Censorship of Vitamin Therapy Research 

by the U.S. National Library of Medicine




“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: 
"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
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 
I see. Collect. Organize. Make available. Improve public health. 
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 
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:
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:
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 
"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.)
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: 
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 ] 
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.
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 
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 
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.
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.
(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 
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" 
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 
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, 
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 
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 
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 
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 ]

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.
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 
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 
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 
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.
(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 )
(The committee chair has authored 213 papers which are listed by 
Medline. None appear to be on orthomolecular subjects.)
(Dr. Brandt's work is listed in Medline 46 times. I found no orthomolecular 
(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 
(25 Medline listings; none appear to be orthomolecular.)
(227 Medline listings since 1968. None appear to be orthomolecular.)
(51 Medline listings since 1973. None appear to be orthomolecular.)
("Kaplan J" is a common name; I saw no orthomolecular papers.)
(Close to 50 papers; none appear to be orthomolecular.) 
(23 papers on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)
(8 papers listed on Medline; none seem to be orthomolecular.)
(19 papers listed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)
(One listing on Medline, which does not appear to be orthomolecular.)
STERNBERG, ESTHER M., MD    (6/30/2007)
(93 papers indexed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.) 
TOM-ORME, LILLIAN, PHD    (6/30/2006)
(3 papers listed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.) 
(At least 20 papers listed on Medline; none seem to be orthomolecular.)
(Medline's editor has 15 papers of his own on Medline; none seem to be 
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.
There was once another "Index" that stood for over four hundred years. It 
was created and perpetuated specifically to control thoughts, ideas, and 
reading material. It was part of a clandestine power-process that Medline 
would do well to avoid emulating in any way, shape or form: The 
"The Congregation of the Inquisition was initially charged with drawing up 
a complete list of forbidden books. This list, the first general one, was 
published in 1559. . . The last edition of the Index was that of 1948; it was 
abolished in 1966 . . . During the proceedings against Galileo in 1633, his 
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World was placed on 
the Index, where it remained until 1824." (Albert Van Helden. 
Congregation of the Index; 1995. 
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/c_index.html )
From Socrates to Orwell to every home computer user on Earth, free-
thinking people everywhere rebel at the very idea of thought control. There 
is little difference between freedom of speech and freedom of literature. 
But if people cannot find it, they cannot read it. If they cannot easily find it, 
they can not easily read it. These days, you don't have to burn literature; 
just make it hard to access.
Here are non-Medline links to some online 
Read and decide for yourself if they are worth indexing by your tax-supported 
National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE.
Linus Pauling on Mental Illness http://www.orthomed.org/pauling2.htm  
(and also at 
http://www.orthomolecularpsychiatry.com/library/articles/orthotheory.shtml )
Linus Pauling Defines Orthomolecular Medicine
Principles of Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular Case Histories
Nutritional Influences on Aggressive Behavior
High Blood Pressure and Chelation
Abram Hoffer on the Megavitamin Revolution 
http://www.orthomolecularpsychiatry.com/library/articles/hoffer.shtml  (and 
also at 
http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue7.1/Jom-ed2.htm ).
Abram Hoffer on Humphry Osmond
Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath on Heart Disease
Lowering Health Costs with Nutrition
Abram Hoffer on Vitamin C Deficiency 
The following Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine papers and reviews are 
posted at my website:
Why Vitamin C Megadoses
Vitamin C Therapy http://www.doctoryourself.com/mccormick.html  and 
Vitamin E Therapy http://www.doctoryourself.com/evitamin.htm  and 
Vitamin D 
Gerson Therapy
Vitamins and Children 
Why Vitamin Supplements 
Fluoridated Water Risks 
Thyroid Problems 
Caffeine Problems 
http://www.doctoryourself.com/caffeine_allergy.html  and 
Background and history of the Journal
[This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in The DOCTOR YOURSELF 
NEWSLETTER, Vol. 4, No. 17, August 5, 2004. It is archived at http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n17.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.
Your tax-supported National Library of Medicine still does not see fit to index the 
peer-reviewed Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. But look here and marvel at 
what they DO choose to index:
Time magazine. 
Yes, Time. Hardly a peer-reviewed medical journal, now, is it?
Believe it or not, there are no fewer than 1,260 indexed articles on Medline just 
from Time magazine. Here: see for yourself what your taxes pay for. Go to Medline 
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) and do your own two-second 
search for "time magazine news" (but when you do so, leave out the quotation 
That was fun, now, wasn't it?
Are your ready? Let's try NEWSWEEK!
I got 1,136 Medline responses for Newsweek. How about you?
Ah, Newsweek: the very epitome of biomedical scholarship.
How do Time and Newsweek get indexed by Medline? Well, that's easy: by 
meeting the standards of their Technical Review Committee, whose members were 
all named in a previous Doctor Yourself Newsletter 
(http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n17.txt ). My readers have been told, by 
Medline Executive Editor Sheldon Kotzin or one of his assistants, that the 
standards for inclusion in Medline are quite exacting and are posted at 
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html  .
Let's look at them. 
There seem to be eight "Critical Elements" for Medline indexing:
1) Scope and coverage: "Articles predominantly on core biomedical subjects." 
(Time and Newsweek, who cover everything from Michael Moore to Madonna, 
hardly fit this criterion.
2) Quality of content: "Scientific merit of a journal's content is the primary 
consideration." (Nor do they meet this requirement.)
3) Quality of editorial work: "External peer review." (I am unaware that Time and 
Newsweek are peer-reviewed, but then I confess that I did let my subscriptions 
lapse once . . . )
4) Production quality: "Should be printed on acid-free paper." (OK, I concede that 
Time and Newsweek do use wonderful, really wonderful paper.)
5) Audience: "MEDLINE and Index Medicus are intended primarily for those in the 
health professions: researchers, practitioners, educators, administrators, and 
students." (I've seen Time and Newsweek in airports, Social Security offices, locker 
rooms, buses and bars.)
6) Types of content: "Reports of original research. Original clinical observations. 
Statistical compilations." (Time and Newsweek contain precious little academic 
research material. I taught biology, nutrition and health science at the university 
level for nine years. None of my colleagues ever spoke of submitting their original 
papers to either Time or Newsweek. I wonder why not?
7) Foreign language journals; and 8) Geographic coverage: Time and Newsweek 
certainly meet those requirements.
So do Cosmopolitan and Playboy.
The National Library of Medicine/MEDLINE allows for "four broad categories of 
1. Research journals
2. Clinical or practice journals
3. Review journals
4. General or all-purpose journals
But neither Time nor Newsweek are journals at all.
I furthermore submit that neither Time nor Newsweek meet the standards set by 
the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or the Council of 
Science Editors (CSE).
(http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services/draft_approved.cfm ).
It appears that at the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE, the rules they apply 
to others evidently do not apply to themselves.
I decided to file a formal complaint with my Senator.
Dear Hon. Senator Clinton,
I would very much appreciate your assistance in obtaining some real answers to 
specific questions I have directed in writing to a Federal agency, but without a 
satisfactory response.
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 
I wrote to MEDLINE, specifically to the Executive Editor, Mr. Sheldon Kotzin. I 
received a nonspecific reply, which I think is an unsatisfactory response.
I already know that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine has been excluded 
from MEDLINE's index by a NLM "Literature Selection Technical Review 
Committee," and that the committee characteristically does not make its reasons 
public. There is also no public hearing.
However, as a taxpayer, whose taxes help fund NLM and help pay Mr. Kotzins' 
salary, I wish to know why, exactly, this particular Journal was excluded. In other 
words, which individual itemized standards were not met? And, which ones were in 
fact met? I do not want to be referred to a list of standards and left to guess what a 
committee decided behind closed doors; I wish to see a scoresheet, so to speak.
I also do not wish to be told that this process is all some sort of a secret. 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."
That includes my family's health. I think detailed, individual reasons for Medline's 
excluding a particular journal should be public information. I have asked a senior 
member of a federal office for information and that information has so far been 
denied to me. 
Your assistance would mean a great deal to me. 
(end of letter)
No response from the Senator yet. (As of November, 2006 still no response from Senator Clinton, 
after multiple telephone and written requests.) 
Don't you love it when your taxes have to be paid on time, but it takes forever to 
get a response from the people whose salaries your taxes pay for?


[This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in The DOCTOR YOURSELF 
NEWSLETTER, Vol. 4, No. 21, October 5, 2004. It is archived at 
http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n21.txt ]


The Doctor Yourself Newsletter is soliciting your entry for the most 
ridiculous, unscientific, or just plain goofy article currently to be found on 
the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE. It's so easy to play: just go to 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and start searching for any 
foolish topic of any kind that you wish. The weirder the better. 
For example: In the "Search PubMed for" box, type in "flatulence" and you 
will get 1,233 indexed citations.
Honestly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. 
When you find a real doozy, cut and paste the entire citation into a plain 
text email (no attachments will be accepted) and send it to me (limit five 
submissions per reader) to drsaul@doctoryourself.com . So I find it in my 
non-MEDLINE indexed email Inbox, please use MEDLINE COMEDY 
CONTEST as your message subject heading.
The Doctor Yourself Newsletter's "Winner Selection Technical Review 
Committee" will then meet behind closed doors, and without telling you 
anything about the actual scoring process, will decide which entry is the 
(Did you get the joke? If not, please look at 
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html or do a quick search for 
"Medline JOM" using the search box near the top of 
http://www.doctoryourself.com  .)
Seriously, this really is a contest, and here is the grand prize: my last copy 
of "Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C: The Clinical Work of Frederick 
R. Klenner, M.D." by Lendon Smith, M.D. The reader submitting what we 
judge to be "The World's Most Absurd Medline Citation" will, if he or she 
resides in the US or Canada, receive this authoritative 68 page megadose 
vitamin C booklet absolutely free by first class mail. (If an overseas reader 
wins, it's coming by boat, so don't wait up.)
While there will be only one actual prizewinner, favorite runner-up entries 
will be published in the Newsletter. This contest ends when the next 
Doctor Yourself Newsletter is sent out, or when the feds shut me down, 
whichever comes first.
So join the fun! Search MEDLINE 
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi ) today! After all, your taxes 
pay for it.
Officers, staff, review committee members and editors at the National 
Library of Medicine are not eligible for entry. No particular legal reason; it's 
just an arbitrary decision on our part.
What's that? You detect a certain sarcasm in my tone? I fail to see why. 
There is nothing at all funny about the world's largest medical library 
arbitrarily refusing to index certain scholarly information for professional 
and public access. For instance: the following papers by twice-Nobel-prize 
winning Linus Pauling are not on Medline simply because they happened 
to be published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Rath M, Pauling L. Solution To the Puzzle of Human Cardiovascular 
Disease: Its Primary Cause Is Ascorbate Deficiency ading to the 
Deposition of Lipoprotein(a) and Fibrinogen/Fibrin in the Vascular Wall. 
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol 6, 3&4th Quarters, 1991, p 125.
Pauling L, Rath M. An Orthomolecular Theory of Human Health and 
Disease. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol 6, 3&4th Quarters, 
1991, p135.
Rath M, Pauling L. Apoprotein(a) Is An Adhesive Protein. Journal of 
Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol 6, 3&4th Quarters, 1991, p139.
Rath M, Pauling L. Case Report: Lysine/Ascorbate Related Amelioration of 
Angina Pectoris. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol 6, 3&4th 
Quarters, 1991, p 144.
(If you note carefully, you will see that all four of the above Pauling articles 
appeared in one single volume of the Journal. We would not want word of 
THAT to get out, now would we. And there's more: )
Rath M, Pauling L. A Unified theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease 
Leading the Way To the Abolition of This Diseases As A Cause for Human 
Mortality. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Volume 7, First Quarter 
1992, p 5.
Rath M, Pauling L. Plamin-induced Proteolysis and the Role of 
Apoprotein(a), Lysine and Synthetic Lysine Analogs. Journal of 
Orthomolecular Medicine, Volume 7, First Quarter 1992, p 17.
Pauling L. Third Case Report on Lysine-ascorbate Amelioration of Angina 
Pectoris. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Volume 8, Third Quarter, 
1993, p 137.
Hoffer A, Pauling L. Hardin Jones Biostatistical Analysis of Mortality Data 
for A Second Set of Cohorts of Cancer Patients with A Large Fraction 
Surviving At the Termination of the Study and A Comparison of Survival 
Times of Cancer Patients Receiving Large Regular Oral Doses of Vitamin 
C and Other Nutrients with Similar Patients Not Receiving these Doses. 
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol 8, Third Quarter, 1993, p 157.
Why are these papers by Linus Pauling not indexed by the amply 
taxpayer-funded National Library of Medicine? It is not because the 
subjects are uninteresting. Nor is it because Pauling coauthored them with 
Matthais Rath, M.D., since the following papers ARE indexed on Medline. 
Same authors; same topics. 
Rath M, Pauling L. Immunological evidence for the accumulation of 
lipoprotein(a) in the atherosclerotic lesion of the hypoascorbemic guinea 
pig. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Dec;87(23):9388-90. PMID: 2147514 
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Rath M, Pauling L. Hypothesis: lipoprotein(a) is a surrogate for ascorbate. 
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Aug;87(16):6204-7. Erratum in: Proc Natl 
Acad Sci U S A 1991 Dec 5;88(24):11588. PMID: 2143582 [PubMed - 
indexed for MEDLINE]
Pauling L, Herman ZS. Criteria for the validity of clinical trials of treatments 
of cohorts of cancer patients based on the Hardin Jones principle. Proc 
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Sep;86(18):6835-7. PMID: 2780542 [PubMed - 
indexed for MEDLINE]
Pauling L.  Biostatistical analysis of mortality data for cohorts of cancer 
patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 May;86(10):3466-8. PMID: 
2726729 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I think it is absurd that Medline, which has indexed 116 papers by Linus 
Pauling, excludes equally valuable work of his due to where it first 
For my readers who think I've harped on this issue long enough, you can 
unsubscribe by returning this email to me (with the headers intact, please).
For my readers who think I have just begun to fight, you are correct. The 
emperor has no clothes. The National Library of Medicine/MEDLINE is 
[This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in a DOCTOR YOURSELF 
NEWSLETTER EXTRA, Vol. 4, No. 21-A, September 20, 2004. It is archived at ]
http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n21A.txt ]



Yes, Here Are the Entries Received for the Doctor Yourself News' 
CAUTION: This portion of the Doctor Yourself Newsletter is rated PG-13 for 
Strong Suggestive Scientific Content. Parental Guidance is Recommended. 
Thanks to all for filling this wonderful grab bag. OK, OK! No more! The contest 
is now officially over, and the winning Medline citation will be announced . . . in 
our NEXT issue.
I really did learn a lot from Ed Sullivan.
Rules Reminder: In a case when more than one reader sent in the same entry, the 
one received first gets consideration. And remember: Our decision is final, secret, 
and arbitrary. 
Just like MEDLINE.
And yes, these papers are all indexed by your taxpayer-supported National Library 
of Medicine.
Heated socks maintain toe temperature but not always skin blood flow as mean 
skin temperature falls. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003 Aug;74(8):891-3.)
Treatment techniques for the recycling of bottle washing water in the soft drinks 
industry. Water Sci Technol. 2004;50(2):107-12. Ramirez Camperos E, Mijaylova 
Nacheva P, Diaz Tapia E.
Bite mark or bottle top? J Forensic Sci. 2004 Jan;49(1):119-21. James H, Cirillo 
GN. Forensic Odontology Unit, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
"An alleged assault was reported by a 42-year-old female, with initial medical 
examination revealing an apparent bite mark on the right buttock. Odontological 
examination, including visual assessment, full history and photographs showed 
that the injury did not meet the class characteristics of a human bite. Subsequent 
digital overlay production showed that the injury pattern was consistent with a 
corrugated bottle top. This case highlights the need for careful assessment of 
injuries alleged to be caused by human teeth."
Animal waste: the smell of success or the stench of trouble? Herrick JB. J Am Vet 
Med Assoc. 1995 Jan 15;206(2):162-3.
The eyebrow frown: a salient social signal. Tipples J, Atkinson AP, Young AW. 
Emotion. 2002 Sep;2(3):288-96.
"Seven experiments investigated the finding that threatening schematic faces are 
detected more quickly than nonthreatening faces. Threatening faces with v-shaped 
eyebrows (angry and scheming expressions) were detected more quickly than 
nonthreatening faces with inverted v-shaped eyebrows (happy and sad 
expressions). In contrast to the hypothesis that these effects were due to perceptual 
features unrelated to the face, no advantage was found for v-shaped eyebrows 
presented in a nonfacelike object. Furthermore, the addition of internal facial 
features (the eyes, or the nose and mouth) was necessary to produce the detection 
advantage for faces with v-shaped eyebrows. Overall, the results are interpreted as 
showing that the v-shaped eyebrow configuration affords easy detection, but only 
when other internal facial features are present."
J Vector Ecol. 1998 Dec;23(2):186-94. Olfactory responses and field attraction of 
mosquitoes to volatiles from Limburger cheese and human foot odor. Kline DL.
A study of diurnal variation in wrinkles on the human face. Arch Dermatol Res. 
2004 Aug 20. Tsukahara K, Moriwaki S, Hotta M, Fujimura T, Kitahara T. 
"We recently evaluated diurnal variations in facial skin elasticity and thickness 
and reported a decrease in skin thickness and an increase in skin elasticity in the 
afternoon compared with the morning. This phenomenon may be associated with 
the effect of gravity on dermal fluids. There have been no reports on the diurnal 
variation in wrinkles on the face, and we now describe such a study. . .   The 
results of skin thickness and skin elasticity were in agreement with those of our 
last study. Swelling tended to occur in the morning due to the effects of gravity 
during sleep. Therefore, wrinkles may be swollen in the morning. Furthermore, 
repeated movements of the face due to changes of facial expression may gradually 
increase wrinkle formation and depth from the morning to the afternoon."
Patterson S.  Windy babies. Med J Aust. 1966 Mar 19;1(12):506-8. 
Jones FA.  Burbulence. A fresh look at flatulent dyspepsia. Practitioner. 1967 
Wigs, laughter, and subversion: Charles Busch and strategies of drag 
performance. J Homosex. 2004;46(3-4):35-53. Niles R. 
"This paper examines the strategies of drag performer/ playwright Charles Busch. 
His performance aesthetic is explored and shown to be subversive even though its 
initial impulse is to entertain. Basing my arguments on the work of Judith Butler, 
Elin Diamond, and others, I argue that drag queens like Busch can not only 
entertain but also make audiences question and criticize through drag's power to 
create a Brechtian alienation effect and historicize the subject . . . By examining 
the performance of Busch and his fellow actors, I demonstrate how a 
contemporary relevancy is achieved by having the roles played by a female 
impersonator whose acting choices are filtered through a gay sensibility. The 
ongoing dialectic between spectator and performer creates a historicized moment 
in performance that underscores the gender dynamics in unexpected and 
stimulating ways."
Respiration. 2004 Jan-Feb;71(1):104. Chin stimulation: a trigger point for 
provoking acute hiccups. Todisco T, Todisco C, Bruni L, Donato R. 
Psychophysiology. 2004 Mar;41(2):281-7. Staring at one side of the face increases 
blood flow on that side of the face. Drummond PD, Mirco N.
"To investigate the effect of observation on blushing, an experimenter sat next to 
28 participants and looked closely at one cheek while the participant sang 
(embarrassing) or read aloud (not embarrassing). Increases in cheek temperature 
were greater on the observed than the unobserved side during both tasks. Changes 
in cheek temperature were symmetrical when the experimenter sat next to another 
23 participants and looked straight ahead, as well as when the experimenter stared 
