NOTICE: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public He

[Peterb]

NOTICE: 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, especially when
those comments are a negative portrayal of the drug makers
and their products. Another feature of this tactic is the
use of a VERTICAL focus in the newsgroups, meaning that
activity is purposedly expanded in a particular thread in
order to reduce the overall distribution of new
("horizontal") content in newer threads. Use of flaming
and personal attacks is designed to both distract from
meaningful discussion and also to discourage visitors and
posters so they will leave.

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.

[Martha Ada]

"PR grunts." Nice term. However, the message says what any
sensible cyberspace visitor already knows. Namely, that
content and context are only two of the tests of truth;
and that you *always* take information found here in a
larger context.

I think the end result of all the noise here is, that it
hurts open discussion. I've wondered if that's what it is
here for. I see little here that could not be made up by a
very few bots running Eliza-based softwares *just to* create
all this rubbish.

Cheers -- Martha Adams [sci.med 2007 May 11]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178891985.956447.326830@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> NOTICE: 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, especially when
> those comments are a negative portrayal of the drug
> makers and their products. Another feature of this
> tactic is the use of a VERTICAL focus in the newsgroups,
> meaning that activity is purposedly expanded in a
> particular thread in order to reduce the overall
> distribution of new ("horizontal") content in newer
> threads. Use of flaming and personal attacks is designed
> to both distract from meaningful discussion and also to
> discourage visitors and posters so they will leave.
>
> 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.

[keystone]

Warning, industry trolls post this message from time to time
in support of the commercial interests of a multi billion per
year alternative drug industry.

This is a drug industry which doesn't have to report adverse
product events, doesn't have to show their drugs work, doesn't
have to show the drugs are safe, and rarely has to show that
what is on the label is in fact the contents of the package.

It uses these pr events to shore up a very strong political
position among polititions from those states where the
products are produced.

Many times we have requested that examples of any medical
industry agents being paid to post messages be shown,
none to date.

[Mattlb]

On May 11, 2:59 pm, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> NOTICE: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the
> Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
<snip>
> 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.

No, it's very much the nature of the content. Blogs are one
person's thoughts, on a webpage, whereas newsgroups are an
unmoderated discussion between people, that doesn't take place
in any one place, but across the internet as a whole - like
email. There's no significant software difference since both
can be viewed with a web browser.

> I have never referred to the newsgroup itself as being a
> weblog. Rather, I refer to individual posters as "blogging"
> on behalf of industry.

Well if you recognise newgroups aren't blogs, don't describe
posting to them as blogging. Posting a reply on the newsgroups
is completely different to even the current meaning of "blog",
since it travels from news-server to news-server across the
internet. A blog sits on a single server and is accessed via a
browser. Delete the page and it's gone, but that doesn't work
for newsgroups which are much more open and public.

> 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.

Particularly in science, terminology and semantics matters, so
you don't help your cause with woolly terminology. Alternative
therapies thrive on woolly terms of course, but sci.
newsgroups aren't the place to use it.

> Pharmablogger: An individual who uses the Internet, and
> Usenet newsgroups,

Pharmaposter would be more suitable, since there are probably
pharmaceutical insiders who have blogs, but don't use
newsgroups.

MattLB

[Peterb]

On May 11, 11:48 am, MattLB <mat...@angelfire.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 2:59 pm, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > NOTICE: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact
> > the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
> <snip>
> > 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.
>
> No, it's very much the nature of the content. Blogs are one
> person's thoughts, on a webpage, whereas newsgroups are an
> unmoderated discussion between people, that doesn't take
> place in any one place, but across the internet as a whole -
> like email.

So your thoughts here are *not* your own? How telling. So
discussion does not occur between people in both venues? Ahhh,
so you agree with me to the extent that legitimate discussion
is thwarted by those like yourself who are here for other
purposes. I'm afraid you and your fellow grunts have a
difficult time avoiding these freudian/fraudian slips due to
the irrational nature of your playbook. If you presume to draw
a contrast between how newsgroups and blogs function at the
level of submission, you apparently would have us believe that
content in the newsgroups does **not** represent "one person's
thoughts" and that discussion does not occur between certain
posters and other posters on the newsgroups. In other words,
though you work hard to craft a lie, you manage instead to
craft the truth. The real question for you, MattLB, is do you
know *why* this is happening?

> There's no significant software difference since both can be
> viewed with a web browser.

When did I say the difference was significance? I am referring
to it because you and your fellow grunts have manufactured an
argument with no basis in logic.

> > I have never referred to the newsgroup itself as being a
> > weblog. Rather, I refer to individual posters as
> > "blogging" on behalf of industry.
>
> Well if you recognise newgroups aren't blogs, don't describe
> posting to them as blogging.

I'm being generous.

> Posting a reply on the newsgroups is completely different to
> even the current meaning of "blog", since it travels from
> news-server to news-server across the internet. A blog sits
> on a single server and is accessed via a browser. Delete the
> page and it's gone, but that doesn't work for newsgroups
> which are much more open and public.

Yet another non sequitur, as that has nothing to do with what
motivates the content of one's post.

> > 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.
>
> Particularly in science, terminology and semantics matters,
> so you don't help your cause with woolly terminology.
> Alternative therapies thrive on woolly terms of course, but
> sci. newsgroups aren't the place to use it.

Let us know when your sponsors manage to canonize their
favorite dictionary (or at least the specific word usage that
helps them *their* cause.)

> > Pharmablogger: An individual who uses the Internet, and
> > Usenet newsgroups,
>
> Pharmaposter would be more suitable, since there are
> probably pharmaceutical insiders who have blogs, but don't
> use newsgroups.

Oh, where's the sizzle in THAT?!

