How to Counter the Propaganda Campaign Aimed at Medical Alternatives

[Guest guest]

Z

 

How to Counter the Propaganda Campaign Aimed at Medical

Alternatives

Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:46:51 -0000

Croft Woodruff

 

 

(Now that I am aware of the disinformation campaigns, I remember them

going back to at least 1971 but they probably go back much further. I

also remember they did a " ruin the messenger " campaign against Adele

Davis and also Linus Pauling. F. )

 

 

HOW TO COUNTER THE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN AIMED AT MEDICAL ALTERNATIVES

 

 

by:Owen Richard Fonorow

 

 

The words of the late Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman

bear repeating:

 

 

" The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following:

The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge

of scientific " truth. "

 

 

These words came to mind Monday, September 2, 1996, while watching a

medical report crafted by the CBS news affiliate in Chicago. WBBM

television reported that there is a substance commonly found in junk

food that explains the 40% drop in heart disease mortality in the

United States over the past 20 years.

 

 

New to alternative medicine, I have been slow to realize what the

field is up against. Although most people are not aware of it, a major

news outlet feeding the mass media is being used as a propaganda

weapon to spread misinformation about inexpensive alternatives to

drugs and other pharmaceutical products. While people may not base

their opinions on advertising, they do tend to base their opinions

around " news " .

 

 

For years, as with most people, I believed that news organizations may

have bias, but that they mostly held to the ideals of a free press. My

naiveté dissipated rapidly upon discovering two years ago that one of

the world's greatest scientists had made a significant health claim --

which was not reported by the media. It was particularly troubling to

see PREVENTION Magazine's treatment of this matter.

 

 

Coincidentally, I began to notice a series of medical stories carried

by the national news media. To the uninformed reader these stories

appear factual and objective. However, each story provided subtly

misleading information always favorable to current medical dogma.

Amazingly, these stories were published everywhere simultaneously.

What power, I wondered, could get many such questionable stories

published universally and so regularly while efforts to publicize a

milestone discovery had failed?

 

 

It was soon realized that these medical stories, without author and

usually published under the banner of the Associated Press, were not

the work of amateurs. Carefully crafted, each sentence in a given

story by itself was (mostly) factual. Together, as the examples later

show, these sentences paint a slanted picture, either confusing or

otherwise biased against alternative medicine.

 

 

Have alternative medicine and its tools, e.g., the vitamins, been the

target of a BIG LIE smear campaign? Author and AMA infiltrator James

P. Lisa thinks so. He reported such a campaign in his recent book

entitled The Assault on Medical Freedom. Upon representing himself as

a free lance writer working on a book about " quackery, " Lisa was

permitted to see confidential AMA files. On page 56 of Lisa's book the

author presents evidence that alternatives have been targeted by

pharmaceutical interests, at least since the year 1985:

 

 

" In a letter dated February 7, 1985, Mr[deleted] sent Mr [deleted]

information about the " Roper poll on quackery. " This was a survey of

the general public that the PAC/FDA campaign had commissioned in

October 1984, in order to identify targets for the campaign. An

inspection of the survey is revealing.

 

 

Judging from the survey questions asked, it appears that those

surveyed would get the impression that they were being asked these

questions to solicit how effective these treatments were. However, the

survey results apparently were used to identify what the public

considered most effective in order to determine top-ranking priorities

for the " anti-quackery " campaign.

 

 

The following is a sampling of the survey:

 

 

How effective do you think (read item) is/are?

 

 

Heard Very Moderately Not Very

 

 

of Effective Effective Effective/Other

 

 

a. Vitamins for 95% 29% 49% 9%/8%

 

 

improved health

 

 

b. Chiropractors 85% 25% 40% 8%/12%

 

 

for back problems

 

 

c. Psychological 68% 25% 32% 4%/8%

 

 

Counseling for improved mental health

 

 

The category that " scored " fourth-highest was alternative cancer

treatments. The survey also included weight reduction, body wraps,

wraps for slimming, electrical muscle stimulators for body toning,

creams to eliminate cellulite, DMSO for aches and pains, air ionizers

for feeling healthier, laetrile for cancer, pills for a better sex

life, pills to sober up, and creams to grow hair. The BIG THREE

targets for the campaign became (1)vitamins, (2) chiropractic, and (3)

alternative cancer treatments. "

 

 

THE MEDIA FEED

 

 

Regardless of the intentions of various groups with vested economic

interests, such a propaganda campaign could not be effective without

the major news organizations in the United States, particularly the

Associated Press.

