut down in Boston, by the way. | |
| I believe that's what it was. | |
| There was a lab tech there. | |
| I think she was from Somalia or somewhere. | |
| She's a legal immigrant, and she was a lab tech, and she faked the data for 10 years straight. | |
| And she has now publicly admitted that. | |
| I think she's been sentenced to prison. | |
| And if I'm not mistaken, I think there were like... | |
| Was it like 25,000 potential convictions that were going to be overturned? | |
| Something like that? | |
| Because of how many people had been put away over all the years that that lab tech had faked the data? | |
| It's astonishing. | |
| Seriously, if you think that all labs are producing honest lab results, you're in for a massive shock. | |
| I guarantee you. | |
| Look, you take... | |
| Go buy anything off the shelf. | |
| Go buy a chocolate bar. | |
| And take that chocolate bar, chop it into 10 pieces, and send it to 10 different labs, and pay for them to test for pesticides or heavy metals or anything. | |
| You're going to get 10 different results back that would probably not agree on anything from 10 different labs. | |
| Why is that? | |
| And it's because, I mean, in my experience, probably 5 out of 10 labs have no idea what the hell they're doing. | |
| And maybe 2 out of 10 labs are totally fraudulent. | |
| Let's see, that's 7 out of 10. | |
| Then, in the 3 out of 10 that are honest and good at what they do, there's still going to be some natural variation just because of differences in methodology, human pipetting, instrument calibrations, and so on. | |
| You're not going to get any results that are the same. | |
| At best, you can get results that are like plus or minus 10 or 20%. | |
| For heavy metals, plus or minus 20% is considered acceptable, by the way. | |
| For pesticides, it's more like plus or minus 50%. | |
| Did you know that? | |
| Pesticide testing is very wishy-washy, very inaccurate. | |
| Even the extraction techniques that are used today are not that good. | |
| So, I mean, you think that science is a science? | |
| A lot of times, what passes for science is total bunk. | |
| And I know this because I worked so hard to be accredited, to be inspected, to be audited, to get published as a scientific author. | |
| I worked very, very hard. | |
| I worked my ass off. | |
| I worked four months on this damn liquid handling robot system. | |
| Finally got it all figured out just to move precise aliquots of microliters of methanol into the correct vials as preparation for LC-MS analysis. | |
| And it took me four months. | |
| And when I talk to other people who have this same robot or people who know how to work on it and so on, technicians and support people, and they were asking me why it was taking me so long, I was like, well, I'm trying to get it accurate. | |
| And they were laughing at me like nobody else cares about the accuracy. | |
| You know, the EPA uses this robot and they don't give a crap whether it's accurate or not. | |
| They just go through the motions. | |
| And you hear this, believe me, if you talk to anybody in this industry that sells scientific instruments to the government, they will laugh. | |
| I mean, privately. | |
| They won't say any of this publicly, but they'll laugh privately at what a joke the government is. | |
| The FDA, the EPA, the DEA, the USDA. Total joke when it comes to science. | |
| None of them have any idea, really, what... | |
| Well, okay, let me qualify that. | |
| I'm sure there are good people in certain sectors... | |
| I've talked to a couple of FDA people who seem to know what they're talking about. | |
| I'm sure they exist, but I'm sure they're as frustrated as I am that the bureaucracy and the incompetence of the managers is just so off the charts that even good science people feel like they're beating their heads against the wall because the science of the organization as a whole is so bad. | |
| You know, the EPA has been fabricating science since the 1990s. | |
| The EPA has no clue what is real science. | |
| It's probably the worst of all those agencies. | |
| The FDA has some people that conduct good science. | |
| But overall, I mean, the FDA won't even publicize the test results when they test off-the-shelf foods and products. | |
| Why won't they publish the numbers? | |
| Probably because most of them aren't even accurate. | |
| I mean, I publish the numbers that we find. | |
| We test 600 water samples from across the country. | |
| We publish it. | |
| You can find that at naturalsciencejournal.org, by the way. | |
| We test off-the-shelf protein products for heavy metals. | |
| We publish the numbers because we're all about transparency and educating the public. | |
| The FDA doesn't. | |
| They keep everything a secret. | |
| It kind of makes you wonder. | |
| Like, is their method even accurate? | |
| You know, I have my doubts. | |
| I'll just put it that way. | |
| But crime labs are the worst. | |
| They're fabricating all kinds of fake science, sending innocent people to prison all over the country. | |
| The in-the-field test kits that cops use to bust people for drugs are a complete joke. | |
| They are not based on any science whatsoever. | |
| Anyone can make them have false positives. | |
| You could burp into one of their containers and it can turn red and show positive for marijuana. | |
| Literally, you can belch into the test and make it show marijuana, even if you've never touched marijuana in your life. | |
| That's how bad they are. | |
| They're a total joke. | |
| And law enforcement is relying on this to make arrests, and then they're relying on the bad labs to get convictions for people Who quite literally may have done absolutely nothing wrong, may have never possessed any of the drugs that they're convicted for possessing. | |
| I mean, the number of innocent people going to prison in this country based on bad science is just freaking unreal. | |
| And I had no idea this was happening until I became a scientist and ran a lab and got accredited and published a paper and started hanging out with other science geeks and hearing the horror stories and they are just off the charts. | |
| It's bad. | |
| If you trust science, you're a fool. | |
| Because there's so much fraud being conducted today under the label of science and sending innocent people to prison, it would just blow your mind if you knew what I knew. | |
| It's just mind-blowing, truly. | |
| Well, I've got to wrap this up, but you can hear more podcasts like this at healthrangerscience.com. | |
| And my name is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and I'm going to wrap this up because I'm going to my lab right now, actually, and work on... | |
| What am I working on today? | |
| CBD instrument validation, quantitation method validation on a single quad mass spec. | |
| That's on the list for today. | |
| Let's hope it goes well. | |
| Learn more at healthrangerreport.com. | |
| Thank you for watching. | |
| If you want to support our mission, visit us at healthrangersstore.com for the world's largest selection of lab-verified superfood and nutritional products for healthy living. |
Export Selection