Hidden Health Science

Archive for the ‘Alternative Science’ Category

by S.L. Baker, NaturalNews

Back in 2008, Mike Adams sounded an alarm about something the mainstream media seemed to know little about — Big Pharma companies had long been paying in-house writers to ghostwrite scientific research articles then paying (Adams called it “bribing”) doctors and high-level academics to pretend they were the authors (http://www.naturalnews.com/023074_g…).

Unfortunately, the use of ghostwriters and guest authored journal papers hasn’t gone away. But here’s good news:two prominent attorneys are speaking out that the practice is not just a sham but constitutes legalfraud.

So why be concerned aboutghostwritingin the medical profession? It turns out thatBig Pharmaand other medical industry sponsoredresearchhas been published with the names of academic “guest authors” tacked on — although these highly degreed “authors” may have made slim to no contributions to the so-called research.

Yet these very articles have been published in leadingmedical journalsand through the years have helped hype hormone replacement therapy, numerous anti-depressants and other potentially dangerous drugs including Vioxx, Neurontin and Fen-Phen. In turn, these articles are often cited by theirdrugcompany sponsors to promote off-label use of their products and bring in more millions to the prescription pharmaceuticalindustry.

The ghostwriting and guest authoring of industry-controlled studies clearly raise what the lawexpertscall “serious ethical and legal concerns, bearing on integrity ofmedical researchand scientific evidence used in legal disputes.”

It is such a breach of ethics that Professors Simon Stern and Trudo Lemmens of the University of Toronto law faculty have flat out called for “guest” authors of medical and scientific articles to be charged with professional and academic misconduct and fraud, even if the articles attributed to the “ghost” or “guest” writers contain factually correct information. The law experts compare the academic “ghostwriting” and tacked on bogus academic authorships to racketeering and even the world’s oldest profession.

In a media release about theirarticle(which was just published in the journalPLoS Medicine), the law professors stated: “Guest authorship is a disturbing violation of academic integrity standards, which form the basis of scientific reliability. The false respectability afforded toclaimsof safety and effectiveness through the use of academic investigators risks undermining the integrity of biomedical research and patient care.”

Lemmens, who is also a member of the University of Toronto’s school ofmedicinefaculty, had particularly hard hitting words for academics who participate in guest authorship which involves “lending” their names and receiving substantial credit where little or none is due. “It’s a prostitution of their academic standing,” said Lemmens. “And it undermines the integrity of the entire academic publication system.”

In their article, entitled “Legal Remedies for Medical Ghostwriting: Imposing Fraud Liability on Guest Authors of Ghostwritten Articles,” Stern and Lemmens argue that because medical journals, academic institutions, and professional disciplinary bodies have done little if anything to enforce effective sanctions against this practice of bogus authorship of research papers, a more successful effective approach would be to take legal action. Imposing liability on the guest authors “..may give rise to claims that could be pursued in a class action based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).”

“The same fraud could support claims of fraud on the court against a pharmaceutical company that has used ghostwritten articles in litigation,” the law professors added. Moreover, that kind of claim could prevent the Big Pharma sponsor of “ghosted” and “guest authored” articles from presenting them asevidencein court, and could result in sanctions against attorneys who try to use any of these articles as legally valid evidence in a malpractice, drug injury or other case.

For more information:
http://media.utoronto.ca/media-rele…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033218_ghost_writers_medical_journals.html#ixzz1U5VDAMHj

Related articles

• Guest authorship, a form of ghost writing, constitutes legal fraud (esciencenews.com)
• Medical ghostwriters should be sued, lawyers argue (ctv.ca)
• Scientists credited on ghostwritten articles ‘should be charged with fraud’ (guardian.co.uk)

The following is a press release from the National Academy of Sciences.  I got this last week and neglected to post it.  There are some great resources and materials there for all kinds of scientific subjects.  Worth perusing!