 

 

Whether stories masquerading as fact are disseminated by the AP

because of gullibility or bribery is immaterial. The fact is that the

vast majority of Americans, unaware of the economic implications,

accept these stories at face value. And, by what power do they gain

such easy access to the public mind?

 

 

It is obvious that important studies are being routinely deflected by

these AP stories -- deflected by the assumption that the news media

reporting the story was knowledgeable and objective. It is my hope

that readers who are cognizant that such a manipulation exists, and

knowing how it works and what its objectives are , will be better able

to blunt its affect on the hearts and minds of the American public.

 

 

A METHOD TO THE MADNESS

 

 

A top marketing dictum is: " Advertising is everything. " Poorly

conceived advertising may not work well, but advertising is

fundamental when marketing to a mass audience. However advertising is

costly, and the audience realizes the advertiser's intentions.

 

 

Any seller that can generate " news " articles advantageous to its

image, products or services, almost " at will " , truly has an unfair

marketing advantage. First, such an approach is not likely to cost

much; but more important, the people receiving the message perceive it

as factual news and are more likely to accept the message and to

believe it.

 

 

How does one go about getting their advertising message presented in

the guise of respected news articles? The most obvious way is to issue

a press release. There may be less obvious (or ethical ways). In the

case of the pharmaceutical propaganda campaign, these strategically

timed and carefully constructed articles occur too frequently for

amazing good luck to be the only reason they appear.

 

 

SCIENCE BY DESIGN

 

 

Can public opinion really be influenced by a steady drone of " news "

articles designed to create an image of " scientific " allopathic

medicine or of " miracle " pharmaceuticals? Lets turn it around.

 

 

What if there were a (imagined) steady stream of " news " articles about

the number of people that die every year from side effects to common

pharmaceuticals, especially if compared to the side effects of

vitamins and herbs? Consider the effect of a steady stream of " news "

articles in the major media that most allopathic cancer treatments

themselves are carcinogenic, or that overuse of common antibiotics is

creating a crisis that allopathic medicine may not be able to conquer,

but that oxygen therapies will.

 

 

Or articles questioning prescription drugs requiring careful

supervision one day -- and available over the counter the next.

Furthermore, consider the effect of a steady stream of news articles

favorable to practitioners of alternative medicine; and how many

people are using them, how their therapies are more affective and

cheaper, etc. Think of the new image that alternative medicine would have?

 

 

Much depends on the credibility of the messenger -- its reputation and

the reputation of those providing the " advertising " messages. People

must generally perceive propaganda as objective news. The primary

intent of this article is to whittle away at that perception.

 

SOME EXAMPLES

 

 

The following examples were clipped from local Chicago papers; the

full text of each article can be found on the internet at

http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/lie/index.html. These are the tip

of the iceberg.

 

 

CASE #1: GREAT MAGNESIUM SCARE

 

 

On August 29, 1995 the news hit. The essential mineral magnesium,

previously thought to be non-toxic, and now widely recognized as first

line therapy against heart attack, was implicated in 14 deaths since

1968! This mass murderer was exposed by researchers of the Food and

Drug Administration and reported in a publication of the American

Medical Association.

 

 

It would be news, by the way, if magnesium were really toxic. How and

why did this story make all the network and local television news

casts and newspapers on August 29-30, 1995?

 

 

For the uniformed reader, it is instructive to consider magnesium in

the historical perspective. As far back as 1972 the late Dr. Roger J.