at one side of the participant's face through a glass window while the participant 
sang. However, increases in cutaneous blood flow were greater on the observed 
than the unobserved side of the forehead during singing. These findings suggest 
that staring at one side of the face triggers an ipsilateral increase in facial blood 
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):590-2. Thinness and body shape 
of Playboy centerfolds from 1978 to 1998. Katzmarzyk PT, Davis C.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004 Sep;30(9):1186-97. Playboy Playmate curves: 
changes in facial and body feature preferences across social and economic 
conditions. Pettijohn TF 2nd, Jungeberg BJ. 
"Past research has investigated ideals of beauty and how these ideals have 
changed across time. In the current study, facial and body characteristics of 
Playboy Playmates of the Year from 1960-2000 were identified and investigated 
to explore their relationships with U.S. social and economic factors. Playmate of 
the Year age, body feature measures, and facial feature measurements were 
correlated with a general measure of social and economic hard times. Consistent 
with Environmental Security Hypothesis predictions, when social and economic 
conditions were difficult, older, heavier, taller Playboy Playmates of the Year with 
larger waists, smaller eyes, larger waist-to-hip ratios, smaller bust-to-waist ratios, 
and smaller body mass index values were selected. These results suggest that 
environmental security may influence perceptions and preferences for women 
with certain body and facial features."
J Clin Psychiatry. 1995 Feb;56(2):56-9. Rhinotillexomania: psychiatric disorder or 
habit? Jefferson JW, Thompson TD.
"BACKGROUND: Conditions once considered bad habits are now recognized as 
psychiatric disorders (trichotillomania, onychopagia). We hypothesized that nose 
picking is another such "habit," a common benign practice in most adults but a 
time-consuming, socially compromising, or physically harmful condition 
(rhinotillexomania) in some. METHODS: We developed the Rhinotillexomania 
Questionnaire, mailed it to 1000 randomly selected adult residents of Dane 
County, Wisconsin, and requested anonymous responses. The returned 
questionnaires were analyzed according to age, sex, marital status, living 
arrangement, and educational level. Nose picking was characterized according to 
time involved, level of distress, location, attitudes toward self and others regarding 
the practice, technique, methods of disposal, reasons, complications, and 
associated habits and psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four 
subjects responded. Ninety-one percent were current nose pickers although only 
75% felt "almost everyone does it"; 1.2% picked at least every hour. For 2 
subjects (0.8%), nose picking caused moderate to marked interferences with daily 
functioning. Two subjects spent between 15 and 30 minutes and 1 over 2 hours a 
day picking their nose. For 2 others, perforation of the nasal septum was a 
complication. Associated "habits" included picking cuticles (25%), picking at skin 
(20%), biting fingernails (18%), and pulling out hair (6%). CONCLUSION: This 
first population survey of nose picking suggests that it is an almost universal 
practice in adults but one that should not be considered pathologic for most. For 
some, however, the condition may meet criteria for a disorder-rhinotillexomania."
Sud Med Ekspert. 2004 Jul-Aug;47(4):38-40. [The role of carrier-object in 
investigations of cigar-butts] [Article in Russian] [No authors listed]
"A comprehensive series of experiments was undertaken to find the reasons why 
the cigar-butt stuff, removed from accident places for investigation at forensic-
biological laboratories, affects different sera. A number of such reasons were 
established. Methods are suggested to eliminate the cigar-butt impact with the aim 
of ensuring the most accurate results while determining the group adherence of 
saliva on the cigar-butts."
Psychophysiological responding during script-driven imagery in people reporting 
abduction by space aliens. Psychol Sci. 2004 Jul;15(7):493-7. McNally RJ, Lasko 
NB, Clancy SA, Macklin ML, Pitman RK, Orr SP.
[No authors listed] Coca-Cola Space Can undergoes successful test by cosmonauts 
onboard Soviet space station Mir. AIAA Stud J. 1992 Winter;29(4):14-5. 
Hong CY, Shieh CC, Wu P, Chiang BN. The spermicidal potency of Coca-Cola 
and Pepsi-Cola. Hum Toxicol. 1987 Sep;6(5):395-6. 
Spina MB. "...Nothing beats stamp collecting..." (Dr. Alan Drinnan). TIC. 1979 
Total infarction of the penis caused by entrapment in a plastic bottle. Urologe A. 
2004 Jul;43(7):843-4. [Article in German] Maruschke M, Seiter H.
An objective evaluation of the waterproofing qualities, ease of insertion and 
comfort of commonly available earplugs. Clin Otolaryngol. 2004 Apr;29(2):128-
32. Chisholm EJ, Kuchai R, McPartlin D.
"Earplugs are commonly recommended to protect the middle ear from water in 
patients with exposed middle ears. This study assessed the waterproofing 
qualities, ease of insertion and comfort of six commonly available earplugs. Ten 
subjects (20 ears) were assessed by placing a pre-weighed neurosurgical pattie in 
their cleaned ear canal under microscope guidance. The subjects underwent a 
standardized head wetting regime. The outer ear was dried, earplug and pattie 
removed and pattie reweighed. The difference in weight was calculated. The 
subjects were also asked to score the difficulty of insertion and comfort of the 
earplugs on a visual analogue scale. The results show a significant difference in 
the waterproofing qualities of the various types of earplugs. Cotton wool with 
petroleum jelly was the most effective (P < 0.001). It was also the easiest to insert 
and the most comfortable for the subject (P < 0.001)."
Tickle.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jan;50(1):93-7. Selden ST.
