How the Media Deceives You About Health Issues

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Think about how many times you've heard an evening news anchor spit out some variation on the phrase, "According to experts ." It's such a common device that most of us hardly hear it anymore. But we do hear the "expert" - the professor or doctor or watchdog group - tell us whom to vote for, what to eat, when to buy stock. And, most of the time, we trust them.

Image: dprogram.net 

Now ask yourself, how many times has that news anchor revealed who those experts are, where they get their funding, and what constitutes their political agenda? If you answered never, you'd be close.

That's the driving complaint behind Trust Us, We're Experts, a new book co-authored by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of the Center for Media and Democracy.

Unlike many so-called "experts," the Center's agenda is quite overt - to expose the shenanigans of the public relations industry, which pays, influences and even invents a startling number of those experts.

The third book co-authored by Stauber and Rampton, Trust Us hit bookstore shelves in January.

There are two kinds of "experts" in question -- the PR spin doctors behind the scenes and the "independent" experts paraded before the public, scientists who have been hand-selected, cultivated, and paid handsomely to promote the views of corporations involved in controversial actions.

Lively writing on controversial topics such as

dioxin
bovine growth hormone
genetically modified food
makes this a real page-turner, shocking in its portrayal of the real and potential dangers in each of hese technological innovations and of the "media pseudo-environment" created to hide the risks.

By financing and publicizing views that support the goals of corporate sponsors, PR campaigns have, over the course of the century, managed to suppress the dangers of lead poisoning for decades, silence the scientist who discovered that rats fed on genetically modified corn had significant organ abnormalities, squelch television and newspaper stories about the risks of bovine growth hormone, and place enough confusion and doubt in the public's mind about global warming to suppress any mobilization for action.

Rampton and Stauber introduce the movers and shakers of the PR industry, from the "risk communicators" (whose job is to downplay all risks) and "outrage managers" (with their four strategies -- deflect, defer, dismiss, or defeat) to those who specialize in "public policy intelligence" (spying on opponents).

Evidently, these elaborate PR campaigns are created for our own good. According to public relations philosophers, the public reacts emotionally to topics related to health and safety and is incapable of holding rational discourse. Needless to say, Rampton and Stauber find these views rather antidemocratic and intend to pull back the curtain to reveal the real wizard in Oz.

Metro Media: What was the most surprising or disturbing manipulation of public opinion you reveal in your book?

John Stauber: The most disturbing aspect is not a particular example, but rather the fact that the news media regularly fails to investigate so-called "independent experts" associated with industry front groups. They all have friendly-sounding names like "Consumer Alert" and "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," but they fail to reveal their corporate funding and their propaganda agenda, which is to smear legitimate heath and community safety concerns as "junk-science fear-mongering."

The news media frequently uses the term "junk science" to smear environmental health advocates. The PR industry has spent more than a decade and many millions of dollars funding and creating industry front groups which wrap them in the flag of "sound science." In reality, their "sound science" is progress as defined by the tobacco industry, the drug industry, the chemical industry, the genetic engineering industry, the petroleum industry and so on.

Metro Media: Is the public becoming more aware of PR tactics and false experts? Or are those tactics and experts becoming more savvy and effective?

Stauber: The truth is that the situation is getting worse, not better. More and more of what we see, hear and read as "news" is actually PR content.

On any given day much or most of what the media transmits or prints as news is provided by the PR industry.

It's off press releases, the result of media campaigns, heavily spun and managed, or in the case of "video news releases" it's fake TV news - stories completely produced and supplied for free by former journalists who've gone over to PR. TV news directors air these VNRs as news. So the media not only fails to identify PR manipulations, it is the guilty party by passing them on as news.

Metro Media: What's the solution for the excesses of the PR industry? Just more media literacy and watchdog organizations like yours? Or should the PR industry be regulated in some way?

Stauber: In our last chapter, "Question Authority," we identify some of the most common propaganda tactics so that individuals and journalists and public interest scientists can do a better job of not being snowed and fooled. But ultimately those who have the most power and money in any society are going to use the most sophisticated propaganda tactics available to keep democracy at bay and the rabble in line.