PeterB

[The One Tr]

On May 11, 10:33 am, "Martha Adams" <m...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "PR grunts." Nice term. However, the message says what any
> sensible cyberspace visitor already knows. Namely, that
> content and context are only two of the tests of truth; and
> that you *always* take information found here in a larger
> context.
>
> I think the end result of all the noise here is, that it
> hurts open discussion. I've wondered if that's what it is
> here for. I see little here that could not be made up by a
> very few bots running Eliza-based softwares *just to* create
> all this rubbish.
>
> Cheers -- Martha Adams [sci.med 2007 May 11]
>
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178891985.956447.326830@q75g2000hsh.googlegroup-
> s.com...
>
>
>
> > NOTICE: 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,
> > especially when those comments are a negative
> > portrayal of the drug makers and their products.
> > Another feature of this tactic is the use of a
> > VERTICAL focus in the newsgroups, meaning that
> > activity is purposedly expanded in a particular thread
> > in order to reduce the overall distribution of new
> > ("horizontal") content in newer threads. Use of
> > flaming and personal attacks is designed to both
> > distract from meaningful discussion and also to
> > discourage visitors and posters so they will leave.
>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A reasonable argument has been made in favor of Medtools being
a poorly coded Eliza program.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/search-
?group=misc.health.alternative&q=tools+eliza+-bayati

[Mark Probe]

On May 11, 10:33 am, "Martha Adams" <m...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "PR grunts." Nice term. However, the message says what any
> sensible cyberspace visitor already knows. Namely, that
> content and context are only two of the tests of truth; and
> that you *always* take information found here in a larger
> context.
>
> I think the end result of all the noise here is, that it
> hurts open discussion. I've wondered if that's what it is
> here for. I see little here that could not be made up by a
> very few bots running Eliza-based softwares *just to* create
> all this rubbish.

That did not occur to me. I never suspected Petey to really be
Petey*B*ot.

He does act like one thought. He rePETEdly post the same
thing, with minor changes. His being a bot makes perfect
sense.

Probably a Microsoft reject.

[Mark Probe]

On May 11, 1:48 pm, PeterBot <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote

The Petey*B*ot strikes again.

[John]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178891985.956447.326830@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> NOTICE: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the
> Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
>
>

yeah, we know these trolls
http://www.whale.to/a/newsgroups_h.html

[Jan Drew]

<keystone@mark.com> wrote:

[Jan Drew]

"The One LYING, FILTHLY MOUTHERED"
<Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:

Nothing but belittling as usual.

[Jan Drew]

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothings but belittling like the lying Kingoff, this is
characteristtic of the *gang*.

[Gmcarter]

On 11 May 2007 10:48:45 -0700, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com>
wrote: snip...
> I'm afraid you and your fellow grunts have a difficult time
> avoiding these freudian/fraudian slips due to the irrational
> nature of your playbook.

Aw come on. Matt LB is NOT like Probert or Thorson, who,
regardless of industry ties, are clearly severely biased to
the point of lacking any credibility. Like the whole
quackwatch thing.

Please. Pharma is moving into CAM already. LaRoaches do LOTS
of vitamin sales (even to the point of price fixing).

They just don't want any of those products interfering with
the rape of profit from drugs for similar conditions.

I mean, I think you make some good points, but you start to
sound paranoid when you point the finger at anyone that says
anything "allopathic." MattLB is one of the guys I can read
here and think, this guy knows what he is talking about.

Pharma extorts, rapes and holds hostage everyone's life both
in the US and around the world. They charge so much that
programs like ADAP, Medicaid, Medicare drug program (a joke
foisted on us by that fucking shithead, Bill Frist), PEPFAR
and so forth become little more than slush funds for the
abject, genocidal greed of Pfizer, Glaxo SmithKline, BMS,
Hoffman LaRoche, Merck, etc.

May they all rot in hell for their crimes.

That doesn't mean their (often stolen - or "licensed" IP)
drugs aren't useful, albeit to a more limited degree than
pharma would like, as they love to shove more drugs down
people's throats for higher profits to satisfy the stinking
parasitic slugs of Wall Street.

You want to read about the Drug Companies? Read Rost's the
Whistleblower. Read The Truth About the Drug Companies by
Angell (former NEJM editor).

George M. Carter

[John]

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yQb1i.1495$mR2.1381@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "The One LYING, FILTHLY MOUTHERED"
> <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing but belittling as usual.
>

one of the posse http://www.whale.to/a/posse.html

[Peterb]

On May 12, 6:21 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11 May 2007 10:48:45 -0700, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com>
> wrote: snip...
>
> > I'm afraid you and your fellow grunts have a difficult
> > time avoiding these freudian/fraudian slips due to the
> > irrational nature of your playbook.
>
> Aw come on. Matt LB is NOT like Probert or Thorson, who,
> regardless of industry ties, are clearly severely biased to
> the point of lacking any credibility. Like the whole
> quackwatch thing.
>
> Please. Pharma is moving into CAM already. LaRoaches do LOTS
> of vitamin sales (even to the point of price fixing).
>
> They just don't want any of those products interfering with
> the rape of profit from drugs for similar conditions.
>
> I mean, I think you make some good points, but you start to
> sound paranoid when you point the finger at anyone that says
> anything "allopathic."

That's a reasonable comment, George, but I don't "point the
finger" at MattLB because he says things in defense of the
allopathy. I defend the allopathy myself when discussing the
value of emergency medicine (most of which relies on nutrient
analogues to stabilize patients who might otherwise perish.)
If MattLB is not what I suspect, he can put that question to
rest for himself. No one can do that for him.

