Executive Summary

• What we are about and who is behind Brightwork Research Treatment Database.

Introduction

This is designed to provide evidence-based analysis of medical treatment without the traditional interference from medical entities with financial bias.

What We Do

• Brightwork Research Treatment Database does not diagnose, prescribe, provide treatment, or see subscribers or customers in person. Everything we do is conducted through the Internet. 
• We provide research articles and consulting services based on the research of published papers. 
• When we make a statement, even if that statement does not directly refer to the linked research in that particular instance, the statement is based upon published public research. The links for these are included in the supporting articles. We rely heavily on our articles because we need to point to completed work and not include all of the supporting information in every text conversation or article we write up.
• BRTD has no financial stake in any treatment and does not consider the financial benefit to the treatment providers in the analysis. 
• That means we are independent of the treatment revenue stream and do not take income from those with an income stream like most online information providers. How this works is covered in the article about WebMD. (How WebMD is a Marketing Front End for the Medical Establishment)

No Affiliations

We aren’t affiliated with anyone and are entirely independent.

Who is the Primary Researcher?

The leading site researcher is Shaun Snapp. He has been working as a researcher for 12 years and has written 26 books and thousands of articles. But he is better known as an IT researcher.

Shaun exposed many items in the industry which no other IT research entity has ever exposed, primarily because they are on the payroll of the IT industry companies. These exposed items ranged from how the vendor and consulting firm partnership model led to false information being provided to software buyers — to exposing the rigged research at the central IT analysts Gartner and Forrester. Nearly every software vendor that ever reached out to Brightwork Research & Analysis tried to get free positive coverage or turn Brightwork Research & Analysis and Shaun Snapp into a shill. There was no interest in funding any legitimate research.

Be it analysis of AI proposals or what new establishment IT media are pushing technology or product, Brightwork Research & Analysis has been consistently the most accurate source in the IT space. For example, here is a measured accuracy of Shaun’s predictions on a software vendor A Study of SAP Accuracy.

Inspiration

Very few MDs work in research that focuses on questioning research. One of our inspirations is objective research entities that support the consumer, like Consumer Reports. Another is Dr. John Ioannidis, who you can see in the following video.

In this video, Dr. Ioannidis explains how the medical establishment has co-opted the term “evidence-based medicine” to whitewash non-evidence-based medicine — that is entirely profit-focused. 

At the 2:45 minute mark, Dr. Ioannidis shows a quote from his paper.

Evidence based medicine is widely tolerated only when it can produce mostly boring evidence reports that can be endorsed by experts and or serve vested interests. The same people who were previously spitting when mentioning EBM, are now using the very same term to buttress their eminence based medicine claims to prestige by misusing the tools of EBM.

Profit Maximizing Versus Evidence-Based Medicine

Shaun Snapp started the site because, with a lifelong interest in health and medicine, after delving into the false information provided during the covid pandemic or plandemic, he found the same issues in medical research as in IT. There are prestigious entities (in IT, it is companies like Accenture, Deloitte, Gartner, and software vendors, while in medicine, it is the FDA, NIH, CDC, American Cancer Society, etc.) that provide false information to patients instead of to software buyers. Shaun saw an opportunity to organize and explain accurate medical information that the medical establishment would not cover. The medical establishment maintains its facade through a selective presentation of medical research. For example, some studies show that exercise is more effective than anti-depressants. Still, the medical establishment and the establishment media did not bring this study to the public because it is not profit-maximizing to do so.

How Major Prestigious Entities Control and Perpetuate Bad Research

The correlation between bad research between IT and medicine is constantly reinforced the more BRTD performs research in different medical areas.

• For example, IT has faux research entities (Gartner, Forrester, IDC, etc.) and are paid by software vendors, and the more the vendors pay, the better they perform in their faux research rankings.
• Vendors fear exposing this system because these faux research entities can retaliate against them. And they exist to make as much money as possible, not to improve the system.
• Faux research entities can produce pretty much anything, produce deliberately falsified information, have conflicts of interest, and produce any statement without support because the customers (software buyers) do not understand how research works. Major software buyers will continue to buy fake research from them because of their brand names.

Let us compare two major corrupt opinion-shaping entities in each industry.

Category 1: The Corrupt IT Authorities

And naturally, the most significant vendors, like SAP, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, and so on, can afford to pay the most. JD Power and Associates follow the same model in the car market as we cover in the article How Gartner is a Fake Research Entity Like JD Power and Associates.

Category #2: The Corrupt Medical Authorities

In medicine, medical authorities like the FDA, CDC, NIH, and hospitals, and nearly all of the top officials in these authorities have massive undeclared financial conflicts of interest with pharma companies and or medical device manufacturers. It is the same basic model, which puts money ahead of what is true. And the establishment media and Big Tech are part of this control matrix.

This all means they are frequently wrong. Therefore, it is the same problem — corruption and unreliable but prestigious sources that the vast majority do not question.

This is why medicine cannot follow evidence-based approaches — which they tout as “evidence-based medicine.” The reason for this is simple. It is because one cannot follow the evidence to its natural conclusion while simultaneously maximizing profits.

The US medical system has shown a clear long-term preference for profits over evidence-based medicine, but to maintain its credibility, it says it does the opposite. This is how people without an understanding of science parrot the term “follow the science.” What they mean is “follow authority.”

This touches everything, including performing unnecessary surgeries, pushing through drugs and other treatments that do not work, and many other items that put the MDs and major health entities first while putting patients at the end of the train while the medical interests are in the front of the train.

What is Our Purpose?

• There is a major need for analysis that questions the medical establishment. Only a few academic MDs that question the medical establishment — almost all of them parrot the establishment and the last pharma rep and ex-cheerleader they spoke with.
• This website research is designed to get accurate information in the medical field in the same way that Brightwork Research exposed many IT items. It is directed toward those trying to determine the best possible treatment and prevention for themselves.