Photo of a news broadcaster sat at a desk and retro microphone with an On The Air illuminated sign.

Mainstream Healthcare News in America — A Mind Field of Propaganda and Fraudulent Facts

by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

Do you know when mainstream news, scientific articles, and internet websites are using propaganda techniques to control your mind and manipulate your emotions?

The manipulation of the American mind has become a sophisticated science. Media controllers twist together half-truths, pictures of distorted reality, and outright lies so that we will trust the official reports of government, accept the claims and plans of corporations, and believe the work of scientists who do research on behalf of government agencies and corporations.

This article will look at how mainstream media distorts the truth and manipulates public perception. It will look at how public relations agencies create fake organizations to simulate grassroots movements, and how government agencies and corporations manipulate and fabricate scientific research to advance their agendas.

I will present 12 simple steps that you can use to break the power of propaganda and separate the lies from the truth.

Mainstream News has been Controlled for more than a Hundred Years


The manipulation of public opinion through mainstream media is not new. During the years leading up to World War I, President Woodrow Wilson used a media team to change the mind of Americans regarding involvement in the European war. The team included Edward Bernays, creator of public relations. [1]

Edward Bernays stated:

If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it. [2]

Under the leadership of Edward Bernays, the news was reshaped in such a way that public opinion regarding participation in the European war switched from avoidance to enthusiastic endorsement. Americans were led to believe they would be fighting for freedom and democracy, and they became willing to enter World War I. [3]

History writer Sophie Hylands gives us a glimpse into the mind of Edward Bernays. She stated:

In his 1928 book, Propaganda, Edward Bernays wrote of secret and ubiquitous persuasive powers at work in society: ‘We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.’

While they may sound like something from an Orwellian dystopia, for Bernays these are words of approval and not warning. Bernays in fact, prided himself on being part of what he saw as an ‘invisible government,’ the pioneers of public relations who made the manipulation of public opinion their life’s work. [4]

Operation Mockingbird: CIA Controlled Media

During World War II, both Germany and the United States had high levels of media control. After the war, media controllers (propagandists) from Germany were brought to the United States and were put to work in Operation Mockingbird, which was a CIA program to control news reporting.

By the early 1950s, respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles were “owned” by the CIA along with 400 to 600 stringers, according to a former CIA analyst. The CIA occupied a position of influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies which consented to act as organs of CIA propaganda. They shaped stories and prevented others from being published. [5]

Public references about Operation Mockingbird have dwindled in recent years, but the CIA did not let go of its control over the news media. This was recently confirmed by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, Ph.D., a German newspaper editor and journalist who blew the whistle on how the CIA continues to pay journalists to gather information from foreign governments and pay them to write specific news articles.

In a forthcoming book entitled Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte will describe how the CIA controls the news. He shared some of his experiences with the CIA in a March 2016 news post published on ZeroHedge. The article stated:

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte went on public television stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job. [6]

The ZeroHedge article contained these statements from Dr. Ulfkotte:

I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public.

But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe. [7]

Dr. Ulfkotte’s confession of wrongdoing, and CIA and German intelligence control of the news:

Media Control – Mainstream Media Follows a Common Script

Please watch the first minute of the following video. It shows how the identical “news story” was broadcast throughout America by dozens of different local TV news shows. It is a junk food news article about shopping for Christmas gifts. It has absolutely no news value, yet the story was determined by high level media controllers to be worthy of nationwide distribution. You will get the point after just a few moments — you don’t need to watch the entire clip.

Newscasters Agree: A Christmas Present or Two or Ten:

The practice of broadcasting nearly identical stories on local TV stations throughout America, such as the one shown in the previous video, could be seen as a reasonable approach to profit maximization. One writer composes a story and it is distributed to hundreds of stations, which are all either directly owned by a single corporation or linked by affiliate agreements. [8]

I might not be concerned if it was just junk food news that was distributed in this way, but when it comes to real news, this practice is truly frightening. When it comes to coverage of topics like healthcare, this type of control moves from frightening to life-threatening. If you get sick and you believe that Big Pharma and the conventional medical system are offering the only solution to your problem, and you must accept it or die, then you have become a victim of media control.

