WARNING: Industry Seeks to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health On Usenet (updates to item #3 and other text)
in [Nutrition]
|
From: PeterB on 1 Feb 2007 15:21 WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals broadly being "Pharmabloggers" or simply "PR grunts" (see footnote). For obvious reasons, pharmabloggers on Usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a weblog, but there is a common thread between industry blogging in a web blog and industry participation in a newsgroup: both are done under the pretense that the poster is not professionally affiliated. Most of these people are likely to be associated with a PR project whose "blogging" efforts are underwritten anonymously by the media or marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns in their posting. Please familiarize yourself with these tactics so you can identify them. See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html See: http://emord.com/stories/cherish.htm What to look for while participating in Usenet newsgroups: 1. PR grunts on Usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. They actively discourage a scientific discussion and disrupt ongoing discussions that explore alternative treatments in healthcare. 2. PR grunts on Usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine, asserting that disease-management "healthcare" is the only viable form of treatment. Their comments are frequently embedded in pseudo-scientific jargon, but without supporting scientific documentation, for reasons footnoted below. 3. PR grunts on Usenet post the majority of their responses simply to bury the comments of others, consistent with their efforts to have the last word. A related objective is maintaining a VERTICAL focus in the newsgroups, because tunneling inside a given thread reduces the distribution of new content. This also makes meaningful posts less likely to be read. Deliberate "Flaming" is a tactic used by these individuals to accomplish their goals. 4. PR grunts on Usenet are much faster at posting than casual participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, question, or observation. 5. PR grunts on Usenet use a "pile on" tactic to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who disagree with them. You will experience this if you express a belief in natural medicine or holistic healing. You will also see this tactic used more often than any other. 6. PR grunts on Usenet refute numerous quality studies published in major medical journals showing the benefits of natural medicine applied in naturopathic healthcare, including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, biofeedback, accupuncture, accupressure, reflexology, and other approaches. You can find the science supporting a variety of natural healing methods at the user-friendly website, http://www.newstarget.com. 7. PR grunts on Usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting" websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the extreme bias of these promoters belies their claims and reveals their ties to industry. 8. PR grunts on Usenet rely on junk science references to support their attacks on natural healing methods. They decline to provide meaningful scientific references in support of their defense of most conventional treatments. Since most conventional medicines are either marginally effective, unproven, or dangerous, it is not suprising that purely anecdotal or observational studies (usually sponsored by the drug makers) are the only "science" available to them. 9. PR grunts on Usenet assert that conventional medicine is "evidence based," however the lack of corroborating science disproves that claim. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are unproven in the majority of cancers, yet FDA permits these drugs to remain in use as "experimental trial" medications, as has been the case for more than thirty years. For most cancer patients, there is no proven benefit in the use of these expensive and toxic chemicals. 10. PR grunts on Usenet ignore iatrogenic studies that show the dangerous side effects of prescription drugs (ie., at least 100,000 deaths annually), as well as a 20% recall for all previously approved drugs. They also ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of such drugs and other unsafe medical treatments. Tip: If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably vicious toward others, and if that response is an attempt to attack natural medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a PR grunt whose mission is preventing a critical mass of consumer awareness about disinformation regarding matters of public health. Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to Usenet on a daily basis than almost anyone else, which is why I am posting this alert. If you find it odd that so few people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been intimidated into silence. The pharmbloggers have over-run the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma, mockery, and ridicule. Many casual posters are simply frightened away, which is, of course, the object of the game. * From Wikipedia: "An internet forum is not a blog (technically speaking), but a blog can function as an internet forum. Internet forums typically allow any user to post (into the discussion). Blogs typically limit posting to the blogger or to the blogger and approved others. The distinction between blogs and forums is sometimes gray. Sites such as Slashdot, Indymedia and Daily Kos combine elements of the two...many bloggers differentiate themselves from the mainstream media, WHILE OTHERS ARE MEMBERS OF THAT MEDIA WORKING THROUGH A DIFFERENT CHANNEL. SOME INSTITUTIONS SEE BLOGGING AS A MEANS OF "GETTING AROUND THE FILTER" AND PUSHING MESSAGES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC. Some critics worry that bloggers respect neither intellectual property nor the role of the mass media in presenting society with credible news...A blog is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order...Blogs use a conversational style of documentation. Often blogs focus on a particular "area of interest", such as Washington, D.C.'s political goings-on. Some blogs discuss personal experiences." The advent of "blogging" was preceded by Usenet newsgorups, but there are many similiarities between posters in the two venues. The difference is mainly a distinction in software platforms, not the nature of published content. I have never referred to the newsgroup itself as being a weblog. Rather, I refer to individual posters as "blogging" on behalf of industry. While my focus is on nutrition and science, these individuals rely on semantic and personal attacks in their effort to distract from the real issues. Pharmablogger: An individual who uses the Internet, and Usenet newsgroups, to: 1) promote and defend maintstream medicine and disease management; 2) attack those who express a favorable view of natural medicine; and 3) cite a variety of junk medical science funded by industry for the purpose of establishing markets for marginally effective, and often dangerous, medical products and devices. Typically, such references are by inference only, so as to avoid linking directly to promotional material on the drug makers' websites, which would only further demonstrate their ties to industry. Consequently, you will rarely see these individuals include citations of a scientific nature.
From: capmack on 1 Feb 2007 16:01 "A number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals broadly being "Pharmabloggers" or simply "PR grunts" (see" Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none have. Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts" for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" " wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.
From: Peter Moran on 1 Feb 2007 16:47 <capmack(a)shipper.com> wrote in message news:45c2551d$0$261$1c4686b2(a)selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu... > "A number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape > public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking > the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these > individuals broadly being "Pharmabloggers" or simply "PR grunts" (see" > > Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific > examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none > have. > > Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort > in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts" > for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those > labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" " > wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry. Yes, but think about it for a sec.. Someone is clearly paying him to post, but why on earth would they pick a paranoid mess who knows so little about medicine? I am very close to being able to prove that he's actually a very clever double agent, being paid by the drug companies, the government, the AMA, the FDA, (I'm not yet sure about the CIA) to make alternative medicine look foolish. It's staggering! What will they get up to next? PM
From: David Wright on 1 Feb 2007 21:56 In article <45c25fe7$0$9775$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Peter Moran <pmoranATbodernet.com.au> wrote: > ><capmack(a)shipper.com> wrote in message >news:45c2551d$0$261$1c4686b2(a)selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu... >> "A number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape >> public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking >> the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these >> individuals broadly being "Pharmabloggers" or simply "PR grunts" (see" >> >> Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific >> examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none >> have. >> >> Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort >> in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts" >> for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those >> labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" " >> wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry. > >Yes, but think about it for a sec.. Someone is clearly paying him to post, >but why on earth would they pick a paranoid mess who knows so little about >medicine? I am very close to being able to prove that he's actually a >very clever double agent, being paid by the drug companies, the government, >the AMA, the FDA, (I'm not yet sure about the CIA) to make alternative >medicine look foolish. > >It's staggering! What will they get up to next? And how can *I* get in on it? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins
From: D. C. Sessions on 2 Feb 2007 20:37
In message <45c25fe7$0$9775$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Peter Moran wrote: > It's staggering! � What will they get up to next? Jan Drew? -- | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> --------------+ |