[Mb-civic] Fwd: Excellent Read !!!

[Reute Butler]

> Fascinating--I like this part, toward the end:

> "Really feel like you need to "relax" or find  out "what's going on  
> in the world" for a few hours every day?  Think about the news of  
> the past couple of years for a minute. Do you really  suppose the  
> major stories that have dominated headlines and TV news have  been  
> "what is going on in the world?" Do you actually think there's   
> been nothing going on besides the contrived tech slump, the  
> contrived power  shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign  
> violence and disaster, and  all the other non-stories that the  
> puppeteers dangle before us every day?  What about when they get a  
> big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or  the Oklahoma city  
> bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail, day  after day?  
> Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we  wanted  
> to? What is the purpose of news? To inform the public? Hardly. The   
> sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and  
> uncertainty so that they'll watch again tomorrow and be subjected  
> to the same advertising.  Oversimplification? Of course. That's the  
> mark of mass media mastery -  simplicity. The invisible hand. Like  
> Edward Bernays said, the people must  be controlled without them  
> knowing it.
>
> Consider this: what was really going on in the world  all that time  
> they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily   
> smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people  
> coming back  for more.
>
>
> If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one  step  
> further: What would you lose from your life if you stopped  
> watching  TV and stopped reading newspapers altogether?
>
> Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual   
> or academic loss from such a decision?
>
> Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing  the  
> illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless  
> values  of the people featured in the average nightly TV program?  
> Are these fake, programmed robots "normal"?
>
> Do you need to have your life values constantly spoonfed  to you?
>
> Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction  to  
> keep you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out  
> yourself  by doing a little independent reading?
>
> Name one example of how your life is improved by watching  TV news  
> and reading the evening paper. What measurable gain is there for   
> you? "

>    I actually have read this entire article, and it explains a  
> great deal. Well worth the time. I put a couple of my own comments  
> in [ ]'s.  Think outside the box!
A lot of great things are happening on the planet. Stay positive and  
contribute--all is fine. it's always darkest before the dawn.

Love and Light, Reute

> Rense.com
>
>
> The Doors Of Perception:
>  Why Americans Will
>  Believe Almost Anything
> By Tim O'Shea
> www.thedoctorwithin.com
> 8-18-1
>
> Aldous Huxley's inspired 1956 essay detailed the vivid,  mind- 
> expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline adventures. By  
> altering  his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley  
> tapped into a rich  and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable  
> beauty and power. With his  neurosensory input thus triggered,  
> Huxley was able to enter that parallel  universe described by every  
> mystic and space captain in recorded history.  Whether by  
> hallucination or epiphany, Huxley sought to remove all controls,   
> all filters, all cultural conditioning from his perceptions and to  
> confront  Nature or the World or Reality first-hand - in its  
> unpasteurized, unedited,  unretouched, infinite rawness.
>
> Those bonds are much harder to break today, half a century  later.  
> We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever   
> known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being  
> shaped  and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems  
> like it is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our  
> perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
>
> It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining  to people  
> how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically  
> implanted  in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips  
> per day. In an effort  to save time, I would like to provide just a  
> little background on the handling  of information in this country.  
> Once the basic principles are illustrated  about how our current  
> system of media control arose historically, the reader  might be  
> more apt to question any given popular opinion.
>
> If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong.  We call that
>
> Conventional Wisdom.
>
> In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance  is  
> usually contrived: somebody paid for it.
>
> Examples:
>
> * Pharmaceuticals restore health
> * Vaccination brings immunity
> * The cure for cancer is just around the corner
> * Menopause is a disease condition
> * When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
> * When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
> * Hospitals are safe and clean.
> * America has the best health care in the world.
> * Americans have the best health in the world.
> * Milk is a good source of calcium.
> * You never outgrow your need for milk.
> * Vitamin C is ascorbic acid.
> * Aspirin prevents heart attacks.
> * Heart drugs improve the heart.