“Close-Hold Embargo” – How the FDA Controls Medical Information in Mainstream Media


FDA Press Conference in 2014.

In an October 2016 article in Scientific American, we learned how the FDA and numerous other medical research publications manipulate the media’s access to information. This process, known as a “close-hold embargo,” results in key media sources simultaneously publishing the same information without doing independent research.

Scientific American reported:

The press corps is primed for manipulation by a convention that goes back decades: the embargo. The embargo is a back-room deal between journalists and the people they cover—their sources. A source grants the journalist access on condition that he or she cannot publish before an agreed-on date and time.

A surprisingly large proportion of science and health stories are the product of embargoes. Most of the major science journals offer reporters advance copies of upcoming articles—and the contact information of the authors—in return for agreeing not to run with the story until the embargo expires. These embargoes set the weekly rhythm of science coverage: On Monday afternoon, you may see a bunch of stories about the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA published almost simultaneously. Tuesday, it’s the Journal of the American Medical Association. On Wednesday, it’s Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine. Science stories appear on Thursday.

Other institutions have also adopted the embargo system. Federal institutions, especially the ones science and health journalists report on, have as well. Embargoes are the reason that stories about the National Laboratories, the National Institutes of Health and other organizations often tend to break at the precisely same time. [9]

This is how the close-hold embargo process works. A select group of reporters from high profile media outlets are invited to a private briefing, for example, at the FDA headquarters, to learn about rules governing a new product. The reporters who attend must make a commitment not to publish their stories until a certain date and time. They must also agree not to attempt to obtain reactions to the story from sources beyond the list of official sources provided by the FDA during the embargo, or to mention the existence of the embargo.

Each reporter has the identical set of information and the same amount of time to prepare their story. Since each reporter and their employer wishes to be seen as the one who broke the news to the public, they will all publish their stories at the moment the embargo has passed. They will not delay the publication by taking time to interview other sources who may have alternative points of view.

Once the initial set of stories is published by top-tier media organizations such as NPR, CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, then other media sources will use those reports as templates for preparing their own stories. They will also try to move as fast as possible, to avoid the appearance of publishing “old news.”

While all this rapid reporting of the official government controlled news is going on, the real story is often missed. The real story might lie in the deep controversy that was omitted or hidden by the FDA’s initial presentation. The truth may lie buried until the alternative media digs into the full set of facts and interviews the people who have dedicated their careers and even their lives to speaking about truth in a certain area.

Astroturf: Phony Activists Infiltrating Social Media on the Internet

Sharyl Attkisson lecturing on the concept of “astroturf.”

Before the days of the internet, people would gather together in their communities to discuss and solve a local problem. When the problem was a statewide or national issue, local groups would communicate with one another by physical mail and phone calls to share and coordinate their activities.

Over time, formal organizations would be established at the state or national level to speak on behalf of what began as grassroots movement. Grassroots movements exercised their influence over local government, state government, the U.S. Congress, and the White House — and government officials listened — because the movements represented real people with honest concerns.

Today, we have many false grassroots initiatives. They are called “astroturf.” They are engineered by public relations professionals who work in the advertising business to create the illusion of a grassroots movement.

Astroturf organizations are nothing more than empty public relation shells that are funded by corporate interests to strengthen their control over the government and to brainwash the public. The combination of lobbyists and astroturf organizations is a powerful combination, which strives to keep elected officials and agency administrators under the thumbs of corporations.

Emmy award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson gives us a close look at astroturf. She is host of the Sunday morning news program “Full Measure,” and author of the New York Times bestseller: Stonewalled. She was a correspondent for CBS news, a correspondent and news anchor for CNN, and host of the PBS medical news magazine program “Health Week.”

