I hope that at least some of you get around to reading it. The longer version is better and more thorough, but the author published a shorter version in Newsweek.
Here's an excerpt from the longer article:
|What can be called suppression of dissent in science typically has two components. Firstly, a scientist does something - research, teaching, making public statements - that is perceived as threatening to a powerful interest group such as a corporation, government department, or professional group. Secondly, agents or supporters of the powerful interest group make attempts to stop the scientist’s activity or to undermine or penalize the scientist, for example by censorship, denial of access to research facilities, withdrawal of funds, complaints to superiors, reprimands, punitive transfer, demotion, dismissal, and blacklisting, or threats of any of these.|
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor Private Parts are Private Property!
Is it getting lonely in the echo chamber yet?
If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.
caution: one-handed nak
|that is perceived as threatening to a powerful interest group such as a corporation, government department, or professional group.|