Overcoming the Trickster: Media Wars of the 21st Century
by Roger W. Wicke
[1] Overcoming the Trickster: Media Wars of the 21st Century
After the last issue of Herbalist Review ("Health
fads from hell: margarine, canola oil, soy foods,
green and black tea"), the RMHI staff debated the
reasons that people are so easily fooled by
erroneous and deceptive information in advertising,
television, newspapers, and magazines, not only
regarding health and medical issues, but generally.
We decided that the next issue of this newsletter
should describe the basic tactics and strategies of
disinformation and deception, with the hope that if
one recognizes these techniques, these will loosen
their grip on one's mind.
The seriousness of the media credibility problem is
highlighted by the following pithy quote (of
debatable origin, often attributed to John Swinton,
a former editor of the New York Times):
"There is no such thing, at this date of the
world's history, in America, as an independent
press. The business of the journalists is to destroy
the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify,
to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his
country and his people for his daily bread. We are the
tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We
are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we
dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives
are all the property of other men. We are
intellectual prostitutes."
The "New Age" movement, in its attempts to avoid or
ignore this web of deceit and negativity, has
frequently prevented people from using common sense,
logic, and healthy intuition by substituting these
necessary human abilities with pseudo-religious
flummery under the guise of "right-brained"
thinking. (I prefer using both sides of my brain,
thank you very much.) Rather than help to make sense
of the confusion in the world, the New Age has often
provided its victims with no more than an extra
layer of gullibility. For example, not all herbs are
safe to use just because they are "all-natural" and
sold in health food stores. And do you really
believe that all the world's problems will simply
solve themselves after we magically ascend into the
5th dimension and the bad people go to Never-Never
Land? (If so, I have some quality beach-front
property in the 5th dimension I'd like to sell you.)
In the spirit of "The Art of War", by ancient
Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, if one wishes to know
the truth, one must first examine one's own
weaknesses and shortcomings to discover how these
might impede one from discovering the truth and
attaining honorable goals. Indians of the North
American Plains honored the role of an entity they
called the Trickster, whose purpose is to keep us
alert and wise, so that we may avoid falling prey to
deception, and to force us to overcome our
weaknesses if we occasionally succumb to the
Trickster's clever deceptions. To do this
successfully in the realm of truth-finding, we must
know the tactics and strategies of our opponents in
the great media wars of the 20th and 21st centuries;
then, we must change our own behaviors and
strategies so that we are no longer susceptible to
these techniques.
[2] Prejudice and associative thinking
The simplest types of animal central nervous systems
rely on associative response mechanisms to react to
their environment and to choose what to eat and what
to avoid. This is the basis of the conditioned
response that Russian physiologist Pavlov studied.
[ref. 3] To create a conditioned response, an animal
is regularly presented with food (unconditioned
stimulus), which naturally causes salivation
(unconditioned response); a ringing bell
(conditioned stimulus) is then consistently paired
with the delivery of food. After a while, the animal
learns to expect both the food and the ringing bell
at the same time, and will react to the ringing bell
(conditioned stimulus) by itself, without any food,
by salivating (conditioned response).
Salivating whenever a bell rings serves no purpose
and may seem absurd, but we must recognize that many
situations in nature are well served by such a
mechanism. If one is chased by a roaring lion and
lives to tell the tale, one will understandably
react in fear to similar roaring sounds; moreover,
many animal species instinctively react in fear to
such sounds and do not require Pavlovian-type
stimulus-response conditioning.
Associative reasoning has severe limitations,
however. It forms the basis of social prejudice, and
develops as follows: people, being naturally
cautious of new and strange situations, are more
careful around people who speak different languages
and are physically different from themselves; if an
individual has a negative experience with someone of
a different ethnic background, associative
reasoning, or generalization, may lead the
individual to form prejudices against others of that
ethnic background. Advertising producers also take
advantage of associative reasoning by inducing male
viewers to covet (the economic equivalent of
salivation) and eventually buy in response to images
of a sports car accompanied by a scantily clad woman
seductively eating a bowl of cherries. Both types of
associative reactions, ethnic prejudice and reactive
buying habits, may transform normal people into
dysfunctional, neurotic, and obsessive-compulsive
individuals, leading to needless warfare and
burdensome credit card debts.
