At the outset, I would like to quote from British writer, C.P. Snow from his popular book, The Search (Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1959): " a false statement of fact (in science), made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit...."
The following quotation is taken from my letter to all top-level National Institute of Health (NIH) officials dated September 18, 1986, in which I informed these NIH officials that such serious crimes were being openly committed:
"...In 1975, thirteen years after my demonstration that the Na(sodium) pump would require 15 to 30 times as much energy as the total energy available, two cell physiologists from the famed Physiological Laboratory of Cambridge University, England, published in an American magazine (Annual Review of Physiology Volume 37, pp.13-5, 1975) a review on the Na pump, the first of its kind with the title "The Sodium Pump". Cited in the review were 245 references published over a period of more than twenty years. My own work published within this period of time included one 682-page monograph mentioned above and many individual publications and reviews often in highly prominent journals. In these publications the data demonstrating that the sodium pump theory violates the law of conservation of energy and the subsequent confirmations of these data by other independent laboratories were presented or reviewed. Yet not one of these publications was included in (Glynn and Karlish's) review nor any evidence presented against the sodium pump theory by other scientists. Prof. Herbert Catchpole protested in the Perspectives on Biology and Medicine (Volume 24: pp. 164-165, 1981): "The first comprehensive review which mentioned the Sodium Pump in its title was that of Glynn and Karlish [4] of 1975...(Glynn and Karlish) listed 245 articles in support of the sodium pump and none opposed. Yet Ling's ideas had been around for 25 years, so had ours, so had Troshin's..."
Three months later, in a letter again addressed to all top level NIH officials I repeated my alarm call: "In my last letter to you I have described how two scientists, I.M. Glynn and S.J.D.Karlish from the "Mecca" of cell physiology, the Physiology Laboratory of Cambridge University, Cambridge, England wrote a first-ot(f) -its kind review on the subject, "the Sodium Pump". This review cited 245 references, all in favor of the sodium pump hypothesis. The large number of papers and books providing evidence against the sodium pump hypothesis was entirely left out. ...." (Page 10 of letter).
The question may be raised: "Is it possible that Glynn (and Karlish) have unintentionally rather than deliberately left out the published work of Ling, Troshin, Catchpole and others against the sodium pump hypothesis mentioned above? If so, one cannot legally call what Glynn (and his coauthor) has done a crime." That the elimination of evidence against the sodium pump hypothesis was deliberate and not unintentional was beyond doubt, because that same unethical act was repeated in Glynn's other publications described below which were published in 1985.
Yet eight years before (in 1977), Dr. I.M.Glynn had published in the "Discussion Forum" in Trends in Biochemical Sciences (TIBS, October 1977, pp.225-227), a discussion with Dr. Freeman Cope on the violation of the Thermodynamic Law of Conservation of Energy of the postulated sodium pump as pointed out by Ling from six titles of Ling's publications on the issue, as well as those of Damadian (10 titles),Troshin (1 title), Hazlewood (2 titles) and Cope himself (8 titles) all fully cited in Cope's part of the Discussion Forum sitting side by side to Glynn's presentation. In all these cited works I provided evidence against the sodium pump hypothesis, and yet all were left out in Glynn and Karlish's 1975 review, cited above, and in still other later publications cited below.
In my letter to NIH top officials mailed on September 18, 1986, I wrote:
" Eleven years have gone by since Glynn and Karlish's review appeared. Have they been ... chastised? Or did Glynn and Karlish hasten to correct their mistakes with apologies to the scientific community and to the public and promise to reform in the future ? None of these happened...
In a by-no-means-exhaustive search of the literature, I have found at least five other reviews and large published symposiums bearing "The Sodium Pump" or its alias, "Active Sodium Transport" as their titles, the latest appearing in 1986. All five followed the example set by Glynn and Karlish in 1975, citing only evidence in support of the Na pump hypothesis while excluding all other evidence contradicting the hypothesis (,i.e., cooking). Yet published evidence against the Na pump Hypothesis and in favor of the AI Hypothesis have been steadily gathering both before and after the Glynn-Karlish review appeared in 1975 (linked page lp6a).
Six prominent reviews and symposiums unanimously let their trusting readers know only one side of the story, while withholding from them all references telling the other side of the study. All in an enterprise with no other purpose than to SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH!" "However, "disinformation"....is only Part 1 of the on-going business. Part 2 was to get the National Institutes of Health to back up its efforts financially. That, too, was and still is a success. To illustrate this, I shall next examine in detail two of the five reviews and symposia referred to above.
Did these regular study sections, in particular the regular Physiology Study Section, approve and give fundable scores for comparable number of proposals by scientists who had proposed research following the leads of the alternative association-induction hypothesis ? The answer is No! Not even one!
Thus a theory... long ago disproved scientifically, was made as if still tenable by the practice of large scale, open "cooking" ("retaining only those results that fit the theory and discarding others" ) ..had been steadily and generously supported for years and years to this date by the regular Physiology Study Section, whereas the alternative theory, extensively supports by world-wide testing for the past thirty years, ....has been denied support by the regular Study Sections altogether."(cited from pp. 10-12 of my letter to 57 top NIH officials dated December 12, 1986).