The press release …

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The National Academies Press Makes All PDF Books Free to Download; More Than 4,000 Titles Now Available Free to All Readers

WASHINGTON — As of today all PDF versions of books published by the National Academies Press will be downloadable to anyone free of charge. This includes a current catalog of more than 4,000 books plus future reports produced by the Press. The mission of the National Academies Press (NAP) — publisher for the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council — is to disseminate the institutions’ content as widely as possible while maintaining financial sustainability. To that end, NAP began offering free content online in 1994. Before today’s announcement, all PDFs were free to download in developing countries, and 65 percent of them were available for free to any user.

 

“Our business model has evolved so that it is now financially viable to put this content out to the entire world for free,” said Barbara Kline Pope, executive director for the National Academies Press. “This is a wonderful opportunity to make a positive impact by more effectively sharing our knowledge and analyses.”

 

Based on the performance of NAP’s current free PDFs, projections suggest that this change will enhance dissemination of PDF reports from about 700,000 downloads per year to more than 3 million by 2013.

 

Printed books will continue to be available for purchase through the NAP website and traditional channels. The free PDFs are available exclusively from the NAP’s website, http://www.nap.edu/, and remain subject to copyright laws. PDF versions exist for the vast majority of NAP books. Exceptions include some books that were published before the advent of PDFs; books from the Joseph Henry Press imprint; and in cases where contractually prohibited, such as reference books in the Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals series.

The listed topics include …

Agriculture
Behavioral and Social Sciences
Biography and Autobiography
Biology and Life Sciences
Computers and Information Technology
Conflict and Security Issues
Earth Sciences
Education
Energy and Energy Conservation
Engineering and Technology
Environment and Environmental Studies
Food & Nutrition
Health and Medicine
Industry and Labor
Math, Chemistry and Physics
Policy for Science and Technology
Space and Aeronautics
Transportation and Infrastructure
Gifts and Apparel

Bookmark this. The NAP website with available books …http://www.nap.edu/

by Sebastian Sheppis and Justin Silver
from Issue #376 of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter

The cannabis plant is both a subject of wonder and of derision. The plant is so ingrained into western culture as “evil” that its ban was included in the charter for the League of Nations and later the United Nations.

The cannabis plant family includes several plants, some of which produce tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) in quantities large enough to be absorbed by humans. Most cannabis plants are actually benign – these are commonly known as “hemp” and have been grown for most of known human civilization. THC-producing plants are commonly called “marijuana” in the U.S. and have varying levels of THC in them according to their strain (hybrid type).

The Politics of Pot

For centuries, cannabis has had known medicinal uses, but the scientific exploration of those uses has been stilted by political opposition and societal pressures against marijuana as a street drug. Although little evidence exists to show cannabis as a negative recreational substance – especially as compared to the effects of alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and other drugs both legal and not – the push to keep it as an illicit substance remains.

Despite this, while illegal in all parts of the world, cannabis has been decriminalized in many areas and legalized as medication in others. Currently, cannabis as a medicine (or for personal use) is legal in Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and 15 states plus the District of Columbia in the United States.

Cannabis In Science

The discovery of cannabinoids, receptors in most animals, including humans, that react specifically with the compounds present in cananbis, changed the way medical science looked at marijuana as medicine. This discovery in the 1990s lead to a wide scale research push into the beneficial uses (and possible synthesis) of cannabis and its active compounds. In 2010, more than 2,500 reputable scientific studies about cannabis were published world wide.

Cannabis has been found to be beneficial for the amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger, lowering of intraocular eye pressure, for relief of muscle over-stimulation (spasms), and more. In fact, the studies showing the efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoids continue to grow daily.

The compounds in cannabis or the plant or resins it produces are used to treat side effects and symptoms in AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and others.

Using Cannabis for Medication

Public perception commonly treats marijuana use as a “hippie” or “pot head” thing with visions of young people coughing thick smoke in rooms covered in psychedelic posters and drawings. The reality is that most medicinal cannabis users do smoke, but often they use vaporizers, water filtration systems (bongs or hookas), etc.