> * Back and neck pain are the only reasons for spinal  adjustment.
> * No child can get into school without being vaccinated.
> * The FDA thoroughly tests all drugs before they go on  the market.
> * Back and neck pain are the only reason for spinal adjustment.
> * Pregnancy is a serious medical condition
> * Chemotherapy and radiation are effective cures for  cancer
> * When your child is diagnosed with an ear infection,  antibiotics  
> should be given
> immediately 'just in case'
> * Ear tubes are for the good of the child.
> * Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis after menopause.
> * Pediatricians are the most highly trained of al medical   
> specialists.
> * The purpose of the health care industry is health.
> * HIV is the cause of AIDS.
> * AZT is the cure.
> * Without vaccines, infectious diseases will return
> * Fluoride in the city water protects your teeth
> * Flu shots prevent the flu.
> * Vaccines are thoroughly tested before being placed  on the  
> Mandated Schedule.
> * Doctors are certain that the benefits of vaccines far  outweigh  
> any possible risks.
> * There is a power shortage in California.
> * There is a meningitis epidemic in California.
> * The NASDAQ is a natural market controlled only by supply  and  
> demand.
> * Chronic pain is a natural consequence of aging.
> * Soy is your healthiest source of protein.
> * Insulin shots cure diabetes.
> * After we take out your gall bladder you can eat anything  you want
> * Allergy medicine will cure allergies.
>
> This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions  and billions  
> to conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the President   
> speaking publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people in this  
> country  think generally the same about most of the above issues?
>
>
> HOW THIS WHOLE SET-UP GOT STARTED
>
> In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together  some  
> compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion   
> in America. They trace modern public influence back to the early  
> part of the last century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward  
> L. Bernays, the Father of Spin. From his own amazing chronicle  
> Propaganda, we learn  how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his  
> famous uncle Sigmund Freud  himself and applied them to the  
> emerging science of mass persuasion. The  only difference was that  
> instead of using these principles to uncover hidden  themes in the  
> human unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does, Bernays  used  
> these same ideas to mask agendas and to create illusions that  
> deceive  and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.
>
>
> THE FATHER OF SPIN
>
> Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and  was a  
> significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During  
> all  that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to  
> create a public perception about some idea or product. A few  
> examples: As a neophyte  with the Committee on Public Information,  
> one of Bernays' first assignments  was to help sell the First World  
> War to the American public with the idea  to "Make the World Safe  
> for Democracy." (Ewen)
>
> A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize  the notion  
> of women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade   
> in New York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned  
> with.  He organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which  
> suffragettes marched in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of  
> women's liberation. Such publicity followed from that one event  
> that from then on women have felt  secure about destroying their  
> own lungs in public, the same way that men  have always done.
>
> Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.  Not one to  
> turn down a challenge, he set up the advertising format along  with  
> the AMA that lasted for nearly 50 years proving that cigarettes  
> are  beneficial to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or  
> Time from the  40s and 50s.
>
> During the next several decades Bernays and his colleagues  evolved  
> the principles by which masses of people could be generally swayed   
> through messages repeated over and over hundreds of times. One the  
> value  of media became apparent, other countries of the world tried  
> to follow  our lead. But Bernays really was the gold standard.  
> Josef Goebbels, who was Hitler's minister of propaganda, studied  
> the principles of Edward Bernays  when Goebbels was developing the  
> popular rationale he would use to convince  the Germans that they  
> had to purify their race. (Stauber)
>
>
> SMOKE AND MIRRORS
>
> Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired  image  
> that would put a particular product or concept in a desirable  
> light.  Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be  
> led.' And this  herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to  
> leadership." Bernays  never deviated from his fundamental axiom to  
> "control the masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens  
> with the people unaware that they are being manipulated.
