Since I have been occasionally criticized for adopting, as it were, too acerbic a tone in my contributions on vaccination questions, I will try to demonstrate why those of us who have opted to contest the position of the medical-industrial-governmental complex on this issue at times feel overcome with rage at the abominably poor quality of the pro-vaccination epidemiologic research which is foisted on the public in the hope and expectation that no one will ever take the trouble to check it out and criticize it.

One feels rage as well at the complicity of the "peer reviewed" journals which print these awful productions. It is abundantly clear, if further proof were needed, that "peer review" means simply preventing criticism of certain commercial interests and blocking the emergence of competing viewpoints.

Finally, one feels rage and exasperation at the total inability of journalists -- who are reputed to be professional sceptics -- to see through, and expose, this duplicity. They fearlessly cross-question generals and members of the cabinet, even the President himself, but are struck dumb by the self-promoting assertions of some character in a white coat ("Say Joe, how do you spell 'breakthrough'"?).

Let us not forget that it is small and defenceless babies who are being turned into mincemeat by these commercial products known as vaccines.

Once upon a time, long ago in the 1940s and 1950s, physicians who were interested in vaccine reactions actually (would you believe it?) went into hospitals, and even to people's homes, to examine babies who were thought to have suffered some sort of adverse reaction. They went so far as to speak with the parents and to ask their opinion. This was called by one British pioneer "shoe-leather epidemiology."

Today our epidemiologists have progressed way beyond those primitive techniques. Rarely do they actually observe a sick baby. Rarely do they actually discuss a case with the parents. Oh no! That would be accepting "anecdotal evidence" -- a cardinal sin. That would be mistaking the well-known "background incidence" of SIDS or epilepsy or asthma or diabetes, or you name it, for a vaccine reaction. Never mind that no research exists on any such "background incidence" in an unvaccinated U.S. population. Our epidemiologists are not fazed by this. They just keep repeating the mantra until everyone is convinced that a "background incidence" must have been demonstrated somehow, somewhere, by someone.

Fortified by these unproven assumptions and methodological limitations, epidemiologists funded by government agencies and the medical-industrial complex fill the pages of medical journals with trash epidemiology -- the articles discussed below are prime examples -- which, in a sort of scientific apotheosis of Gresham’s Law, drives good research out of circulation or prevents it from being published.