New article “In Defense of Wilhelm Reich” available in peer-reviewed science journal

New article "In Defense of Wilhelm Reich" available in peer-reviewed science journal

"In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: An Open Response to Nature and the Scientific /Medical Community", in Water journal 4:72-81, 2012. By 24 scientists and physicians.

Here’s the specific pdf download link.

This is a peer-reviewed journal of some merit, and so it should be widely circulated by both weblink and independently via the PDF copy which is also available.

Background information on this article is here:

The following can also be added:

Nature got their article as written by journalist Josie Glausiusz, who got her bad information about Reich from a public display entitled "Ghosts in the Machine" as presented at the New Museum in New York City. The New Museum curators Massimiliano Gioni and Gary Carrion-Murayari wrote a book on this display, which they created, also titled Ghosts in the Machine. In their book, Wilhelm Reich is mentioned only in a derogatory article reprinted within, as authored by one Christopher Turner, a relatively new face in the phony "skeptic" movement aiming to destroy Reich’s good name and research legacy.

Turner had already written a terrible book of ridicule-slander against Reich (Adventures in the Orgasmatron) which appeared in 2011 in both USA and UK editions, along with several additional slander-smear articles in various art-cult and "literary" magazines going back to 2004 or earlier. The Turner "Orgasmatron" book was his most ambitious effort, the publisher refusing to say who, if anyone, was responsible for giving it a fact-check. It’s publication was coordinated with a well-planned avalanche of additional slanderous "book reviews" in major newspapers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic, including one major smear of Reich on UK television. Not accidentally or unexpectedly, the same Turner slanders were repeated on disreputable Wikipedia pages – hopefully everyone reading this already knows about the unreliability of Wikipedia, but their pages on Reich and his research are cases in point.

None of the Turner camp-followers bothered to make fact-checks. Rather, they all appear to have made serious "anti-fact checks", making sure none of the published experimental reports verifying Reich’s scientific and medical work, or which presented redeeming facts about his life or work, were allowed to remain standing. Lies of Omission, in abundance! Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia’s anonymous scribblers actually erased such supportive materials which previously had been posted up by scholars sympathetic to Reich.

Over the last two years, Reich’s corpse was dug up and subjected to repeated public auto-da-fe, complete with cheering mobs of high-brow “literati” and “intelligencia”, in the manner of the Medieval Inquisition. Nothing was left un-slimed. Reich’s personal biography, his work on sexual reform, his anti-Nazi and anti-Stalinist activities and writings, his scientific work on cancer, on microbiology, on the orgone accumulator and on desert-greening, all of it was subjected to the usual hyena-jackass ridicule via false claims and distortions, or simply erased from existence. Not one of those "professional journalist" reviewers raised questions about Turner’s accuracy or his smutty accusations against Reich. They appeared quite happy not to do so, or were getting paid not to do so. In any case, overall it was a protest too much, and history may record it as a turning-point, where "professional skepticism" will have exposed itself far too graphically, gone to such great lengths to publicly strangle an infant science in the cradle, for even those fully ignorant about Reich to feel comfortable with it, or remain silent about it.

See here for additional details about Turner and friends:

Some of that slime regrettably creeped into Nature magazine, stimulating the just-published article "In Defense of Wilhelm Reich", as noted above.

More details on these incredible events will soon appear in a new book by James DeMeo, PhD, now in press, entitled "In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: Opposing the 80-Years’ War of Mainstream Slander and Lies Against a Brilliant Natural Scientist and Physician".

One Response to “New article “In Defense of Wilhelm Reich” available in peer-reviewed science journal”

  1. Disinfo and Sexual Slander of Wilhelm Reich in Nature Magazine, and a retraction. « OBRL-News Blog Says:

    […] See the new information posted here: New article “In Defense of Wilhelm Reich” available in peer-reviewed science journal […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: