Censorship of health articles means that until recently we were told only what drug companies wanted us to know about health. You might be shocked to realize how widespread this censorship was, or how powerful.
I'll describe what the situation has been until recently. I suspect that the Internet is responsible for the change, because if we are going to learn the statistics from the Internet, then keeping it out of media articles is a waste of time.
Most medical schools are funded by the drug companies. This makes sure that the doctors will only get "facts" that the drug companies want them to know. That is the first stage of control of information.
How often have you been told recently that your food is loaded with poisons? The information is there, but not publicised. We're told that organic food has no more vitamins than non-organic food. This is using tests on dry matter, but tests on the fresh food shows that there is less water in organic vegetables, so more vitamins in each hundred grams. This distracts you from the real danger. Non-organic food is loaded with poison.
Research Info
Next we come to research for the drug companies. The companies simply tell the research workers what results are wanted, and if research is really done, the unfavorable results are suppressed. There was a major scandal a few years ago when the government discovered the widespread practice of writing research reports for the drug companies without doing any research, then pocketing millions of dollars for the non-existing research.Until recently drug companies could withhold all unfavorable statistics from the FDA. Now that could be coming to an end, because there have been too many drug deaths that the manufacturers secretly expected. What I would like to know is why they can't be found guilty of premeditated mass murder when they promote drugs that they know will kill unsuspecting patients.
Media Health Articles
I don't know if that practice still goes on, but here is how typical research is manipulated. Research concludes that the cholesterol-lowering drug reduces heart attacks by 0.1% but that the difference wasn't statistically significant. It also observes that deaths from cancer increased by 5% which was statistically significant.The media then trumpet the news in their health articles that there was a significant (not statistically significant) lowering of deaths from heart attacks with the new drug, and that is where the story ends.
Why is no mention made of the 5% increase in deaths from cancer? Because the drug barons make it clear that they will withdraw all their advertising if the media run any stories that they don't like. To my mind this is censorship of the health articles.
Research Workers
If research workers write books, or talk to the press about unfavorable research results, they are blacklisted. They find that nobody will offer them research grants, and that they can't even get good medical jobs.
Health Product Labeling
In many parts of the world health product labels are not allowed to claim that they do anything. So they have to rely on people learning about the products in other ways.
What Has Changed
Recently the TV has had health tips that would definitely not be acceptable to the drug companies. TV health articles have included accounts of deaths caused by prescription drugs and information and statistics about ADHD being caused by food additives, and the facts about permanent mental health damage caused by the ADHD prescription drugs.My guess is that either the TV people have called the bluff of the drug companies (if all TV stations run the same stories they can't all be banned) or the poison pushers have realized that health articles on the internet have revealed their dirty secrets so books and TV don't matter.
Success Stories Suppressed
Did you know that a doctor in Australia discovered the cause of sudden infant death syndrome more than three decades ago? Some health articles were written before they could be suppressed, but nothing has been heard since then.
Did you know that a safe treatment for skin cancer that was easy to apply had been discovered by the CSIRO
a long time ago? It couldn't be suppressed because the CSIRO is a government agency, so the government was persuaded
to make it prescription only, and doctors weren't told that there was a safe drug to heal skin cancer?
(I heard before it was suppressed.) The rest of the world can use devil's apple (sodom apple) exported from Australia, but it is on prescription only in Australia. And censorship of health articles means that nobody knows that they can save their life if they ask for the prescription.
