WARNING: Industry Seeks to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health On Usenet (updates to item #3 and other text)

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 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, consistent with their efforts to have the
last word. A related objective is maintaining a VERTICAL focus in the
newsgroups, because tunneling inside a given thread reduces the
distribution of new content. This also makes meaningful posts less
likely to be read. Deliberate "Flaming" is a tactic used by these
individuals to accomplish their goals.

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.

"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"

Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific
examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none
have.

Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort
in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts"
for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those
labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" "
wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.

"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"

Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific
examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none
have.

Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort
in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts"
for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those
labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" "
wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.

<capmack@shipper.com> wrote in message
news:45c2551d$0$261$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu. edu...
> "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"
>
> Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific
> examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none
> have.
>
> Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort
> in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts"
> for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those
> labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" "
> wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.

Yes, but think about it for a sec.. Someone is clearly paying him to post,
but why on earth would they pick a paranoid mess who knows so little about
medicine? I am very close to being able to prove that he's actually a
very clever double agent, being paid by the drug companies, the government,
the AMA, the FDA, (I'm not yet sure about the CIA) to make alternative
medicine look foolish.

It's staggering! What will they get up to next?

PM

In article <45c25fe7$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Peter Moran <pmoranATbodernet.com.au> wrote:
>
><capmack@shipper.com> wrote in message
>news:45c2551d$0$261$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu .edu...
>> "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"
>>
>> Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific
>> examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none
>> have.
>>
>> Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort
>> in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts"
>> for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those
>> labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" "
>> wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.
>
>Yes, but think about it for a sec.. Someone is clearly paying him to post,
>but why on earth would they pick a paranoid mess who knows so little about
>medicine? I am very close to being able to prove that he's actually a
>very clever double agent, being paid by the drug companies, the government,
>the AMA, the FDA, (I'm not yet sure about the CIA) to make alternative
>medicine look foolish.
>
>It's staggering! What will they get up to next?

And how can *I* get in on it?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

In message <45c2551d$0$261$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu> , capmack@shipper.com wrote:

> "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"
>
> Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific
> examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none
> have.
>
> Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort
> in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts"
> for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those
> labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" "
> wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.

Just keep in mind that according to PeterB, nobody would post
here if they weren't being paid.

Projection?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In message <45c25fe7$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Peter Moran wrote:

> It's staggering! * What will they get up to next?

Jan Drew?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In message <5Lxwh.67649$qO4.12062@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> , David Wright wrote:

> In article <45c25fe7$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Peter Moran <pmoranATbodernet.com.au> wrote:

>>It's staggering! What will they get up to next?
>
> And how can *I* get in on it?

You're not up to it. It's incredibly hard to write that badly
if you're not born with the "talent." If you doubt me,
check these out:

http://www.crackofdeath.com
http://www.housefans.net/crackofdeath/index.htm
http://travistea.com/index.html

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:47:14 +1000, "Peter Moran"
<pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote:

>
><capmack@shipper.com> wrote in message
>news:45c2551d$0$261$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu .edu...
>> "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"
>>
>> Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific
>> examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none
>> have.
>>
>> Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort
>> in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts"
>> for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those
>> labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" "
>> wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.
>
>Yes, but think about it for a sec.. Someone is clearly paying him to post,
>but why on earth would they pick a paranoid mess who knows so little about
>medicine? I am very close to being able to prove that he's actually a
>very clever double agent, being paid by the drug companies, the government,
>the AMA, the FDA, (I'm not yet sure about the CIA) to make alternative
>medicine look foolish.
>
>It's staggering! What will they get up to next?

I wonder if some of these folk are having some sort of delusions of
grandeur. I mean, how many folk read here? Two hundred max including
all the imaginable lurkers you can?
Say half even read the propaganda, and half of them even believe it,
is it worrth anything to anyone to influence a maximum of fifty
strange folk who read these groups.?
This all assumes that the propagandists are at least competent.
As you can see, some of them are total morons.

