Let's start with the devastating criticisms of medical journal information by senior editors of major medical journals (http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml, for example, this rather interesting piece: http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf.
This is worth reading, too: http://www.ddponline.org/epidemics.pdf.
As I have a moment here and there I will share references and articles which I believe have merit.
There is a structural problem: some of us have been conditioned to believe that we are openminded and can evaluate data fairly BUT that anything that contradicts our religion of Vaccinationism, so obviously self-evidently true, is not worth serious consideration. Those who worship in the Holy Church of Vaccinationism "KNOW" exactly as Joseph Priestly "KNEW" that the presence of phlogistine, the colorless, odorless, weightless and altogether invisible substance which allowed things to burn, was the only reason that things could burn. Priestly went to his death bed defending the dogma of phlogistine combustion. He was the discoverer of oxygen and one of the great minds of his time. He was, on this matter of religious conviction, however, dead wrong.
When scientists raise the possibility that vaccines are not effective, harmful or downright dangerous, they generally lose their tenure, if they have it, their grants and their labs. Publication becomes massively difficult so the peer review, once again, reviews only what is permitted into the line of sight of the peers.
Several editors of major scientific and medical journals have made this intellectual corruption, totally dependent, by the way, on industry funding of both the journals and the scientists, quite clear.
I hope that these articles are stimulating.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
Comment Reply
Let's start with the devastating criticisms of medical journal information by senior editors of major medical journals (http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml, for example, this rather interesting piece: http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf.
August 4, 2012 - 5:52pmThis is worth reading, too: http://www.ddponline.org/epidemics.pdf.
As I have a moment here and there I will share references and articles which I believe have merit.
There is a structural problem: some of us have been conditioned to believe that we are openminded and can evaluate data fairly BUT that anything that contradicts our religion of Vaccinationism, so obviously self-evidently true, is not worth serious consideration. Those who worship in the Holy Church of Vaccinationism "KNOW" exactly as Joseph Priestly "KNEW" that the presence of phlogistine, the colorless, odorless, weightless and altogether invisible substance which allowed things to burn, was the only reason that things could burn. Priestly went to his death bed defending the dogma of phlogistine combustion. He was the discoverer of oxygen and one of the great minds of his time. He was, on this matter of religious conviction, however, dead wrong.
When scientists raise the possibility that vaccines are not effective, harmful or downright dangerous, they generally lose their tenure, if they have it, their grants and their labs. Publication becomes massively difficult so the peer review, once again, reviews only what is permitted into the line of sight of the peers.
Several editors of major scientific and medical journals have made this intellectual corruption, totally dependent, by the way, on industry funding of both the journals and the scientists, quite clear.
I hope that these articles are stimulating.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
This Comment
Reply