> MattLB is one of the guys I can read here and think, this
> guy knows what he is talking about.

Most of them do. Several of them are medically trained or have
degrees in other life sciences. But knowledge is not the
truth. The truth is the motive behind our use of knowledge
expressed in words and actions.

> Pharma extorts, rapes and holds hostage everyone's life both
> in the US and around the world. They charge so much that
> programs like ADAP, Medicaid, Medicare drug program (a joke
> foisted on us by that fucking shithead, Bill Frist), PEPFAR
> and so forth become little more than slush funds for the
> abject, genocidal greed of Pfizer, Glaxo SmithKline, BMS,
> Hoffman LaRoche, Merck, etc.
>
> May they all rot in hell for their crimes.
>
> That doesn't mean their (often stolen - or "licensed" IP)
> drugs aren't useful, albeit to a more limited degree than
> pharma would like, as they love to shove more drugs down
> people's throats for higher profits to satisfy the stinking
> parasitic slugs of Wall Street.
>
> You want to read about the Drug Companies? Read Rost's the
> Whistleblower. Read The Truth About the Drug Companies by
> Angell (former NEJM editor).
>
> George M. Carter

A very thoughtful and considered set of comments.

Peter

[Peter Bowd]

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
><keystone@mark.com> wrote:
>

True minimalism!!

KACHING!! - $1
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Peter Bowd]

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"The One LYING, FILTHLY MOUTHERED"
><Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Nothing but belittling as usual.
>

And what did you add, Jan?

KACHING!! - $1
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Peter Bowd]

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Nothings but belittling like the lying Kingoff, this is
>characteristtic of the *gang*.
>

Good work, Jan. Your adding nothing to a thread adds $1 to
ACAHF coffers.

KACHING!! - $1
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[keystone]

Warning, the alternative drug industry grouppies have
yet to show us one example of such postings despite
multiple requests.

Until we have same it is a proper conclusion that this is
an attempt to divert attention away from the alternative
drug industry and its many problems of science and
oversight policy.

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message news:

> Pharma extorts, rapes and holds hostage everyone's life both
> in the US and around the world.

India?

Idiot.

m

[Jan Drew]

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:0obb43pmv6i58hb3b4g89qc3r738aj3hpo@4ax.com...
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The One LYING, FILTHLY MOUTHERED"
>><Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Nothing but belittling as usual.
>>
>
> And what did you add, Jan?
>
> KACHING!! - $1
u For both Mark Probert and Cess pool mouth. But...then we
know you do same on your sico wesites, plus make things up,
which is lying.
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
> Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
> http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name
> only at ratbags.com

[Jan Drew]

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:0obb43pmv6i58hb3b4g89qc3r738aj3hpo@4ax.com...
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The One LYING, FILTHLY MOUTHERED"
>><Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Nothing but belittling as usual.
>>
>
> And what did you add, Jan?
>
> KACHING!! - $1

For both cess pool mouth and the disbarred attorney.
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
> Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
> http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name
> only at ratbags.com

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 04:10:05 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message news:
>
>> Pharma extorts, rapes and holds hostage everyone's life
>> both in the US and around the world.
>
>India?
>
>Idiot.

With that comment, you reveal yet again just how profoundly
uninformed you are.

Companies in India like Cipla, Ranbaxy and Hetero broke the
juggernaut of greed of western pharmas who have hidden behind
patent law to justify economic genocide against people living
with AIDS in Africa, South Asia and eslewhere. As did Brazil
and Thailand, as they stood up against the horror of lies put
forth by pharma that has resulted in murdering literally
millions of men, women and children to preserve profits.

This is a horrific distortion of patent law that is designed
to foster innovation. To the contrary, we have fewer new drugs
in the pipeline and virtually nothing for infectious diseases
that affect vast swaths of humanity.

To that degree, capitalism is NOT what is practiced by big
pharma--rather horrible fiefdoms of hostage holding and
threats that if they don't get there's, they'll stop doing
research. Like they do that much anyway.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 12 May 2007 09:49:46 -0700, PeterB
<pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

snip
>That's a reasonable comment, George, but I don't "point the
>finger" at MattLB because he says things in defense of the
>allopathy. I defend the allopathy myself when discussing the
>value of emergency medicine (most of which relies on nutrient
>analogues to stabilize patients who might otherwise perish.)
>If MattLB is not what I suspect, he can put that question to
>rest for himself. No one can do that for him.

I can judge folks by what I read. MattLB is clearly not a
knee-jerk bigot like Thorson or some others on this list. Not
even close.

George M. Carter

[Peter Bowd]

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:0obb43pmv6i58hb3b4g89qc3r738aj3hpo@4ax.com...
>> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"The One LYING, FILTHLY MOUTHERED"
>>><Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Nothing but belittling as usual.
>>>
>>
>> And what did you add, Jan?
>>
>> KACHING!! - $1
>
>For both cess pool mouth and the disbarred attorney.

KACHING!! - $1 for mentioning disbarring.

KACHING!! - $1 for vacuity. What are you raving about?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Peter Bowd]

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:0obb43pmv6i58hb3b4g89qc3r738aj3hpo@4ax.com...
>> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"The One LYING, FILTHLY MOUTHERED"
>>><Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Nothing but belittling as usual.
>>>
>>
>> And what did you add, Jan?
>>
>> KACHING!! - $1
>u For both Mark Probert and Cess pool mouth.

Sorry Jan (and ACAHF), you don't get more KACHINGs by simply
posting twice.

>But...then we know you do same on your sico wesites, plus
>make things up, which is lying.