While the press seems enamored with the more creative (but generally less effective) cannabis intake methods such as “pot brownies” or THC-imbued candy and soda pop, many serious medical users are finding more potent and less debilitating ways to ingest their medication.

A growing number of medicinal users, however, are getting right to the compounds that do the most good by distilling or otherwise processing cannabis buds and resins to create pastes, cremes, tinctures, and other ways of using the medicine without smoking or even getting the associated high (psychoactive effects).

Pharmaceutical companies, by the same token, are working on both synthetic and naturally-derived options for isolating and distributing cannabinoids as pills. While the practice is controversial, it is lending some legitimacy to the idea of medical cannabis in the wider medical community.

The Future of Medical Marijuana

Although the current market and science behind cannabis as a medicinal plant is still young, the fundamentals behind how it works and why it works have been ironed out enough that refuting it as a medication is to ignore science. Yet those who continue to refute its medicinal properties are either in the scientific establishment themselves (often as medical practitioners) or attempt to cite scientific backing for their claims.

Although some side effects and psychological possibilities may exist for cannabinoids, these are far fewer and less severe than the same side effects for most pharmaceuticals that are legally on the market. Many of the so-called studies that claim marijuana has extreme adverse effects, such as schizophrenia in teenagers, are fraught with bad methodology or questionable conclusions and are what the medical industry calls “proof of preconception” – they are created merely to “prove” a preconceived notion.

Sadly, that latter event is something that happens all too often in today’s politically-charged science, especially in medicine.

Sebastian Scheppis and Justin Silver are the owners of CannaCentral.com, a medical marijuana directory and community website. The site features location-based search tools for strains and dispensaries, useful medical and clinic information and more.

 

from HealthFreedomNetwork

The United States Department of Agriculture has changed the rules for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with a new program called the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pilot Project.  This new program is for companies working with genetically modified organisms (GMO), genetically engineered (GE), or genetic modification (GM) who must complete an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement on their GMO/GE/GM food when requesting deregulated status.

The trouble is, this new program is set up so that all of the documentation and analysis is done by the organization attempting to get their GMO deregulated.  In other words, if a GM giant like Monsanto wants a new strain of GE what to be approved as a deregulated seed so that they can sell it to farmers, all they have to do is prepare their own assessment and analysis of the product’s likely impact, give it to the USDA, and receive approval through APHIS.

Obviously, these companies will be completely honest and forthcoming about the negative effects of their seeds and plants.  Right?  Ya, sure.

This entire process removes all semblance of objectivity from the support documents and scientific inquiry required for approval.  It basically tells the Monsantos of the world: “If you can spin it well enough so it looks legitimate, you’ll get approval.”

Want to try to stop this?  The Alliance for Natural Health is asking people to join an email flood to APHIS to force a change to this policy via public opinion.  You can send your own email through their system at this link.

by Neil Z. Miller, NaturalNews

A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology (http://het.sagepub.com/content/earl…), a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, found that nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates tend to give their infants more vaccine doses. For example, the United States requires infants to receive 26 vaccines — the most in the world — yet more than six U.S. infants die per every 1000 live births. In contrast, Sweden and Japan administer 12 vaccines to infants, the least amount, and report less than three deaths per 1000 live births.

The authors of the study, Neil Z. Miller and Dr. Gary Goldman, conducted a literature review to determine the immunization schedules for the United States and all 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States. The total number of vaccine doses specified for infants aged less than one year was then determined for each country. The 34 nations were then organized into data pairs consisting of total number of vaccine doses specified for their infants and infant mortality rates. A scatter plot of the data pairs provided evidence of a positive correlation:infant mortality rates and vaccine doses tend to increase together.

Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges. The mean infant mortality rates of all nations within each group were then calculated. Analysis showed“a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.”

It is instructive to note that many developing nations require their infants to receive multiple vaccine doses and have national vaccine coverage rates (a percentage of the target population that has been vaccinated) of 90% or better, yet their infant mortality rates are poor. Infant mortality rates will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care.

Nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses. This positive correlation, derived from the data, elicits an important inquiry: Are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination? Is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health?