I certainly wouldn't pay anyone to spread my ideologies here. It
always reminds me of the rather cruel photo of a mentally handicapped
kid winning a handicapped race, and the caption says, "Arguing on the
internet is like winning a handicapped race. Even if you win, you are
still retrded."

jack

On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
> PeterB,
>
> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...

Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
fact, denials. This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
"alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
their purpose here.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
> On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
>> PeterB,
>>
>> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
>> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
>
> Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
> The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
> demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
> refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
> fact, denials.

Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:

Poisoning the well
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
Pro Vita Sua [2].

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Examples:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
her friend's response.

Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:

The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.

> This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
> "alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
> alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
> using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
> them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
> those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
> their purpose here.

Perfect example of well poisoning.

And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:jr8yh.10728$fT1.4419@trndny02...
> PeterB wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
>>> PeterB,
>>>
>>> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
>>> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
>>
>> Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
>> The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
>> demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
>> refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
>> fact, denials.
>
> fallacy breath.
>
> Poisoning the well
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ral_disclaimer

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a
voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common
resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with
an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing
found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise
required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information
in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee
the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article
may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant
fields.


No formal peer review
We are working on ways to select and highlight reliable versions of
articles. Our active community of editors uses tools such as the
Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing
content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers
may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty
to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty
of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been
vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have
been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected
with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance
of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information
contained in or linked from these web pages.


No contract; limited license
Please make sure that you understand that the information provided here is
being provided freely, and that no kind of agreement or contract is created
between you and the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers
upon which it is housed, the individual Wikipedia contributors, any project
administrators, sysops or anyone else who is in any way connected with this
project or sister projects subject to your claims against them directly. You
are being granted a limited license to copy anything from this site; it does
not create or imply any contractual or extracontractual liability on the
part of Wikipedia or any of its agents, members, organizers or other users.

There is no agreement or understanding between you and Wikipedia regarding
your use or modification of this information beyond the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL); neither is anyone at Wikipedia responsible
should someone change, edit, modify or remove any information that you may
post on Wikipedia or any of its associated projects.


Trademarks
Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights,
personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in
the articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia are the property of their
respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for
any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as
contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the
GFDL licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites
are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such
rights and as such Wikipedia cannot grant any rights to use any otherwise
protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is
at your own risk.


Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the
laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this
information. The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of
Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to
the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country
or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or
distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and
cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to
this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained
herein.


Not professional advice
If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk
management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in
that area.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer"
Category: Wikipedia disclaimers


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia


> Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.

LOL! As in disbarred.

Petey

<snip>
>

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:06:42 GMT, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Interesting though that Wikipedia was found to be more accurate than
Encyclopedia Britannica in a recent survey. (abc.net.au)
There are no online sources that make a guarantee of validity.
The opposite, in fact.
They usually make disclaimers about the lack of such.

Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for the discerning.

jack

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:06:42 GMT, " " <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
>
> Interesting though that Wikipedia was found to be more accurate than
> Encyclopedia Britannica in a recent survey. (abc.net.au)
> There are no online sources that make a guarantee of validity.
> The opposite, in fact.
> They usually make disclaimers about the lack of such.
>
> Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for the discerning.

And, the definition I posted is consistent with other similar definitions.

On Feb 6, 6:46 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
> >> PeterB,
>
> >> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
> >> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
>
> > Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
> > The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
> > demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
> > refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
> > fact, denials.
>
> Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:
>
> Poisoning the well

Even if that were possible it would serve no purpose. No one can
"poison the well" for more than a day, and as you see, I am not
interested in short-term effects. In due time, the irrationality of
any argument becomes apparent. The real question is whether we have
properly identified, first, the nature of the argument, and second
(due to overlapping themes), whose argument is whose. I won't snip
the remainder of your considerable effort because it represents the
argument that works for you.

> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
> someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
> discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
> Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
> was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
> Pro Vita Sua [2].
>
> This "argument" has the following form:
>
> 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
> presented.
> 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
>
> Examples:
>
> Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
> jail.
> Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
> In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
> that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
> friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
> looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
> her friend's response.
>
> Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
> chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:
>
> The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
> We now examine the theory of relativity...
> which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.
>
> > This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
>
> > "alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
> > alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
> > using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
> > them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
> > those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
> > their purpose here.
>
> Perfect example of well poisoning.
>
> And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:30:59 GMT, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:06:42 GMT, " " <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
>>
>> Interesting though that Wikipedia was found to be more accurate than
>> Encyclopedia Britannica in a recent survey. (abc.net.au)
>> There are no online sources that make a guarantee of validity.
>> The opposite, in fact.
>> They usually make disclaimers about the lack of such.
>>
>> Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for the discerning.
>
>And, the definition I posted is consistent with other similar definitions.

Absolutely. I've found many great articles on Wikipedia on technical
topics as varied as you could imagine, from bird taxonomy to electric
motor controllers to Gaelic language just to mention three.
You have to be discerning like you do with all stuff on the internet.
If you know nothing, Get a school textbook* from your library. This
will give you enough background to be able to discern whether a site
is telling porkies. Also, who publishes the site will often give a
clue to their veracity. The type of language they use is indicative as
well. Wikipedia has great and wide peer review. Unlike many other
scources of information.

Like when buying a used car, the folk with the best reputation to lose
are often the safest place to buy.

* Not a biology text from Kansas!

jack

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

: In due time, the irrationality of any argument becomes apparent.

And yet you keep posting to usenet. Does that mean that the rest of us are
just a wee bit quicker on the uptake than you 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
-----
"Why is it so important that you want to contact the governments of our Earth?"
"Because of Death! Because all you of Earth are idiots!"

PeterB wrote:
> On Feb 6, 6:46 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
>>>> PeterB,
>>>> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
>>>> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
>>> Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
>>> The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
>>> demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
>>> refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
>>> fact, denials.
>> Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:
>>
>> Poisoning the well
>
> Even if that were possible it would serve no purpose.

Of course it does, and, since you do it regularly, you know it.

No one can
> "poison the well" for more than a day,

Utter bullshit. Your poison threads go on for days, and when they run
out, you repost. Your intent is clear to a blind man.

and as you see, I am not
> interested in short-term effects.

That is why you rePetey, rePetey and rePetey.

In due time, the irrationality of
> any argument becomes apparent.

Yours is apparent on the first read. You should be proud.

The real question is whether we have
> properly identified, first, the nature of the argument, and second
> (due to overlapping themes), whose argument is whose. I won't snip
> the remainder of your considerable effort because it represents the
> argument that works for you.

As pointed out, your intent is clear.

>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>
>> Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
>> someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
>> discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
>> Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
>> was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
>> Pro Vita Sua [2].
>>
>> This "argument" has the following form:
>>
>> 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
>> presented.
>> 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
>> jail.
>> Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
>> In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
>> that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
>> friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
>> looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
>> her friend's response.
>>
>> Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
>> chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:
>>
>> The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
>> We now examine the theory of relativity...
>> which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.
>>
>> > This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
>>
>>> "alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
>>> alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
>>> using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
>>> them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
>>> those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
>>> their purpose here.
>> Perfect example of well poisoning.
>>
>> And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.

On Feb 8, 9:18 am, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 6:46 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> >> PeterB wrote:
> >>> On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
> >>>> PeterB,
> >>>> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
> >>>> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
> >>> Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
> >>> The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
> >>> demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
> >>> refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
> >>> fact, denials.
> >> Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:
>
> >> Poisoning the well
>
> > Even if that were possible it would serve no purpose.
>
> Of course it does, and, since you do it regularly, you know it.

I cannot help what you "think," Markey. I call it like I see it.

> No one can
>
> > "poison the well" for more than a day,
>
> Utter bullshit. Your poison threads go on for days, and when they run
> out, you repost. Your intent is clear to a blind man.

You see me as the enemy, Markey, and that's sad. The "Warning" post
explains my position [ref.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....6bc72/?hl=en#],
and I hope you are right that my intent is clear. As for "poison"
posts, your use of "anonymous" emails indicting other posters for
potentially illegal activity is not only juvenile, but probably
criminal. I believe you should apologize to everyone, but especially
to Jan, for a stunt like that.