But you do get one for calling me a liar:

KACHING!! - $1
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[iceman4584]

On May 12, 2:43 pm, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> Warning, the alternative drug industry grouppies have yet to
> show us one example of such postings despite multiple
> requests.
>
> Until we have same it is a proper conclusion that this is
> an attempt to divert attention away from the alternative
> drug industry and its many problems of science and
> oversight policy.

You repeated this question twice. There are plenty of examples
on the web including a very large site dedicated almost
completely to exposing alternative medicine "quackery" that
the AMA does not endorse. There are plenty of examples on
usenet, mainly political groups, where it is very obvious that
paid trolls are conducting an organised campaign to steer
opinions and discussions in a particular direction to sway
people away from the direction the thread would normally have
headed. So why is it so hard to believe similar tactics are
not being used by pharma in this group to create
disinformation and distrust of alternate medicine?

[keystone]

"You repeated this question twice. There are plenty of
examples on the web including a very large site dedicated
almost completely to exposing alternative medicine "quackery"
that the AMA does not endorse. There are plenty of examples on
usenet, mainly political groups, where it is very obvious that
paid trolls are conducting an organised campaign to steer
opinions and discussions in a particular direction to sway
people away from the direction the thread would normally have
headed. So why is it so hard to believe similar tactics are
not being used by pharma in this group to create
disinformation and distrust of alternate medicine?"

No, I have repeated it many times, as many times as the
"warning" has been posted asking for one example by which we
could see this in action. There have been no examples provided
by the one making the claim.

It is a not too clevr way of trying to vaccinate the
alternative drug industry groupies from critisism by
suggesting in some vague way that a response, any response
regarding the alternative drug industry is to be disregarded
as part of the paid conspiracy.

It is as though one must prove the negative that posting a
critical view is not but only one more example of the
conspiracy before it can be seriously considered.

Let the original poster show us examples and let us then
determine where we place our view of his creadibility.

[Mattlb]

On May 11, 6:48 pm, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:48 am, MattLB <mat...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 2:59 pm, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > NOTICE: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact
> > > the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
> > <snip>
> > > 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.
>
> > No, it's very much the nature of the content. Blogs are
> > one person's thoughts, on a webpage, whereas newsgroups
> > are an unmoderated discussion between people, that doesn't
> > take place in any one place, but across the internet as a
> > whole - like email.
>
> So your thoughts here are *not* your own?

Try reading it again - you seem to have read something else
the first time.

> How telling. So discussion does not occur between people in
> both venues?

While a blog may allow others to add comments, the original
is a single individual's thoughts and any dissenting voices
can be expunged. A newgroup thread is (potentially) many
people's thoughts, not just the people who read a particular
person's blog - and importantly, no one person can control
what's posted.

> Ahhh, so you agree with me to the extent that legitimate
> discussion is thwarted by those like yourself who are here
> for other purposes.

You're reading what you want to see, it appears. The only
thing I try and thwart is people being taking in by what
sounds impressive, but is actually based on fantasy.

> I'm afraid you and your fellow grunts

I belong to no fellowship, certainly not a pharmaceutical one.

> have a difficult time avoiding these freudian/fraudian slips

Imagined Freudian slips.

> due to the irrational nature of your playbook. If you
> presume to draw a contrast between how newsgroups and blogs
> function at the level of submission, you apparently would
> have us believe that content in the newsgroups does **not**
> represent "one person's thoughts"

It represents *many* people's thoughts; people who have a
common interest in a particular topic. Comments on a blog are
limited to people who are already fans of the blogger, or they
wouldn't choose to go to their site to read his/her personal
thoughts. On usenet there's less of a "cult of celebrity"
aspect to it.

> and that discussion does not occur between certain posters
> and other posters on the newsgroups.

No, that's the complete opposite of what I said.

> In other words, though you work hard to craft a lie, you
> manage instead to craft the truth.

I'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to craft, but
it's veering toward blind, bloody-minded advocacy.

> > There's no significant software difference since both can
> > be viewed with a web browser.
>
> When did I say the difference was significance?

"The difference is mainly a distinction in software
platforms,"

You thought it significant enough to mention it, I disagreed
with your conclusions.

> > Well if you recognise newgroups aren't blogs, don't
> > describe posting to them as blogging.
>
> I'm being generous.

Fallacious.

> > Posting a reply on the newsgroups is completely different
> > to even the current meaning of "blog", since it travels
> > from news-server to news-server across the internet. A
> > blog sits on a single server and is accessed via a
> > browser. Delete the page and it's gone, but that doesn't
> > work for newsgroups which are much more open and public.
>
> Yet another non sequitur, as that has nothing to do with
> what motivates the content of one's post.

And people's motivation for posting has nothing to do with
what I was talking about, which was your factual errors and
fuzzy terminology. You're the one creating the non-sequitur.

> Let us know when your sponsors manage to canonize their
> favorite dictionary (or at least the specific word usage
> that helps them *their* cause.)

I take that to mean you think anything goes in language. That
says a lot.

> > > Pharmablogger: An individual who uses the Internet, and
> > > Usenet newsgroups,
>
> > Pharmaposter would be more suitable, since there are
> > probably pharmaceutical insiders who have blogs, but don't
> > use newsgroups.
>
> Oh, where's the sizzle in THAT?!

By now it's quite clear that you're a frustrated demagogue who
prioritises style over substance and flash over fact, so
discredit yourself very effectively.