Williams reported in his book Nutrition Against Disease that a 1957

study showed magnesium to be beneficial to the heart:

 

 

" The possibility that magnesium deficiency may also be implicated in

coronary heart disease arose when it was reported that injections of

magnesium sulfate brought about " dramatic clinical improvement " in

patients who had suffered from angina pectoris and coronary

thrombosis, and that the lipoprotein levels were brought to normal in

many cases. " [bersohn & Oelofse, Lancet: 1:1020, 1957]

 

 

More recently, Dr. Brian Leibovitz, Ph.D., editorialized in a recent

issue of the Journal of Optimum Nutrition that magnesium:

 

 

" is now recognized as a first-line medicine for the treatment of heart

attacks. A study published in The Lancet, for example, reported the

effects of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in

2,316 patients with suspected myocardial infarction. The dose of

magnesium was high (about 8.7 grams given intravenously over a 24 hour

period), but the results were remarkable: magnesium reduced

cardiovascular mortality by 25 percent. The author's conclusion: "

 

 

" Intravenous magnesium sulfate is a simple, safe, and widely

applicable treatment. Its efficacy in reducing early mortality of

myocardial infarction is comparable to, but independent of, that of

thrombolytic or antiplatelet therapy... "

 

 

These findings have been confirmed and reconfirmed in many clinics and

laboratories. Teo and colleagues in an analysis of seven clinical

studies, for example, concluded that magnesium (in doses of 5-10 grams

by intravenous injection) reduced the odds of death by an astounding

55%.Studies of magnesium have revealed it to be Nature's

'calcium-channel blocker'; unlike its drug counterparts, however,

magnesium has no toxic side-effects.

 

 

Another important effect of supplemental magnesium is its ability to

mitigate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Prielipp and

associates, for example, published results of a clinical trial in

which magnesium (10 mg per kg body weight per hour, or approximately

700 mg per hour for an average adult) attenuated the cardiotoxic

effects of epinephrine in 17 bypass patients. "

 

 

In summary, magnesium is inexpensive, safe and effective. Now, some 38

years after the Lancet report, it is widely recognized as a crucial

life saver, if and when used in the fight against heart attack. All

unbiased studies have shown it to be non-toxic, even in very large

(gm) amounts.

 

 

Why " smear " magnesium? Even more interesting, why would all the mass

media be so willing to print the smear? Magnesium is not only a direct

competitor for a wide array of expensive cardiac medications: It seems

to work better, however its effectiveness directly challenges

allopathic medicine's assertions that " simple nutrients " are

ineffective in and of themselves therapeutically.

 

 

It is bad enough that a story like " the magnesium scare " could make

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the papers in the United States based on a

single questionable study; one among hundreds that are published each

month, but why pick up a story that even the authors admit contain

numbers of incidents affecting less than 2 people per year? (By the

way, experts we spoke with offered their opinion that the large amount

of aluminum consumed was much more likely to be the root cause of the

reported problems.) A balanced report would have mentioned the great

therapeutic value that is now attributed to magnesium.

 

CASE #2: VITAMIN A CAUSES BIRTH DEFECTS

 

 

The " major " story that a new study identified vitamin A as dangerous

and causes fetal defects was given quite a bit of air time on all the

local networks October 7 1995. The Boston University study was deemed

to be so " important to public health " that results were released two

months prior to publication! In other words, two months before the

study could be critically analyzed by other scientists.

 

 

The reader should be aware that the possibility of " fetal defects " has

already been listed in orthodox nutrition text books as a " side affect

of vitamin A. " That makes for an interesting conundrum. If this is

" old news " -- why was it a " major story " ? If this is, as we believe,

one of the first such study in humans, how did the nutrition text book

writers know? Are they clairvoyant?

 

 

The absurdity is revealed by the numbers: Boston University's idea of

a statistically significant public health risk is an " estimated 5 or 6

per 23,000 " . Yet this " major " story appeared everywhere.