She explains astroturf this way:

Astroturfers often disguise themselves and publish blogs, write letters to the editor, produce ads, start non-profits, establish Facebook and Twitter accounts, edit Wikipedia pages or simply post comments online to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. They use their partners in blogs and in the news media in an attempt to lend an air of legitimacy or impartiality to their efforts.

Astroturf’s biggest accomplishment is when it crosses over into semi-trusted news organizations that unquestioningly cite or copy it.

The language of astroturfers and propagandists includes trademark inflammatory terms such as: anti, nutty, quack, crank, pseudo-science, debunking, conspiracy theory, deniers and junk science. Sometimes astroturfers claim to “debunk myths” that aren’t myths at all. They declare debates over that aren’t over. They claim that “everybody agrees” when everyone doesn’t agree. They aim to make you think you’re an outlier when you’re not.

Astroturfers and propagandists tend to attack and controversialize the news organizations, personalities and people surrounding an issue rather than sticking to the facts. They try to censor and silence topics and speakers rather than engage them. And most of all, they reserve all their expressed skepticism for those who expose wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority. [10]

Famous astroturfers involved with health concerns include vaccine inventor and advocate Paul Offit, and QuackWatch’s Stephen Barrett. QuackWatch consists of a large number of affiliated websites, which are all dedicated to destroying alternative medical care and personally attacking leading researchers who are developing treatments that are much more effective than those offered by Big Pharma. Such websites and blogs often use the words science and skeptical in their titles, and act as if they are saving you from deceptive, despicable, and diabolical practitioners of alternative health.

Link to Sharyl Attkisson’s presentation on astroturf given at the University of Nevada, Reno:

50% of Scientific Research Reported in Journals is Phony Science

Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor of the Lancet medical journal described the problems with modern medical research. The Lancet is one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Dr. Horton reported comments made at a symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in England.

The meeting was held under “Chatham House Rules,” which means that those who attended the meeting were free to use information provided during the meeting, but they were not permitted to reveal who made specific comments. Meetings held under these rules are intended to facilitate communication without risking one’s employment or reputation.

Dr. Horton stated:

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results.” [11]

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which is considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of this topic quite plain. Dr. Angell stated:

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. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. [12, 13]

Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., from the University of British Columbia has made a detailed study of the deception involved with the vaccine approval and distribution process in the United Kingdom. In the 45 page report prepared by Dr. Tomljenovic, he describes official cover-up and public deception after examining transcripts from meetings of the UK organizations involved in managing vaccine policy and vaccine utilization.

He reviewed transcripts from 1983 through 2010, and found that Agency officials refused to examine safety concerns when problems were identified with vaccines. They skewed or selectively removed unfavorable safety data from public reports. They made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities that vaccines were safe. They restricted information about contraindications and inflated claims of benefit. They emphasized poorly designed studies, and dismissed independent research. In short, they lied and deceived the public and doctors through their official statements and publications, and prevented parents from giving fully informed consent when considering vaccinating their children. [14]

Of course, the United States has its own vaccine scandal and cover-up. The link between autism and the MMR vaccine was hidden from the public while nationwide vaccination of children continued year after year. The truth was revealed by Dr. William Thompson, CDC Senior Scientist and whistleblower in the movie Vaxxed, which was directed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. [15]

Based on the statements of Dr. Richard Horton, Dr. Marcia Angell, Dr. Tomljenovic, and Dr. William Thompson, it should be clear that the once noble and trustworthy work of scientists has become highly suspect. We can no longer blindly trust scientific research. We must work to separate truthful research from the propaganda published by corporations and government agencies.

Native Advertising and Sponsored Content

Newspapers, TV programming, and internet sites now accept payments to publish privately produced “Native Content.” [16] This is content that physically appears as if it was produced by the media source, when in fact it was produced by public relations agencies.