MattLB

[iceman4584]

On May 14, 8:22 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> "You repeated this question twice. There are plenty of
> examples on the web including a very large site dedicated
> almost completely to exposing alternative medicine
> "quackery" that the AMA does not endorse. There are plenty
> of examples on usenet, mainly political groups, where it is
> very obvious that paid trolls are conducting an organised
> campaign to steer opinions and discussions in a particular
> direction to sway people away from the direction the thread
> would normally have headed. So why is it so hard to believe
> similar tactics are not being used by pharma in this group
> to create disinformation and distrust of alternate
> medicine?"
>
> No, I have repeated it many times, as many times as the
> "warning" has been posted asking for one example by which we
> could see this in action. There have been no examples
> provided by the one making the claim.
>
> It is a not too clevr way of trying to vaccinate the
> alternative drug industry groupies from critisism by
> suggesting in some vague way that a response, any response
> regarding the alternative drug industry is to be disregarded
> as part of the paid conspiracy.
>
> It is as though one must prove the negative that posting a
> critical view is not but only one more example of the
> conspiracy before it can be seriously considered.
>
> Let the original poster show us examples and let us then
> determine where we place our view of his creadibility.

Big Pharma and the Supplements industry both have millions
available to them for PR. It is quite likely they hire paid
posters on forums, blogs as well as usenet. You will not find
as many paid posters on sci.med as you will in alt.politics.*
proportionately and the Pharma/ Supplements posters will be a
lot harder to spot than they would on a politics group. These
Pharmabloggers/PR grunts would also take pains to avoid being
identified easily and as such will take on different personas
online that cannot be easily fingered.

If you really need an example then look suspiciously at some
of the pro supplements people without real names and .edu
email addresses who make occasional posts that give the
impression of their being total brain dead morons. A casual
observer might just dismiss the poster as just another brain
dead moron but if you consider the plausibility of their being
paid pharmabloggers trolling usenet then that nutjob begins to
look suspiciously like a plant whose purpose is to discredit
the Supplements industry and steer the casual reader into
associating emotionally disturbed retards with the alternate
health industry. Thus the curious observer, addicted to
expensive prescription medicines and other treatments for
example, would go running back to his AMA doctors after being
disgusted by the types of personalities associated with the
alternate health scene.

Thats just one example off the top of my head but I am sure if
people look at the postings of various odd characters that
just don't seem to be both sincere as well as mentally stable
then many other reasonable speculations could be made. But, it
does not seem like you have any interest in doing so but
rather just want to bash the alternate health care industry.

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative MattLB <mattlb@angelfire.com>
wrote:

:> I'm afraid you and your fellow grunts have a difficult time
:> avoiding these freudian/fraudian slips
:
: Imagined Freudian slips.

The gyrations he went through in order to "demonstrate" that
his statement that kava can be dangerous was not a Freudian
slip were fairly amusing, you'll have to grant him that.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Don't say I am great. Say I have begun to be passably honest.
It is more than enough."
-- Thomas Hardy, _The
Well-Beloved_

[keystone]

>> It is a not too clevr way of trying to vaccinate the
>> alternative drug industry groupies from critisism by
>> suggesting in some vague way that a response, any response
>> regarding the alternative drug industry is to be
>> disregarded as part of the paid conspiracy.
>>
>> It is as though one must prove the negative that posting a
>> critical view is not but only one more example of the
>> conspiracy before it can be seriously considered.
>>
>> Let the original poster show us examples and let us then
>> determine where we place our view of his creadibility.
>
>Big Pharma and the Supplements industry both have millions
>available to them for PR. It is quite likely they hire paid
>posters on forums, blogs as well as usenet. You will not find
>as many paid posters on sci.med as you will in alt.politics.*
>proportionately and the Pharma/ Supplements posters will be a
>lot harder to spot than they would on a politics group. These
>Pharmabloggers/PR grunts would also take pains to avoid being
>identified easily and as such will take on different personas
>online that cannot be easily fingered.
>
>If you really need an example then look suspiciously at some
>of the pro supplements people without real names and .edu
>email addresses who make occasional posts that give the
>impression of their being total brain dead morons. A casual
>observer might just dismiss the poster as just another brain
>dead moron but if you consider the plausibility of their
>being paid pharmabloggers trolling usenet then that nutjob
>begins to look suspiciously like a plant whose purpose is to
>discredit the Supplements industry and steer the casual
>reader into associating emotionally disturbed retards with
>the alternate health industry. Thus the curious observer,
>addicted to expensive prescription medicines and other
>treatments for example, would go running back to his AMA
>doctors after being disgusted by the types of personalities
>associated with the alternate health scene.
>
>Thats just one example off the top of my head but I am sure
>if people look at the postings of various odd characters that
>just don't seem to be both sincere as well as mentally stable
>then many other reasonable speculations could be made. But,
>it does not seem like you have any interest in doing so but
>rather just want to bash the alternate health care industry.

Why muddy the pond more? Any critical post targeting any
object must have more then opinion to support it. If the
science and/or other valid support is there then any claim
from any source has much more credability then 1000 polemical
spats, such as the orginal post of this thread.

It offered no proof and will not offer any examples by which
to gauge what is intended. It is mindless blather. Was the
original post an example of a "pharmablogger" bringing
discretit on the alternative drug industry by the original
mindless blather?