There are some specific legislative steps that could be taken without stepping on the First Amendment. One is that all nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations - charities and educational groups, for instance - should be required by law to reveal their institutional funders of, say, $500 or more.

That way when a journalist or a citizen hears that a scientific report is from a group like the American Council on Science and Health, a quick trip to the IRS Web site could reveal that this group gets massive infusions of industry money, and that the corporations that fund it benefit from its proclamations that pesticides are safe, genetically engineered food will save the planet, lead contamination isn't really such a big deal, climate change isn't happening, and so on.

The public clearly doesn't understand that most nonprofit groups (not ours, by the way) take industry and government grants, or are even the nonprofit arm of industry.

Source: oawhealth.com

Five GMO Myths Busted

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Monsanto and its GMO conspirators such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association are ramping up the the lies and propaganda as momentum builds for labeling GMO food products.  Despite the biotech industry’s best efforts to shackle scientific inquiry, and despite the FDA’s blatant lack of interest in testing GMO products, information and awareness are growing exponentially about the dangers that GMOs pose to public health, the environment, and the food system.


Source: realfarmacy.com

Pro-Monsanto Propaganda Being Pushed on Futurama

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

If you wanted to reach an audience of smart, hip young people, how would you do it? If you wanted to convince the young, energetic idealists that something was a good idea, how would you target them?

One way to reach such a group would be through a fast-paced funny bit of “light entertainment” geared towards a slightly geeky, intelligent, and witty teen and young adult audience.  A simple animated television program.

Take the show Futurama, for example.

Aired at different points on Fox, the Cartoon Network, and Comedy Central, this show is from the creators of the iconic pop culture hit, The Simpsons.

Often messages that are destined to change our perceptions are subliminal.  Not so with the recent episode, Leela and the Genestalk. (Aired on Aug 7, 2013) Subtlety is NOT really what they’re going for here.

Synopsis: 

After a rare condition causes Leela to grow tentacles, she stumbles upon a secret genetic engineering facility.

In this particular episode, the major character is Leela.  She contracts a horrible genetic condition called “squidification” that causes her to erupt with tentacles all over her body.  There is no cure – her only option is to live with the tentacles or to have repeated surgeries (very expensive ones) that provide temporary freedom from the tentacles, although they will soon grow back.

This could go either way.  It could be a moral tale about the questionable ethics of genetic engineering.  It could be a distinct lesson about how all of these horrible genetic malfunctions keep occurring in humans.  It could be a fable about how GMOs have gone wrong and how our food supply has become irrevocably tainted. It could be a treatise on the illnesses that have been linked to the consumption of GMOs or the horrible environmental costs.

Or it could be one giant advertisement for the biotech industry, portraying them as heroes and the saviors of mankind and planet earth.

Here are a few references – let me know if these sound familiar:

Momsanto :

A” floating genetic-engineering facility. It floats because if it were on the surface its experiments would be illegal.” (source)

Collasus: 

“Because Mom considers ordinary beans tiny and pathetic, Momsanto spliced elephant D.N.A. into their chromosomes for added heft.

Thanks to Leela’s D.N.A. sample, the beanstalks started to have suction cups to keep them from collapsing. This unlocked a cheap, abundant source of nutrition for the world’s starving masses, which should make Mom a much richer woman.” (source)

Earth:

(One world government, military and currency)  Earth’s government is a planet-wide democracy … Although frequently invaded by Alien forces, Earth seems to be a military power to be reckoned with… Zapp Brannigan is responsible for protecting the world from various alien invasions as well as expanding Earth’s territorial claims…. Much like American money, Earthican currency depicts presidents…. (source)

In the episode, Leela and the Genestalk, Leela is very much against genetic modifications and DNA experiments.  She even tries to destroy the facility. In the end, wrapping things up in a warm and fuzzy fable-style ending, she changes her mind when she discovers that her “squidification” can actually be cured by…you guessed it…genetic engineering.  Because Leela’s tentacles and the DNA thereof have helped to modify the giant beanstalks that Mom is creating to “feed the world”, Mom rewards her by curing her squidification.

Well, gee.  Maybe genetic engineering isn’t so bad after all.

It’s pretty clear that the makers of Futurama have sold out and Monsanto was the highest bidder.