> and as you see, I am not
>
> > interested in short-term effects.
>
> That is why you rePetey, rePetey and rePetey.

I repeat the "Warning" post because it accurately describes your
behaviour in the newsgroups. If you are right that it has no meaning,
why do you respond to it? It makes no mention of you or the others
by name. Were the "Warning" post to sit alone and go unnoticed, it
would soon be a fading memory. The truth is that you and the others
are in no position to do that. You cannot feed the reader his daily
dose of pharma porridge without also feeding denials to the "warning"
post, no matter how often it appears. Your efforts on mha would be
meaningless without that dynamic in place, as I've told you before.
When I said I was here to help you get your message out, I wasn't
kidding.

> In due time, the irrationality of
>
> > any argument becomes apparent.
>
> Yours is apparent on the first read. You should be proud.

I am glad you find it worthy of your time. That is how this works.

> The real question is whether we have
>
> > properly identified, first, the nature of the argument, and second
> > (due to overlapping themes), whose argument is whose. I won't snip
> > the remainder of your considerable effort because it represents the
> > argument that works for you.
>
> As pointed out, your intent is clear.

When I said earlier that those in your cadre are not my intended
audience, I was quite wrong. But clarity on the part of readers in
general is speculative until they express it for themselves. I have
come to realize it is not my purpose to care about what people think,
believe, or hope for. Even when we don't know it, the fact that we
are each responsible for ourselves, and no one else, is the truth we
live by.

> >> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> >> Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
> >> someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
> >> discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
> >> Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
> >> was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
> >> Pro Vita Sua [2].
>
> >> This "argument" has the following form:
>
> >> 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
> >> presented.
> >> 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
>
> >> Examples:
>
> >> Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
> >> jail.
> >> Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
> >> In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
> >> that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
> >> friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
> >> looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
> >> her friend's response.
>
> >> Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
> >> chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:
>
> >> The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
> >> We now examine the theory of relativity...
> >> which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.
>
> >> > This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
>
> >>> "alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
> >>> alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
> >>> using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
> >>> them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
> >>> those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
> >>> their purpose here.
> >> Perfect example of well poisoning.
>
> >> And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We are still waiting for you to provide specific examples of what the
subject line implies. Does it apply equally to possible "alternate
drug" advocates? Might postings suggesting the classic poster child of
"alternate drug" laetril as a cancer "cure" be some mexican "clinics"
doing marketing to attract some desperate cancer victums?

On Feb 8, 12:38 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : In due time, the irrationality of any argument becomes apparent.
>
> And yet you keep posting to usenet. Does that mean that the rest of us are
> just a wee bit quicker on the uptake than you are?

Get real Schultzie, you weren't the kill-machine they hoped for. Now
you have to swab the poop deck.

On Feb 7, 2:55 pm, "martha" <martha_mage...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 1:36 am, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <45c2551d$0$261$1c468...@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu> , capm...@shipper.com wrote:
>
> > > "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"
>
> > > Each time above or similar is posted we are forced to ask that specific
> > > examples of posts illustrating the above be given. To date none
> > > have.
>
> > > Instead the "alterbloggers" descend to prsonal attack as a best effort
> > > in place of evidence. All the while one might wonder about "pr grunts"
> > > for the multi billion "alternative drug" industry, including those
> > > labeling themselves as "alternative drug" "provider/practitioners" "
> > > wanting not to have the hard question asked of their industry.
>
> > Just keep in mind that according to PeterB, nobody would post
> > here if they weren't being paid.
>
> > Projection?
>
> > --
> > | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
> > | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
> > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but trywww.santaclaus.com. |
> > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
>
> The companies that pay these 'PR grunts' are serious saboteurs.
> There are some ads on placementindia.com, expensive to place job ads
> there.
> They usually hide behind "Get paid to surf the net" or "Researchers"
> of any kind.
>
> Posting on boards is not the only work they do.
> i.e. a news site that publishes unwanted news will be attacked like
> this:
> they subscribe to mailing list with many email addresses, - then they
> report the emails they receive to the US-spam agency (you wouldn't
> even know how and where to report, but they do, in cooperation with
> ISPs). This agency can get your mail server banned, you have no
> opportunity to defend yourself, the fact that you are accused makes
> you guilty. This ban is also acknowledged by google.
>
> Martha

Thanks, Martha. Raising public awareness about these issues is the
only way consumers stay ahead (assuming they do.)