[iceman4584]

On May 14, 4:35 pm, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> >> It is a not too clevr way of trying to vaccinate the
> >> alternative drug industry groupies from critisism by
> >> suggesting in some vague way that a response, any
> >> response regarding the alternative drug industry is to be
> >> disregarded as part of the paid conspiracy.
>
> >> It is as though one must prove the negative that posting
> >> a critical view is not but only one more example of the
> >> conspiracy before it can be seriously considered.
>
> >> Let the original poster show us examples and let us then
> >> determine where we place our view of his creadibility.
>
> >Big Pharma and the Supplements industry both have millions
> >available to them for PR. It is quite likely they hire paid
> >posters on forums, blogs as well as usenet. You will not
> >find as many paid posters on sci.med as you will in
> >alt.politics.* proportionately and the Pharma/ Supplements
> >posters will be a lot harder to spot than they would on a
> >politics group. These Pharmabloggers/PR grunts would also
> >take pains to avoid being identified easily and as such
> >will take on different personas online that cannot be
> >easily fingered.
>
> >If you really need an example then look suspiciously at
> >some of the pro supplements people without real names and
> >.edu email addresses who make occasional posts that give
> >the impression of their being total brain dead morons. A
> >casual observer might just dismiss the poster as just
> >another brain dead moron but if you consider the
> >plausibility of their being paid pharmabloggers trolling
> >usenet then that nutjob begins to look suspiciously like a
> >plant whose purpose is to discredit the Supplements
> >industry and steer the casual reader into associating
> >emotionally disturbed retards with the alternate health
> >industry. Thus the curious observer, addicted to expensive
> >prescription medicines and other treatments for example,
> >would go running back to his AMA doctors after being
> >disgusted by the types of personalities associated with the
> >alternate health scene.
>
> >Thats just one example off the top of my head but I am sure
> >if people look at the postings of various odd characters
> >that just don't seem to be both sincere as well as mentally
> >stable then many other reasonable speculations could be
> >made. But, it does not seem like you have any interest in
> >doing so but rather just want to bash the alternate health
> >care industry.
>
> Why muddy the pond more? Any critical post targeting any
> object must have more then opinion to support it. If the
> science and/or other valid support is there then any claim
> from any source has much more credability then 1000
> polemical spats, such as the orginal post of this thread.
>
> It offered no proof and will not offer any examples by which
> to gauge what is intended. It is mindless blather. Was the
> original post an example of a "pharmablogger" bringing
> discretit on the alternative drug industry by the original
> mindless blather?

This is not some kangaroo court where everyone receives the
benefit of the doubt and where accusers have the burden of
proof. If X is more likely than Y then X has more credibility
and X it is. If sheer disconnected circumstances can steer a
logical thinker into having a reasonable and credible
suspicion that the industry is blogging through proxy agents
then that is what is likely and that is what is credible and
so it is. The debate is not if it is happening but how
frequently and in what manner.

And yes there is a slight chance the original poster is a paid
grunt, of course why not? He could be working for pharma or
for the alternate industry or he could just be mindlessly
pasting a warning to alert and educate others here as to the
possibilities I just mentioned above.

[keystone]

"This is not some kangaroo court where everyone receives the
benefit of the doubt and where accusers have the burden of
proof. If X is more likely than Y then X has more credibility
and X it is. If sheer disconnected circumstances can steer a
logical thinker into having a reasonable and credible
suspicion that the industry is blogging through proxy agents
then that is what is likely and that is what is credible and
so it is. The debate is not if it is happening but how
frequently and in what manner.

And yes there is a slight chance the original poster is a paid
grunt, of course why not? He could be working for pharma or
for the alternate industry or he could just be mindlessly
pasting a warning to alert and educate others here as to the
possibilities I just mentioned above."

Huh? Then it is the small grays et critters who are up
to no good.

The original poster made accusations, his is the burden of
proof, not those who ask for such proof in examples by which
to guage his credability.

We await still any examples from him. Until then it is just
background opinion and noise of a kind one can get any day of
the week at the corner bar.

[David Wrig]

In article
<1179134259.731216.68710@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<iceman458458@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 2:43 pm, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
>> Warning, the alternative drug industry grouppies have yet
>> to show us one example of such postings despite multiple
>> requests.
>>
>> Until we have same it is a proper conclusion that this is
>> an attempt to divert attention away from the alternative
>> drug industry and its many problems of science and
>> oversight policy.
>
>You repeated this question twice. There are plenty of
>examples on the web including a very large site dedicated
>almost completely to exposing alternative medicine "quackery"
>that the AMA does not endorse. There are plenty of examples
>on usenet, mainly political groups, where it is very obvious
>that paid trolls are conducting an organised campaign to
>steer opinions and discussions in a particular direction to
>sway people away from the direction the thread would normally
>have headed. So why is it so hard to believe similar tactics
>are not being used by pharma in this group to create
>disinformation and distrust of alternate medicine?

Several reasons.

First off, it's not cost-effective. The pharm companies do
indeed have boatloads of cash, but they didn't accumulate it
all by throwing it away on obviously stupid wastes of time.
There aren't enough readers, and especially enough important
ones, to waste the cash on. The benefit is so close to zero
that it just doesn't make sense. Much better to take out
another of those damn ads in Newsweek.

Second, I've never seen anyone here, other than the spammers,
where I could see any particular commercial point of view
being espoused. Well, OK, there are a few exceptions. There's
some spamming little scumbag who goes by the name of "kent
ross" who is clearly attempting to drum up business for
personal-injury lawyers. We also have people who have said
they work in vitamin stores, but they've admitted it, so
they're not exactly sub rosa.

PeterB claims to have some sort of magical powers by which he
can identify the dreaded "pharmabloggers," but he's unique in
this ability.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I'll kill
anyone that tries to stop me from killing anyone." --
Yellowbeard

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative David Wright
<wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote:

: PeterB claims to have some sort of magical powers by which
: he can identify the dreaded "pharmabloggers," but he's
: unique in this ability.

