DoctorYourself.com -

Censorship of Vitamin Therapy Research

by the U.S. National Library of Medicine

MEDLINE Bias

Home

“The National Library of Medicine refuses to index the

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, though it is peer-reviewed

and seems to meet their criteria.”

(Psychology Today, Nov-Dec 2006)

Did you know that there are "good" medical journals, and that there are

"naughty" journals?

No kidding. The good journals are easy to access on

the internet through a huge electronic database called Medline

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) This wonderful, free service

is brought to you by the National Library of Medicine and the National

Institutes of Health. In other words, by you. By your tax dollars. Generally it

is money well spent, until you go a-searching for megavitamin therapy

research papers. Then you will find that you can't find all of them. That is

because of selective indexing. Medline chooses journals to index based on

criteria that they publish but will not discuss.

As evidence, here is a copy of my recent letter to them:

To: <custserv@nlm.nih.gov>

Subject: Listing or Indexing of a Journal

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

I have used Medline for years, and it is a truly invaluable research tool. I

have observed that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, continuously

published since 1967, is not indexed, listed nor otherwise cited or available

on Medline. May I ask what would perhaps disqualify this particular

Journal from inclusion in the Medline database?

Here is the reply I got back from the National Library of Medicine:

"Dear Dr. Saul:

"The Literature Selection Technical Review Committee makes decisions

about the inclusion of journals in Medline. Our Fact Sheet with FAQs

(Frequently Asked Questions) about inclusion in MEDLINE and thus in

PubMed will be found at this URL:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/j_sel_faq.html

"A more specific Fact Sheet for journal selection will be found at this

different site:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html .

"Thank you for your interest in our National Library of Medicine products."

(Clerk's name, deleted by the Newsletter)

NIH Contractor

Customer Service

National Library of Medicine

8600 Rockville Pike

Bethesda, MD 20894

custserv@nlm.nih.gov

The following text was appended to the response I received:

"The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is the largest medical library in

the world. The goal of the NLM is to collect, organize and make available

biomedical literature to advance medical science and improve public

health."

I see. Collect. Organize. Make available. Improve public health.

So, AFTER 39 CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF PUBLICATION, why is the

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine NOT indexed by Medline?

(For more on Medline bias, please also look at http://www.doctoryourself.com/medlineup.html )

NOTE: All issues of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine from

1994 through 2001 are now online for you (and the world's search

engines) to find and read, Medline or no Medline,

at http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/ The remaining twenty-five

years prior to 1994 are planned to be posted, also for free reading,

within the next year or so.

Although a similar leading-edge nutrition-friendly journal, Medical

Hypotheses, is indexed, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is not.

This decision is the work of a National Library of Medicine "Literature

Selection Technical Review Committee," which apparently declined to

comment.

What are the consequences of such exclusion? In a nutshell, it stops the

public from using their computers to learn about all of the scientific

research and clinical reports demonstrating the effectiveness of

megavitamin (orthomolecular) therapy. It also greatly hampers

professionals from seeing pro-vitamin studies. Have you ever wondered

why your doctor simply does not know about vitamin therapy? Well,

wonder no longer. He or she can't read what isn't "collected," electronically

indexed, or otherwise "made available" to them. If the vast majority of

journals indexed by Medline are pharmaceutical-friendly, and yet

nutritional research is censored, what do you expect?

My website, book (http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html ) and this

Newsletter are not called Doctor Yourself for nothing. We have no choice.

If we want to know, we have to learn for ourselves. Your taxes should be

helping you do so, and not paying a closed-doors bureaucracy to decide

what should (or should not) be "collected" and "made available" to

"improve public health."

Here is a current example of vital research that Medline does in fact

choose to index:

PIZZA PREVENTS HEART ATTACKS

Gallus S, Tavani A, Vecchia CL. Pizza and risk of acute myocardial

infarction. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 May 12.

"OBJECTIVES: Pizza eating has been favourably related to the risk of

cardiovascular disease, but the data are limited. To evaluate the potential

role of pizza consumption on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI),

we considered data from an Italian study. DESIGN: We conducted a

hospital-based case-control study on 507 cases of nonfatal AMI and 478

controls in Milan, Italy, between 1995 and 1999. RESULTS: The

multivariate odds ratios were 0.78 for occasional, 0.62 for regular and 0.44

for frequent eaters. The estimates were similar across strata of age, sex,

smoking and other major covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the

ingredients of pizza have been shown to have a favourable influence on

the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, there is no single explanation

for the present findings. Pizza may in fact represent a general indicator of

Italian diet, that has been shown to have potential cardiovascular benefits."

If that impressed you, you will also surely want to know about this:

PIZZA PREVENTS CANCER

Gallus S, Bosetti C, Negri E, Talamini R, Montella M, Conti E, Franceschi

S, La Vecchia C. Does pizza protect against cancer? Int J Cancer.  2003 Nov

1;107(2):283-4.

"We analyzed the potential role of pizza on cancer risk, using data from an

integrated network of case-control studies conducted in Italy between

1991 and 2000. Cancer sites were: oral cavity and pharynx (598 cases),

esophagus (304 cases), larynx (460 cases), colon (1,225 cases) and

rectum (728 cases). Controls were 4,999 patients admitted for acute, non-

neoplastic conditions to the same hospital network as cases. Odds ratios

for regular pizza consumers were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, CI =

0.47-0.93) for oral and pharyngeal cancer, 0.41 (95% CI = 0.25-0.69) for

oesophageal, 0.82 (95% CI = 0.56-1.19) for laryngeal, 0.74 (95% CI =

0.61-0.89) for colon and 0.93 (95% CI = 0.75-1.17) for rectal cancer. Pizza

appears therefore to be a favorable indicator of risk for digestive tract

neoplasms in this population."

But be careful of that olive oil, mate! Of course, this particular Medline-

approved entry is not from Italy:

Wong GA, King CM. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from olive oil

in pizza making. Contact Dermatitis.  2004 Feb;50(2):102-3. (Department

of Dermatology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.)

MORE PIZZA

Here is my all-time favorite: yet another article that Medline actually is

indexing. It is not even from a medical journal. I am not making its mile-

long title up, either. It is there at Medline, right now, just a few clicks away

from you:

Simon HB. My husband subscribes to Harvard Men's Health Watch, but I

read it even more than he does. I hope you can help us resolve a

disagreement. He wants to have pizza two to three times a week for his

prostate, but I don't think it's a healthy food. Who is right? (Harvard Men's

Health Watch.  2003 Jun;7(11):8.)

In fact, when I did a search at Medline for "pizza," I got 435 responses.

Man, there is scientific argument over literally anything.

I am proud (as well as relieved) to be the first to tell you that the Journal of

Orthomolecular Medicine has not published a single article on pizza. At

least so far. Maybe if it did, it would make the cut at Medline.

Medline also indexes an item entitled:  "I am a 71-year-old diabetic, and

I've had trouble with my erections for seven or eight years. At first the

problem was mild, but it's been getting worse. My doctor gave me a

prescription for Viagra, but it didn't help. I tried two pills at once without any

luck, but I did get a mild headache. Can I use three pills?"

(Harvard Men's Health Watch.  2003 Sep;8(2):8.)

Surely the very name "Harvard" is enough to get your foot inside the

Medline door. That, or "everything but anchovies."

The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine has a review board of medical

doctors and university- and hospital-based researchers. Since 1967, it has

published over 600 papers by renowned authors including Roger J.

Williams, Emanuel Cheraskin, Carl C. Pfeiffer and Nobel prize winner

Linus Pauling.  (http://www.doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html ) You

should be able to access abstracts (concise summaries) of these papers,

instantly and for free, via Medline. Well, you can't.

Perhaps you'd like to write to Medline and tell them what you think:

custserv@nlm.nih.gov

And when you are done with both your pizza and your Viagra, would you

please share any letters you may receive with me at

drsaul@doctoryourself.com ?