Just as Pavlov's dogs were tricked into salivating
to a ringing bell, scientists have developed
increasingly efficient ways to manipulate reactive
human behavior to serve the demands of their
corporate masters. We must learn to use our capacity
of reason to rise above the simplistic type of
associative thinking and reactive behavior that
allows this type of social manipulation to remain
profitable.
[3] Social shortcuts for determining the truth
The next level above associative reasoning involves
adaptation to persistent and debilitating trickery.
After all, it's tiresome to salivate each time the
bell rings, for by the real meal arrives, the
digestive juices are depleted, the appetite has been
replaced by suspicion and anxiety, tension in the
epigastrium, and headaches. Welcome to life in the
"civilized" world.
To avoid being continual victims of associative,
reactive thinking, we must develop some guidelines
for deciding when it is important to ferret out the
truth ourselves, and when it is OK to relinquish
this responsibility to others. If our powers of
reasoning are impaired or undeveloped, due to an
educational system designed by our corporate masters
who require a majority of the population to be
easily programmed by associative thinking, most of
us use certain shortcuts. The most common is to rely
on authority figures in whom we trust: religious
leaders, university professors, political leaders.
Unfortunately, this leads to the next level of
escalation in the information war: corporate
infiltration and buyout of religious, academic, and
political power. By the late 20th century, the media
wars have progressed to a point where almost all of
these pawns in the game have been compromised or
captured by corporate interests, but many people
have not yet recognized the magnitude of this
strategic shift.
Another shortcut of growing importance is to develop
networks of individuals with whom we share interests
to help us develop our individual strategies and
ideas. As people increasingly recognize that
conventional authority figures have been largely
compromised and captured by corporate powers,
networking has become a popular tool to gather
information and ideas, circumventing the
hierarchical, bureaucratic structures that are
characteristic of institutional authority. Support
groups for personal psychological, social, health,
and career issues have appeared everywhere, and the
Internet now allows people to network at light
speed.
Networking has created a need for each of us to
develop skills in evaluating the reliability and
accuracy of others. Judging integrity and honesty
has never been more important, yet even this is not
enough, for even the most cautious of us has at some
time been guilty of spreading misinformation
(unintentional or careless mistakes) and
disinformation (intentionally deceptive information)
from others. Networking creates quicker access to
information, but it also provides the path for
misinformation and disinformation to spread and
multiply faster than ever.
This newsletter is a form of networking that each of
you chooses to receive. How much of what we say do
you choose to believe and why? Most of you have
never met us, and must make these decisions based
solely upon the words on the page and what your
fellow networkers think of these words.
[4] Disinformation tactics outlined
We cannot loosen the grip of disinformation upon our
minds without first understanding how disinformation
tactics work. Simply by recognizing and describing
specific instances of these tactics, we deny them
their power over us.
The following disinformation tactics are listed in
approximate order of escalating aggressiveness and
complexity. The rules of engagement are stated from
the perspective of the disinformation artist; to
best understand one's opponents, it is helpful to
imagine jumping inside their minds. [For other
discussions of disinformation tactics, see refs.
1a-1d.]
[4.1] Ignorance is bliss -- "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil"
If possible, ignore the issue entirely. Do not give
it credibility by even mentioning its existence.
Only if a critical portion of the public begins to
arrive at the truth must active disinformation be
employed.
For example, scientific reports of weather
modification technology appeared regularly in
academic science journals until the early 1970's,
during which period there were scientific debates,
Congressional reports, and international treaties
restricting its use. However, after this, such
publicly available information all but disappeared,
and people who commented on this were labeled
"conspiracy buffs". Is has only been recently that
public discussion of HAARP (High Altitude Auroral
Research Project) has made it necessary for public
officials to make declarations of ignorance or
denial and to use disinformation tactics listed in
the remainder of this report.