"Magical" is right -- he cannot produce any evidence that any
of the so-called "pharmabloggers" are actually receiving any
compensation from the pharmaceutical industry, despite
repeated requests that he do so. And he also has a magical
double standard -- when *he* posts, his motives are completely
irrelevant and only what he actually writes is significant,
but when anyone else posts, it's important that we know that
they are shills for the pharmaceutical industry irrespective
of the content of their posts.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

[David Wrig]

In article
<1179448990.226983.223230@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<iceman458458@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 9:05 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David
>Wright) wrote:
>> In article
>> <1179134259.731216.68...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> <iceman458...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 12, 2:43 pm, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
>> >> Warning, the alternative drug industry grouppies have
>> >> yet to show us one example of such postings despite
>> >> multiple requests.
>>
>> >> Until we have same it is a proper conclusion that this
>> >> is an attempt to divert attention away from the
>> >> alternative drug industry and its many problems of
>> >> science and oversight policy.
>>
>> >You repeated this question twice. There are plenty of
>> >examples on the web including a very large site dedicated
>> >almost completely to exposing alternative medicine
>> >"quackery" that the AMA does not endorse. There are plenty
>> >of examples on usenet, mainly political groups, where it
>> >is very obvious that paid trolls are conducting an
>> >organised campaign to steer opinions and discussions in a
>> >particular direction to sway people away from the
>> >direction the thread would normally have headed. So why is
>> >it so hard to believe similar tactics are not being used
>> >by pharma in this group to create disinformation and
>> >distrust of alternate medicine?
>>
>> Several reasons.
>>
>> First off, it's not cost-effective. The pharm companies do
>> indeed have boatloads of cash, but they didn't accumulate
>> it all by throwing it away on obviously stupid wastes of
>> time. There aren't enough readers, and especially enough
>> important ones, to waste the cash on. The benefit is so
>> close to zero that it just doesn't make sense. Much better
>> to take out another of those damn ads in Newsweek.
>
>You are looking at this from the persepective of a bean
>counter working in the accounting department of a small
>busniess. If you add the total profits of all the pharma
>firms in the Fortune 50 it will exceed the profits of all the
>non-pharma companies combined.

Boy, what a load of horseshit *that* is. You've just lost all
credibility, pal.

Here's a link to the top 50 companies, in profitability,
from 2006:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2006/perfor-
mers/companies/profits/index.html

The total profits of these 50 companies are about 350 billion
dollars. The total profits of the pharmaceutical companies in
the list are about 30 billion. Exxon alone made more money
than that.

>This is how much money they have available. Of course they
>also advertise their own products in Newsweeks and the likes
>but by no means is that their only expense when it comes to
>PR.It costs next to nothing to hire someone to keep an eye on
>usenet along with various other interactive places on the
>net. One of the unspoken goals of the pharm companies, many
>people have speculated, is to discredit and diminish the
>supplement industry.

That would cut into their profits. They make a lot of the
components that go into supplements. Or hadn't you noticed?

>The motivation pharma would have for trolling usenet is just
>to make sure no ripple effect is started from here that ends
>up being against their best interests. Oh, and this presence
>would be relatively stealthy and covert.

Or, to put it another way, you have a hatful of suspicion, a
vaguely plausible rationale, and absolutely no evidence.

>> Second, I've never seen anyone here, other than the
>> spammers, where I could see any particular commercial point
>> of view being espoused.
>
>Yeah they would try not to be plain obvious so you should not
>expect to see a spammer show his cards. It will not be that
>obvious. Have you actually read through PeterB's original
>post? He lists 10 ways to recognise a suspect pharmablogger
>and all 10 of those tacts are subtle and subversive.

But you're assuming your conclusion. You're taking it at face
value that PeterB *must* be right, and that therefore if you
find someone doing something he *claims* is suspicious, then
it's perfectly legitimate to decide that person is a
"pharmablogger" (god, what an incredibly stupid term that is).

>"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. "
>
>I have seen this technique and its actually been used on me
>somewhere else, not usenet. This other place ironically was
>an alternate health forum which is infested with paid trolls
>with god knows what insiduous agenda.

And you know they were "paid trolls" how?

>After clashing with people like that you sort of develop a
>sixth sense of "something not being right" when you come
>across violent opposition to your point of view. I sort of
>see where PeterB is coming from actually.

I do too, but he's full of it and so are you. How long have
you been on m.h.a, anyway? I've been reading it since it was
formed, and in fact I voted in favor of creating it. I've
never seen any indications that the people PeterB doesn't like
are in the pay of anyone. Nor do I believe that our more
odious pro-alts are actually in the pay of Big Pharma to make
pro-alts look stupid. PeterB has inadvertently dropped a few
indications that he *does* have a financial interest in all
this, by the way. How does that grab you?

>> PeterB claims to have some sort of magical powers by which
>> he can identify the dreaded "pharmabloggers," but he's
>> unique in this ability.
>
>He listed some telltale signs for people to look for but like
>I said earlier the modus operendi that he looks for is used
>most often on political newsgroups, discussion forums etc and
>not so much on alternative healthcare newsgroups and forums.

Oh, on political forums we know such things happen, and we
know that there have been efforts to do things like edit
Wikipedia biographies of politicians that came from offices on
Capitol Hill. But that doesn't mean Big Pharma would bother.
If I were in charge of Merck, let's say, I might have someone
reading this stuff, as part of their regular duties, but I
doubt I'd bother trying to influence the discussion.

I mean, why bother? Most of the postings here are of the "you
suck!" "No, you do!" variety anyway. I've got a *real* nice
killfile for this group. And it keeps getting bigger.

>You keep keep ignoring the fact that he is not pointing any
>fingers at specific posters

Not in that posting. But he's done it plenty of times in the
past, newbie. You didn't know that. Now you do.

>so if you want to challenge his magical powers then get some
>examples from him.

We've had plenty of them. He's accused me, for example.

>Otherwise just refute his theory, you don't need him to
>produce guilty parties in order for his theory to be a valid
>theory do you?

