Nexus - 0502 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

... GLOBAL NEWS ... NEWS were not over radiation, but over fluoride SLEAZY RESEARCH TRICKS damage! ccording to the rules, theories attain the status of facts after they have been rigor- A-bomb program researchers played a Ax tested by reliable, replicable, high-quality research. In practice, a substan- leading role in the design and implementa- tial body of studies supporting a given theory, published in the best journals (e.g., tion of the most extensive US study of the |The New England Journal of Medicine, Science, and the Journal of the American health effects of fluoridating public drink- | Medical Association), establishes that theory as ‘fact’. ing water. The study was conducted in Often, however, the harried researcher, pressed for time in the pursuit of lucrative Newburgh, New York, from 1945 to 1956. | grants or frustrated by studies that refuse (for unknown reasons) to produce the desired Then, in a classified operation, code-named __|results, has recourse to certain shortcuts. It is important to note that the underlying Program F, they secretly gathered and _|active ingredient in any of the following ploys is usually a powerful 'tell us what we analysed blood and tissue samples from _| want to hear' effect. If your study ‘proves' something that the prospective funder wants Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of __| to believe, there will rarely be any problem. State Health Department personnel. Big-Naming: Get a big-name scientist as co-author, and the backing of a prestigious The original "secret" version of a 1948 __ |research institute or university (‘backing’, in this case, can be as minimal as use of a let- study, published by Program F scientists in _ | terhead and address), and you're in business. the Journal of the American Dental Circular Referencing: Researcher A mentions in a footnote that Compound X has Association, shows that evidence of the |been "proven" completely harmless. Researcher B quotes A, and is in turn quoted by adverse health effects from fluoride was Researchers C, D and E. The next time Researcher A discusses the topic, he cites the censored by the US Atomic Energy _ |papers by B, C, D and E as further proof of his original claim. If someone tries to pin Commission (AEC) for reasons of national | you down on your original footnote, cite a "personal communication" (i.e., phone call or security. unofficial letter) with another scientist. It's best if your personal communicant lives far The documents unearthed by two _ |away, is difficult to reach, doesn't speak English or, better still, is dead. researchers, Joel Griffiths and Chris Step-Wise Exaggeration: Researcher A publishes a study proposing that smoking is Bryson, have been totally ignored by the __| responsible for 8% of all lung cancer. Researcher B cites this study, saying that smoking mainstream media. is responsible for "nearly a tenth" of all lung cancer. Researcher C translates this to (Source: The Australian Fluoridation | 10%, and Researcher D points out that since smokers are only half the population, this News, vol. 33, no. 7, November 1997; GPO | 10% is really 20%. Researcher E casually refers to D's paper, giving the statistic as Box 935G, Melbourne Vic. 3001, ph (03) |"almost a quarter" of the population, having forgotten that it was only smokers that D 9592 5088, fax (03) 9592 4544) was talking about. Finally, Researcher A, upon reading E's report, notes that current studies now show that smoking is responsible for three times as much of the lung cancer FUDGED FIGURES IMMUNISE as he originally thought, i.e., 25% instead of 8%. When A's statement is published AGAINST THE TRUTH prominently in several major daily newspapers, Researchers B, C, D and E all triple their Antraens are being urged and finan- _| previous estimates, citing the highly respected A. Thus the original 8% has ballooned up cially coerced to have their children _|to 75% in E's revised estimate. immunised. Thus we are being treated to Naive Subtraction: Researcher A decides to estimate the environmental causes of regular media stories telling us that "NSW __ | cancer by taking the known cancer rate and subtracting all 'proven' sources of cancer is in the grip of one of the worst whooping |from it. By using generous estimates for these causes (preferably lifestyle factors like cough epidemics for years...". smoking and diet), Researcher A finds that only 2-3% of all cancers are "unexplained". If this is the case (which is purely con- _| This tiny residual thus becomes the ceiling figure for environmentally caused cancers. jecture, as the vast majority of "whooping Dry-Labbing: To '‘dry-lab' a study means to fake it; to make up the numbers without cough" cases are not being diagnosed in a ___|actually bothering with all those test tubes and things. The chances that anyone will ever laboratory), how many of those who have __|ask you to produce your original lab reports and notebooks are pretty slim. Recent expe- contracted whooping cough have been vac- _| rience shows that even if a lab worker sells out and denounces you, he or she is unlikely cinated against it? It is impossible to say, | to be believed. Of course, someone could replicate your study and fail to get the same because in this case New South Wales does _|(ie., faked) results; but you simply accuse him or her of screwing up somewhere. It will not see fit to track the vaccination status in _| take, at the very least, several years for anyone to sort it all out. cases of infectious dis - Competing Toxicity: The FDA has demanded, as a precondition to licensing, that South Australia does, and in 1996 the SA | DeathCo's new product, Liquid Death, be tested for its potential to cause cancer. So Health Commission reported that of the | DeathCo gives Liquid Death to 17,000 mice—but at a dose so high that they all die with- 1,094 cases of whooping cough reported _|in weeks. Since it usually takes several months for a tumour to develop, very few can- for that year, 87 per cent of those for whom _|cers are reported. Such a high death-rate could be some cause for concern. However, vaccination status was available were fully | the FDA didn't ask, "How many mice will drop dead in weeks?"; it asked, "How many vaccinated against whooping cough. will develop cancer if they are given Liquid Death?". DeathCo's study is published as This does not indicate a failure to vacci- _|'proof’ that Liquid Death doesn't cause cancer, "even when very high doses are adminis- nate, but rather, a failure of the whooping _|tered". This ‘proof’ stands unchallenged until someone with 17,000 spare mice is able to cough vaccine to protect. replicate the study! (Source: Australian Vaccination Network, (Source: First published in Processed World, but we found it in Hippocrates Newsletter, PO Box 177, Bangalow NSW 2479, ph (02) | late 1997; Hippocrates Health Centre, Elaine Ave, Mudgeeraba Qld 4213, Australia.) 6687 1699, fax (02) 6687 2032) FUDGED FIGURES IMMUNISE AGAINST THE TRUTH Antraens are being urged and finan- cially coerced to have their children immunised. Thus we are being treated to regular media stories telling us that "NSW is in the grip of one of the worst whooping cough epidemics for years...". If this is the case (which is purely con- jecture, as the vast majority of "whooping cough" cases are not being diagnosed in a laboratory), how many of those who have contracted whooping cough have been vac- cinated against it? It is impossible to say, because in this case New South Wales does not see fit to track the vaccination status in cases of infectious diseases. South Australia does, and in 1996 the SA Health Commission reported that of the 1,094 cases of whooping cough reported for that year, 87 per cent of those for whom vaccination status was available were fully vaccinated against whooping cough. This does not indicate a failure to vacci- nate, but rather, a failure of the whooping cough vaccine to protect. (Source: Australian Vaccination Network, PO Box 177, Bangalow NSW 2479, ph (02) 6687 1699, fax (02) 6687 2032) NEXUS <9 FEBRUARY - MARCH 1998