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS):

There is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months — the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits.” It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination.

All nations have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.

You may download the complete study at:http://het.sagepub.com/content/earl…

Funding Acknowledgment:This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Open Access:The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 and Michael Belkin donated $500 (in memory of his daughter, Lyla) for open access to the journal article (making it freely available to all researchers). NVIC is dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032306_vaccines_infant_mortality.html#ixzz1Lgnn6Buf

For centuries (or more), using peppermint tinctures or teas has been a common remedy for soothing gastric pain.  In more recent years, with the advent of the supplement market, peppermint in many new forms has also been introduced.  Until now, however, it’s remained a “folk remedy” with little understanding of how it might work.

Researchers at the University of Adelaide in Australia have changed that.  A study by Andrea M. Harrington, Stuart Brierley and others will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Pain (see abstract here).  In that study, the researchers believe they have found the way that peppermint works to relieve gastrointestinal pain.

An anti-pain channel in the gut called the transient receptor potential ion channel melastatin subtype 8 (TRPM8) is acted upon specifically by compounds in peppermint to reduce pain-sensing fibers.  Especially those activated by things like mustard or chili.

“This is potentially the first step in determining a new type of mainstream clinical treatment for irritable bowel syndrom.  This is a debilitating condition and affects many people on a daily basis,” Dr. Brierley says, “particularly women who are twice as likely to experience [IBS].”

Those familiar with alternative medicine or folk remedies will be well-acquainted with peppermint as a solution to gastric problems, particularly IBS.  In this chronic condition in particular, the problem seems to be a heightened state of nerve pain fibers in the gut after a bout of gastroenteritis.  These are tamed with the ingestion of peppermint.

How the peppermint is ingested is also apparently critical to how it affects the pain.  Peppermint teas generally only affect the stomach and upper intestines, for instance, while peppermint oil capsules are most often prescribed for lower intestinal problems such as IBS.

This study from Australia confirms similar findings of peppermint’s efficacy in studies done previously in Italy (2007, Cappello, Spezzaferro, et al) and Iran (2010, Merat, Khalili, et al).  What this latest study gives is the scientific explanation as to how peppermint is working to alleviate IBS symptoms.

by Ethan A. Huff, Natural News

A recent study published in the journal Environment International has found that within the body of published literature on genetically-modified organisms (GMO), there exists almost an equal number of both studies suggesting they are safe and identical to natural varieties, and studies suggesting they are questionable and even dangerous. And among those studies that claim GMOs to be safe, the vast majority are funded by biotechnology companies that either produce the involvedGMOs, or have a vested interest in their promotion.

Jose Domingo and Jordi Gine Bordonaba from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health conducted areviewof available published GMOstudiesin databases like PubMed and Scopus. They found that the overall number of studies involving GMOs has increased since 2006 when the group last conducted an investigation. But such studies tend to focus mainly on corn and soy, two of the most widely propagatedGMOcrops, and were largely conducted by thebiotechnologycompanies that created them.

Though all the reviewed studies were published in credible, peer-reviewed journals, both sides of the GMO debate are represented, which raises an interesting and obvious point about the credibility of the peer-review process in general. And interestingly, some authors of the studies that proposed GMOs to be assafeas conventional varieties have since expressed concern about the limited findings of their studies, suggesting that additional long-term reviews be conducted to verify without a doubt that GMOs are safe for human consumption.

One study published in 2009 in the journalCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutritionactually cites animal toxicity studies in which GMOs inflicted organ and other bodily damage, including hepatic, pancreatic, renal and reproductive failures. The same study points to GMOs causing increases in insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1 levels), a protein implicated in causing cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…).