>
> Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this: "the  scientific  
> manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos  and  
> conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p 42
>
> These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing  a  
> moral service for humanity in general - democracy was too good for  
> people; they needed to be told what to think, because they were  
> incapable of rational  thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph  
> from Bernays' Propaganda: "Those  who manipulate the unseen  
> mechanism of society constitute an invisible  government which is  
> the true ruling power of our country. We are governed,  our minds  
> molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men  we  
> have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which  
> our  democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings  
> must cooperate  in this manner if they are to live together as a  
> smoothly functioning society.  In almost every act of our lives  
> whether in the sphere of politics or business  in our social  
> conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the   
> relatively small number of persons who understand the mental  
> processes  and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull  
> the wires that control  the public mind."
>
> A tad different from Thomas Jefferson's view on the subject:
>
>
> "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power  of the society  
> but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened   
> enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the  
> remedy  is not take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
>
> Inform their discretion. Bernays believed that only a  few  
> possessed the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be  
> entrusted  with this sacred task. And luckily [for him, but not for  
> us], he saw himself as one of that few.
>
>
> HERE COMES THE MONEY
>
> Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology  to mass  
> media were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than   
> he could handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves  
> courting  the new Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and  
> services and ideas  to be sold to a susceptible public. Over the  
> years, these players have  had the money to make their images  
> happen. A few examples:
>
> Philip Morris Pfizer Union Carbide Allstate Monsanto  Eli Lilly  
> tobacco industry Ciba Geigy lead industry Coors DuPont Chlorox   
> Shell Oil Standard Oil Procter & Gamble Boeing General Motors Dow  
> Chemical General Mills Goodyear

> [don't forget EXXON--"global warming is natural, and anyway isn't  
> happening"--$50 million spent since 1998 to make America believe  
> that, discounting the work of 2000 scientists wordwide]
>
>
> THE PLAYERS
>
> Dozens of PR firms have emerged to answer that demand.  Among them:
>
> Burson-Marsteller Edelman Hill & Knowlton Kamer-Singer  Ketchum  
> Mongovin, Biscoe, and Duchin BSMG Buder-Finn
>
>
> Though world-famous within the PR industry, these are  names we  
> don't know, and for good reason. The best PR goes unnoticed. For   
> decades they have created the opinions that most of us were raised  
> with,  on virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial  
> value, including:
>
> pharmaceutical drugs vaccines medicine as a profession  alternative  
> medicine fluoridation of city water chlorine household cleaning   
> products tobacco dioxin global warming leaded gasoline cancer  
> research  and treatment pollution of the oceans forests and lumber  
> images of celebrities,  including damage control crisis and  
> disaster management genetically modified  foods aspartame food  
> additives; processed foods dental amalgams
>
>
> LESSON #1
>
> Bernays learned early on that the most effective way  to create  
> credibility for a product or an image was by "independent  third- 
> party" endorsement. For example, if General Motors were to come   
> out and say that global warming is a hoax thought up by some  
> liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's  
> fortune is made by selling  automobiles. If however some  
> independent research institute with a very  credible sounding name  
> like the Global Climate Coalition comes out with  a scientific  
> report that says global warming is really a fiction, people  begin  
> to get confused and to have doubts about the original issue.
>
> So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired  by  
> genius, he set up "more institutes and foundations than  
> Rockefeller  and Carnegie combined." (Stauber p 45) Quietly  
> financed by the industries  whose products were being evaluated,  
> these "independent" research  agencies would churn out "scientific"  
> studies and press materials  that could create any image their  
> handlers wanted. Such front groups are  given high-sounding names  
> like:
>
> Temperature Research Foundation International Food Information  
> Council Consumer Alert The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition  
> Air Hygiene  Foundation Industrial Health Federation International  
> Food Information  Council Manhattan Institute Center for Produce  
> Quality Tobacco Institute  Research Council Cato Institute American  
> Council on Science and Health  Global Climate Coalition Alliance  
> for Better Foods
>
> Sound pretty legit don't they?