Selling out is the compromising of integrity, morality, or principles in exchange for personal gain, such as money. (source)

I wonder what the going rate is to have a subtle brainwashing message inserted into an entire episode of a popular TV show viewed by a couple million people these days? This isn’t the first time Monsanto got airtime on the show.  In the episode called “The Butterjunk Effect”  the butterfly derby contests were held at the “Monsanto Yokel Dome” and Monsanto is the sponsor of the “Goofy Gopher’s Revue” at Luna Park.

Television is a very effective medium to change perceptions because of the very way it works on the human brain.  Melissa Melton of Truthstream Media  wrote:

Type ‘television’ and ‘low vibrational energy’ into a search engine, and it’ll quickly return the fact that watching a lot of TV is like undressing your mind and submerging it into a bath of negative energy. TV effectively numbs the left side of your brain and renders you helpless to your right brain which is incapable of decoding and critically analyzing the information being presented to you. Essentially, you go on ‘auto-pilot’.

Thus, everyone is put into a hypnotic state that author Wes Moore says, “produces highly functional, mobile ‘bio-survival robots.’” There’s a reason he dubbed television an “opiate of the masses“.

TV programs us. We tune in, drop out and stop asking questions.

Some of Krugman’s more interesting conclusions from his 1969 TV brainwave research include:

• “Internal Alpha responses can be stimulated by appropriate external rhythms or frequencies.”
• “The time may come when the mass media may create special programs to help people modify certain attitudes or behavior.”
• “This means that passively learned material has an important ‘advantage’ which some have also associated with so called subliminal perception, extrasensory perception, or hypnotism.”
• “For early education there may be an opportunity to accept the fact that many children fidget in class, and that this interference with their attention is not to be blamed on parents, teachers, or the child. Mild drugging of these children, or training in relaxation through Alpha driving, may be dramatically helpful to their educational achievement.” [Emphasis Added]
• “For public television there may be an opportunity to accept without shame the fact that it has taught violence to an entire generation. The clear store of television violence is not that a new generation is more violent but that the new generation knowsmore violence. The political consequences of this may yet be what some would call ‘good’ (e.g., pacifist).” [Emphasis Added]
• “It is possible that the relaxed and successful character of passive learning can be enhanced by the artificial induction of Alpha rhythm, this with the aid of a flickering light.” [Emphasis Added]

Your brain on TV, ladies and gentlemen. It’s a basic form of mind control. (source)

Melton’s article provides links to an alarming amount of research that has been done for just this purpose – to change the perspective of the audience.  To brainwash you, to control your perceptions and to provide your opinions for you. (Check it out HERE – it’s an absolute must-read!)

Monsanto already deploys social media warriors to attack those who criticize them. They have created a propaganda website to provide “GMO Answers.”  This company that wants to appear so benevolent hired an army of deadly mercenaries and is rumored to have even purchased the security company itself.

With this in mind, is it any surprise that the most vilified company in the world today might use popular entertainment as a tool for targeting young people in the hopes of enhancing their tarnished corporate reputation?

Thank you to Dawn for bringing this episode to my attention!

About the author:

Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio.

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

- See more at: http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/futurama-pimps-out-young-audience-to-monsanto-08142013#sthash.PTzUks1N.dpuf

Sanjay Gupta's Weed Reversal Reveals Failing Propaganda War

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Image: Shaggy

One can only speculate as to the timing of Sanjay Gupta's supposed realization that cannabis is actually good for your health. As many people have come to realize, the mainstream media, which of course includes CNN, has turned into a mouth-piece of the government establishment: going so far as getting family members of media executives to be employed by the White House. The revolving door can also be seen going the other way with multiple examples similar to Mike Huckabee going from presidential candidate to news anchor and CNN reporter Dana Bash's marriage to Jeremy Bash, Leon Panetta's Chief of Staff.

One thing we do know as fact is that the 'War on Drugs' is a cause supported by both establishment parties, which could also explain why the program is perpetuated by both the "conservative" and "liberal" media. Anyone who spends a few hours switching from Fox News to MSNBC or CNN can see that the news media will cover for certain parties, politicians, and policies more favorably: usually on a partisan basis, seeking to divide people down party lines.