Conclusively, the new study demonstrates clearly that there is a lack of solid evidence proving GMOs to be safe. No long-term studies have ever been conducted to prove that GMOs do not cause harm to theenvironment, to animals, or to humans. On the contrary, there are plenty of independent studies that continue to legitimately question thesafetyof GMOs, and why they have been allowed into thefoodsupply without proper review.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listin…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031951_GMOs_safety_studies.html#ixzz1Iu2TXxHJ

Some serious questions about the way the peer review process is sometimes handled, by a scientist who participates in it.

by Willis Eschenbach, WattsUpWithThat

The recent problems with the publication of the O’Donnell et al. response to the Steig et al. paper on Antarctica have focused attention on continuing problems with the current system of peer review, problems initially highlighted by the CRU emails. In addition to significant questions revealed in this particular case, I’d like to look at other general issues with peer review.

For me, the most inexplicable and interesting part of the Steig/O’Donnell affray has nothing to do with the scientific questions. It also has nothing to do with the actions of Steig or O’Donnell, actions which have much exercised discussion of scientific and personal ethics on the blogosphere. It also has nothing to do with Antarctica, or with statistics.

The inexplicable part to me was that Dr. Steig was named as a reviewer of the O’Donnell paper by the Journal Editor, Dr. Anthony Broccoli.

It was inexplicable because in the ancient tradition of adversarial science, the O’Donnell paper claimed that there were serious issues with the Steig methods. That being the case, the very last person to be given any say as to whether the paper should be published is Steig. If it were my Journal, I would have immediately called Dr. Broccoli, the Editor, on the carpet to explain such an egregious breach of both the journal policy and more importantly, common sense. Appointing Steig as a reviewer is contrary to the stated policies of the journal, which say:

A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should indicate the potential conflict promptly to the editor.

Having Steig as a reviewer was done even though the authors of the O’Donnell paper wrote directly to the Editor (Broccoli) wrote to ask that Steig “be treated as a conflicted reviewer or that his review, at least, be sent to unconflicted reviewers for consideration before requiring us to make more major revisions.” The exact wording of the request was:

We have several concerns that we feel do not belong in the response and are more appropriately expressed in a letter. With this in mind, we would like to take a few moments of your time to discuss them. First, it is quite clear that Reviewer A is one (or more) of the authors of S09. This results in a conflict of interest for the reviewer when examining a paper that is critical of their own. This conflict of interest is apparent in the numerous misstatements of fact in the review. The most important of these were: …

This request was ignored by the Editor.

Steven Mosher had an interesting comment on this issue:

What makes this case different from any other “conflicted” reviewer case I’ve seen is this: Steig had made a public challenge to meet the author on the battlefield of peer reviewed literature. And in the case of Ryan [O'Donnell] this is an author who has no track record. That kind of challenge has no analogue that I’ve ever seen. Let’s see if I can make one

Imagine, for example, that you are a grad student with zero publications.

Imagine you make a pointed criticism or two of Judith Curry at a public forum, say an AGU Keynote. Imagine that Judy responds to you by saying, “go ahead try to get that published kid”

If you were that kid would you feel it was appropriate to have Judith review the paper? Would you have any reason to wonder if she was doing more than defending the science if as reviewer she gave you a hard time? Heck, even taking the reviewer assignment would be a sign to you that she intended to defend two things: her published paper and her public challenge/reputation.

Even beyond the special issues in this particular case highlighted by Steven Mosher, using a reviewer with such a glaring conflict of interest is also contrary to more general policies on conflicts of interest, such as the policy of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors:

Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest–for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors.

While this seems clear to me, and likely to you, Dr. Broccoli seems not to have gotten the memo.

Please be clear that I am not saying that Steig should not be offered every opportunity to respond to the issues raised by O’Donnell et al. He should indeed be offered that. The normal way that this is done would be for the Journal Editor to give space (usually in the issue where the new paper is published) for Steig to respond to the issues.

But giving Steig a say of any kind in whether the paper should be published? Where is the common sense in that? Does anyone seriously believe that in that position, some scientists would not try to prevent the publication of the new paper? Human nature roolz last time I looked …

I have seen Dr. Broccoli’s actions defended in the blogosphere, usually by saying that the Editor will use their expert judgement to determine if a reviewer is engaged in gatekeeping behavior. They also say that the most knowledgeable person about a paper is likely the author, so the Editor needs their specialized knowledge.