Such content rarely indicates that it is advertising, and will not say who paid to insert the information. This content may be designed to sell a product, but it is just as likely designed to sell a point of view. Information of this type commonly discusses the benefits of pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, elective medical procedures, and adjusting one’s thinking about social or political topics. The remaining sections of this article will help you spot this type of paid content.

Specific Propaganda Techniques Used to Control Public Perception

In addition to the techniques already discussed, public relations agents, speech writers, and mainstream news writers use a large number of other techniques to manipulate people into believing lies and half-truths.

Dr. Aaron Delwiche, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Trinity University describes some of these techniques. Specifically, he discusses: name-calling, glittering generalities, euphemisms, transfer, testimonial, plain folks, bandwagon, fear, bad logic, and unwarranted extrapolation.

These techniques are designed to fool and distract us because they appeal to our emotions and divert our attention from using rational thinking. Dr. Delwiche describes each of these techniques on his website known as the Propaganda Critic. [17] His website preserves and extends the pioneering work of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA), which was created in 1937 to educate the American public about propaganda. [18]

I will briefly explain each of these common propaganda techniques in the following sections. You will see them and hear them every time you expose yourself to mainstream news programming. If you can identify propaganda, then you can protect yourself from being manipulated by mainstream media.

Propaganda Technique — Name-Calling

This involves the use of demeaning, derogatory, and insulting language, which is intended to place a shadow of suspicion over people. It is designed to make us distrust and doubt what people say without examining the facts.

People who use this technique label people as anti-vaxxers, crazy, quacks, cranks, conspiracy theorists, paranoid, retarded, irrational, pigheaded, deniers, and despicable. They refer to the beliefs and conclusions of others as pseudo-science or junk science.

They refer to themselves as debunkers, protectors, upholders of reason, etc. They always represent themselves as standing on the highest moral ground of rationality.

They use condemning language to attack anyone who questions the effectiveness of: the products sold by Big Pharma, the functioning of the conventional medical care system, the public school system, Child Protective Services, GMO agriculture, and Big Chem. They attack anyone who speaks of preserving or expanding freedom and independent thinking. Their covert agenda is for greater and greater uniformity and government control over our minds and our bodies.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Word Games — Name Calling

Propaganda Technique — Glittering Generalities

This is the opposite of Name Calling. Glittering generalities shine the spotlight of respectability over people and attempt to cause others to believe what they say without examining the person’s character and motivations or examining the truthfulness of what he or she has said.

Virtuous words are not inherently propaganda — it is how they are used to manipulate people. Virtuous words include America, Christianity, God, proper, right, democracy, patriotic, motherhood, fatherhood, science, freedom, liberty, medicine, doctors, nurses, compassion, and love – just to name a few.

Mainstream media uses virtuous words to put people on pedestals so that their comments will be seen as credible and believable. They also connect virtuous words with marketing programs. These words mean different things to different people, and the natural response is to think that everyone believes and thinks just like us when virtuous words are used.

If we read, “Dr. Jones, M.D., a defender of democracy and the American way, has dedicated himself to ending the spread of poverty and the spread of communicable diseases in America,” we might automatically assume that this is a good guy whose statements about vaccination should be trustworthy, because the sentence contains lots of virtuous words.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Word games > Glittering generalities

Propaganda Technique — Euphemisms

Words that are euphemisms are bland and designed to not arouse emotions. When they are used, they try to turn something that is truly bad into something that is much easier to accept. For example, mainstream media sources rarely speak of babies dying from vaccination or mention children who become totally disabled with autism through vaccine damage. If this topic is discussed, then they call these tragedies adverse events or unexpected outcomes.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Word Games – Euphemisms

Propaganda Technique — Transfer

During the era of the German Third Reich, Adolf Hitler’s government required churches to put swastikas on church altars and to display Hitler’s picture in the sanctuary. These images were intended to silently transfer God’s approval over to what Hitler was doing. In America, pictures of flags and Uncle Sam can be used to lead people to trust the plans of government and Big Pharma when people might otherwise feel compelled to reject what they are being told.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: False Connections – Transfer

Propaganda Technique — Testimonial

This is the use of famous people such as sports heroes, movie stars, performers, and politicians to endorse a product or plan of action. It is designed to make something desirable even when our natural instinct and reason would lead us in the opposite direction.

