WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health

WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public
Discourse on Matters of Public Health

To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative,
uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine

Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum
are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A
number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape
public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking
the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these
individuals broadly as "Pharma-bloggers" (see footnote). For obvious
reasons, pharma-bloggers 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. Pharma Bloggers 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 Bloggers 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.

3. Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses
simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to
have the last word.

4. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual
participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread,
question, or observation.

5. Pharma Bloggers 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. Pharma Bloggers 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 medicine methods at http://www.newstarget.com.

7. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to
"quack-busting" websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches
and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the
extreme bias of these promoters belies their true motives and reveals
their ties to industry.

8. Pharma Bloggers 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. Pharma Bloggers 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. Pharma Bloggers 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 pharma-bloggers
have over-run the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of
dogma, mockery, and ridicule. Many casual posters are simply
frightened away, which is the objective of these PR-sponsored media
grunts.

* Comment on objections about use of the word "blogging" in this
newsgroup

>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."

Also from Wikipedia:

"A blog is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and
displayed in reverse chronological order. The term blog is a shortened
form of weblog or web log. Authoring a blog, maintaining a blog or
adding an article to an existing blog is called "blogging". Individual
articles on a blog are called "blog posts," "posts" or "entries". A
person who posts these entries is called a "blogger". A blog comprises
hypertext, images, and links (to other web pages and to video, audio
and other files). 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."

Although the advent of blogging was preceded by newsgroups, there are
many similiarities in the nature of interaction between posters in
these venues (mainly distinguished by their software platforms.) Also
note that I didn't refer to the newsgroup itself as a weblog, I
referred to individual posters as "blogging" here on behalf of
industry. While my focus is on nutrition and science, the pharma
bloggers rely on semantic and personal attacks in their effort to
distract from the real issues.

Pharma Blogger: 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 preference for 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.

PeterB

As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
respond.

The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.

Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
results to be one to include.

That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
mind.

On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
"pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
suspect on the same grounds?

To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?


For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
alleged abuses?

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> respond.

Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.

> The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.

If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
would ask how you intend to do this.

> Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> results to be one to include.

You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
have been fascinating.

> That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> mind.
>
> On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> suspect on the same grounds?

Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of
penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for
them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.

> To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?

The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.

> For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
> links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
> alleged abuses?

Language is very dual. Readers must decide when it is being used
unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
and offer to support it. If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.
If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public
> Discourse on Matters of Public Health
>
> To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative,
> uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine
>
> Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum
> are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A

The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock Market boards
back during Boom Times (and I was probably a victim of them more than
once).

There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health activists, or
MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. But the Pharma
industry has some of the very deepest pockets of all (though they might
have better/more profitable things to do with their time/$ than to
bother little old us).

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> respond.

Yessir! You just conclusively proved you are a pharmablogger. That was
Petey's purpose.

> The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
>
> Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> results to be one to include.

Uh-oh, you are asking for evidence. MORE proof you are a pharmablogger,
whatever that is.

>
> That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> mind.
>
> On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> suspect on the same grounds?

You do not have a chance. Petey believes that BigSupplement is
altruistic and pure. All natural, too.

> To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
>
>
> For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
> links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
> alleged abuses?

PeterB wrote:
> coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> > respond.
>
> Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
>
> > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
>
> If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
> examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.

Yes, this thread you started is a very good example. As a matter of
fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your
sandbagging.

> If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
> would ask how you intend to do this.
>
> > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> > identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> > results to be one to include.
>
> You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
> many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
> have been fascinating.

Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen?

Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb?

>
> > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> > mind.
> >
> > On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> > "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> > profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> > suspect on the same grounds?
>
> Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of
> penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
> The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
> The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for
> them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.
>
> > To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> > evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
>
> The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
> selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.
>
> > For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> > buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
> > links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
> > alleged abuses?
>
> Language is very dual.

Oh, so that's your secret! You give words alternative meanings in
order to make your case.

> Readers must decide when it is being used
> unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
> and offer to support it.

Why don't you answer questions about the books on your suggested
reading list?
Why do you refuse to answer my question as to why you'd recommend NAC
or milk thistle to anyone who has been given anesthesia?

> If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.

What you really mean is that you will accuse anyone that disagrees with
you of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. You accused me, an
herbalist, of being a pharmablogger. How intellectually dishonest can
a person get?

> If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
> motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.

What you mean is that if he uses the denotations instead of your
connotations, he must be a paid disinformation agent. You, Peterb, are
just that simple.