The problem that I have with that idea is, if the Editor is so knowledgeable about the statistical issues in question that he can distinguish Steig’s gatekeeping from true claims, then why does he need Steig as a reviewer?

And if the Editor is not knowledgeable in the statistical questions involved (Dr. Broccoli is a climate modeller, not a statistician … nor is Steig a statistician for that matter), then he won’t have the knowledge to see whether Steig is gatekeeping or not.

Also, if the Editor is that good and knowledgeable, then why do scientific journals (including Dr. Broccoli’s journal) have policies strongly discouraging reviewers with conflicts of interest?

And even if the Editor is that knowledgeable (which Dr. Broccoli seems not to be), remember that the goal is to avoid even the “appearance of a conflict of interest” … just how did Dr. Broccoli decide that having Steig as a goalkeeper does not present the “appearance of a conflict of interest”? My grandma could see that conflict of interest from her current residence … and she’s been dead for fifty years.

This farrago shows once again, just as was shown in the CRU emails revealed by Climategate, that peer review for AGW scientists is far too often “pal review” – just a gatekeeping fiction to keep any kind of opposing views from seeing the light of day, and to give puffball reviews to AGW supporting papers. Yes, as a number of people have said, at the end of the day the system kinda sorta worked, with a crippled paper (e.g. no Chladni patterns) emerging from the process. But I can say from my own experience that sometimes it ends up with a paper going in the trash can, purely because of gatekeeping from AGW pal review.

And in any case, is that all that scientists are asking for? A system that kinda sorta works some of the time? Because that’s certainly not what the public either wants or expects.

My suggestions to make peer review a better system are:

• Double blind reviews, where neither the reviewers nor the author are aware of each others’ identities. At present this is true in some journals but not others.

• All reviews get published with the paper, with each one signed by the responsible reviewer.

This has a number of advantages over the current system:

1.  Reviewers comments become part of the record. This is very important, as for example a minority review which is outvoted to get the paper published may contain interesting objections and other ideas. Or a favorable review can immediately be seen to be based on false logic.

2.  Gatekeeping and conflicts of interest of the kind favored by Dr. Broccoli will be immediately apparent.

3.  While it is sometimes possible for authors or reviewers to guess each others’ identities, at least it will only be a guess.

4.  As the experience of the internet shows, anonymity does not encourage honesty or collegialty … it is easy to say anything you want if you know that you will never have to take responsibility for your words.

5.  People could start to get a sense about the editorial judgement of the editors of the journals. If an editor frequently uses conflicted reviewers, for example, people should be aware of that.

6.  There will be a permanent record of the process, so even years later we can see how bad paper slipped through or what logical mistakes led to unnecessary changes in the paper. This can only lead to improvements in the science.

People have said that if we publish reviews and reviewers’ names, people will be less willing to be reviewers, so the quality of reviews will suffer. I don’t think that’s true, for two reasons.

First, if someone wants to be an anonymous reviewer but is unwilling to sign their name to their opinion … why on earth would we pay any more attention to their opinion than that of a random anonymous blogger?

Second, if reviewing a paper offers a chance for a scientist to get his name and his ideas enshrined on the record in a scientific journal … why do people assume that scientists would not jump at the chance? I know I would … and it is true whether I might agree or disagree with the paper.

That’s what I see as broken about the system, and how I would fix it … with sunshine, the universal disinfectant. Yes, it is important during the review for the reviewers and the authors to be anonymous and the proceedings secret. But once the procedure is complete, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by keeping the peer review process open. Keeping it secret just encourages the current abusive system of pal review.

[Read more, plus great feedback and comments, at the WattsUpWithThat website.]

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are becoming the hottest trend in agriculture, which is becoming more and more like patent medicine (aka Big Pharma) every day. If you can patent it and put it on the market, you can make billions. So it is with drugs, so it’s becoming with foods. Three new GM foods you may not know about are getting close to market readiness right now.