>
>
> CANNED NEWS RELEASES
>
> As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds  of others  
> like them are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the   
> image of the global corporations who fund them, like those listed  
> on page  2 above. This is accomplished in part by an endless stream  
> of 'press releases' announcing "breakthrough" research to every  
> radio station and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these  
> canned reports read like  straight news, and indeed are purposely  
> molded in the news format. This  saves journalists the trouble of  
> researching the subjects on their own,  especially on topics  
> aboutwhich they know very little. Entire sections  of the release  
> or in the case of video news releases, the whole thing can  be just  
> lifted intact, with no editing, given the byline of the reporter   
> or newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant news - copy and  
> paste. Written by corporate PR firms.
>
> Does this really happen? Every single day, since the  1920s when  
> the idea of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee.   
> (Stauber, p 22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in  
> an issue  of the Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press  
> releases.. (22)  These types of stories are mixed right in with  
> legitimately researched  stories. Unless you have done the research  
> yourself, you won't be able  to tell the difference.
>
>
> THE LANGUAGE OF SPIN
>
> As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays  gained more  
> experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for   
> creating public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology  
> must  focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of  
> rational thought, motivation must be based not on logic but on  
> presentation. Here are some  of the axioms of the new science of PR:
>
> * technology is a religion unto itself * if people are  incapable  
> of rational thought, real democracy is dangerous * important   
> decisions should be left to experts * when reframing issues, stay  
> away  from substance; create images * never state a clearly  
> demonstrable lie
>
> Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact.  Here's  
> an example. A front group called the International Food Information  
> Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically  
> modified foods.  Trigger words are repeated all through the text.  
> Now in the case of GM  foods, the public is instinctively afraid of  
> these experimental new creations  which have suddenly popped up on  
> our grocery shelves which are said to  have DNA alterations. The  
> IFIC wants to reassure the public of the safety  of GM foods, so it  
> avoids words like:
>
> Frankenfoods Hitler biotech chemical DNA experiments  manipulate  
> money safety scientists radiation roulette gene-splicing gene  gun  
> random
>
>
> Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:
>
> hybrids natural order beauty choice bounty cross-breeding   
> diversity earth farmer organic wholesome.
>
>
> It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The  fact that  
> GM foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow  and  
> careful scientific methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really  
> matter.  This is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and  
> substance just  a passing myth. (Trevanian)
>
> Who do you think funds the International Food Information  Council?  
> Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola,  
> Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods.  
> (Stauber  p 20)
>
>
> CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD PROPAGANDA
>
> As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed  further  
> guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:
>
> - dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name  calling
>
> - speak in glittering generalities using emotionally  positive words
>
> - when covering something up, don't use plain English;  stall for  
> time; distract
>
> - get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports  figures,  
> street people...anyone who has no expertise in the subject at  hand
>
> - the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like  you
>
> - when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable
>
> - when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits of  what just  
> happened
>
> - when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues
>
>
>
> Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques.  Not hard to  
> find - look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what   
> they're doing; these guys are good!
>
>
> SCIENCE FOR HIRE
>
> PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation  of news  
> releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous  
> scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked  
> at. (Stauber, p  201) This is a common occurrence. In this way the  
> editors of newspapers  and TV news shows are often not even aware  
> that an individual release is  a total PR fabrication. Or at least  
> they have "deniability,"  right?
>
> Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came  into the  
> picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to   
> gasoline gave cars more horsepower. When there was some concern  
> about safety,  GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake  
> "testing" and publish  spurious research that 'proved' that  
> inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter  Charles Kettering.
>
> Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial  Institute for  
> medical research, Charles Kettering also happened to be an   
> executive with General Motors. By some strange coincidence, we soon  
> have  the Sloan Kettering institute issuing reports stating that  
> lead occurs  naturally in the body and that the body has a way of  
> eliminating low level exposure. Through its association with The  
> Industrial Hygiene Foundation  and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane  
> Kettering opposed all anti-lead  research for years. (Stauber p  
> 92). Without organized scientific opposition,  for the next 60  
> years more and more gasoline became leaded, until by the  1970s,  
> 90% or our gasoline was leaded.