> PeterB

chatw@my-deja.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public
>> Discourse on Matters of Public Health
>>
>> To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative,
>> uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine
>>
>> Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum
>> are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A
>
> The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock Market boards
> back during Boom Times (and I was probably a victim of them more than
> once).
>
> There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health activists, or
> MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. But the Pharma
> industry has some of the very deepest pockets of all (though they might
> have better/more profitable things to do with their time/$ than to
> bother little old us).
>

You just proved you are a pharmablogger (whatever that is).

Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger" abuse at hand.
Or pick a post you think is one. The otherwise general shotgun listing
of alleged industry created abuses on usanet groups remains yet
unconfirmed and unidentified with reference to actual practices.
Amorphous discussion of yet undefined unidentified postings profit
readers nothing.


Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not serve,
examples real or invented will allow us to tease out details that might
permit supporting or excluding the claims of "pharmablogger" /
"alterblogger" activity.

>> As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
>> anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
>> myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
>> respond.
>
>Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
>Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
>
>> The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
>> pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
>> alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
>
>If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
>examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
>If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
>would ask how you intend to do this.
>
>> Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
>> identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
>> Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
>> results to be one to include.
>
>You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
>many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
>have been fascinating.
>
>> That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
>> mind.
>>
>> On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
>> "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
>> profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
>> suspect on the same grounds?
>
>Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of
>penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
> The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
>The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for
>them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.
>
>> To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
>> evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
>
>The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
>selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.
>
>> For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
>> buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
>> links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
>> alleged abuses?
>
>Language is very dual. Readers must decide when it is being used
>unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
>and offer to support it. If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.
>If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
>motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.
>
>PeterB

"Johnny Huang" <johnny_huang_2005@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You, Peterb, are just that simple.

Which could also be written as "You, Peterb, are just that, simple".
--
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

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
: Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.

Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of reading the content
of your posts and concluding from that content (or more frequently, complete
lack of substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are?

-----
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
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
>
> Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of reading the content
> of your posts and concluding from that content (or more frequently, complete
> lack of substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are?

I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts shows that my
purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support
dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the
pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure.
If those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say about you
and your motives?

PeterB

Johnny Huang wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> > > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> > > respond.
> >
> > Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> > Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
> >
> > > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> > > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> > > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
> >
> > If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
> > examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
>
> Yes, this thread you started is a very good example. As a matter of
> fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your
> sandbagging.

Calling out the players in a virtual community is not sandbagging,
especially not in context of broader discussions that are topically
relevant. I don't make discussions of industry central to my premise
that natural medicine is superior to drugs, for example.

> > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
> > would ask how you intend to do this.
> >
> > > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> > > identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> > > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> > > results to be one to include.
> >
> > You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
> > many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
> > have been fascinating.
>
> Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen?

You are well aware that I said no such thing. I used a perfectly
acceptable alternate useage of the word "convert" to simplify my
discussion of complex features of the Krebs cycle. If my shorthand is
over your head, just think how lost you would be with a detailed
discussion.

> Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb?

In your case, masturbating.

> >
> > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> > > mind.
> > >
> > > On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> > > "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> > > profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> > > suspect on the same grounds?
> >
> > Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of
> > penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
> > The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
> > The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for
> > them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.
> >
> > > To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> > > evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
> >
> > The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
> > selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.
> >
> > > For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> > > buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
> > > links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
> > > alleged abuses?
> >
> > Language is very dual.
>
> Oh, so that's your secret! You give words alternative meanings in
> order to make your case.
>
> > Readers must decide when it is being used
> > unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
> > and offer to support it.
>
> Why don't you answer questions about the books on your suggested
> reading list?
> Why do you refuse to answer my question as to why you'd recommend NAC
> or milk thistle to anyone who has been given anesthesia?
>
> > If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.
>
> What you really mean is that you will accuse anyone that disagrees with
> you of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. You accused me, an
> herbalist, of being a pharmablogger. How intellectually dishonest can
> a person get?
>
> > If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
> > motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.
>
> What you mean is that if he uses the denotations instead of your
> connotations, he must be a paid disinformation agent. You, Peterb, are
> just that simple.
>
> > PeterB

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "Johnny Huang" <johnny_huang_2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You, Peterb, are just that simple.
>
> Which could also be written as "You, Peterb, are just that, simple".

I've always associated simplicity with honesty, Bowdick. Which is why
I have never associated you with Bugs Bunny. Plus, I can't see Buggs
getting spanked in court. You didn't kiss the judge did you?

PeterB wrote:
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
>> : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of reading the content
>> of your posts and concluding from that content (or more frequently, complete
>> lack of substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are?
>
> I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts shows that my
> purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support
> dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the
> pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure.
> If those topics are lacking in substance,

Oh, there is plenty of substance to your posts. Most would call it
"cleanse by-product".

what does that say about you
> and your motives?
>
> PeterB
>

With no substantive answer nor example to demonstrate "pharmablogger"
activity on these newsgroups, we must conclude same exists only in the
mind of the one asserting it. It was a deft rhetorical move set up in
such a way that even to not agree or to question the conclusions meant
confirmation of the charges. It looks like in hind sight that it was an
attempt to "vaccinate" "alterbloggers" from serious questioning of their
assertions.