[This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in The DOCTOR YOURSELF

NEWSLETTER, Vol. 4, No. 14, June 20, 2004, revised 2006. It is archived at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n14.txt ]

Part 2: JUST WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT, ANYWAY?

The Smithsonian Institution's United States National Tick Collection, with over one million

tick specimens, makes it, quite understandably, the world's largest.

On the other hand, the world's largest medical library, the U. S. National Library of Medicine,

does not see fit to index the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.

Why?

Is it really a matter of funds? The National Museum of American History is

spending $18 million to "clean and conserve" the 1814 "Star Spangled

Banner" flag that flew over Fort McHenry. (Smithsonian magazine, June

2004, p 59.)

That's eighteen MILLION dollars.

What, exactly, would be the cost to index one additional medical journal?

The U.S. government lets the U.S. Forest Service sell the public's forests to

private lumber corporations at a $2 billion annual loss to the taxpayer. This

is, of course, the same government that gave the nuclear power industry

over $40 billion since 1948, according to the Multinational Monitor

(http://multinationalmonitor.org)

Medline is self-described as "the NLM's premier bibliographic database

covering the fields of medicine, nursing, dentistry, veterinary medicine, the

health care system, and the preclinical sciences.  MEDLINE contains

bibliographic citations and author abstracts from more than 4,800

biomedical journals . . . The database contains over 12 million citations

dating back to the mid-1960's."

Just how hard would it really be for the National Library of Medicine to

electronically index one more scientific journal on Medline, for the public's

benefit?

Doesn't the government owe the public full disclosure of all new

nutritional research that can help people, including what is published in the

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine? Politicized science and research

cover-ups hurt citizens. The U. S. General Accounting Office has stated that

over 500,000 Americans were "used as subjects in Cold War era radiation,

biological and chemical experiments sponsored by the federal government,"

often without their consent. (Scripps Howard News Service, 29 Sept, 1994.)

There is a terrible price to pay for secret agendas, selective science and

information suppression.

Medline, which formerly only went back to 1966, now provides an additional

two million citations from medical journals all the way back to 1951. While in

itself good news, it also more than suggests that the national Library of

Medicine has the funding, personnel and capability to index the Journal of

Orthomolecular Medicine without further ado. The availability of "Old

Medline," as it is nicknamed, now means that references to hundreds of

scientific papers by vitamin discoverer Roger J. Williams, niacin psychiatrist

Abram Hoffer, Professor of Oral Medicine Emanuel Cheraskin, and twice

Nobel prize-winner Linus Pauling can now be electronically tapped from

everywhere they published, for the last 55 years. . . with one conspicuous

exception. Every word they ever wrote in the Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine remains excluded from indexed cyberspace.

One can not help but wonder why an author's work is significant if published

in one journal, but not even worth mentioning if published in another.

The National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine's Medline and

Old Medline collectively form one of the world's truly splendid research tools.

Going back to 1951 is a good idea. Why stop there? What about 36

consecutive years' worth of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, as well

as the current research it continues to publish even as you read this?

As public libraries should be free to rich and poor alike, so public access to

scientific knowledge should not be screened or censored. Science is neither

a guild nor a members-only club.

Or at least it shouldn't be any longer.

TELL IT TO THE BOSS

Many Newsletter readers have already written to Medline and received

useless answers from government contractors.

Well then, let's write to the top man.

The Executive Editor of Medline is Mr. Sheldon Kotzin. His email address is

kotzins@mail.nlm.nih.gov .

Please send him a polite email requesting that he please include the Journal

of Orthomolecular Medicine in the MEDLINE database and index.

Talking points:

*The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine has been published for 36

consecutive years.

* It has an editorial review board of physicians and university researchers.

* The Journal has published papers by prominent scientists, including twice

Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.

* Electronic indexing makes health information readily accessible to libraries

and to the public.

* Medline indexes over 4,800 journals, and has funds to reach all the way

back to 1951.

*Why, exactly, is the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine excluded?

*Courteously ask for action, and for a response.

I would very much appreciate it if you'd send me a copy of Mr. Kotzin's

replies. My email is drsaul@doctoryourself.com .