>
> Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a  major  
> carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But   
> during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of  
> lead  were released in vapor form onto American streets and  
> highways. 30 million  tons.
>
> That is PR, my friends.
>
>
> JUNK SCIENCE
>
> In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and  coined a new  
> term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk   
> science. Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports  
> technology, industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly junk  
> science. Not surprisingly,  Stauber explains how Huber's book was  
> supported by the industry-backed  Manhattan Institute.
>
> Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because  it was so  
> poorly written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true   
> scientific research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are  
> seeking  the truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.
>
> True scientific method goes like this:
>
> 1. form a hypothesis
>
> 2. make predictions for that hypothesis
>
> 3. test the predictions
>
> 4. reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research  findings
>
> Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains  that ideas  
> in science are themselves like "living organisms, that  must be  
> nourished, supported, and cultivated with resources for making   
> them grow and flourish." (Stauber p 205) Great ideas that don't  
> get  this financial support because the commercial angles are not  
> immediately  obvious - these ideas wither and die.
>
> Another way you can often distinguish real science from  phony is  
> that real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony   
> science pretends there were no flaws.
>
>
> THE REAL JUNK SCIENCE
>
> Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions  to sound  
> science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area  of  
> drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined  
> conclusions.  It is the job of the scientists then to prove that  
> these conclusions are  true, because of the economic upside that  
> proof will bring to the industries paying for that research. This  
> invidious approach to science has shifted the entire focus of  
> research in America during the past 50 years, as any true scientist  
> is likely to admit.
>
> Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate  sponsorship  
> of university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the   
> pursuit of knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become  
> just another commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)
>
>
> THE TWO MAIN TARGETS OF "SOUND SCIENCE"
>
> It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority  of  
> corporate PR today opposes any research that seeks to protect:  
> Public  Health and The Environment
>
> It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see  the phrase  
> "junk science," it is in a context of defending something  that may  
> threaten either the environment or our health. This makes sense   
> when one realizes that money changes hands only by selling the  
> illusion  of health and the illusion of environmental protection.  
> True public health  and real preservation of the earth's  
> environment have very low market value.
>
> Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed  debunkers  
> of junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255)  Here  
> again they can do this because the issue is not science, but the  
> creation  of images.
>
>
> THE LANGUAGE OF ATTACK
>
> When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups  and  
> alternative medicine people, they again use special words which  
> will  carry an emotional punch:
>
> outraged sound science junk science sensible scaremongering  
> responsible phobia hoax alarmist hysteria
>
> The next time you are reading a newspaper article about  an  
> environmental or health issue, note how the author shows bias by  
> using the above terms. This is the result of very specialized  
> training.
>
> Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of  the  
> environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested  
> product  that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we  
> see constantly  in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically  
> modified foods. They talk  about how GM foods are necessary to grow  
> more food and to end world hunger,  when the reality is that GM  
> foods actually have lower yields per acre than  natural crops.  
> (Stauber p 173) The grand design sort of comes into focus  once you  
> realize that almost all GM foods have been created by the sellers   
> of herbicides and pesticides so that those plants can withstand  
> greater  amounts of herbicides and pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
>
>
> THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW
>
> Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every research   
> scientist. That means whoever expects funding for the next research  
> project  had better get the current research paper published in the  
> best scientific  journals. And we all know that the best scientific  
> journals, like JAMA,  New England Journal, British Medical Journal,  
> etc. are peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which  
> actually get published, between all those full color drug ads and  
> pharmaceutical centerfolds, have been reviewed  and accepted by  
> some really smart guys with a lot of credentials. The assumption   
> is, if the article made it past peer review, the data and the  
> conclusions  of the research study have been thoroughly checked out  
> and bear some resemblance  to physical reality.
>
> But there are a few problems with this hot little set  up. First  
> off, money. Even though prestigious venerable medical journals   
> pretend to be so objective and scientific and incorruptible, the  
> reality  is that they face the same type of being called to account  
> that all glossy  magazines must confront: don't antagonize your  
> advertisers. Those full-page  drug ads in the best journals cost  
> millions,Jack. How long will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad  
> space in a magazine that prints some very sound scientific   
> research paper that attacks the safety of the drug in the  
> centerfold? Think  about it. The editors aren't that stupid.
>
> Another problem is the conflict of interest thing. There's  a  
> formal requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties  
> between  an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the  
> article. In practice,  it never happens. A study done in 1997 of  
> 142 medical journals did not  find even one such disclosure. (Wall  
> St. Journal, 2 Feb 99)
>
> A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine  found that  
> 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug  they  
> were studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures?  
> Yeah,  right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody  
> starts getting  too pompous about the objectivity of peer review,  
> like they often do.
>
> Then there's the outright purchase of space. A drug company  may  
> simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article  
> printed. (Stauber, p 204)
>
> Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In 1987,  the New  
> England Journal ran an article that followed the research of R.   
> Slutsky MD over a seven year period. During that time, Dr. Slutsky  
> had  published 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals.  
> NEJM found  that in at least 60 of these 137, there was evidence of  
> major scientific  fraud and misrepresentation, including:
>
> * reporting data for experiments that were never done  * reporting  
> measurements that were never made * reporting statistical analyses   
> that were never done
>
> oEngler
>
> Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the Babel  Effect that  
> results when this very common and frequently undetected scientific  
> fraudulent data in peer-reviewed journals are quoted by other  
> researchers,  who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.
>
> Want to see something that sort of re-frames this whole   
> discussion? Check out the McDonald's ads which often appear in the  
> Journal  of the American Medical Association. Then keep in mind  
> that this is the  same publication that for almost 50 years ran  
> cigarette ads proclaiming  the health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins)
>
> Very scientific, oh yes.
>
>
> KILL YOUR TV?
>
> Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading  newspaper  
> and magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start   
> watching TV news shows with a slightly different attitude than you  
> had  before. Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's  
> selling it? And  if you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's  
> book and check out  some of the other resources below, you might  
> even glimpse the possibility  of advancing your life one quantum  
> simply by ceasing to subject your brain to mass media. That's right  
> - no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more  Time magazine or  
> Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what  you could do  
> with the extra time alone.
>
> Really feel like you need to "relax" or find  out "what's going on  
> in the world" for a few hours every day?  Think about the news of  
> the past couple of years for a minute. Do you really  suppose the  
> major stories that have dominated headlines and TV news have  been  
> "what is going on in the world?" Do you actually think there's   
> been nothing going on besides the contrived tech slump, the  
> contrived power  shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign  
> violence and disaster, and  all the other non-stories that the  
> puppeteers dangle before us every day?  What about when they get a  
> big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or  the Oklahoma city  
> bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail, day  after day?  
> Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we  wanted  
> to? What is the purpose of news? To inform the public? Hardly. The   
> sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and  
> uncertainty so that they'll watch again tomorrow and be subjected  
> to the same advertising.  Oversimplification? Of course. That's the  
> mark of mass media mastery -  simplicity. The invisible hand. Like  
> Edward Bernays said, the people must  be controlled without them  
> knowing it.
>
> Consider this: what was really going on in the world  all that time  
> they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily   
> smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people  
> coming back  for more.
>
>
> If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one  step  
> further: What would you lose from your life if you stopped  
> watching  TV and stopped reading newspapers altogether?
>
> Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual   
> or academic loss from such a decision?
>
> Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing  the  
> illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless  
> values  of the people featured in the average nightly TV program?  
> Are these fake, programmed robots "normal"?
>
> Do you need to have your life values constantly spoonfed  to you?
>
> Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction  to  
> keep you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out  
> yourself  by doing a little independent reading?
>
> Name one example of how your life is improved by watching  TV news  
> and reading the evening paper. What measurable gain is there for  you?