"Tickle is a familiar sensation that may have two components: a light or feather-
type noxious sensation termed by Hall and Allin as knismesis, and a heavy or 
laughter-associated sensation termed gargalesis. Studies on the sensation of tickle 
have generally been on one sensation or the other, but not on both. . . 
It is unclear why some skin sites are more ticklish than other sites. . . " 
The four 'Vs' for foot care. Vaseline, vegetable shortening, vinegar and Vicks 
VapoRub. Adv Nurse Pract. 2004 Jun;12(6):67-70, 84. Kelechi TJ, Stroud S.
Using current on-line carcass evaluation parameters to estimate boneless and 
bone-in pork carcass yield as influenced by trim level. Berg EP, Grams DW, 
Miller RK, Wise JW, Forrest JC, Savell JW.
"The objective of this study was to develop prediction equations for estimating 
proportional carcass yield to a variety of external trim levels and bone-in and 
boneless pork primal cuts. Two hundred pork carcasses were selected from six 
U.S. pork processing plants and represented USDA carcass grades (25% USDA 
#1, 36% USDA #2, 25% USDA #3, and 14% USDA #4). Carcasses were 
measured (prerigor and after a 24 h chill) for fat and muscle depth at the last rib 
(LR) and between the third and fourth from last rib (TH) with a Hennessy optical 
grading probe (OGP). Carcasses were shipped to Texas A&M University, where 
one was randomly assigned for fabrication. . . Total dissected carcass lean was 
used to calculate the percentage of total carcass lean (PLEAN). Lean tissue 
subsamples were collected for chemical fat-free analysis and percentage carcass 
fat-free lean (FFLEAN) was determined. Longissimus muscle area and fat depth 
also were collected at the 10th and 11th rib interface during fabrication. 
Regression equations were developed from linear carcass and OGP measurements 
predicting FLC of each fabrication point. Loin muscle and fat depths from the 
OPG obtained on warm, prerigor carcasses at the TH interface were more accurate 
predictors of fabrication end points than warm carcass probe depth obtained at the 
last rib or either of the chilled carcass probe sites (probed at TH or LR). Fat and 
loin muscle depth obtained via OGP explained 46.7, 52.6, and 57.1% (residual 
mean square error [RMSE] = 3.30, 3.19, and 3.04%) of the variation in the 
percentage of BI-FLC trimmed to .64, .32, and 0 cm of s.c. fat, respectively, and 
49.0, 53.9, and 60.7% (RMSE = 2.91, 2.81, and 2.69%) of the variation in the 
percentage of BL-FLC trimmed to .64, .32, and 0 cm of s.c. fat, respectively. Fat 
and loin muscle depth from warm carcass OGP probes at the TH interface 
accounted for 62.4 and 63.5% (RMSE = 3.38 and 3.27%) of the variation in 
PLEAN and FFLEAN, respectively. These equations provide an opportunity to 
estimate pork carcass yield for a variety of procurement end point equations using 
existing on-line techniques."
Kool-Aid colitis. N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 5;322(14):1012. Sack J.
Effect on tipping of barman drawing a sun on the bottom of customers' checks. 
Psychol Rep. 2000 Aug;87(1):223-6. Gueguen N, Legoherel P. Laboratoire 
GRESICO, IUT de Vannes-Departement TC, Universite de Bretagne-Sud, France.
"Previous research has demonstrated that a pleasant drawing (a smiling face) on a 
restaurant bill increased the number of tips left by clients. A similar experiment 
was carried out using a drawing of the sun since it is known that tips increase on 
sunny days. The experiment was carried out in local bars and involved clients who 
have ordered an espresso coffee. Analysis showed that the drawing of the sun led 
clients to leave a tip more frequently than when this drawing is not present. The 
size of the tip left was also higher. The hypothesis of the creation of a positive 
frame of mind by this stimulus is discussed."
(Publication Types: Clinical Trial; Randomized Controlled Trial)
Health Foodserv Mag. 2000 Winter;10(1):12. Espresso kiosks can be profitable 
addition to hospital foodservice. Myers M. 
Espresso maker's wrist. Shusterman D. West J Med. 1990 Jun;152(6):721-2. 
Comment in: West J Med. 1990 Dec;153(6):664-5. 
Characterization of particles in cream cheese. J Dairy Sci. 2004 Sep;87(9):2854-
63. Sainani MR, Vyas HK, Tong PS. 
"Cream cheese is used as a spread and as an ingredient in many food applications. 
A gritty or grainy mouthfeel is an undesirable textural defect that occurs in cream 
cheese. However, the factors that cause the textural defect are not well 
understood. The objectives of this study were to isolate and characterize particles 
from cream cheese and to study the effect of particles on cheese texture. Particles 
were isolated by washing cream cheese with water first at 25 degrees C and then 
at 50 degrees C repeatedly 4 to 5 times. The size of these particles was determined 
using a particle size analyzer. . . Smooth cream cheese with only 5% (wt/wt) 
added particles was perceived as significantly grittier than the control sample. 
This experiment also revealed that the perceived grittiness increased with increase 
in amount and size of particles."
Tooth-brushing epilepsy with ictal orgasms. Seizure. 2004 Apr;13(3):179-82. 
Chuang YC, Lin TK, Lui CC, Chen SD, Chang CS.
"We report a 41-year-old woman with complex reflex epilepsy in which seizures 
were induced exclusively by the act of tooth brushing. All the attacks occurred 
with a specific sensation of sexual arousal and orgasm-like euphoria that were 
followed by a period of impairment of consciousness. Ictal EEG demonstrated two 
events of epileptic seizure that were provoked after tooth brushing for 38 and 14 
seconds, respectively. . . Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed right 
hippocampal atrophy. We suggest that tooth-brushing epilepsy, especially with 
sexual ictal manifestations, may provide insight into the cerebral pathophysiology 
at the right temporolimbic structure."
How about that!


[This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in The DOCTOR YOURSELF 
NEWSLETTER  (Vol. 4, No. 22, October 20, 2004. It is archived at http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n22.txt ]


Ear Nose Throat J. 2003 Sep;82(9):702-3. A different type of 'glue ear': report 
of an unusual case of prominent ears. Purcell EM, O'Neill AC, Regan PJ. 
"Prominent ears is a condition that can cause extreme psychological distress in 
young people. This cosmetic deformity can be corrected by otoplasty, an 
outpatient surgical procedure that is associated with a high rate of patient 
satisfaction. We report the unusual case of a teenage boy who had repeatedly 
applied cyanoacrylate adhesive ("superglue") to his postauricular skin in an 
attempt to pin back his prominent ears. This case of "glue ear" was ultimately 
resolved by successful otoplasty, although the residual effects of the glue 
resulted in delayed healing of the surgical wound."
 PMID: 14569706 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Percept Mot Skills. 1993 Apr;76(2):577-8. The Easter bunny in October: is it 
disguised as a duck? Brugger P, Brugger S. Department of Neurology, University 
Hospital Zurich.
"The ambiguous drawing of a duck/rabbit was shown to 265 subjects on Easter and 
to 276 subjects in October. The ambiguous drawing, though perceived as a bird by 
a majority of subjects in October, was most frequently named a bunny on Easter."
PMID: 8483671 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Appetite. 2004 Feb;42(1):63-9. Increasing the portion size of a packaged snack 
increases energy intake in men and women. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Kral TV, Meengs JS, 
Wall DE. 
"Results from this study demonstrate that short-term energy intake increases 
with increasing package size of a snack." 
Golly, I didn't see THAT coming, did you?
Dis Manag. 2003 Winter;6(4):191-7. Meals at medical specialty society annual 
meetings: a preliminary assessment. La Puma J, Schiedermayer D, Becker J. 
"Little is known about how meals are chosen for medical meetings. We surveyed 
the annual meeting planners for 20 major specialty societies. Thirteen (65%) 
responded; all were currently planning their next meeting. Attendance in 2000 
was reported at 113,477 physicians, with 2 million planned meals and snacks. No 
physician was named as responsible for food choices; the meeting planner and 
staff were primarily responsible for deciding what food to serve, excluding 
exhibit halls. Twelve (92%) respondents rated "available budget" as the most 
important factor. . . .(N)o specific nutritional guidelines could be identified 
by any planner. . . (and) soda pop was offered at each break."
Perhaps this serves to explain why we get such grand nutritional advice from our 
Is this next one intriguing enough to get on Animal Planet?
Psychol. Sci. 2004 Jul;15(7):437-41. How dogs navigate to catch Frisbees. 
Shaffer DM, Krauchunas SM, Eddy M, McBeath MK. 
"Using micro-video cameras attached to the heads of 2 dogs, we examined their 
optical behavior while catching Frisbees. Our findings reveal that dogs use the 
same viewer-based navigational heuristics previously found with baseball players 
(i.e., maintaining the target along a linear optical trajectory, LOT, with 
optical speed constancy). On trials in which the Frisbee dramatically changed 
direction, the dog maintained an LOT with speed constancy until it apparently 
could no longer do so and then simply established a new LOT and optical speed 
until interception. This work demonstrates the use of simple control mechanisms 
that utilize invariant geometric properties to accomplish interceptive tasks. It 
confirms a common interception strategy that extends both across species and to 
complex target trajectories." 
PMID: 15200626 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Here is a duly Medline-indexed item straight from the Journal of the American 
Medical Association:
JAMA. 2003 Oct 1;290(13):1683-4 A piece of my mind. Reflections while listening 
to the Glazunov Saxophone Concerto. Comerci GD Jr. 
PMID: 14519690 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001 Mar;16(3):349-51. A case of inability to belch. 
Tomizawa M, Kusano M, Aoki T, Ohashi S, Kawamura O, Sekiguchi T, Mori M. 
"A 22-year-old man was unable to belch. He could sense intraesophageal gas, but 
had no chest pain. An upper gastrointestinal X-ray series and endoscopic 
examination showed no abnormalities. Esophageal manometry showed normal 
relaxation of both the upper and lower esophageal sphincters with primary 
peristalsis during deglutition. However, bolus injection of air into the middle 
esophagus failed to initiate the belch reflex." 
And, though his fate is still unlearned, this gentleman's case is now and 
forever immortalized  on MEDLINE as "PMID: 11339431," along with the rest of the 
The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER is very, very proud of MEDLINE'S academic 
grandeur, coupled with its demonstrated commitment to sidestep nutritional 
medicine. In evidence for our first assessment, the readers of this Newsletter 
have presented a whole pile of MEDLINE-indexed research time-wasters in addition 
to the ones you just read, above. As for our second criticism, several previous 
Newsletters addressed the growing scandal surrounding MEDLINE's anti-vitamin, 
anti-orthomolecular bias: 
(If you are unacquainted with this controversy, please consider reading the Newsletters in order.)
Yes, friends: late at night when the National Library of Medicine was closed, 
