Health knowledge made personal

Complementary & Alternative Medicine Community

Overview Blog Posts Discussions People
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

The National Library of Medicine Censors Research on Nutritional Medicine- Take Action Today!

Posted Jan 30 2010 12:00am

Medical Research Bias

Below is an interesting news release provided by Orthomolecular Medicine News Service that demonstrates the clear and unfortunate bias against nutritional and natural medical therapies from the world’s most reputable and trusted medical research site- Medline.  It is not surprising but it is disappointing, given that medical writers for all of our major news media outlets rely on this research site to create their reports on health.   This bias is not to be taken lightly.  The research both in clinical practice and in the lab, does exist, that shows the efficacy of using natural and nutritional therapies to prevent and treat disease, especially chronic diseases that place the greatest financial burden on our country.  The healthcare industry is broken. Using Naturopathic Medicine and other natural and environmentally friendly medical modalities proven effective, will contribute to a new, simple, realistic and affordable healthcare system in our country- a system that can serve as a demonstration to the rest of the world of a better way to mange health, for the betterment of humanity and the planet.

In health,

Want to be a MEDLINE Information Censor?
The National Library of Medicine Needs You!

Would you like to dictate what nutritional research people may or may not access? Why not join the NLM’s Literature Selection Technical Review Committee?
We think a good preparatory step is to take the Medline Censorship Aptitude Test (MED-CENT).
Not to worry; it’s multiple choice.

First question: Which of the following research papers is NOT indexed by the National Library of Medicine’s Medline?

A) Olfactory responses and field attraction of mosquitoes to volatiles from Limburger cheese and human foot odor. (J Vector Ecol, 1998)

B) Heated socks maintain toe temperature but not always skin blood flow as mean skin temperature falls. (Aviat Space Environ Med, 2003)

C) Jefferson JW, Thompson TD. Rhinotillexomania (nose-picking): psychiatric disorder or habit? (J Clin Psychiatry, 1995)

D) Pauling L, Rath M. An orthomolecular theory of human health and disease. (J Orthomolecular Medicine, 1991)

Answer: Only choice “D” is not available on Medline. The others most certainly are. Search each one and see for yourself at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Let’s try another: Which of these studies is NOT indexed by Medline?


A) Psychophysiological responding during script-driven imagery in people reporting abduction by space aliens. (Psychol Sci, 2004)

B) The eyebrow frown: a salient social signal. (Emotion, 2002)

C) Staring at one side of the face increases blood flow on that side of the face. (Psychophysiology, 2004)

D) Rath M, Pauling L. Solution to the puzzle of human cardiovascular disease: Its primary cause is ascorbate deficiency leading to the deposition of lipoprotein(a) and fibrinogen/fibrin in the vascular wall. (J Orthomolecular Medicine, 1991)

Answer: “D” is not on Medline. All the rest are.

Ready? Select the study below that is NOT on Medline:


A) Espresso kiosks can be profitable addition to hospital foodservice. (Health Foodserv Mag, 2000)

B) Espresso maker’s wrist. (West J Med, 1990)

C) Characterization of particles in cream cheese. (J Dairy Sci, 2004)

D) Rath M, Pauling L. Case Report: Lysine/ascorbate related amelioration of angina pectoris. (J Orthomolecular Medicine, 1991)

Yes, the study that Medline does not think is important enough for you to see is choice “D”. The others are all indexed online by NLM at taxpayer expense.

Next:

A) The Easter bunny in October: is it disguised as a duck? (Percept Mot Skills, 1993)

B) Increasing the portion size of a packaged snack increases energy intake in men and women. (Appetite, 2004)

C) A piece of my mind. Reflections while listening to the Glazunov Saxophone Concerto. (JAMA, 2003)

D) Rath M, Pauling L. Apoprotein(a) is an adhesive protein. (J Orthomolecular Medicine, 1991)

You guessed it: “D” is not on Medline.

One last chance, now:


A) How dogs navigate to catch Frisbees. (Psychol. Sci, 2004)

B) Effect on tipping of barman drawing a sun on the bottom of customers’ checks. (Psychol Rep, 2000)

C) An objective evaluation of the waterproofing qualities, ease of insertion and comfort of commonly available earplugs. (Clin Otolaryngol, 2004)

D) Hoffer A, Pauling L. Hardin Jones biostatistical analysis of mortality data for a second set of cohorts of cancer patients with a large fraction surviving at the termination of the study and a comparison of survival times of cancer patients receiving large regular oral doses of vitamin C and other nutrients with similar patients not receiving these doses. (J Orthomolecular Medicine, 1993)

Choice “D” is not indexed by Medline. The others are. Yes, they really are. Just type in the title at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

If you got all the above items right, you are well qualified to become a member of the NLM’s Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, because you can discern what research should and should not be available to the public.

Censoring Linus Pauling

If you look carefully at the first four questions, you will see that four of Linus Pauling’s papers appeared in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine in just one year. That year was 1991. Two years after this, JOM was reviewed by the National Library of Medicine’s Literature Selection Technical Review Committee. NLM uses a point scale of zero to 5, with five being the highest recommendation for indexing, and zero being the lowest. On March 4, 1993, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine received a “0.0″ score.

One cannot escape the significance of such judgment. After all, “0.0″ is not merely a low mark. “0.0″ represents an absolute dearth of merit. And “zero point zero” states it so flatly as to leave no room for alternate interpretations.

To this day, after additional reviews, Medline still does not include the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.

To read the Linus Pauling papers that Medline decided rate a “0.0″: http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1991/toc3.shtml and http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1993/toc3.shtml
For free online access to 600 more full-text papers from the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine: http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/

To personally thank your National Library of Medicine for keeping all this information from the taxpayer:
Ms Betsy Humphreys, Deputy Director, NLM
email: betsy.humphreys@nih.gov or betsy_humphreys@nlm.nih.gov
phone: 301-496-6661

You can also call the NLM Customer Service desk at 1-888-FIND-NLM (1-888-346-3656). Remember to be polite, because, after all, they are the “World’s Largest Medical Library.” http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nlmhome.html
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, PhD (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)

OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html
OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.


Filed under: Latest Nutritional Research , Naturopathic Medicine , Nutritional Supplements and Disease , Orthomolecular Medicine , Prevention
Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches