(NaturalNews) When Dr. Jack Wolfson, an Arizona cardiologist, spoke out recently regarding the potential dangers of vaccines in the wake of an artificial "measles" crisis at Disneyland last fall, he likely did not anticipate how aggressively he would be attacked by the Big Pharma vaccine-industrial complex.

As noted by NaturalNews editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, in a July 20 article, perhaps Wolfson should have seen the criticism coming. After all, Adams wrote, the vaccine pushers "routinely" accuse "anyone who questions the party line on vaccines as being a danger to society."

Adams further observed, regarding Wolfson's treatment:

Organized by vaccine industry trolls and paid negative PR operatives, a total of 38 complaints were filed against [him] with the Arizona state medical board. This is all part of the effort of the vaccine industry to destroy the credibility of any person who exercises true scientific, rational thought on the issue of risks versus rewards for vaccine interventions in children and adults. The idea here is that if enough punishment and aggression is directed against some doctors who speak out on the issue of vaccine side effects, then all the other doctors who may be witnessing these damaging effects of vaccines will decide to stay silent.

Abuse, belittle and marginalize those who do not "conform"

The Arizona cardiologist is far from the only expert trashed by the "mainstream" medical and scientific communities for breaking orthodoxy. Adams also noted in April that noted daytime medical TV personality Dr. Oz was lambasted and maligned by medical scientists for his willingness to expose the dangers of glyphosate - the primary compound in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

What has happened to Drs. Oz and Wolfson are just two examples of how mainstream medicine and science have been hijacked by political correctness, advertising dollars and other factors such as bought-and-paid-for predetermined scientific "results."

As noted by the blog Evolutionary Psychology in 2010, science is only "good" if it is "politically correct." In dissecting an article in the UK Guardian which claimed that there are no real differences between men and women, "bad science" is described as that which does, indeed, claim differences between the sexes as it pertains to a whole host of traits, but "good science" is that which supports the writer's contention, that there really aren't any differences (even though there obviously are).

"Good Science, you see, is all about the political message," wrote the blog's author, Robert Kurzban, an Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

The debate over global warming/climate change is another classic example. As noted in in this blog post, not only should people who don't believe global warming/climate change is real or is being caused by Mankind's modern activities be shamed and ridiculed, but they ought to be prosecuted as well.

And yet, so-called climate change "prophets" like former Vice President Al Gore, who has been consistently wrong in his dire end-of-the-world scenario predictions, are honored with Nobel Peace Prizes.

Why? Because the PC science police demand conformity, not scientific consensus or even proof.

"It seems certain" that science is affected by PC

How can we tell? Just listen to the language of those who seek to impose their point of view rather than rely on actual medical and scientific data to inform their opinions.

In the case of climate science, it is often portrayed as being "settled," so no more debate or discussion is allowed. Even President Obama is on record as saying, "Climate change is a fact."

No more debate allowed - and if you do disagree or dare to introduce contravening evidence and scientific data into the debate, you are shouted down, made out to be a kook or otherwise shamed (and, eventually perhaps, prosecuted).

In this study, the author, Philip Hunter, concludes that "peer pressure and mainstream thinking" regarding science "may discourage novelty and innovation" - meaning, many scientific studies are flawed because they are tailored to fit a preconceived answer or dataset.

"It seems certain that peer pressure cannot be fully eliminated when it comes to publication and grant approval," he wrote in 2005. "Even with free license to publish and pursue whatever research they like, scientists can never be totally immune to the pressure of their peers, whether it is exercised at conferences or through influence."

Sources:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.theecologist.org

http://www.epjournal.net

http://www.thenewamerican.com

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/12/al_gore_un_climate_change_panel

http://io9.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299305/