CANCER TUTOR

ARTICLES

Chapter 8: Case Study of Media

Corruption
Webster Kehr, ICRF +
Updated October 3, 2016

Read time: 6 mins

Print

Return to Chapter Index

Next Chapter

Introduction to the Readers Digest

I have been reading the Readers Digest, that bastion of American values, for several
decades now. I love the jokes. But over the years I have noticed a very consistent pattern.
It seems that every issue has gobs of pharmaceutical ads, every issue has at least one
article glorifying some doctor, or at least the medical profession, and they never talk
about alternative medicine, except about the most basic nutrition, which is pretty
harmless to the pharmaceutical industry.
Just for example, in the June, 2003 issue, the following pharmaceutical ads appear:
Lipitor (Pfizer) 4 pages (these types of ads generally include 1 or 2 pages of
information and warnings but they have to pay for these pages!)
Prostate (Real Health Laboratories) 1 page
Advair (GlaxoSmithKline) 3 pages
Diabet Aid (Del Pharmaceuticals) 1 page
Zyrtec (Pfizer) 2 pages
Plavix (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company) 3 pages
Nexium (AstraZeneca) 2 pages
Effexor XR (Wyeth) 3 pages
Clarinex (Schering) 3 pages
Synvisc (Wyeth) 2 pages plus another 1/2 page
Aventis (Aventis Pharmaceuticals) 1 page
That is 25 1/2 pages of space paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. Do you think that
would buy some bias in the Readers Digest? It seems that the pattern I have observed

over the years proves that it does.

There were also three articles glorifying orthodox medicine: a regular feature called:
Medical Update, an article: Saving Michael Bowen, and the book section: The Unlikely
Gift.
There was also an article on Vitamin D, which was actually quite good, and even talks
about preventing colon cancer and possibly other types of cancer. With the massive
number of people taking vitamins now, simple nutrition articles are almost mandated
these days in the mass media. The article also glorifies the National Cancer Institute, as if
they were a government agency with integrity. They had to slip that in.

The Readers Digest Book: Heart Healthy For Life

As an example of how periodicals suppress the truth and lead people astray, I wish to talk
about a case study regarding a book written by the Readers Digest. This book is not about
cancer, it is about preventing heart disease.
Enter Linus Pauling, two time Nobel Prize winner. He and his associates, and a Dr. Rath,
developed a protocol for preventing heart disease. It was, and is, a very successful
prevention protocol. But, as always, Linus forgot to include Big Pharma profits in his
program. Oops. His program has been known about for years by a handful of people.
I quote from an internet site:

With vitamin C
consumption already on
the rise, after Nobelist
Linus Paulings book on
Vitamin C was
published in 1970, the
Linus Pauling Institute
reports (and
www.quackwatch.com
confirms), that average
vitamin C consumption
in the US increased
300%! (According to a

biography (Pauling in
His Own Words)
Pauling wrote his 1970
lay book because of the
false information about
vitamin C, and other
vitamins, being
disseminated by socalled Medical
authorities through
the Media at that time.)
As the above chart and
data indicate, total CVD
mortality peaked
between 1950 and 1970,
with coronary disease
peaking close to 1970.
However, during the
decade of the 1970s,
deaths from Coronary
Heart Disease began a
steep decline. We
attribute this staggering
30%-40% decline to
Paulings book. The
United States was the
only developed country
to experience such a
decline. This is not a
statistical fluke. We
believe these facts are
connected and not
merely coincidental. The
decline in heart disease,

matched with the

increase awareness and
intake of Vitamin C,
strongly supports the
Pauling/Rath Unified
Theory.
http://internetwks.com/pauling/mortality.htm
Because of the book on the common cold, Vitamin C consumption increased 300%. Was it
a coincidence that heart disease decreased dramatically after the book came out? As the
above author argues, it was not a coincidence.
With this statistic in mind, Readers Digest wrote a book on heart disease called: Heart
Healthy for Life. It was a book on preventing heart disease, so of course they devoted one
or two chapters to the Linus Pauling prevention program right? Not! They devoted one
page to natural or alternative medicine prevention plans. This page doesnt mention Linus
Pauling or his prevention protocol.
This is the opening line of the one page on alternative medicine (1/3 of page 96 and 2/3 of
page 97):

No sooner do
researchers spot a
substance in food that
seems to fight disease
than some clever
entrepreneur begins to
put it into pills or
potions.
Right off the bat, in the first sentence, all alternative medicine people are stereotyped as
clever entrepreneurs who make witchs potions. Gee, I always thought it was Big
Pharma that made the big bucks and worshiped money. The alternative medicine people
are put in the same category as the witch in the Wizard of Oz.
But it gets worse. After quoting a poorly designed study on Vitamin E, the book concludes

there is inadequate evidence to judge the effectiveness of alternative prevention plans.

The book totally ignores that heart disease took a nosedive after people increased their
consumption of Vitamin C. While Vitamin E is in the Linus Pauling prevention protocol, it
is not one of the three main nutrients in the program. The Readers Digest book did not
mention Vitamin C, L-Proline or L-Lysine, which are the three main supplements in the
Linus Pauling/Dr. Rath prevention program. Nor did the study they quoted use any of
these supplements. What a shock.
Furthermore, in the study the dosage of Vitamin E that was given the participants was
ludicrously small. It is also almost certain that the Vitamin E used was dl-alpha
tocopherol (synthetic), rather than d-alpha tocopherol (natural). The study was designed
by people who had no idea what they were doing, or it was designed by people who
wanted to discredit Linus Pauling, but yet it is the main study the Readers Digest article
depended on when it talked about alternative medicine.
But it gets worse. This same book has an entire chapter on the wonders of prescription
drugs for the heart (Chapter 10). It has another chapter on how wonderful heart surgery
is, no doubt it is something everyone should have (Chapter 11). It has yet another chapter
to convince you to run to your doctor as fast as possible to see if you have heart problems
(Chapter 3). Of course they also talk about all the highly profitable theories of heart
disease, such as cholesterol.
Three chapters on orthodox medicine (actually it is far more than that, but these are
entire chapters dedicated to orthodox medicine), one page on alternative medicine, and
that page depended on an absurd study that had only a small part of the Linus Pauling
therapy! When you see all the advertising by the pharmaceutical companies in the
Readers Digest magazines, are you surprised?
Am I accusing someone in Readers Digest of intentionally suppressing natural
prevention measures in order to get more advertising money for Readers Digest? Because
of the complex rules a media company must follow when dealing with alternative
medicine (in order to maintain their pharmaceutical industry advertising dollars), and
because Readers Digest has a long history of following those rules perfectly, it is virtually
impossible that Readers Digest coincidentally follows those rules decade after decade.
Thus, considering the opening remark about alternative medicine, and the massive
amount of support for orthodox medicine over the years, then yes, I am saying that
someone in Readers Digest knew the rules and made sure they were followed.
Unfortunately, Readers Digest does represent American values, or should I say:
corporate values.

There is no such thing,

at this date of the
worlds history, in
America, as an
independent press. You
know it and I know it.
There is not one of you
who dares to write your
honest opinions, and if
you did, you know
beforehand that it
would never appear in
print. I am paid weekly
for keeping my honest
opinion out of the paper
I am connected with.
Others of you are paid
similar salaries for
similar things, and any
of you who would be so
foolish as to write
honest opinions would
be out on the streets
looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest
opinions to appear in
one issue of my paper,
before twenty-four
hours my occupation
would be gone. The
business of the
journalists is to destroy
the truth, to lie outright,
to pervert, to vilify, to

fawn at the feet of

mammon, and to sell his
country and his race for
his daily bread. You
know it and I know it,
and what folly is this
toasting an independent
press? We are the tools
and vassals of rich men
behind the scenes. We
are the jumping jacks,
they pull the strings and
we dance. Our talents,
our possibilities and our
lives are all the property
of other men. We are
intellectual prostitutes.
John Swinton (18291901) pre-eminent New
York journalist & head
of the editorial staff at
the New York Times.
Quoted one night
between 1880-1883.
Quoted by Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book:
The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, page 400
Even though Upton Sinclair was famous by 1919, because he was criticizing corruption in
the media, he had to self-publish this book.

Related Article Topics

LIPITOR, NEXIUM, READER'S DIGEST, THE BRASS CHECK, UPTON SINCLAIR, ZYRTEC

2016 Cancer Tutor. All Rights Reserved.

FDA Disclaimer | Privacy Policy