It failed, any assertion should recieve the same kinds of hard look as
any other using the commonly accepted scientific proceedures.
Handwaving and foot stomping does not serve in its place. It can be
shown to work or it doesn't, it can be shown to be safe or not shown, it
relies on pseudoscience or it does not, it is accepted as effective
marketing or it doesn't. Every assertion from any quarter deserves a
hard look using these questions.

""A review of the history of my posts shows that my purpose here is to
advocate the use of natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in
an effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals, promote
consumer rights, and demand public disclosure.
If those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say about
you?"

Ah, a self confessed "alterblogger" is it?

chatw@my-deja.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public
> > Discourse on Matters of Public Health
> >
> > To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative,
> > uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine
> >
> > Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum
> > are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A
>
> The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock Market boards
> back during Boom Times (and I was probably a victim of them more than
> once).

Consider that no discrete group of economists employed federally or
otherwise has ever forecast a single recession, yet they have *always*
forecast every inevitable upswing. What is that telling you?

> There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health activists, or
> MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards.

Why would such people "troll" the boards? All I see in that regard are
spammers who have a product to sell, which only bothers me because it
isn't appropriate to the purpose of the newsgroups. Am I a troll
because I discuss natural medicine *and* the media efforts of industry?
Quite often, I am not the one who brings it up. Whether you believe
industry is here in the newsgroups or not (they are), that element of
my discussion is not central to the discussion (except in threads like
this one devoted to the issue.) My focus is on the idea that people
should take responsibility for their own health, that nutraceuticals
outperform pharmaceuticals, and that the public is under educated on
the risks of prescription drugs.

> But the Pharma
> industry has some of the very deepest pockets of all (though they might
> have better/more profitable things to do with their time/$ than to
> bother little old us).

Do you see them doing something "better" several hours each day on all
the broadcast network channels in direct-to-consumer advertising? Do
you think the newsgroups and the Internet represent a poor
cost/exposure ratio in terms of audience reach? As "little old us"
continue to wake up and use natural medicine as an alternative to
drugs, Big Pharma is becoming more desperate, not less.

PeterB

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> ""A review of the history of my posts shows that my purpose here is to
> advocate the use of natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in
> an effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals, promote
> consumer rights, and demand public disclosure.
> If those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say about
> you?"
>
> Ah, a self confessed "alterblogger" is it?

If you believe that term has meaning, use it. If you believe it
describes what I do, use it. I don't ask you to change for me. I'm
just here to point out the differences between us.

PeterB

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Richard Schultz wrote:
> >> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> >> : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
> >>
> >> Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of reading the content
> >> of your posts and concluding from that content (or more frequently, complete
> >> lack of substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are?
> >
> > I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts shows that my
> > purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support
> > dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the
> > pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure.
> > If those topics are lacking in substance,
>
> Oh, there is plenty of substance to your posts. Most would call it
> "cleanse by-product".
>
> what does that say about you
> > and your motives?

What does your opinion as a pharmboy say about me and my motives?
Nothing at all.

"If you believe that term has meaning, use it. If you believe it
describes what I do, use it. I don't ask you to change for me. I'm
just here to point out the differences between us."

Give it your best then, but expect to be questioned on the sames grounds
any assertion deserves. If "alternative" methods do not mesure up then
it should be known without resort to conspiracy theories about the
messengers. The answer to critical reactions to "alternative" claims is
not to attack the messenger but to provide scientific answers for
possible confirmation of your assertions. In that manner there should
be no difference between us, "us" is not the important thing but the
evidence brought to bear.

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> Richard Schultz wrote:
>>>> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
>>>> : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
>>>>
>>>> Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of reading the content
>>>> of your posts and concluding from that content (or more frequently, complete
>>>> lack of substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are?
>>> I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts shows that my
>>> purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support
>>> dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the
>>> pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure.
>>> If those topics are lacking in substance,
>> Oh, there is plenty of substance to your posts. Most would call it
>> "cleanse by-product".
>>
>> what does that say about you
>>> and your motives?
>
> What does your opinion as a pharmboy say about me and my motives?
> Nothing at all.
>

Thanks for proving my point.

You are so predictable.

Go bark!

coonskin.amestwp.com wrote:
> Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger" abuse at hand.