When Bill Gates calls for the massive use of worldwide vaccinations and large scale depopulation of the Earth, people listen, because of his fame and his money. He doesn’t need to have expertise – just fame.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: False connections – Testimonial

Propaganda Technique — Plain Folks

In this technique, people in authority or people who live in extreme privilege want the average American to trust and believe them, because they have behaviors or preferences that are just like the typical person in America.

Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer.

Bill Clinton ate at McDonalds.

Ronald Reagan was shown chopping wood.

George Bush didn’t like broccoli.

Each tried to show us that they were just plain folks. The belief is that if we see a person as an “average Joe or Josephine,” then we will be more likely to trust them and accept what they are saying.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Special appeals > Plain folks

Propaganda Technique — Bandwagon

This approach is designed to get people to identify with certain groups and to do what they do.

For example, if you are a parent and are concerned about the health of your children, then you should jump on the bandwagon with all the other parents in the United States who are following the government guidelines for childhood vaccination. If you are a patriotic American, then you should rally around the flag with all the other Americans who submit to the plans of the government to eradicate Zika from the face of the Earth. Quite often, those who use this technique speak about the majority opinion, even when such an opinion does not exist.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Special appeals – Bandwagon

Propaganda Technique — Fear

Fear is used to motivate people to submit to the plans of government leaders, corporations, and local health officials.

The fearful event doesn’t need to be real – it only needs to be well advertised. A fear appeal will have four parts: 1. description of the fear-inducing threat (Zika will cause our babies to be born with shrunken heads.), 2. It will contain a specific recommendation (spray your body with DEET) 3. It will show that this recommendation will be effective (mosquitoes will not bite you or your children), and 4. It will show that we are capable of performing the recommended action (anyone can spray themselves and anyone can take the Zika vaccine when it becomes available).

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Special appeals > Fear appeal

Propaganda Technique — Bad Logic

It is not unusual for officials to quickly put out a supposedly logical statement and try to get people to agree without testing the logic. For example: Children die from the measles every year; there is a measles vaccine that is designed to prevent these deaths; therefore every child in America should receive the measles vaccine.

On the surface this might seem both logical and reasonable until you go deeper. Just because a vaccine was designed to prevent measles, it doesn’t mean that it actually does — it might really cause disability and increase the death rate. Logic must be tested with facts.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Logical fallacies – Bad logic or propaganda?

Propaganda Technique — Unwarranted Extrapolation

Example: If we don’t act right now to make and distribute a Zika vaccine, then a major epidemic will sweep across the globe. Millions of babies may soon be born with deformed brains and shrunken heads.

In unwarranted extrapolation, a few hundred confirmed cases of a disease are quickly exaggerated into a worldwide threat. Such exaggeration builds fear.

For additional information visit:

Propaganda Critic: Logical fallacies – Extrapolation

How to Get to the Truth of the Matter

When reviewing news stories from any mainstream media source, there are a series of steps that you can use to sort truth from the lies and the deceptions.