When a policy is supported by both parties and all wings of the media, there is something clearly wrong.  CNN's Dr. Gupta's sudden change of heart on marijuana policy should not come as a surprise when thinking of it in a common sense way, seeing as the majority of Americans now support marijuana legalization. With the slow but steady shift in the marijuana debate now favoring those who believe it should be decriminalized for medical use or even legalized for recreational use, the anti-cannabis propagandists are now being forced to capitulate into defeat, and Dr. Guptas episode will only serve as fuel to the 'legalize it' fire now raging in dozens of states.

So why is the government-media-complex so afraid of marijuana? There are a few reasons. The government, media, and most large corporations are all owned by a small elite group of billionaires who have many different interests at stake. The many health benefits of cannabis alone is enough to scare the Big Pharma companies. Here are the top 5 contributors to anti-marijuana causes according to republicreport.org

1.) Police Unions: Police departments across the country have become dependent on federal drug war grants to finance their budget. In March, we published a story revealing that a police union lobbyist in California coordinated the effort to defeat Prop 19, a ballot measure in 2010 to legalize marijuana, while helping his police department clients collect tens of millions in federal marijuana-eradication grants. And it’s not just in California. Federal lobbying disclosures show that other police union lobbyists have pushed for stiffer penalties for marijuana-related crimes nationwide. 

2.) Private Prisons Corporations: Private prison corporations make millions by incarcerating people who have been imprisoned for drug crimes, including marijuana. As Republic Report’s Matt Stoller noted last year, Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest for-profit prison companies, revealed in a regulatory filing that continuing the drug war is part in parcel to their business strategy. Prison companies have spent millions bankrolling pro-drug war politicians and have used secretive front groups, like the American Legislative Exchange Council, to pass harsh sentencing requirements for drug crimes.

3.) Alcohol and Beer Companies: Fearing competition for the dollars Americans spend on leisure, alcohol and tobacco interests have lobbied to keep marijuana out of reach. For instance, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors contributed campaign contributions to a committee set up to prevent marijuana from being legalized and taxed.

4.) Pharmaceutical Corporations: Like the sin industries listed above, pharmaceutical interests would like to keep marijuana illegal so American don’t have the option of cheap medical alternatives to their products. Howard Wooldridge, a retired police officer who now lobbies the government to relax marijuana prohibition laws, told Republic Report that next to police unions, the “second biggest opponent on Capitol Hill is big PhRMA” because marijuana can replace “everything from Advil to Vicodin and other expensive pills.”

5.) Prison Guard Unions: Prison guard unions have a vested interest in keeping people behind bars just like for-profit prison companies. In 2008, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association spent a whopping $1 million to defeat a measure that would have “reduced sentences and parole times for nonviolent drug offenders while emphasizing drug treatment over prison.”

The fact is that these lobbying groups fund and control both the Republicans and Democrats, which in turn have their state run media arms who will help perpetuate the "marijuana is the devil" propaganda. All this is done to keep the flow of money and power going through Washington and into the hands of their corporate handlers. So is Sanjay Gupta's pitiful admission that he was against marijuana before he was for it a sign that the propaganda war on drugs is failing? Is the fact that the drug war has failed finally starting to resonate through the lies which have been perpetuated on the television for decades finally forcing the media's hand to admit that cannabis has positive health effects?  I think so.

Here's is Gupta's statement:

1.) Police Unions: Police departments across the country have become dependent on federal drug war grants to finance their budget. In March, we published a story revealing that a police union lobbyist in California coordinated the effort to defeat Prop 19, a ballot measure in 2010 to legalize marijuana, while helping his police department clients collect tens of millions in federal marijuana-eradication grants. And it’s not just in California. Federal lobbying disclosures show that other police union lobbyists have pushed for stiffer penalties for marijuana-related crimes nationwide.
2.) Private Prisons Corporations: Private prison corporations make millions by incarcerating people who have been imprisoned for drug crimes, including marijuana. As Republic Report’s Matt Stoller noted last year, Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest for-profit prison companies, revealed in a regulatory filing that continuing the drug war is part in parcel to their business strategy. Prison companies have spent millions bankrolling pro-drug war politicians and have used secretive front groups, like the American Legislative Exchange Council, to pass harsh sentencing requirements for drug crimes.
- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/#sthash.zQkYmufi.dpuf

GMO Giants Team Up To Launch Pro-GM Disinfo Site

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

If you had a question about how to protect yourself from a criminal known to break into houses in your neighborhood, would you ask him how to protect your home and then take his suggestions, or would you be suspicious he might be answering them in a way that would make your home even easier to encroach?