A variation of this tactic involves creating a news
or information source that purports to exhaustively
cover all important aspects of a topic, but, in
reality, selectively ignores one or more crucial
viewpoints. This tactic has been used against
retrovirus researcher Peter Duesberg regarding the
AIDS/HIV debate. As more people have become aware of
his arguments that HIV is not the cause of AIDS,
selective silence is no longer adequate to discredit
his views, and increasingly aggressive
disinformation tactics described below have been
employed.
[4.2] The "how dare you" gambit
If it becomes impossible to ignore the issue, become
indignant, focus on side-issues, and accuse your
opponents of attacking some sacred cow or
politically correct idea. Regardless of evidence or
logical arguments offered, deny that your opponents'
arguments have any credibility. This tactic works
especially well when combined with the "Invoke
authority" rule (see below).
Even though there are almost no double-blind studies
of vaccination efficacy in humans, the official
hierarchies of the medical and pharmaceutical
industries continue to dismiss the huge volume of
scientific research that provides evidence of
ineffectiveness and serious side effects for
specific vaccines, refusing to even discuss the
evidence. Critics of vaccination are accused of
endangering the public safety (sacred cow) and of
contradicting decades of authoritative medical
opinions and tradition.
[4.3] Invoke authority
Side-step any discussion of the issues, and remind
your audience and your opponents of your impeccable
credentials. If you represent a government agency or
prestigious university, simply claim authoritative
knowledge of the subject without offering any
justification. If you are lower in the perceived
hierarchy, back up your authority with other
official-sounding citations, such as legal,
academic, or scientific journal references.
Fabricate or imply such citations if they don't
exist, since few will check them, or select only
those citations that support your argument. Use
plenty of jargon and technical details you know will
be beyond the capacity or training of your audience,
and avoid explaining or defining key words and ideas
to keep them ignorant. It is the appearance of
expertise you must cultivate, not the enlightenment
of your audience.
Many medical information websites use this tactic to
influence public behavior; medical recommendations
are given without any justification other than "we
know better, we are the doctors" -- no references,
scant explanations, and no mention of other opinions
or options. Frequent use of vague phrases such as "top
scientists agree that..." and "the evidence is
overwhelming..." should alert one that the invoke
authority gambit has been played. As a particularly
egregious example of this, when South African
President Thabo Mbeki publicly announced his desire
to air the debate between defenders and skeptics
of the "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis, 5000 scientists
rushed to sign a declaration saying that HIV does
cause AIDS, as if scientific issues were now to be
decided not by reasoned debate, but by mob rule and
by fiat. [refs. 10a-10b]
Henry Kissinger was a master at invoking authority.
His confident style of speaking, together with his
ponderous German accent, employment of polysyllabic
vocabulary, and reputation as an eminent Harvard
professor provided him the tactical capability of
extirpating his critics' strategies with rhetorical
finesse, in the interest of preserving the hegemony
of Western democratic institutions for the
enforcement of genocidal, but utilitarian, policies
necessary to maximize international stability and
detente. Following Kissinger's rhetorical assaults,
his audience would have fallen asleep, comforted by
his reassurances that even the most dastardly
actions had reasonable, erudite explanations.
[4.4] Create a straw man, and knock it down
Ignore the main points of your critics and
exaggerate the weakest aspects of their arguments,
magnifying their significance such that these
weaknesses seemingly destroy the credibility of all
criticisms they have made against you. Hold up the
weakest of their weak arguments for public display,
and show how masterfully you can demolish them,
while avoiding any discussion of your critics' main
points.
This tactic is easiest to use when technical or
scientific subjects or matters of weighty
international politics are in debate. The general
public often lacks the logical skills or the
technical understanding to evaluate each point on
its own merit, and, instead, tends to focus on the
rhetorical skills of the contenders.