The news about Frankenfish and Enviro-Pigs has made the rounds and hit the mainstream. While these two have been in the limelight, three others are sneaking up through the genetic modification shadows.

Super Chicken Eggs
According to a paper from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida,¹ biotechnology is being used to develop genetically modified chickens that produce “super eggs.” These eggs have compounds that can be harvested to fight a range of diseases including diabetes, viruses, and even tooth decay.

Ultimately, the idea behind these super eggs is to create food products that contain the medicines built-in and for consumption. Someday soon, you may see eggs on the shelf that offer “superior tooth decay protection” or “help fight the cold and flu.” Who knows what the ingredients would include?

Non-Browning Apples (Frankenapples)
When you cut an apple, it eventually turns brown. This is unappetizing to the common never-picked-my-own consumer. Can apple pie be tasty if it’s not filled with pristine, white apples? Well, if these genetic modifiers have their way, that won’t be an issue any longer. Okanagan Specialty Fruits in British Columbia has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture for approval on a new GMO apple that doesn’t turn brown after being cut open.²

Apparently, apples that don’t brown is a big business opportunity because one of the fastest-growing markets is the “cut apple” market in which pre-sliced apples are sold to consumers. These are usually refrigerated and packaged in nitrogen-filled or vacuum-selaed bags or, as in the case of one company, doused in calcium and ascorbic acid. Restaurants like McDonald’s (the term “restaurant” is used loosely) sell these to consumers as part of “healthy” meal choices on the menu. Imagine if their Frankenapples could stay fresh-looking almost indefinitely?

Hyper Seeds
DNA manipulation is being used to attempt to make hyper-producing plum tomato seeds that increase yields by 50%.³ A team at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has produced a strain of hyper-tomatoes by altering the gene that tells plants how many flowers to generate. They plan to apply the same technique to melons and soybeans.

Nothing like larger quantities of food at the grocery store with even less nutritional value than before thanks to GMO technology!

Resources:
1 – Designer and Specialty Eggs by Jacqueline Jacob and Richard Miles, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univ. of Florida

2 – Are You Ready for the Genetically Modified “Frankenapple”? by Eric Steinman, Care2.com

3 – From Superseeds to Mutant Tomatoes by Robin Finn, New York Times

by Ethan A. Huff, NaturalNews

Industry-funded investigators and researchers that are also on the payroll of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) often go unnoticed because no rule exists requiring them to make such information public. But in an effort to increase transparency, honesty, and full disclosure within the medical community, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) is urging the NIH to include public disclosure requirements in its Final Rule on the issue.

Recent reports exposing connections between medical professionals and thedrug industryhave revealed that the entire medicalindustryis largely tainted with bias and major conflicts of interest. Examples include drugcompaniespaying ghostwriters to forge write-ups in medical journals (http://www.naturalnews.com/029696_d…), doctors to promote drugs to their patients (http://www.naturalnews.com/030111_d…), andmedical researchersto influence study findings (http://www.naturalnews.com/028491_m…).

NaturalNews covered POGO’s efforts back in March to get the attention ofNIHDirector Francis Collins concerning the fact that its researchers were secretly ondrugcompany payrolls. Collins agreed with POGO’s proposal that such industry connections need to be disclosed publicly, but nothing much has happened since that time to address the problem.

In a more recent letter to Collins, POGO is again urging Collins andthe NIHto require that medical researchers’ connections with the drug industry be publicly disclosed on searchable databases that can be easily accessed by the public. The group is also requesting that if medical researchers lie about such connections, that they be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Since Collins has already verbally expressed support for the proposal — and even submitted comments to theNew England Journal of Medicinethat helped further spark public interest in the idea — it is now only a matter of prodding him and the agency to actually make it happen.

You can express support for requiring full, public disclosure of NIH medical researchers’ industry connections by writing to:
Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD
Director
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland 20892

You can also email Collins directly at:
Francis.Collins@nih.hhs.gov

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030737_medical_researchers_financial_ties.html#ixzz18IS5KlCI