Part 1: The Truth About Medical Journals
The illusion called medical journalism: the deep secret – by Jon Rappoport
First Published 11/25/2016
I have a professor friend whose work includes medical anthropology who has consistently asserted that articles published in a medical journal are the leading authoritative reference on new treatment or product assessment. That may have been largely true back when the professor was a student however the times have changed now and the changes have unfortunately impacted and according to Jon Rapoport the reliability of possibly half the articles now published in medical journals.
January 18, 2017 –
My “Freedom Calendar” of 2010 indicated January 20th as the day that: “AMA Journal BRAGGED About HAVING CONTROL OVER MEDICAL ARTICLES in UNITED PRESS – 1940” (All caps used in the calendar.) I researched this and found the following:
“The Journal of the American Medical Association on January 20, 1940, bragged that the United Press had been induced to issue a directive requiring all articles on cures and human health to ‘clear’ through its New York Bureau and so-called science editor.”
And another quote like the above:
“…The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the organ of the Medical Syndicate in the U.S., had bragged as far back as January 20, 1940, that the United Press had been induced to issue a directive requiring all articles on cures and human health to ‘be cleared’ through its New York bureau and ‘science editors.’—Hans Ruesch, 1982 (Naked Empress p102)”
Apparently the January 20, 1940 issue is archived online in the form of a number of PDFs however it is a mystery to me as to which title might contain the “bragging”.
Just requested librarian research assistance as follows:
I’m seeking a specific quote that is reportedly in the January 20, 1940 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
I wish to cite the exact quote regarding the United Press issuing a directive requiring all articles on cures and human health to ‘be cleared’ through its New York bureau and ‘science editors.’
So far I found http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/issue/114/3
offering a number of PDFs however I don’t see article titles that indicate my subject matter. I wonder if this journal issue had an editor’s comment (or other non-article entry) containing the statement I’m seeking.
Would it be possible for your to research this?
January 19th –
Success! The good research librarian people at UCSD came through with exactly what I had hoped for! The following is a direct quote from the above mentioned journal:
ACCURACY IN MEDICAL NEWS
Only those closely associated with modern trends in publication are familiar with the vast improvement that has been taking place relative to the publication of news of scientific advances. A bulletin recently issued by the United Press to its bureau managers and division managers is worthy of quotation. It reads:
It seems advisable to restate our traditional policy concerning handling stories of “cures” or other medical developments.This policy, which dates back more than twenty years, is never to call anything a cure, or in fact give any publicity to any remedy of any description, without a thorough investigation.
This rule is now being strengthened by the following:
Under no circumstances put any story on the leased wire about a remedy. If the bureau manager is convinced that the story has merit, he should overhead it to New York for investigation and consideration there.
For the “Journal” to write “cures” is to add a negative “spin” to the more neutral term: remedy. For millennia we have had golf medicine offering folk remedies. That is a common law right of the people. But when it comes to publishing these remedies in the modern day press (of the last century) which is not a “free press” (by any definition of the term) “common law rights of the people” are disregarded with impunity! That is what it is however to discount the validity of the people’s remedies may be a potential cause for “indigestion” (at the very minimal end of the spectrum) or sudden death syndrome (at the maximum end).
 January 20, 1940 under “Current Comment” –
JAMA. 1940;114(3):252. doi:10.1001/jama.1940.02810030052016: