Medical Veritas International, Inc.

MEDICAL VERITAS® is the pre-eminent journal that serves as an interface between academics, scien-tists, researchers, medical practitioners, and concerned patients and parents. Relevant topics range from basic research, general medical practice, vaccines, treatments, bias and other conflicts of interest in research, to immunology, vaccine injury, and infectious diseases.

Medical Veritas® is dedicated to (a) leveling out the medical playing field, (b) removing conflicts of in-terest from medical decision making, and (c) educating both patients and healthcare providers by presenting truths that otherwise might be hid-den or are misrepresented through public relations propaganda. We will give everyone the opportunity to probe into the world of Medical Veritas®.

Goals:
1. Attract manuscripts promoting improved health care, not merely what is expedient, convenient or financially rewarding.
2. Foster scientific and social commentary among authoritative spokespersons and the media.
3. Devise, develop, and evaluate relatively inexpensive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.
4. Provide principles and applications of sup-pressed medical and scientific technologies.
5. De-politicize public health.
6. Create a movement to address the adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine-related injuries afflicting children and adults.
7. Investigate risk factors for those individuals with late onset autism, neurological complications and other vaccine adverse events.
8. Investigate the role of vaccine-derived and other biological components in either causing or contributing to disease.

    Adverse reactions to vaccines and other interventions invari-ably start as a small number of poorly described reports which are anecdotal and easily attributed to chance. As the numbers increase, those in authority in public health discern something might be wrong and closer scrutiny is needed. When the num-bers reach the hundreds, decision makers have to persuade themselves that every adverse reaction is a false alarm—not a single one is a true association. When that happens, the num-bers support a causal relationship except for the skeptics and those with conflicts of interest—who accept nothing but “scien-tific proof.”
    Public health officials and their respective medical estab-lishments in the U.S. and U.K. often ignore important evidence, especially with regard to vaccines, stating “the weight of cur-rently available scientific evidence does not support the hypo-thesis...” U.S. professor Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD and British lawyer Clifford G. Miller, Esq, explain, “Editors can subvert peer review by selecting only reviewers who will reject papers that run counter to—or praise papers that support—the interests of journal’s advertisers or its owners. Lines of independent research contradicting conventional wisdom can systematically remain unpublished.” They continue, “Such hard-to-publish research may prove that what the scientific community generally accepts as correct is, in fact, wrong. Research follows the funding, resulting in a wealth of publications favoring the funding interests. This can have a disproportionate effect on the ‘weight’ of evidence, especially for epidemiologic evidence in court.” [On Evidence, Medical and Legal, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2005;10(3):70–75].

   Medical and scientific manuscripts may be classified accord-ing to recognized quality standards such as the international Quality-of-Evidence-Ratings (QER). Under these standards, “rigorous methodology” is required and “independent” research are given the highest ratings. Virtually all studies used to sup-port the vaccine-safety hypothesis are too flawed to be rated, only low grade QER-II-IV studies, or cannot be classified as “science” since their suppressed data prevents peer-review.
    All favorable data and analyses generated are readily published in other peer-reviewed medical journals; while negative or deleterious findings appear to be suppressed. We do not believe this to be an isolated occurrence and recognize other jour-nals’ tendencies toward positive bias. When researchers are subjected to censorship, experience intimidation, are not permitted to conduct research objectively, or when research data concerning a vaccine used in human populations is being sup-pressed or misrepresented, this is very disturbing and goes against all scientific norms—compromising professional ethics.
   When full disclosure of both positive and deleterious effects of an intervention is lacking, this undermines stated aims of medical programs which can ultimately lead to recommendations for treatments that are ineffective and cause harm or death. Full disclosure is the characteristic aim of Medical Veritas® and we believe that this less biased approach distinguishes it from other medical journals that may be prone to reporting only positive results.