[This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in The DOCTOR

YOURSELF NEWSLETTER, Vol. 4, No. 15, July 5, 2004. It is archived at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n15.txt ]

NOTE: All issues of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine from

1994 through 2001 are now online for you (and the world's search

engines) to find and read, Medline or no Medline,

at http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/ The remaining twenty-five

years prior to 1994 are planned to be posted, also for free reading,

within the next year or so.

Part 3: UPDATE ON MEDLINE

(For more on Medline bias, please also look at http://www.doctoryourself.com/medlineup.html )

A special thank-you to all the many Doctor Yourself Newsletter readers

who took the time to write to the National Library of Medicine to request

that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine be included in MEDLINE's

electronic index. MEDLINE is like a "Google" of medical publications. I

believe everyone should have internet access to all health research, not

just some of it.

The next question is, exactly who is deciding what you may or may not

read?

Most letters that readers sent to MEDLINE's Executive Editor, Sheldon

Kotzin, received a form reply from a clerical assistant, saying only that:

"Mr. Kotzin has received your recent email regarding the re-review of the

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine for inclusion in MEDLINE. The

National Library of Medicine uses an advisory committee to recommend

journals to be indexed in MEDLINE. This journal will be scheduled for

review at the next advisory committee meeting."

There are genuine problems with this quickie form-letter response.

First, it does not tell us exactly why the Journal was previously refused. It

is merely a promise of a re-review, whatever that may consist of.

Second, who are the people on the mentioned advisory committee who

actually perform the review? Who, exactly, are the persons empowered to

decide for you what you may or may not access on MEDLINE, a taxpayer-

supported service of the US Department of Health and Human

Services/National Institutes of Health?

Third, what are the names, and professional qualifications (and professional

affiliations) of the "Literature Selection Technical Review Committee"

members?

Fourth, how are they selected, and who selects them?

Fifth, what are the specific grounds, particular to the Journal of

Orthomolecular Medicine, that have previously disqualified it from inclusion

in Medline?

Are these petty, pesky questions, or do interested citizens have a right to

know?

To date, NOT EVEN ONE Newsletter reader has reported a meaningful reply to

these questions.

Why? Is there some kind of secret?

It may be time to take this case to a higher level: the U.S. Congress.

I ask you to please email your Congressperson and Senators, respectfully

requesting that they help you get real answers to your real questions.

It is easy to do, you know. Just go to http://www.congress.org (or

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ ) and type in your zip code.

Then, click the email link under your Senator's and Congressman's name,

and select "Compose Your Own Letter." This is fast and, for sending email,

free.

To speed things further, you can cut and paste the letter I today sent to my

Senators and Congressman, editing as you see fit. For the email letter's

"Subject," I typed in "Seek Response from Federal Agency."

Dear Hon. _________________

I would very much appreciate your assistance in obtaining answers to

questions I have directed in writing to a Federal agency, but without

success.

I am interested in finding out why the National Library of Medicine has not

responded adequately to my inquiry as to why it has not chosen to index a

particular medical journal. To me, this seems like a reasonable inquiry.

Because I and many other citizens are interested in nutrition therapy, I

think the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (which has been published

for 36 consecutive years) should be included in the NLM's MEDLINE

electronic index. However, it is not.

I wrote to MEDLINE, specifically to the Executive Editor, Mr. Sheldon

Kotzin. All I received was a form reply, which I think is an unsatisfactory

response.

My questions are:

What are the specific reasons that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

has been excluded from MEDLINE's index by a "Literature Selection

Technical Review Committee"?

What are the names, qualifications, and professional affiliations of the

members of the NLM/Medline "Literature Selection Technical Review

Committee"?

Who appoints these members to the Committee?

When will they conduct a public hearing?

The NLM says of itself, "The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is the

largest medical library in the world. The goal of the NLM is to collect,

organize and make available biomedical literature to advance medical

science and improve public health."

