Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they
would be daft not to use whatever they can.
I think people pretending to be other than they are has been a factor on
newsgroups ever since I can remember.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"PeterB" <pkm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:75de6456-6367-42cb-92fb-0132452463ad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 validity and benefits of natural medicine. I refer to these
individuals as “blogging“ the newsgroups, although they do not (for
obvious reasons) promote a specific company or product as might be the
case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. This is an effort aimed
at cultivating mind share under pretense of grass roots advocacy, and
there is also a common thread between industry presence on a blog and
its participation in a newsgroup: both are done under the pretense
that the poster is not professionally affiliated. These people are
likely to be associated with a PR project underwritten anonymously by
the media or marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to
identify due to various patterns of language, key word phrases, tone,
underlying message, frequency of posting, evasion, and (when it suits
their purpose) attacks on individuals who advocate the use of natural
medicine. I might refer to these posters as “pharma thugs” or “pharma
hoods” when responding to them, whereas they like to use the term
“altie” in referring to users of alternative medicine.
Please familiarize yourself with their tactics so you can identify
them.
See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html
See: http://www.prwatch.org/node/7208
See: http://emord.com/stories/cherish.htm
What to look for while participating on mha:
1. Pharma hoods 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. Pharma hoods 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 sup****ting
scientific data or references.
3. Pharma hoods on usenet work to bury the comments of others,
especially when those comments are a negative ****trayal of
conventional medicine. A key feature of this tactic is its VERTICAL
focus, whereby activity is pushed further into existing threads as a
way to engage regular posters there, draw energy away from newer
threads, and reduce overall discussion. Use of flames and personal
attacks are likewise designed to distract from meaningful discussion
and also to discourage visitors so they will leave. Health advocates
should be aware of this tactic and strive to formulate a consistent
type of response (yes, I‘ve noticed!) -- or no response -- in order to
limit the damage caused by these persons in favor of a more productive
contribution. We each have to decide this one for ourselves based on
our own level of conviction, knowledge, and abilities.
4. Pharma hoods on usenet are much faster at posting than other
participants; they almost always respond first (and last) to a new
thread, question, or comment.
5. Pharma hoods on usenet use multiple posters in a swap-and-relay
fa****on to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to
isolate posters who express interest in natural healing methods, or to
provide aid for a peer who is losing control of a thread. You will
see this tactic used more often in the former scenario than any
other.
6. Pharma hoods on usenet refute numerous published studies showing
the benefits of natural medicine applied in naturopathic healthcare,
including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction,
biofeedback, acupuncture, acupressure, reflexology, and other
approaches. You can find the science sup****ting a variety of natural
medicine methods in a consumer-friendly format at
http://www.newstarget.com.
7. Pharma hoods 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 true motives and reveals their
ties to industry.
8. Pharma hoods on usenet rely on junk science references (or limited
data) to sup****t their attacks on natural healing methods. At the
same time, they decline to provide meaningful scientific references in
sup****t of their defense of most conventional treatments. Since most
conventional medicine is marginally effective, unproven, and often
dangerous, it is not surprising that sup****t of those methods relies
on studies funded by the drug makers (or other medical industry
players) themselves. These “data” represent the basis for both FDA
approval and later marketing claims. These data will rarely be
referenced or provided due to their conflicted nature.
9. Pharma hoods 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
experimentally after decades of failed use. For most cancer patients,
there is no proven benefit in the use of these enormously expensive
and dangerous drugs.
10. Pharma hoods on usenet ignore iatrogenic studies showing the
dangerous side effects of prescription drugs (i.e., more than 100,000
deaths annually, with some estimates several multiples higher), as
well as a 20% recall or advisory on all previously approved drugs.
They also ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease relation****p to
use of such drugs, the long term side effects that include organ
failure and death, or the hazards of other commonly prescribed
medical, surgical, and cosmetic treatments.
If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream
medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably condescending
toward others, and if that response is a repudiation of natural
healing methods or the individual advocating such approaches, you can
be sure you have encountered a Pharma hood. The mission of industry-
funded PR projects aimed at public forums is to prevent a critical
mass in consumer awareness about disinformation regarding matters of
public health. Please read that again. It is unfortunate that more
of these individuals are at work posting to usenet on a daily basis
than almost anyone else, but it should not be surprising. These are
reasons I am posting this alert . If you find it strange that so few
people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest
in natural healing, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because
they have been intimidated into silence. The Pharma thugs have
overrun the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma
and ridicule, causing many casual posters or readers to be frightened
away.
From Wikipedia:
"An internet forum is not a blog (technically speaking), but a blog
can function as an internet forum...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 PU****NG
MESSAGES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC." [CAPS for emphasis]
From: http://reconstruction.eserver.org/064/boyd.shtml
"The practice of blogging is also not bounded and does not signal a
set of shared values and goals, even if there are some common ones.
Early adopters believed that blogging is about the ability to speak
freely to a large audience with no limiting authority or editorial
control. AS INSTITUTIONS BECOME INTERESTED IN BLOGS AS A POTENTIAL
MARKET, BLOGS ARE EMERGING WITH CONTROLLED CONTENT. [CAPS for
emphasis] ... Much consternation arises amongst journalist-minded
bloggers over whether bloggers should edit their posts, how
attribution should work and whether or not bloggers have a
responsibility to announce their affiliations and economic
incentives. These are values prototypical to bloggers with a
particular practice, but they are not universally shared. The goals
and intentions of individual bloggers affect their practice and, in
turn, the medium.
"By reframing blogs as a culture-driven medium upon which the practice
of blogging can occur, IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIVERSITY IN
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT. [CAPS for emphasis] As McLuhan noted, the
message is not the medium--"It is only too typical that the 'content'
of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium" (McLuhan 1995:
152). While such a reframing resolves many tensions and confusions
about blogging, it also offers a framework in which to consider how
blogging is blurring textuality and orality, cor****eality and
spatiality, public and private."
* Pharma-thug: An individual who uses the Internet, or Usenet
newsgroups, to: 1) promote and defend mainstream medicine and disease
management; 2) attack those who express a preference for natural or
alternative medicine; and 3) promote the ideas of junk medical science
funded by industry for the purpose of creating markets for ineffective
and often dangerous medical products, procedures, and devices.
|