The attributes of grunts working here on behalf of industry have been
listed in the original post already. If you cannot identify those
tactics during actual exchanges, why concern yourself with it? As it
is, I am already resisting efforts to draw me into *more* discussion
about the politics of public relations and use of the media to impact
market share.

> Or pick a post you think is one. The otherwise general shotgun listing
> of alleged industry created abuses on usanet groups remains yet
> unconfirmed and unidentified with reference to actual practices.
> Amorphous discussion of yet undefined unidentified postings profit
> readers nothing.

So let readers ignore it. People can think for themselves.

>
> Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not serve,
> examples real or invented will allow us to tease out details that might
> permit supporting or excluding the claims of "pharmablogger" /
> "alterblogger" activity.

Sounds like you have an interesting project on your hands. You can
easily find a few hundred such examples by doing a search on the word
"pharmablogger." Good luck.

> >> As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> >> anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> >> myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> >> respond.
> >
> >Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> >Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
> >
> >> The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> >> pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> >> alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
> >
> >If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
> >examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
> >If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
> >would ask how you intend to do this.
> >
> >> Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> >> identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> >> Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> >> results to be one to include.
> >
> >You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
> >many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
> >have been fascinating.
> >
> >> That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> >> mind.
> >>
> >> On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> >> "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> >> profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> >> suspect on the same grounds?
> >
> >Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of
> >penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
> > The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
> >The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for
> >them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.
> >
> >> To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> >> evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
> >
> >The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
> >selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.
> >
> >> For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> >> buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
> >> links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
> >> alleged abuses?
> >
> >Language is very dual. Readers must decide when it is being used
> >unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
> >and offer to support it. If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.
> >If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
> >motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.
> >
> >PeterB

Mark Probert wrote:
> chatw@my-deja.com wrote:
> > PeterB wrote:
> >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public
> >> Discourse on Matters of Public Health
> >>
> >> To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative,
> >> uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine
> >>
> >> Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum
> >> are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A
> >
> > The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock Market boards
> > back during Boom Times (and I was probably a victim of them more than
> > once).
> >
> > There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health activists, or
> > MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. But the Pharma
> > industry has some of the very deepest pockets of all (though they might
> > have better/more profitable things to do with their time/$ than to
> > bother little old us).
> >
>
> You just proved you are a pharmablogger (whatever that is).

Not so, Markey. But to help you out, I suggest you focus on the verb
form of the term instead -- "pharmablogging." Then, whenever you are
reading what you write, you will know what it is.

PeterB

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts shows that my
: purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support
: dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the
: pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure.
: If those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say about you
: and your motives?

It is clear from anyone who reads your posts that your purpose is to
sell "natural medicine" even (or rather, especially) if it means lying
about the content of sources you claim to be citing, hiding your relationship
to the "natural medicine"/"food supplement" industry, and projecting upon
others your own dishonesty.


-----
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
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: If you believe that term has meaning, use it. If you believe it
: describes what I do, use it. I don't ask you to change for me. I'm
: just here to point out the differences between us.

The big difference being that I will not knowingly post a falsehood that
I wish to have others believe to be true.

-----
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
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> "If you believe that term has meaning, use it. If you believe it
> describes what I do, use it. I don't ask you to change for me. I'm
> just here to point out the differences between us."
>
> Give it your best then, but expect to be questioned on the sames grounds
> any assertion deserves. If "alternative" methods do not mesure up then
> it should be known without resort to conspiracy theories about the
> messengers. The answer to critical reactions to "alternative" claims is
> not to attack the messenger but to provide scientific answers for
> possible confirmation of your assertions. In that manner there should
> be no difference between us, "us" is not the important thing but the
> evidence brought to bear.

I believe PeterB would agree with me when I say that such an
expectation goes with the territory. Any "altie" should expect to be
challenged on their beliefs. Having an alternative mindset *should*
automatically mean that that person has an open mind. How else would
they have become alternative minded in the first place. Of course,
I'll be the first to admit that many "alties" take it too far and begin
to believe that anything medically related is evil and that anything
"alternative" is good, even without first seeing evidence of the
efficacy of whatever that alternative method may be. In those cases,
questions SHOULD be raised.

Alternative therapies have a problem in that they typically do not have
deep pockets funding studies to show benefit analysis. That does not
mean they don't work. It only means that the information is harder to
find. In the case of the raw milk debate I'm currently in on MHA, I
had to go back to articles in the Lancet from the 1920's and 30's to
find data to support my position. There are no current studies of raw
milk that I've been able to find. Who would pay for them?

Long story short, your above statement is viewed pretty much as a
given. It'll be nice to debate someone who doesn't have to resort to
personal attacks. Unfortunately that's often what it comes to around
here.

I look forward to debating you.

Max.