 

 

For the record, here is Dr. Roger J. Williams on Vitamin A and birth

defects from page 59 of his 1971 book Nutrition Against Disease

(paperback edition):

 

 

" Vitamin A was one of the first nutrients found to be necessary in the

process of healthy development. Many years ago high grade breeding

sows were fed a diet deficient in vitamin A during early pregnancy. In

one litter of eleven pigs, every animal was born without eyeballs. On

the same diet, other abnormalities were also observed -- cleft palate,

cleft lip, accesory ears, arrested axcension of the kidneys.

 

 

That the lack of vitamin A alone was responsible for the abnormalities

was shown by feeding the same animals exactly the same diet with

vitamin A added. There were no abnormalities in the litters to which

plenty of vitamin A was supplied. Similarly, rats require about twenty

times as much vitamin A for maximum reproduction as they need merely

to maintain passable health and normal vision. "

 

 

CASE #3 : VITAMIN C INJECTIONS HELP SMOKERS

 

 

On July 1, 1996 the following story was reported nation-wide.

According to the Munzel study published in the Journal Circulation of

the American Heart Association, Vitamin C injections were shown to

" almost totally reverse " endothelial dysfunction in chronic smokers.

The intent of this story was to " blunt " a vitamin C bombshell.

 

 

The AP report glossed over the fact that heart disease is known to

result from arterial " endothelial dysfunction, " as the story put it.

The AP story dodged a bullet by quoting Harvard Professor Eric Rimm

who said, " another study in which smokers were given vitamin C pills

over eight years found no effect on their rate of heart disease "

 

 

As far as I can tell, this claim is false. There was no eight year

study at Harvard that gave smokers vitamin C pills. Undoubtedly, the

study referred to was the 1992 study " Vitamin E and Coronary Heart

Disease in Men " published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

 

 

However, that study of health professionals limited its analysis to

667 males suffering cardiovascular disease (CVD), out of 39,910 males

given follow-up questionnaires. Only those participants who had

originally been free, and then either died of coronary artery disease

or suffered a coronary episode were considered.

 

 

As an aside, since the antioxidant intake of 39,243 individuals who

participated in the study (or 98.3%) that did not develop coronary

disease were specifically excluded from the analysis, the Harvard

Vitamin E study should not have been used to counter the Munzel study.

Rimm could not have noticed a " completely protective affect of vitamin

C. " No pills were handed out, in any case.

 

 

CASE #4 LIPOPROTEIN (A) AND PREMATURE HEART DISEASE IN MEN

 

 

This AP article reported on the Lp(a) study by Bostom, et. al. in the

August 21, 1996 Journal of the American Medical Association. It was a

follow-up to earlier Framingham studies, and where Lp(a) measurements

were apparently questioned. The study confirmed the earlier work that

lipoprotein(a) is an independent risk factor in cardiovascular disease.

 

 

The AP title implied that Lp(a) is a " new " discovery. I sense the

medical profession is about to claim credit itself for discovering

Lp(a). However, the research on Lipoprotein(a) was well enough

developed in 1991-1992 that Dr. Matthias Rath of the Linus Pauling

Institute had conducted studies, and Pauling had lectured for years on

this danger.

 

 

The date of the discovery that Lp(a) is a " major " player in heart

disease most probably would be in the year 1989. (1988 was the year

the Wall Street Journal first reported on lipoprotein(a).)

 

 

The more damaging part of the AP lipoprotein(a) article were

assertions that " Lp(a) is hard to measure accurately " and even when

measured, " there are no known ways to reduce its level in the body. "

Both these assertions are probably false. Lp(a) can be measured

sufficiently well to establish risk.

 

 

Vitamin B3 and Vitamin C have been shown to lower Lp(a) blood levels.

These studies were not mentioned. Of course the real " bomb shell " that

is glossed over is that it is now known that the binding of Lp(a) to

the walls of damaged blood vessels can be inhibited. Pauling and Rath

received the patent for this in 1994. These binding inhibitors,

especially the amino acid l-lysine, offer a safer and possibly more

effective alternative to angioplasty, coronary by-pass and even Chelation.