It seems odd to me that the world's largest medical library does not see fit

to index the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. It seems even odder that

the NLM/MEDLINE Executive Editor did not provide satisfactory answers

to my questions. I think detailed, individual reasons for Medline's excluding

a particular journal should be public information. I am a taxpayer. I have

asked a senior member of a federal office for information and that

information has so far been denied to me.

Your reply would mean a great deal to me.

(end of suggested text)

PLEASE LET ME KNOW what your representatives and senators offer to

do. I would welcome a copy of all responses that you receive emailed to

drsaul@doctoryourself.com .

NOTE: All issues of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine from

1994 through 2001 are now online for you (and the world's search

engines) to find and read, Medline or no Medline,

at http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/ The remaining twenty-five

years prior to 1994 are planned to be posted, also for free reading,

within the next year or so.

 [This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in The DOCTOR YOURSELF

 NEWSLETTER, Vol. 4, No. 16, July 20, 2004. It is archived at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n16.txt ]

Part 4: MEDLINE'S INDEX AND "THE" INDEX

The Roman Catholic Church of centuries past was soundly criticized for

creating an Index of books that good people should not be reading. That

archaic and highly questionable tradition unfortunately lives on even today,

but in secular form. Now there is an official "Index" of permitted scientific

publications. It is the world's largest, with tens of millions of individual

listings. And this Index is not located anywhere near the Vatican, but

rather in Washington, D.C.

Let's be fair: the Church has freely admitted it was wrong to restrict

scientists such as Galileo. On the other hand, to this day, an unelected

committee at the U.S. National Library of Medicine still decides for you

what you may and may not have access to. This, at the world's largest

medical library, smack in the heart of in the Land of the Free and Home of

the Brave.

And the process is all done in secret. You are not allowed to communicate

with the committee members who decide in your place what you want to

be able to access, worldwide, on the electronic index called Medline.

THE CLOISTERED COMMITTEE

Many Newsletter readers report receiving a form letter from Medline that

said, in part, that

"If the (journal review) meeting were open to the public, word could

circulate about a committee recommendation before a final determination

was made by the Director, NLM. Public knowledge about a journal

reviewed and not recommended could caste unfair doubt on the quality of

the journal. . .  While names of review committee members are public

information (Editor's note: And we have them, further below), NLM never

discloses names of primary and secondary reviewers for specific journals.

Observers could obtain that information and it could affect the openness of

discussion and might result in contact with specific reviewers after the

meeting. It is NLM's policy to prevent unnecessary contact with specific

reviewers."

There it is: no one is supposed to communicate with review committee

members, because of the looming specter of the exercise of unfair

influence. Remember, now, everybody: unfair influence is OK for drug

companies, who bankroll studies printed by medical journals. And yes,

those are indexed on Medline. But don't YOU try to get your two cents in.

Lobbying is for those with millions.

But we have more votes than they do.

I really do think we have to make this whole matter public. Some readers

are already writing emails to their Congressperson and Senators, as

suggested in my last Newsletter.

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n16.txt ) I am looking forward to

seeing the replies.

Questions being asked of your elected officials include,

* Why the secrecy? Why is an unelected "advisory" committee making

decisions, in private, about what the public has access to on the National

Library of Medicine's tax-funded Medline service?

* How objective, or biased, are NLM advisory review committee members

whose credentials and training are primary medical?

* How many experienced orthomolecular (nutritional-therapy) scientists are

on the NLM advisory review journal committee? Is there even one? If not,

why not?

I think the whole idea of a select small group, an elite, an oligarchy,

running a public library service, needs to be seriously and repeatedly

questioned.

IS THE NLM's COMMITTEE "STACKED" AGAINST A MEGAVITAMIN

JOURNAL?

I think few, if any, of the committee members appear to be

especially favorably oriented towards vitamin therapy. This is the Journal's

problem: a stacked deck. But this is also everyone's problem: these

appointed experts are deciding what the public may and may not see on

Medline.

All advisory/review committee members are appointed by the director of

the National Institutes of Health. I have no doubt as to either their

intelligence or their dedication. I do question their individual and collective

qualifications to review and judge objectively on a journal that specializes

in high-dose nutrition therapy. Think about it: Would you have a committee

of very well educated, hard working music and art professors decide if

JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine were worthy of inclusion

in Medline?