Critics of scientist Peter Duesberg, who has
questioned the role of HIV in causing AIDS, often
refuse to address his main point that HIV has never
been shown to satisfy the basic requirements of
Koch's postulates, which have been the standard of
proof of infectious disease causation for over a
century. Instead, they focus on supposed mistakes
and assumptions he makes unrelated to the central
issue of Koch's postulates. (See references under
"AIDS" in section [7] below.)
[4.5] Fabricate arguments using pseudo-logic
Create arguments to reinforce your position by false
yet plausible chains of logic. Only one step in the
chain need be faulty to create the desired illusion.
Since public education no longer trains students in
formal logic, most citizens are incapable of
rational thought, and can be fooled by even the most
blatantly flawed logic. Common mistakes include:
(1) confusing statistical correlation with proof of cause-and-effect relationship;
(2) "proof" by analogy;
(3) implicit or unstated assumptions which are invalid or not applicable;
(4) failing to distinguish between a priori and a posteriori probabilities in the application of statistics;
(5) inadequate or excessively vague definition of the class of objects or phenomenon under investigation.
This topic is much too large to discuss here. See
the "Reference" section [refs. 6a-6d] for articles
and textbooks on scientific research design and
interpretation, and statistics.
One special type of faulty argument appears
frequently in nutritional and herbal literature:
focusing on the presence (or absence) of one or a
few chemical constituents, and then attributing all
health effects and pharmacologic actions to these
chemicals. For example, much commercial literature
promoting the use of canola oil focuses on the omega-3
fatty acid content, yet ignores other potentially
harmful constituents. One theory for why
Mediterranean-type diets may provide significant
health benefits is that these diets are high in olive
oil and fish, which together provide a relatively
greater amount of omega-3 fatty acids than omega-6
fatty acids. Such a balance results in the body
producing relatively greater amount of
anti-inflammatory eicosanoids than pro-inflammatory
eicosanoids. [ref. 11] Even if we assume that this
theory is correct, it is still a leap of faulty logic
to conclude that all foods containing high amounts of
omega-3 fats, including canola oil, will be healthy
to consume. Foods and herbs consist of thousands of
natural chemical compounds, and the total effect on
the body is often difficult to predict based on only
a few chemical constituents. If this type of reasoning
were acceptable, it would lead us to conclude that a
daily dose of rubber tires for breakfast would be
healthy because they are low in cholesterol, or that
pulverized wood chips would be healthy merely because
they are high in natural fibre.
[4.6] Name-calling, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association
Inflame your opponents by ridiculing them, attacking
their character and integrity, and accusing them of
having hidden agendas and biases. Imply that they
are affiliated with other individuals or groups that
are politically incorrect ("right-wing",
"bleeding-heart liberal", "communist", "anarchist",
"conspiracy buffs", "racist", "religious fanatic").
If such associations cannot be uncovered,
manufacture them by planting such persons into the
target individual's circle of associates. These
tactics will force your opponent to go on the
defensive and will temporarily deflect from the
central issues.
Guilt by association is a powerful media tool,
because the overwhelming majority of people are
still victims of Pavlovian conditioning from public
education, advertising, and television, and will
react as programmed by the media and their corporate
masters. Since most people are afraid of being
associated with anything politically incorrect, even
if they agree with the person being attacked, they
will be cowed into silence.
[4.7] Hit-and-run attacks
This tactic works best in public forums, where, as a
member of the audience, one can hurl vicious and
irrational invective at the speaker and then
disappear, avoiding any need to justify one's attack
with a rational reply. The speaker will often be
thrown off balance emotionally. In our era of
glorified "democracy", the ignorant majority often
interprets the sheer number of these attacks as a
vote of no confidence, and the ugly dynamics of mob
violence may overwhelm any ability to debate and
reason logically.
Verbal hit-and-run artists and hecklers appeal to
the lowest common denominator of the public, who
increasingly represent an anti-intellectual element
of our society. These hit-and-run sympathizers,
having been deceived for too long by manipulative
authority figures (see "Invoke authority" rule
above), may feel that they are being
anti-authoritarian, but in reality, are only playing
into the hands of their puppet-masters who
manipulate them like pawns in a chess game.