On Feb 9, 10:47 am, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> We are still waiting for you to provide specific examples of what the
> subject line implies. Does it apply equally to possible "alternate
> drug" advocates? Might postings suggesting the classic poster child of
> "alternate drug" laetril as a cancer "cure" be some mexican "clinics"
> doing marketing to attract some desperate cancer victums?
>

Who is "We?" And what is an "alternate drug?" Laetrile, as it occurs
naturally in the food chain, is not a drug. As for being desperate,
what does your argument against laetrile three decades after the ban
say about you? Say hello to your sponsors for me.

>> We are still waiting for you to provide specific examples of what the
>> subject line implies. Does it apply equally to possible "alternate
>> drug" advocates? Might postings suggesting the classic poster child of
>> "alternate drug" laetril as a cancer "cure" be some mexican "clinics"
>> doing marketing to attract some desperate cancer victums?
>>
>
>Who is "We?" And what is an "alternate drug?" Laetrile, as it occurs
>naturally in the food chain, is not a drug. As for being desperate,
>what does your argument against laetrile three decades after the ban
>say about you? Say hello to your sponsors for me.

Laetril in the food chain, who is eating fruit pits? What very toxic
substance has nature included in those fruit pits to ward off being
eaten, along with the laetril?

Laetril is the classic poster child for "alternative drugs" and after
such a reputation one is surprised to see it being advocated. But
surprise subsides when learning all the advocate knew was it was
supported in an anti-science rant of a book, which made it fine
therefore in his book, so to speak.

Still waiting for the examples of what is implied in the subject line.

On Feb 14, 1:55 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> >> We are still waiting for you to provide specific examples of what the
> >> subject line implies. Does it apply equally to possible "alternate
> >> drug" advocates? Might postings suggesting the classic poster child of
> >> "alternate drug" laetril as a cancer "cure" be some mexican "clinics"
> >> doing marketing to attract some desperate cancer victums?
>
> >Who is "We?" And what is an "alternate drug?" Laetrile, as it occurs
> >naturally in the food chain, is not a drug. As for being desperate,
> >what does your argument against laetrile three decades after the ban
> >say about you? Say hello to your sponsors for me.
>
> Laetril in the food chain, who is eating fruit pits?

Nitrilosides are not confined to fruit pits or seeds. They can be
found in various nuts, beans, and vegetables, including celery,
carrots, alfalfa sprouts, and sweet potato. [ref. http://www.cam-
cancer.org/index.asp?o=2441.] Of course, researchers have observed
animals in the wild eating fruit pits just the same.

> What very toxic
> substance has nature included in those fruit pits to ward off being
> eaten, along with the laetril?

Only the dose makes the poison -- isn't that your mantra? How does it
apply to a bottle of aspirin, but not a piece of fruit?

> Laetril is the classic poster child for "alternative drugs..."

Correction: naturally-occuring laetrile is a food-based nitriloside,
whereas synthetic Laetrile, because it isn't identical, constitutes a
drug. Do your sponsors even care that you don't read the literature?

> and after
> such a reputation one is surprised to see it being advocated.

I would be more concerned about the reputation you are putting
together for yourself, but that would presume you are posting on your
own behalf. Since that isn't the case, you obviously don't care.

> But
> surprise subsides when learning all the advocate knew was it was
> supported in an anti-science rant of a book, which made it fine
> therefore in his book, so to speak.

Easy for you to say. Care to repeat that in English?

> Still waiting for the examples of what is implied in the subject line.

Just read the newsgroups. I'm not your momma.