Therefore, let us take a look at the reviewers' professional qualifications

and affiliations, to try to ascertain which of them have orthomolecular

(megavitamin) experience or have published any orthomolecular papers.

Do you think I am harping excessively on this? Well, keep in mind that

these persons, listed below, are to review and either pass or reject an

orthomolecular nutrition journal, which their committee has already, and

repeatedly, rejected from the Medline index. Is there any reason to think

any of the reviewers may be biased?

Let's see.

WE REVIEW THE REVIEWERS

(whose names are all publicly posted at

http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/members.asp?cid=100753&Title=Literature+Selection+Technical+Review+Committee&ABBR=LSTR )

CHAIRPERSON:

SHEPRO, DAVID, PHD

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENTS OF BIOLOGY & SURGERY

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, MICROVASCULAR RESEARCH

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

(The committee chair has authored 213 papers which are listed by

Medline. None appear to be on orthomolecular subjects.)

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

BRANDT, CYNTHIA   A , MD

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, CENTER FOR MEDICAL INFORMATICS

YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

(Dr. Brandt's work is listed in Medline 46 times. I found no orthomolecular

papers.)

CHEN, JINKUN, DDS, PHD

PROFESSOR OF GENERAL DENTISTRY

DIVISION OF ORAL BIOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL

DENTISTRY

SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE, TUFTS UNIVERSITY

(Because Chen is a common name, Medline has a large number (literally

thousands) of returns for a "Chen J" search. None that I saw were

orthomolecular.)

DELCLOS, GEORGE L., MD

DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER

(25 Medline listings; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

DOUGLAS, JANICE G., MD

PROFESSOR

MEDICINE, PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOPHYSICS, PHARMACOLOGY

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

(227 Medline listings since 1968. None appear to be orthomolecular.)

FREY, JOHN J., MD

PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY MEDICINE

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

(51 Medline listings since 1973. None appear to be orthomolecular.)

KAPLAN, JERRY, PHD

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

("Kaplan J" is a common name; I saw no orthomolecular papers.)

MANNING, PHIL R., MD

PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE EMERITUS

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

(Close to 50 papers; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

MCCLURE, LUCRETIA W.

SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR

COUNTWAY LIBRARY OF MEDICINE

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

(23 papers on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

SHARPS, PHYLLIS  W, PHD

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR; DIRECTOR, MASTER'S PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF NURSING

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

(8 papers listed on Medline; none seem to be orthomolecular.)

SIEGEL, VIVIAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE

SAN FRANCISCO,  CA

(19 papers listed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

SOEHNER, CATHERINE B.

HEAD, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ

(One listing on Medline, which does not appear to be orthomolecular.)

STERNBERG, ESTHER M., MD    (6/30/2007)

DIRECTOR, INTEGRATIVE NEURAL IMMUNE PROGRAM

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

(93 papers indexed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

TOM-ORME, LILLIAN, PHD    (6/30/2006)

RESEARCH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER

DEPT. OF FAMILY & PREVENTIVE MEDICINE

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

(3 papers listed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

WEISSMAN, NORMAN, PHD

PROFESSOR, HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, BIRMINGHAM

(At least 20 papers listed on Medline; none seem to be orthomolecular.)

SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ADMINISTRATOR:

KOTZIN, SHELDON

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SERVICES DIVISION

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE

BETHESDA,  MD 20894

(Medline's editor has 15 papers of his own on Medline; none seem to be

orthomolecular.)

Based on what I saw, with Medline's own listings as my source, the

National Library of Medicine's Medline journal review Advisory Committee

appears to contain **not one single member** with orthomolecular training

or experience.

Not one, out of all 15 of them.

Some jury, eh?

If anyone feels I have erred in my conclusions, I invite corrections for, and

especially letters from, any member of the committee who feels that they

have not been accurately represented above.

NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

There was once another "Index" that stood for over four hundred years. It

was created and perpetuated specifically to control thoughts, ideas, and

reading