It doesn't rise to the level of a "theory," except in the
general sense of "conspiracy theories." And those can never
been disproven; any contrary evidence is simply folded in
as "proof" that the conspiracy is even bigger than
previously claimed.

>Why should he have such a strict burden of proof when what he
>says makes so much sense?

It doens't make much sense, and the burden of proof is
*always* on the claimant. It's not up to me to disprove his
maunderings, it's up to him to show cancelled checks or
something.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I'll kill
anyone that tries to stop me from killing anyone." --
Yellowbeard

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative iceman458458@yahoo.com wrote:

: In other words the pharmabloggers try to hide their
: affiliation as much as possible. They camouflage themselves
: as much as possible and also work in "herds" or clusters of
: posters who appear to not be linked but actually are working
: with the same ultimate agenda by steering a topic away from
: its natural direction.

He has accused me of being a "pharmablogger." My affiliation
is a matter of public record, as is my list of publications. I
have pointed out that if anyone doubts whether I am the same
Richard Schultz who is listed on the Bar-Ilan University web
site, he or she is free to call him (his office phone number
is listed on the web site, and there is only one Richard
Schultz in the Tel-Aviv telephone directory) and ask. I have
asked PeterB if he can provide any evidence that I have ever
done any research in anything that can be remotely regarded as
pharmaceutical chemistry -- which question he has never asked,
because the answer is "no." It is true that I once won an
award from Teva pharmaceuticals, but that award did not
include any money, unfortunately, and the only reason that I
won it was that they wanted to give one to a faculty member at
each of Israel's universities, and at the time, I was the only
one in the Bar-Ilan Chemistry department who was eligible. And
if I were trying to hide this supposed affiliation with the
pharmaceutical industry, why would I put that information on
my web page?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

[iceman4584]

On May 20, 2:43 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
Schultz) wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative iceman458...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> : In other words the pharmabloggers try to hide their
> : affiliation as much as possible. They camouflage
> : themselves as much as possible and also work in "herds" or
> : clusters of posters who appear to not be linked but
> : actually are working with the same ultimate agenda by
> : steering a topic away from its natural direction.
>
> He has accused me of being a "pharmablogger." My affiliation
> is a matter of public record, as is my list of publications.
> I have pointed out that if anyone doubts whether I am the
> same Richard Schultz who is listed on the Bar-Ilan
> University web site, he or she is free to call him (his
> office phone number is listed on the web site, and there is
> only one Richard Schultz in the Tel-Aviv telephone
> directory) and ask. I have asked PeterB if he can provide
> any evidence that I have ever done any research in anything
> that can be remotely regarded as pharmaceutical chemistry --
> which question he has never asked, because the answer is
> "no." It is true that I once won an award from Teva
> pharmaceuticals, but that award did not include any money,
> unfortunately, and the only reason that I won it was that
> they wanted to give one to a faculty member at each of
> Israel's universities, and at the time, I was the only one
> in the Bar-Ilan Chemistry department who was eligible. And
> if I were trying to hide this supposed affiliation with the
> pharmaceutical industry, why would I put that information on
> my web page?

Well like I keep repeating over and over(but for some reason
my last to posts have not yet shown up) the likelihood of a
paid shill being supplement affilliated are much greater than
them being big pharma affiliated. What I think might have
happened is PeterB got his hands on a checklist someone made
that was meant to help readers identify political shills and
adapted it to sci.med usage. But having said that I would also
suspect that these alleged shills of big pharma or the
supplement group could both be anonymous as well as have real,
verifiable names just to have "variety" in the mix and to
blend in better so as to perform the tasks of opinion
manipulation better.

[keystone]

Well like I keep repeating over and over(but for some reason
my last to posts have not yet shown up) the likelihood of a
paid shill being supplement affilliated are much greater than
them being big pharma affiliated. What I think might have
happened is PeterB got his hands on a checklist someone made
that was meant to help readers identify political shills and
adapted it to sci.med usage. But having said that I would also
suspect that these alleged shills of big pharma or the
supplement group could both be anonymous as well as have real,
verifiable names just to have "variety" in the mix and to
blend in better so as to perform the tasks of opinion
manipulation better."

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, common sense and
basic logic direct us to conclude it is all imagined.

For the original poster he must explain why all people don't
flock with great zeal in huge mobs to the alternative drug
industry message and why some on newsgroups even are quite
critical of the fundimental truth claims, science, and lack of
basic oversight of the industry.

He concludes without evidence that the mobs must be decieved
by some unknown force and that newsgroup critics are paid or
otherwise motivated agents of the tip of that force that
prevents the mass conversion to the gospel of the alternative
drug industry.

He cann't accept the much more likely answer that he is just
fundimentally wrong.

[Peterb]

On May 14, 11:27 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
Schultz) wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative MattLB
> <mat...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>
> :> I'm afraid you and your fellow grunts have a difficult
> :> time avoiding these freudian/fraudian slips
> :
> : Imagined Freudian slips.
>
> The gyrations he went through in order to "demonstrate" that
> his statement that kava can be dangerous was not a Freudian
> slip were fairly amusing, you'll have to grant him that.

Schultzie, of course Kava *can* be dangerous, just like a
clothespin attached to your nose while your hands are tied.
Unfortunately, you failed to provide any evidence for the
~*relative*~ risk of kava in comparison to any OTC drug you
might care to name. Perhaps if you weren't so busy defending
the pharmaceutical industry and your TEVA award, you could
speak more persuasively to the issue of side effects from
herbal products. When compared to aspirin (whose risk to
public health has been known for many years), Kava is
virtually risk free, contraindicated only for those with known
hepatic disease. God, you're an idiot.

PeterB