>
>
> PLANET OF THE APES?
>
> There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber  year by  
> year. Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever  
> notice  the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's  
> advertising and billboards?  Literacy is marginal in most American  
> secondary schools. Three-fourths  of California high school seniors  
> can't read well enough to pass their  exit exams. ( SJ Mercury 20  
> Jul 01) If you think other parts of the country  are smarter, try  
> this one: hand any high school senior a book by Dumas  or Jane  
> Austen, and ask them to open to any random page and just read one   
> paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily  
> shifted  lower and lower to disguise how dumb kids are getting year  
> by year. (ADD:  A Designer Disease) At least 10% have documented  
> "learning disabilities,"  which are reinforced and rewarded by  
> special treatment and special drugs.  Ever hear of anyone failing a  
> grade any more?
>
> Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie  which these  
> days may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially  if  
> it has insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake  
> martial  arts, and cretinesque dialogue. Radio? Consider the low  
> mental qualifications  of the falsely animated corporate simians  
> hired as DJs -- seems like they're only allowed to have 50  
> thoughts, which they just repeat at random. And at what point did  
> popular music cease to require the study of any musical  instrument  
> or theory whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps we just  don't  
> understand this emerging art form, right? The Darwinism of MTV -   
> apes descended from man.
>
> Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines  sound  
> like they were all written by the same guy? And this writer just   
> graduated from junior college? And yet has all the correct opinions  
> on  social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug,  
> homogenized corporate  omniscience, to assure us that everything is  
> going to be fine... Yes, everything  is fine.
>
> All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their  job that  
> much easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process   
> of conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if  
> somebody explained it to them.
>
>
> TEA IN THE CAFETERIA
>
> Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy  a cup of tea.  
> And as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across  the  
> room. So you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to   
> your friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your tea, are  
> you just  going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a  
> crowded place and  you've just left your tea unattended for several  
> minutes. You've given  anybody in that room access to your tea.
>
> Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the  TV, or  
> uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these  
> activities allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who  
> has an  agenda, anyone with the resources to create a public image  
> via popular  media. As we've seen above, just because we read  
> something or see something on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth  
> knowing. So the idea here is, like the tea, the mind is also worth  
> guarding, worth limiting access to it.
>
> This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital.  Why waste  
> it allowing our potential, our personality, our values to be   
> shaped, crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass  
> panderers?  There are many truly important decisions that are  
> crucial to our physical,  mental, and spiritual well-being,  
> decisions which require information and research. If it's an issue  
> where money is involved, objective data won't be so easy to obtain.  
> Remember, if everybody knows something, that image  has been bought  
> and paid for.
>
> Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation  down at  
> least one level below what "everybody knows." 1
>
> REFERENCES
>
>
>
> Stauber & Rampton Trust Us, We're Experts Tarcher/Putnam  2001
>
> Ewen, Stuart PR!: A Social History of Spin 1996 ISBN:   
> 0-465-06168-0 Published by Basic Books, A Division of Harper Collins
>
> Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and  the Birth of  
> Public Relations Crown Publishers, Inc. 2001
>
> King, R Medical journals rarely disclose researchers'  ties Wall  
> St. Journal, 2 Feb 99.
>
> Engler, R et al. Misrepresentation and Responsibility  in Medical  
> Research
>
> New England Journal of Medicine v 317 p 1383 26 Nov 1987
>
> Black, D PhD Health At the Crossroads Tapestry 1988.
>
> Trevanian Shibumi 1983.
>
> Crossen, C Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in  America 1996.
>
> Robbins, J Reclaiming Our Health Kramer 1996.
>
> Jefferson, T Writings New York Library of America, p  493; 1984.
>
> O'Shea T The Magic Bean 2000 www.thedoctorwithin.com  Alternative  
> Medicine magazine May 2001.
>
>  
> MainPage
> http://www.rense.com
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060429/dfab2975/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: purp_bar.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1943 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060429/dfab2975/attachment-0001.gif