Journalists have increasingly adopted these tactics
in public forums, leading public figures, especially
politicians, to limit their speeches to nebulous
sound bites and politically correct platitudes, as
anything of substance will invite noisy debate and
verbal hit-and-run attacks.
Internet forums and public newsgroups are also prone
to hit-and-run attacks, facilitated by the anonymity
that the Internet provides. As a consequence, many
of the most useful and informative Internet forums
have evolved to limit their membership to
individuals approved by the group or by the
sponsors, providing for expulsion if a member
engages in hit-and-run behavior or "flaming".
However, this trend has not solved the problem
entirely, as it has led, instead, to a
compartmentalization of interest groups, each of
which decides which ideas are politically correct
within its domain, and which ideas are subject to
open season for ridicule and hit-and-run attacks by
members.
[4.8] Crank up the rumor mill to create complexity, enigmas
Create an atmosphere of rumor-mongering. Assign your
agents, who will pretend to be sympathetic to the
opposition group, to generate unfounded rumors so
that you can criticize their lack of credibility.
Embellish the plain truth with exaggeration and a
few well chosen lies; later, expose these
embellishments as lies to discredit the original
truth by association.
If certain facts are in danger of being publicly
revealed, the media powers may arrange for doctored
variations of the facts to appear first in
supermarket tabloids and other disreputable sources,
surrounded by outrageous and preposterous lies.
College-educated people have been well trained to
reflexively reject such information, which will have
been permanently tainted by its sleazy debut. "Oh,
so you read it in the National Kibitzer? And was it
on the same page as the article about the imminent
alien invasion from Andromeda?" (Smirk, smirk. We
college graduates know that only the credulous
masses believe such nonsense.) With the advent of
the Internet, another variation would be: "Oh, so
you read it on the Internet did you? We know how
reliable that is, don't we? Did you find it on the
Scuzzoids Konspiracy website?"
Another common example of this tactic is to create
so many differing versions and variations of the
alleged facts that most people will give up trying
to sift through the mountains of alleged facts and
disinformation. The only people with sufficient
dedication and persistence to pursue the truth will
become known as fanatics. Classic 20th century
examples of this tactic include studies of the JFK
assassination and the UFO phenomenon. As a testament
to the effectiveness of disinformation by rumor
mill, one can no longer even say the words "UFO" or
"JFK assassination" without eliciting smug and
knowing looks among middle-class,
college-indoctrinated robotoids.
[4.9] Establish fall-back positions
To protect important secrets from the public,
establish multiple layers of plausible fall-back
positions. If superficial facts are exposed, have
plausible but relatively simple stories to explain
these. If deeper secrets are exposed, have
progressively more detailed fall-back scenarios
ready to "confess" to the public, based on
"discoveries" of "oversights and misunderstandings".
Such "confessions" may add to one's public
credibility, as the public always enjoys
well-enacted displays of penitence and remorse for
one's mistakes, especially if accompanied by piety,
somber tears, and a display of the American flag in
the background.
Revelations of horrific medical experiments on U.S.
citizens by universities and military research
departments following World War II were accompanied
by solemn declarations that such atrocities were
merely due to lack of stringent regulatory controls,
and that efforts would be made thereafter to enforce
informed consent rules in medical experimentation.
In reality, there is much evidence that such
research continues to this day, only under greater
secrecy. [Refs. 4a-4j. One must remember to apply
all the rules of disinformation to these references,
as the truth rarely pops out so cleanly or easily.]
[4.10] Betrayal by trusted source
Establish a reliable source of daily news that can
occasionally be used to propagate strategically
important lies (usually those lies that help
maintain billion-dollar corporate profit streams).
People inevitably use shortcuts to determine their
own truths, and after having decided that a source
is reliable after an initial evaluation period, will
be less likely to question its authority.