 

 

CASE #5 VIRUS BLAMED FOR ANGIOPLASTY FAILURE

 

 

On August 29, 1996 the following AP article " Study: Virus may negate

benefits of angioplasty " appeared. In this case the Associated Press

seems willing to print " rank speculation " as news because it appears

in a medical journal.

 

 

It was infuriating that the Associated Press would allow itself to be

used again as a tool by organized medical interests (which can well

afford the advertising.) Now we learn that angioplasty fails so often

because of a virus that everybody has in their body? Incredible!

 

 

I believe that part of the reason a " possible viral role in heart

disease " was chosen for this particular piece/study is the important

news that Vitamin E prevents the Coxsackie virus from mutating.

According to other articles this month, Vitamin E prevents the virus

from causing myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. This unsigned

AP article is designed to create confusion on the vitamin E issue.

 

 

The AP article does contain some interesting information. For example,

it correctly points out that approximately 1/3 of the 400,000

angioplasty operations fail. Restenosis. (Chelation doctors have been

pointing to this phenomenon for years and explaining the double

standard: Neither angioplasty nor coronary by-pass were ever studied

clinically before coming into widespread use, yet the safer Chelation

therapy is " criticized " because conventional medicine claims that

Chelation lacks appropriate studies.)

 

 

It is transparent that in this one article the AP , either wittingly

or unwittingly, is misinformation specifically designed to:

 

 

1. Delay the recognition of the real reason heart disease is so

prevalent. (Chronic vitamin C deficiency). This allows up to 100

billion dollars a year to flow into medical and pharmaceutical coffers

in unnecessary expenditures. (By publicizing these 'red herring'

articles in the guise of news, the AP has helped certain unscrupulous

members of the medical community impede the march of science.),

 

 

2. Blunt the effect of the news about vitamin E and viruses, thereby

causing confusion,

 

 

3. Provide an excuse for the recognized long-term failure of

angioplasty. It Ain't Our Fault!

 

 

SUMMARY

 

 

The pattern is clear. Mix fact with fiction to protect the status quo,

or at least not harm the reputation of pharmaceuticals. When studies

damaging to these vested interests are published, a decision is made

whether the " news " is likely to get much press on its own.

 

 

As most readers already know, much legitimate science is collectively

ignored by the mass media. (By the way, the campaign badly misjudged

the public reaction and viability of Melatonin, but recently has been

trying to make up for that error.)

 

 

On the other hand, if some issue considered threatening to the status

quo appears, a seemingly favorable " propaganda " article is crafted and

disseminated, such as the VITAMIN C INJECTIONS or the NEW FORM OF

CHOLESTEROL (LP(a)). These propaganda articles are maddingly accurate,

but deflect the importance of the study by subtly distorting the results.

 

 

Finally, if facts can not be challenge, then throw out much confusing

disinformation to reduce the impact of these facts. For example, silly

propaganda stories are released trying to discredit legitimate

science, e.g. the " junk food reduces heart disease mortality. " It

works because the average person can not make sense of a stream of

confusing articles. (The question is, how do these articles and

theories get publicized so easily?)

 

 

The public accepts these AP stories as objective and factual. They are

neither. Interested readers can view the actual AP articles cited here

and clipped from the newspaper, along with several others, at our

internet site http://www internetwks.com/pauling/lie/index.html.

 

 

COUNTERATTACK

 

 

It has been said that knowledge is power; people cannot fight

something without knowing it exists. First the reader should dispel

the notion that much of what is reported by the major media, and

medical magazines such as PREVENTION, has anything to do with the

betterment of human health. The objectives of the propaganda campaign

are to promote the good health and serve the welfare of organized

allopathic medicine and pharmaceutical interests.

 

 

It seems to me that you, the reader, can be a powerful weapon against

the campaign -- a campaign that exists and works only as long as

people don't generally realize that it exists. Each and every one of

you should write to your newspapers, with a copy to the Associated

Press, every time one of these questionable articles appears -- on any

subject you happen to know something about.

 

If sufficient numbers of readers took the time to write and question

the accuracy and fairness of these questionable articles, they may be

stopped and a major weapon against alternative medicine would be

effectively silenced.