New Scientist Sinks to New Low
07 Jan 2010

SINCE 1956, the weekly science magazine New Scientist, has published many fascinating scientific articles and news stories. But the thing to be weary of with this particular science magazine is the large advertisement section in the latter part, a section much larger and more job recruitment based than any other popular science magazine. University positions and corporate research positions are offered in abundance. However, when ever you get that level of financial support you can bet that the editorial is going to be biased in some way in support its advertisers.

So whilst I was flicking through some old new Scientist magazines wondering if there was anything worth keeping before recycling them, I came across an editorial in the 2 May 2009 edition entitled "We need a flu Manhattan project". Here are some quotes from it:

"A pandemic is looming though it comes not from bird flu in Asia, as we thought it might, but swine flu in Mexico. It may yet fizzle out — Viruses like this have done before — but no researcher we have spoken to is hopeful."

The article quotes exaggerated historical figures on flu deaths and generally urges increased vaccination. It ends boldly saying, "Either we use every tool at our disposal to shore up our defences or we keep telling people to wash their hands a lot, and watch the death toll rise."

Well the death toll didn't rise and New Scientist were victims of, consciously or unconsciously, supporting the interests of their advertisers, many of whom are pharmaceutical companies that are involved with the manufacture of vaccines. It is scandalous that a leading journal like this would collude with the profit interests of big business at the expense of public health and safety — and all in the name of good science!

[For an insiders view of the vaccine money-making scam perpetrated by the pharmaceuticals, watch this interview on youtube with Dr. Chopra.]