Hi, Brian. PeteyB, a/k/a Pontificating Blowhard, has posted this
screed a thousand times.
On May 3, 5:03=A0am, "Brian Gaff" <Bria...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought
they=
> would be daft not to use =A0whatever 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.
> =A0graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
> Email: bria...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
__________________________________________________________________________=
_=AD___________________________________
>
> "PeterB" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:75de6456-6367-42cb-92fb-0132452463ad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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. =A0A
> 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. =A0I refer to these
> individuals as =93blogging=93 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. =A0 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: =A0both are done under the pretense
> that the poster is not professionally affiliated. =A0These 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. =A0I might refer to these posters as =93pharma thugs=94 or
=93ph=
arma
> hoods=94 when responding to them, whereas they like to use the term
> =93altie=94 in referring to users of alternative medicine.
>
> Please familiarize yourself with their tactics so you can identify
> them.
>
> See: =A0http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html
> See: =A0http://www.prwatch.org/node/7208
> See: =A0http://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. =A0Their 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. =A0A 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. =A0Use of flames and personal
> attacks are likewise designed to distract from meaningful discussion
> and also to discourage visitors so they will leave. =A0Health advocates
> should be aware of this tactic and strive to formulate a consistent
> type of response (yes, I=91ve noticed!) -- or no response -- in order to
> limit the damage caused by these persons in favor of a more productive
> contribution. =A0 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 =A0to
> isolate posters who express interest in natural healing methods, or to
> provide aid for a peer who is losing control of a thread. =A0You 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. =A0You can find the science sup****ting a variety of natural
> medicine methods in a consumer-friendly format
athttp://www.newstarget.com=
..
>
> 7. Pharma hoods on usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting"
> websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches and their
> proponents. =A0Under 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. =A0At the
> same time, they decline to provide meaningful scientific references in
> sup****t of their defense of most conventional treatments. =A0Since 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. =A0 These =93data=94 represent the basis for both
FDA=
> approval and later marketing claims. =A0These 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. =A0Chemotherapy 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. =A0For most cancer patients,
> there is no proven benefit in the use of these enormously expensive
> and dangerous drugs.
>
> 10. =A0Pharma 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. =A0 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. =A0 Please read that again. =A0It 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. =A0These are
> reasons I am posting this alert . =A0If 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. =A0The 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.*** =A0SOME INSTITUTIONS
> SEE BLOGGING AS A MEANS OF "GETTING AROUND THE FILTER" AND PU****NG
> MESSAGES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC." =A0[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. =A0AS 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. =A0These are values prototypical to bloggers with a
> particular practice, but they are not universally shared. =A0The 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] =A0As 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, =A0it 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 ...
>
> read more =BB
|