intrepid NEWSLETTER readers have been electronically searching MEDLINE high and 
low. They unearthed a motherlode of carefully indexed nonsense.
Thus armed, the arbitrarily appointed Doctor Yourself Technical Review Committee 
met in the strictest secrecy, near the juicer in my kitchen. In so doing, we 
sought (with the exception of the juicer) to emulate the modus operandi of your 
taxpayer-funded United States National Library of Medicine. For after all, 
MEDLINE is in fact 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."
So, we thought, why not model on the scholarly best our nation has to offer?
Now, culled from more than 4,800 biomedical journals and over 12 million 
citations, may I have the envelope, please.
(Drum roll.)
JUDITH ARNOLD, of Kansas, for her submission of this splendid example of 
MEDLINE'S commitment to comprehensiveness:
Olfactory responses and field attraction of mosquitoes to volatiles from 
Limburger cheese and human foot odor. Kline DL. J Vector Ecol. 1998 
"Olfactory responses of female Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) to various odor stimuli 
were studied in a dual-port olfactometer. Responses (i.e., the percent of ca. 75 
available female mosquitoes in flight chamber entering each olfactometer port) 
were studied toward clean conditioned air (control), human foot skin emanations 
(collected on socks by wearing them for three days), human hand, and Limburger 
cheese. Mean percent response was greatest to the human hand (80.1%), followed 
by the human worn sock (66.1%), Limburger cheese (6.4%), and control (< 0.1%). 
In field studies the worn sock alone attracted very few mosquitoes but a 
synergistic response occurred to the sock + carbon dioxide baited traps for most 
species of mosquitoes in six genera (Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Culex, 
Culiseta, and Psorophora). This synergistic effect persisted even when the socks 
were exposed to environmental conditions for eight consecutive days. Limburger 
cheese alone did not attract mosquitoes to traps compared to unbaited traps, and 
there appeared to be a slight repellent effect for most mosquito species."
PMID: 9879074 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I would like to emphasize that, like most of the studies on Medline, this 
particular one represents genuine research, competently conducted by a bona fide 
scientist. The point the NEWSLETTER seeks to make is this: if Medline indexes 
what might quite fairly be called "unique" studies, it should certainly also 
index Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling's papers that were published in the 
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (listed at 
http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n21A.txt ).
But MEDLINE has steadfastly refused to do so. For years. In fact, for decades. 
And we have written proof.
I now have in front of me what many NEWSLETTER readers have written to Medline 
for, and have until now been denied: the actual judging scoresheet for the 
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine's previous appraisals by the NLM/Medline 
"Literature Selection Technical Review Committee."
The Journal was previously reviewed in 1989 and again in 1993. Medline uses a 
point scale of zero to 5, with five being the highest recommendation for 
indexing, and zero being the lowest.
On February 2, 1989, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine received a 0.0 
On March 4, 1993, the Journal again received a 0.0 score.
This, by the way, was after JOM had published no fewer than six papers by Linus 
One cannot escape the significance of these 1989 and 1993 NLM reviews that found 
ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE WHATSOEVER to the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. After 
all, "0.0" is not merely a low mark. "0.0" represents an absolute dearth of 
merit. And "zero point zero" states it so flatly as to leave no room for 
alternate interpretations.
On June 8, 2000, JOM received a 1.5 rating. Out of five, not nearly high enough 
to qualify for indexing.
By then, the Journal had been published for 30 consecutive years. 
The most recent review, June 6, 2002 brought JOM a rating of 1.
Out of five.
In this last evaluation, Medline's review committee specifically indicated that 
the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine had "little importance to researchers"; 
"little importance to clinicians"; "little importance to educators"; "little 
importance to allied health professionals"; "little importance to policy 
makers"; and, incredibly, "little importance to students."
As a former college instructor (9 years with the State University of New York), 
I rebel against the very notion that any committee should decide for students 
what they may or may not learn about. You cannot study what you cannot find; you 
cannot find what is not indexed. 
Information censorship is unscientific, immoral and unjust.
We are now awaiting the results of Medline's promised late October 2004 review. 
Shall we be optimistic or realistic?
It will likely be a while before JOM's 2004 Medline review results come in. 
Until then, because to me there is something so compelling about smelly socks 
and cheese, my last copy of Dr. Lendon Smith's Clinical Guide to the Use of 
Vitamin C, like a Limburger-crazed MEDLINE mosquito, will presently be winging 
its way to Kansas, to Judith Arnold, our Grand Prize Winner. 
And, a big THANK YOU to all my readers who inundated me with their entries. Loved them!