This tactic is common, though it requires a massive
investment in time and resources; once a source has
been used as a conduit for too many falsehoods and
disinformation campaigns, it loses its credibility.
In this event, the organizational resources may be
dismantled and reorganized under a new name and
venue.
Upon experiencing multiple and continual betrayals
by trusted news and information sources, citizens
usually choose one of two options:
(1) The majority gives up trying to figure out the truth and retreats into mindless diversions (sitcoms, soap operas, game shows, gambling, TV football, etc.), dismissing the quest for truth as the ravings of conspiracy fanatics; or,
(2) A small minority becomes motivated by annoyance and frustration to pursue the truth with great tenacity.
Which category describes you?
Disinformation artists use a variation of the
betrayal-by-trusted-source tactic when they
deceptively mimic the religious, political, or
ethnic biases and beliefs of others to gain their
trust. Salesmen have become notorious for gaining
entry into people's homes by claiming to have been
referred by a minister or priest of the victim's
church. Neurolinguistic programmers refer to this
tactic as pacing and leading: agree with the other
person's beliefs and match their mannerisms until he
or she becomes comfortable and trusting, then
gradually lead that person to the desired goal
(buying something, believing a new idea, etc.).
Most of us remember times that we fell for this
tactic, when people we assumed were our allies
pretended to agree with our biases and beliefs,
hoping to gain some advantage from us.
[4.11] Lie blatantly, and make it convincing
If your back is to the wall, hire underlings to do
your public lying for you, and then have them fired
if the public discovers the lies. Politicians have
mastered this technique and have developed a system
of code words, winks, and nods, to give their
underlings the signal to initiate this tactic. This
method is inelegant and clumsy, to be used only in
desperation.
Blatant lies are difficult to maintain with
consistency, because such lies demand a separate
world be created around them to give them life and
substance. The preceding disinformation tactics
are preferable because they are based on subtleties,
half-truths, and ideas that easily take root in the
minds of people who lack skills in reasoning.
[4.12] Miscellaneous methods
Under this category are tactics that are violent and
illegal. I'm sure you can fill in the details from
here. For example, have you noticed the extraordinary
number of people associated with the Clinton
administration who have met with "accidents" or
"suicides"? [ref. 9]
Those who know the story of Wilhelm Reich will
understand the depths of corruption to which power
will sink. [refs. 8a, 8b]
[5] General strategy for neutralizing the emotional
charge of a disinformation attack
Eventually, anyone who is actively seeking the
truth, whether on Internet discussions, public
forums, or newsgroups, will experience attacks by
disinformation artists. The best method for
neutralizing the emotional charge of such an attack
is to briefly but explicitly describe to the
audience the tactic being used by one's attacker,
and then to continue presenting the original point,
relying on the audience's desire to learn the truth.
For example, if one is attacked by a critic who is
attempting to create a straw man (exaggerating one's
weakest points to knock them down):
"My esteemed critic is attempting to focus on some
of the more minor aspects of my argument, while
ignoring my major points. I do not claim perfection,
and welcome any suggestions for improvement.
However, in the interest of understanding the most
important issues at stake here, I'd like to return
to the main points I was making before we
digressed."
Then quickly get back to your topic; otherwise you
have allowed your opponent to siphon off
psychological energy from you.
In dealing with ad hominem attacks:
"Person X is attempting to distract us from the
topic by making personal attacks on my character
that have little to do with the logical argument I
was making."
Then continue on point as if no interruption had
occurred. If the attack is so outrageous that others
are likely to see through the ploy, it may be OK to
simply ignore it without saying anything.
[6] Common-sense guidelines for determining the truth in social contexts
Now that we are prepared with a knowledge of
disinformation tactics, it might be tempting to
become a professional paranoid, avoiding all social
contact, stopping all magazine subscriptions, and
throwing out the TV set. Hey, lighten up, or all
those New Agers will accuse you of harboring a
vortex of negative energies!
