Censorship
see also:
The Clever take the Brilliant The Politics of Knowledge in Science. Deception in The Guardian.

  Guide to website News Electromagnetism Politics of Electromagnetism Family Breakdown Breakdown of the Legal System Quakers Politics of Knowledge A.I.D.S Wafer Scale Integration My Books Index Another Index  

Truth Management
Issue 8. 2oct92.

Some years ago, my extensive research into the Politics of Knowledge led me to write to Brian Martin in Australia that I believed that if one came up with a potentially major contribution towards the amelioration of the AIDS epidemic, one would be prevented from publishing it. Brian responded by saying that he knew such a man, Louis Pascal in New York (LP). Thus began my relationship with LP. (Technically, LP thought he could ameliorate further epidemics which would follow in the wake of AIDS, but the difference is trivial.) I had successfully concluded a scientific test on my theory of suppression in science; predicted suppression, then looked for it, then found it. More was to follow, but first we shall go through a few details of the LP suppression. In July 1985 an expert panel assembled by WHO decided the (later to become) LP theory was not credible, and dismissed the subject (1). In May 1987 Eva Snead, a San Antonio physician, announced on New York local radio the theory that contaminated live oral polio vaccine(OPV) led to AIDS. Later, after being made more rigorous, this became the LP theory. Publication of the LP theory has been blocked since 1988 (1). The independent decision by Herbert Ratner, M.D., specialist in preventive medicine, public health director of Oak Park, Illinois, to link OPV with AIDS, was blocked by The Lancet. (2).

With LP suppressed, B Elswood and Tom Curtis, unknowing, set about "re-inventing Pascal's wheel" (3) in 1991. In 1992 they succeeded in publishing the LP theory in the general press. Meanwhile, The Lancet, who admitted to suppressing Pascal for five years (4), published a rudimentary version of the theory by Kyle (5). The suppression made Kyle the fourth independent party to develop the LP theory.

After coming under the hammer from G. Moran for suppressing LP, Editor Gillon published an editorial about how and why he had rejected LP's paper five years earlier (6).

Professors Lecatsas et al. could not publish when they developed ideas similar to those of LP. "I have tried to publish results in Nature, British Medical Journal and to comment in New Scientist. All were rejected with negative and often nonsensical comments. Certainly we are trying to get our results published but 'rocking the boat' is something the establishment often does not tolerate." (7)

Case 2. Luc Montagnier's Paris team discovered the HIV virus but was prevented from publishing it for a year. They sent a sample to the powerful Gallo at the US National Institute of Health (NIH), hoping he would help them to publish their discovery. Instead, he seemed to appropriate the sample and the credit for the discovery. He did help Montagnier to publish, but destroyed the message by adding a misleading abstract to Montagnier's paper, thus turning it into a support paper for his own (now admittedly false) ideas, which Montagnier was trying to dispute (8). The Paris team believe that the ensuing argument delayed treatment of AIDS sufferers for one year, so they dropped their priority claim in order to prevent further loss of life.

Case 3. Peter Duesberg broached the dissident idea that HIV did not lead to AIDS. He lost his $350,000 p.a. research grant from NIH and is prevented from publishing his concerns. "It's frozen out" says Dr. Charles Thomas, the group's co-ordinator, even though Montagnier, the acknowledged discoverer of the HIV virus, has sharply shifted his position on the cause of AIDS (9). PD is always ignored, e.g. in The Guardian, 22 July 1992.

Notes

1 L. Pascal," STA Working Paper No. 9, December 1991" , available free from Brian Martin, Dept. of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, PO Box 1144, Wollongong NSW 2500, Australia.

"Monkey Business?" by Andrew Tyler, The Independent Magazine, 19sep92, pp24,25,26,28,30 (The magazine section of The Independent, London.) Article commissioned, written, accepted, then withdrawn in apr92. Published by The Independent 5months later.

2 See Child & Family,20:134-138,1988 (also 19:191, 1980) "Reputations were more important than children's lives."

3 Letter from B Elswood to B Martin, 2apr92.

4 Letter from D Sharp, Dep. Editor,The Lancet, to LP, 24feb92.

5 Kyle, The Lancet, vol 339,7mar92,p600

6 Journal of Medical Ethics 1992, 18, 3-4.

7 Letter to LP dated 4sep91 from Professor G Lecatsas, Head, Virology, Medical University of S. Africa.

8 "Taking the Credit", BBC Horizon documentary, 11may1992. (Script available,BBC,box7,LondonW3 6XJ).

Nature, 7&14may92.

9 Sunday Times, London, 26apr92, sect. 1, pp12,13. (Also 24may92 sect.2 p5; 31may92sect.2, p6; 26july92 s.2; 13sep92 s.1 p5)

Bibliography

1 I Catt, "The Scientific Reception System ......", Journal of Information Science 2(1980)307-308

2 Even John Maddox, Suppressor-in-Chief, expresses concern. London Daily Telegraph 1may89, p18

3 I Catt, "Conquest of Thought", Electronics and Wireless World dec87 pp1250-1(alsodec85,jan86,jan88).

4 C McCutchen (working at NIH ! ),"An Evolved Conspiracy", New Scientist, 29apr76, p225.

5 S Begley, "Is Science Censored?", Newsweek, 14sep92, p63, ...shot through with ideology ... dirty secret is coming out...

Please ask Ivor Catt for details of suppression of further apparently major advances which run the gamut of science. The scientists are Theocharis, H Lipschutz, I Catt, W Holland, J Ferguson, G Moran, H Hillman.

Please ask Ivor for a postscript to this item, file no. blp. Caton has now (1994) published a book on AIDS, "The AIDS Mirage".