[This article, written by Andrew W. Saul, originally appeared in The DOCTOR YOURSELF 
NEWSLETTER, Vol. 4, No. 23 for November 5, 2004. It is archived at 

http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n23.txt ]



In early 2005, the results of the October 2004 review were made available.

Medline had once again rejected JOM.


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




Medline’s refusal to index the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is now news across the hemispheres.

A Norwegian magazine has published articles on the controversy. Canadian Member of Parliament the

Hon. James Lunney ( http://www.jameslunneymp.ca ) has written a formal and detailed demand for

explanation to the US National Library of Medicine. And now, the prestigious British Medical Journal has

 published a letter about Medline bias both online

( http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7531/1487#124851 ) and in the print journal as well. This has

had the curious result that Medline now indexes Medline bias. (Hickey S. Censorship of medical journals.

BMJ. 2006 Jul 1;333(7557):45. PMID: 16809720)


For more on the story, we turn to the author of the BMJ letter, Steve Hickey, PhD, of the School of

Biology, Chemistry, and Health Science at Manchester Metropolitan University, who writes:


“Currently, Medline does not index a number of important medical and scientific journals. These

include the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine; Fluoride (the journal of the International Society for

Fluoride Research); the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (the journal of the British

Society for Ecological Medicine and associated medical societies in the USA and Australia); and the

Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, formerly Medical Sentinel (journal of the Association

of American Physicians and Surgeons). These publications share a common feature: they each

represent an alternative viewpoint to the current medical paradigm.


“Andrew Saul and I have investigated the Medline indexing process and have discovered that indexing

relies on a selected group of experts. This implies that the indexing process could be biased towards conventional journals,

simply by selecting panel members with a particular viewpoint. This indexing

process also produces anomalies in the other direction: Time magazine and Readers' Digest, for

example. Apparently, Medline deems these popular magazines to be more relevant to medical

research than the serious journals listed above.



1) “If you do not agree with the exclusion of one or more of these journals, or if you consider that

Medline should publish clear, complete and definitive criteria on the requirements for journals to be

indexed (which should be met by all currently indexed journals), please email us at

medlinebias@yahoo.com or drsaul@doctoryourself.com. Please state your name and qualifications,

if you are a physician, scientist or medical professional. If you are a concerned member of the

public, we value your opinion and would also like to hear from you.


2) “Make an online rapid response to this BMJ article by going to

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/extract/333/7557/45-a?eletter  and be heard now.”


[This article originally appeared in The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER, Vol. 6, No. 7 for July-August, 2006. 
It is archived at http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v6n7.rtf ]

MEDLINE, to this day (February 2007) still steadfastly refuses to index the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.

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

If you’ve had enough, and want to do something about it, please email the author at 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.

Andrew W. Saul


AN IMPORTANT NOTE:  This page is not in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or physical condition.  Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise.  Persons needing medical care should obtain it from a physician.  Consult your doctor before making any health decision. 

Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing no alterations of content are made, and credit is given.



| Home | Order my Books | About the Author | Contact Us | Webmaster |