Since the arrival of the Internet, I've benefited
greatly in my own search for answers. Only 5 years
ago, even minor research projects would require me
to travel to the nearest university town to comb the
card catalogs, race up and down library stairwells,
track down missing books, order materials from other
libraries, and scan through hundreds of pages under
glaring fluorescent lights. Now I can access orders
of magnitude more information and disinformation
without ever leaving my desk. Life as a professional
sleuth of obscure health information has never been
more exciting! There are so many puzzles and enigmas
to choose from. The presence of disinformation only
makes the search more challenging.
Now that we've explored the tactics of
disinformation, I'd like to leave you with a few
common-sense guidelines for recognizing the truth.
There is nothing mysterious about these guidelines.
Most of us use them, but perhaps not often enough.
These guidelines are listed in order of increasing
difficulty and complexity; the first few rules are
so simple that we should make them daily habits.
In deciding whether to believe the source of an
alleged fact or idea, we should ask ourselves the
following questions:
(1) If speaking with the information source in
person, does the source have the body language of
someone who speaks the truth?
Eye movements, facial expressions, nervous
twitching, postural shifting, and other such cues
are commonly used by professional investigators and
psychologists. Most people have some instinct for
this and can develop this skill with practice.
(2) Does your "gut reaction" tell you anything?
Our central nervous systems process much
information subconsciously, and the hypothalamus and
autonomic nervous system manifest the results as
sensations in our chest and abdomen coupled with
changes in emotional state. [ref. 7]
Listen to your instincts. They are not the final
word, but should be used as a crude "hot-cold"
indicator. A sudden sense of queasiness in the
epigastrial region should be taken as a warning sign
to investigate the matter further.
(3) Has the source given you other information that
you have independently determined to be accurate in
the past, or has the source relayed misinformation?
Has the source demonstrated good skills of
observation, freedom from biases, etc.?
Too many people will pass on information that they
assume is correct merely because they saw it in
print or on television. Fortunately, more people are
figuring this one out. Scientific journals have a
greater aura of prestige than television, but are
just as subject to error and deception; however, to
maintain their prestige, the errors must be more
sophisticated and stylish than those allowed on
television.
Also, be careful of the betrayal-by-trusted-source
tactic, especially regarding commercial news and
information sources.
(4) Does the source have both the life experience
and the academic background to evaluate the topic?
I've seen many an academic miss the boat because
of a lack of personal experience; relying solely on
book knowledge is often dangerous. Murphy's Law (if
something can go wrong, it will) seems to strike
egghead academics lacking practical experience with
great frequency. Witness the inability of professional
economists to predict trends better than a
random-number generator.
(5) Does the source have a motive or vested interest
in stating his alleged facts or ideas?
If a source stands to gain financially or
otherwise by making a statement or claim, this would
obviously cloud his or her objectivity and ethics,
and should weigh heavily in our judgment of
truthfulness. Certainly, considering such motives,
we should not accept the statement without further
investigation using other sources. Drug companies
that fund researchers to prove drug safety are
committing an obvious conflict of interest, and such
conflicts should be stated in any published research
reports; this problem has recently been acknowledged
as both serious and widespread. [Refs. 5a-5d]
(6) Is the alleged fact or idea consistent with
other facts you know or believe to be true, and do
all of the relevant facts fit together logically?
Criminal investigators rely heavily on
inconsistencies in people's stories. The most
difficult aspect of fabricating stories or evidence
is attempting to ensure that all the details match
up with reality. If any inconsistency can be
discovered, it may lead to other inconsistencies,
and the fabricated story will unravel like a ball of
string. In contrast, the solidity of a true idea
will become evident the more it is probed.
Inconsistencies are just as important in
scientific investigation and research. Plausible
theories and explanations must account for all the
true and accurately obtained data, not just the data
that conveniently supports one's pet theory.
(7) Are official news reports consistent with
eye-witness reports of reliable friends and
associates?
