Medical Mind Control Suppress studies/research [back] Medical study ploys
JOURNAL OF ORTHOMOLECULAR MEDICINE ONLINE, BUT NOT ON MEDLINE The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38 years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.
[2014 Dec] GMO Contamination Denial: Controlling Science Blatant
suppression of GMO research has occurred most recently with Gilles-Eric Séralini,
who found that feeding Monsanto's GM corn to rats increased their development of
tumors. The study appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology, the same journal
that routinely carries studies by Monsanto employees showing that GM corn is
safe. The Séralini study was actually superior to those conducted by Monsanto's
research teams. First, Monsanto studies examined the effect of glyphosate (the
active ingredient in Roundup) while Séralini examined rats fed Roundup itself.
This is a critical distinction, since glyphosate could have synergistic effects
when combined with other chemicals in Roundup.
Second, Monsanto rats were only studied for 90 days while Séralini examined rats for two years. There were several other differences between the lines of research, but none of them threatened the validity of Séralini's findings. Nevertheless, corporate researchers demeaned and hurled insults at Séralini, demanding that the journal withdraw his study.
'The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology, they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials. “The answer I got,” says Jackson, “was not the right answer.”[2009 Oct] Does the Vaccine Matter? by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer '
The pressure on researchers is so enormous. Dr. Trocho came out with his research about the DNA damage by aspartame. Then his career was assaulted by the makers of aspartame. He said he would never do another research project concerning aspartame. Well, a number of researchers have said the same thing. Once they published their results, the full weight of these companies come down on their head. NutraSweet will contribute millions to a university and threaten to pull their donations if someone isn't quieted. [pdf] An interview with Dr. Russell Blaylock
In some instances, cancer microbe research appears to be deliberately suppressed. For example, the National Cancer Institute on its "cancer Facts" web page ( http://oncolink.upenn.edu/pdg/600911.html ) informs viewers about Virginia Livingston and states: "There is no scientific evidence to confirm her theories of cancer causation or to justify her treatments." Obviously, this official judgement is a blatant lie because, as we have noted, Livingston's discoveries have been confirmed by many competent scientists.  Do Killer Microbes Cause Breast Cancer? By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.
"Pediatrics, the AAP's magazine, published an attack on a previous mercury-in-vaccine/autism study that was not peer reviewed, then they refused to publish a scientific refutation of that unfounded attack," Blaxill explained as one example of this growing bias. "It is hard to fathom why Pediatrics would perpetuate research that has been scientifically proven faulty." [Aug 2004] Medical Journal Editorial Bias Deceives Doctors, Leads to Bad Medicine
"I document the way editors have skewed and prejudiced scientific discourse and obstructed the usual self-correcting mechanisms of science. In 1995 and 1996 I gathered systematic evidence of suppression and manipulation of letters to the editors in some of the major international scientific journals such as Science, Nature, Chemical and Engineering News, the Lancet, and the New York Times."--From the book "Challenges" by Serge Lang of Yale University, Springer-Verlag, 1998 ISBN 0-387-94861-9 http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/hivcase-content.html
"One feels rage as well at the complicity of the "peer reviewed" journals which print these awful productions. It is abundantly clear, if further proof were needed, that "peer review" means simply preventing criticism of certain commercial interests and blocking the emergence of competing viewpoints. Finally, one feels rage and exasperation at the total inability of journalists -- who are reputed to be professional sceptics -- to see through, and expose, this duplicity."--Harris Coulter http://www.healthy.net/library/articles/coulter/critique.htm
"Although the rationale for peer review is quality control, it's obvious that the process can be used to suppress dissent. It's a powerful method: peer review can be used to block publications, appointments, promotions and grants. Most importantly, it is very difficult to demonstrate that bias is involved. Usually referees are anonymous: only their reports are made available. Members of selection committees carry out their deliberations in secret: only a decision and perhaps a brief justification is needed."---Brian Martin http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html
Mainstream medical journals, like Pediatrics and The New England Journal of Medicine, only publish studies that claim thimerosal is safe. And it turns out that these articles are written in large part by researchers in the pay of vaccine makers, as the Coalition for Safe Minds (Sensible Action For Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders), a private nonprofit organization, has shown. Editors of these journals will not publish studies that show a link between thimerosal and autism like "Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States" by Mark and David Geier, which documents a strong association between the amounts of mercury injected in vaccines and autism. Such articles can only find acceptance in alternative (i.e., "politically incorrect") journals like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, where this one was published. Mercury on the Mind by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
"In my view, this is not a scientific issue. This is about as proven an issue as you’re ever going to see, and what’s occurring here is a cover up under the guise of protecting the vaccine program. And I’m for the vaccine program. You keep covering it up and your not going to have a vaccine program," Geier
"In July 2002, the Indianapolis Star newspaper quoted the lawyers Waters and Kraus as saying that "Lilly flim-flammed scientists for years with a 1931 study that concluded thiomersal wasn't harmful to humans". The Star went on: "The study, published in the American Journal of Hygiene, reported that merthiolate has a very low order of toxicity......for man". Digging further, Waters found out that the study's toxicity data came from experimental use of thiomersal by doctors from Lilly and Indianapolis City Hospital on meningitis patients during a severe outbreak in 1929-30. 'The 1931 study on a cohort of severely ill people (who all died) ended up being quoted in Lilly brochures into the 1980s', Waters said. 'It very clearly demonstrates an effort to do an unethical study and then paint the results in a certain way that helps them sell this product'. Lilly ignored or covered up later evidence that thiomersal, which contains 50 per cent mercury by weight, can be dangerous to humans", Waters said."--David Thrower
"The documents clearly demonstrate that Lilly's thimerosal product, the mercury-based vaccine preservative implicated in a number of recent law suits as causing neurological injury to infants, was known as early as April 1930 to be dangerous. In its apparent eagerness to promote and market the product, in September, 1930, Eli Lilly secretly sponsored a "human toxicity" study on patients already known to be dying of meningococcal meningitis. Senior partner Andrew Waters stated that, "Lilly then cited this study repeatedly for decades as proof that thimerosal was of low toxicity and harmless to humans. They never revealed to the scientific community or the public the highly questionable nature of the original research.""--Press release