If you had a question about the honesty and integrity of a person in an authority position, would you ask that person to investigate himself and then accept his findings? (I mean, if you were a normal person, not if your name is Barack or Eric.)

If a company came out with a new medication that promised to cure your ills overnight, would you ask the company that produced it whether it was safe and trust them to be honest, or would you feel that their answer might be colored by their urge to make a buck?

So why on earth would anyone possibly believe that the likes of Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont would be spreading anything but sales-driven propaganda on their new website GMOAnswers?

Are they serious or is this some kind of big public relations joke being played out on a national platform?  Are we being punked?

What kind of person would look up their answers on a website SPONSORED by the very people who are putting out the toxic garbage they’d like us to believe is food?

Welcome to the compendium of disinformation!

In the most outrageous, blatant case of the foxes being put in charge of the henhouse that I have ever seen, the big biotech companies got together and launched their propaganda site GMOAnswers today. It is run by the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and BASF. The site contains a heavily moderated question and answer forum and a complete compendium of disinformation in the section called “Explore GMOs”.

  

They purport that the website is an acknowledgement that they need to change:

Genetically modified organisms — GMOs — are a major topic of discussion today. Across our society, media and the Internet, a growing number of people have shared a wide range of questions and emotions on the topic – ranging from excitement and optimism to skepticism and even fear.

GMO Answers was created to do a better job answering your questions — no matter what they are — about GMOs. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GM crops on the market today, but we acknowledge that we haven’t done the best job communicating about them – what they are, how they are made, what the safety data says.

This website is the beginning of a new conversation among everyone who cares about how our food is grown.

Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers. (source)

And they tout these 5 principals:

1. Respecting people around the world and their right to choose healthy food products that are best for themselves and their families;
2. Welcoming and answering questions on all GMO topics;
3. Making GMO information, research and data easy to access and evaluate and supporting safety testing of GM products;  including allowing independent safety testing of our products through validated science-based methods;
4. Supporting farmers as they work to grow crops using precious resources more efficiently, with less impact on the environment and producing safe, nutritious food and feed products;
5. Respecting farmers’ rights to choose the seeds that are best for their farms, businesses and communities and providing seed choices that include non-GM seeds based on market demands.

The most notable things that I saw about the “discussions” there is that the “experts” are all pro-GMO.  There is a very subtle bias against those with concerns, despite the fact that many of them are quoting real statistics and genuine peer-reviewed studies. How many “experts” that are anti-GMO are being moderated right out of the discussion using the “House Rules“?

This website, sadly, is nothing more than an indoctrination vehicle for furthering the myths that Monsanto wants you to believe.

Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner  by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

What can we do?

I’ve created my own profile over there so that I can “join the discussion.” If you decide to join me, please follow the House Rules to the best of your ability and additionally, remember that you want to garner respect, not scorn, so:

• Be courteous – we are in the right and we should take the high road in conversations
• Don’t be threatening
• Don’t use foul language
• Don’t be abusive towards others, even when you disagree or when they are abusive towards you
• Use facts and cite sources
• If you are censored unfairly, take screen shots and let those tell your story

If other people who don’t know a lot about GMOs come to the forum and see anti-GMO activists scrapping it out in an uncivil fashion, it will close their eyes to the message we are trying to share. Don’t be afraid to be passionate, but please remember that you are representing all of us who say no to GMO.

Do you remember when Cheerios launched the Facebook App that allowed consumers to share what they really thought about the toxin-laden cereal?  That was a PR move that backfired dramatically when users bombarded the company’s page with anti-GMO messages.

Biotech must have missed that, because they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.”

Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we?

Source: The Organic Prepper

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca