Eisen-Suppressed-Inventions-and-other-Discoveries-True-Stories-of ...

The Suppression of Alternative Medical Therapies 17
toward innovation. While this is not the norm, it certainly is not the exception.
Editors must encourage innovation as much as they ensure quality
control, and that will require a conscious effort of will. He points out that
the hypercritical reviews and behaviors of many distinguished scientists
are unwarranted and pathological. Such professionals are gate-keepers
against innovation unless the new thought or discovery is their own.
Dr. Horrobin concludes with a call for editors to muster the courage to
select reviewers of the highest caliber without vested interest, or at least
to note when vested interest is present. Editors must stop rejecting innovative
articles for minor details which never keep establishment-approved
articles out of the journals. An editor must never lose sight of the ultimate
aim of biomedical science—to improve the quality of patient care. Only
after scrupulous study of both the article's contents and the peer review
should the editor make an objective decision.
WE MUST STOP PERSECUTING
ALTERNATIVE PRACTITIONERS
To refuse to learn from history is to repeat it. The medical profession continues
to libel and slander innovative doctors. The term "quack" has no
legal definition. It is often misused to libel a doctor who is bright, full of
initiative and well-loved by patients, and who has made an original discovery
or happened to acquire the non-toxic methods that in the U.S. are
referred to as alternative. Real charlatans should certainly be stopped. But
should there be these programs aimed at American doctors such as the
chelation doctors or those who employ alternative methods for treating
cancerous tumors or other chronic diseases such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis,
etc.
This moral injustice should be halted. The involved branches of business,
government and medical profession will in the near future have to
answer the well-documented evidence spanning the twentieth century,
that, hidden from the trusting public, a horrible orchestration of doctorbashing
has occurred to destroy the competition.
And what does Organized Medicine say for itself Why, they believe
in an overly-rigid definition of what constitutes scientific proof. The
Canadian agriculturalist who developed the double-blind study never
intended for it to be used in such a rigid manner. It was intended to eliminate
the subjective bias of scientific investigators and their research assistants,
not to become the gold-standard bearer for scientific proof in clinical
medicine. Most genuine scientists (the term excludes the majority of
the medical profession) do realize this fact. Real scientists understand that
a)) science starts with careful observation and the recording of events.
This point can be best illustrated with a story. In the time of Julius