  1. Don’t allow yourself to be emotionally triggered. In order to analyze the news we must remain calm. If we experience strong emotions, then we are being manipulated and will be unable to identify the propaganda techniques that are being used to sway our opinion. The most dangerous emotion is fear, which is closely followed by anger.
  1. Strip away all name-calling words and words of glittering generality – these words are not the news.
  1. Replace euphemisms with the strong words they are hiding – Prophylactic adverse events are really vaccine injuries.
  1. Disregard the transfer of approval by the use of symbols such as flags, crosses, swastikas, etc. and focus on the actual message.
  1. Disregard the testimony of famous people when they are not a credible source of information.
  1. Disregard attempts of people in power to make you think that they are just like you – just plain folks.
  1. Don’t get on the bandwagon just because other people who share your views have already gotten on board.
  1. Test all logical statements. If you are told that because A and B exist, therefore C must be true; don’t take the bait. Carefully examine the situation and look for fallacies.
  1. Investigate all grandiose claims (unwarranted extrapolations) – Is it really true that if herd immunity through vaccinations is achieved that we will have no more communicable diseases?
  1. Disregard the opinions and research of astroturf organizations.
  1. Whenever a scientific journal article is cited, take the time to look it up on the internet. Be suspicious if you can’t even find an abstract for the article. Be suspicious if you do find an abstract and it is nothing more than a sweeping endorsement of a drug or a sweeping rejection of a natural substance or treatment method. Examine the affiliations of the researchers who wrote the article. Do they work for Big Pharma? Do they work for the CDC? Do they make specific suggestions for future research, or just say something general like “more research is recommended,” which means nothing.
  1. Don’t rely on information from Wikipedia when researching anything. Wikipedia has become a propaganda tool of government and corporations, especially in the areas of health promotion and alternative treatments for illness. Even though Wikipedia gives the impression that articles can be edited/updated/corrected by knowledgeable sources, this is often not the case. [19, 20]

About the Author

John P. Thomas is a health writer for Health Impact News. He holds a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Michigan, and a Master of Science in Public Health (M.S.P.H.) from the School of Public Health, Department of Health Administration, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Comment on this article at

See Also:

MK Ultra and Modern Day Mind Control: The Battle for America’s Soul

The Battle for America’s Soul: Ways to Combat Mind Control

Zika: A Masterpiece of Public Mind Control


[1] “The Lippman-Bernays Legacy,” Jack Kinsella, The Omega Letter, 7/27/2010.

[2] “Bernays’ Ideas on Propaganda Continue to Haunt Americans,” Raven Clabough, The New American, 1/21/2011.

[3] “The Lippman-Bernays Legacy,” Jack Kinsella, The Omega Letter, 7/27/2010.

[4] “The Invisible Government: Edward Bernays, Public Relations and Propaganda,” By Sophie Hylands, Edited by Katie Yates, New Histories, 11/4/2013.

[5] “Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA,” What Really Happened? by Alex Constantine.

[6] “Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: We All Lie For The CIA,” Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, 3/28/2016.

[7] IBID.

[8] “Ever Wonder Why Your Local TV News Stations Run the Same Damn Stories?” Josh Harkinson, Mother Jones, 4/4/2014.

[9] “How the FDA Manipulates the Media,” Charles Seife, Scientific American, October 2016 Issue.

[10] “Top 10 Astroturfers,” Sharyl Attkisson, 7/28/2016, First published in February 2014.

[11] Richard Horton, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?” [Symposium on the Reproducibility and Reliability of Biomedical Research, held at the Wellcome Trust], The Lancet, Volume 385, No. 9976, p1380, 4/11/2015.

[12] Harvey Marcovitch; “Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors, and Reprint Income,” PLoS Med, October 2010, Published online 10/26/2010, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000355, PMCID: PMC2964337.

[13] Drug companies and doctors: A story of corruption, Marcia Angell, January 15, 2009. The New York Review of Books 56. Available:

[14] Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD; “The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?” BSEM March 2011.

[15] “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe Official Website,”

[16] “The definition of native advertising,” Anders Vinderslev, Native Advertising Institute, 3/1/2015.

[17] “Propaganda Critic: Index of Site Dedicated to Propaganda Analysis,” Aaron Delwiche, PHD.

[18] “Propaganda Critic: Introduction – The Institute for Propaganda Analysis,” Aaron Delwiche, PhD.

[19] “Exclusive: an interview with investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson,” Jon Rappoport’s Blog, 4/25/2014.

[20] “Deadly Disinformation: How Drug Companies Use Astroturfing to Get Us Hooked,” David A. Tomar, The Best Schools.