If official news and media reports do conflict
with eye-witness reports or personal experiences of
your friends, then you have uncovered an obvious
inconsistency. I've noted an ever increasing
divergence between the collective wisdom of my
friends and professional colleagues and the official
media sources. After decades of reading Pravda,
Russians became skeptical and cynical, routinely
reading between the lines of official propaganda.
It is time for Americans to learn how to cope with
this problem.
[7] Worthy topics on which to practice your skills
Following is a list of topics that will exercise
your skills in filtering out misinformation and
disinformation. I do not vouch for the accuracy,
truthfulness, or motives of any of the references
listed under each topic, though much useful
information may be gathered from these sources. Many
of the listed references are from the Jeff Rense
website (sightings.com), Nexus Magazine
(nexusmagazine.com), and Leading Edge (trufax.org),
all sources of health news items rarely covered
elsewhere. For each topic I've attempted to select a
range of viewpoints, and certain references contain
blatant examples of disinformation. However, I'm not
going to spoil the hunt for you. That's your job
now.
Each problem below affects the health of millions of
people, and billions of dollars in corporate profits
are at stake, regardless of your viewpoints. With
such high stakes, you can expect to find numerous
examples of sophisticated disinformation tactics.
Gulf War syndrome:
Persian Gulf War Syndrome http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/
Gulf War Syndrome http://www.biofact.com/gulf/
Gulf War Syndrome (lecture by Captain Joyce Riley) http://www.all-natural.com/riley.html
Conference examines Gulf War Syndrome: Eight years after war ended, search for answers continues http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9903/01/gulf.syndrome.01/
Gulf War Veteran Resource Page http://www.gulfweb.org/
US Army Mycoplasma Fermentans Incognitus Patent -Read It And Weep http://www.sightings.com/general7/wps.htm http://www.sightings.com/general7/mycro.htm
Mycoplasma Information Package http://www.sightings.com/general7/microplasm.htm
AIDS:
Scientific Research On The Intentional Creation Of
The AIDS Virus http://www.sightings.com/general8/aidscc.htm
Duesberg on AIDS http://www.duesberg.com/
The Galileo Effect: The Struggle for Truth in Science http://users.erols.com/csoon/aids.html
The HIV-AIDS Debate Is Over: What to tell your patients when they ask if HIV causes AIDS http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html
Focus on: The HIV-AIDS Connection http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm
Does HIV cause AIDS? http://pages.prodigy.net/johnhunter2/hivaids.htm
AIDS and the Duesberg Phenomenon: A Problem-Based Learning Case Study http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/aids.htm
AIDS/HIV: What's wrong with the traditional 'HIV/AIDS' theory? http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/aids_hiv_fraud.htm
The Yin & Yang of HIV http://www.nexusmagazine.com//HIVnotAIDS1.html
*** Mad-cow syndrome:
The Official Mad Cow Disease Home Page http://www.mad-cow.org/
Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy),
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)
http://www.purefood.org/meatlink.html
Mad Cow Disease - The Chemical Industry Plays Dirty http://www.sightings.com/general7/MCDchemical.htm
Monsanto's GM Soy Beans Big Winner In Mad Cow Crisis http://www.sightings.com/general8/madcss.htm
Could Organophosphate Insecticides Play A Role In Madcow Disease?http://www.sightings.com/general7/disea.htm
Did An Insecticide Trigger Mad Cow/BSE In UK?http://www.sightings.com/general6/bse.htm
Spiroplasmas As The Cause Of CJD http://www.sightings.com/general6/spiro.htm
The Safety Of Gelatin, Its Production, & Mad Cow/vCJD Prion Theory
http://www.sightings.com/general5/theory.htm
No Mad Cow In Sweden Yet - Swedes Proud Of 'Sane' Beef http://www.sightings.com/general5/sanebeef.htm
Chemtrails:
Prototype Flu Vaccines And Chemtrail Agents Major Threat To Health http://www.sightings.com/general6/prototype.htm
Chemtrails - Barium Indentification Further Confirmed
http://www.sightings.com/general5/chembarium.htm
Chemtrails Crimes and Cover Up Documented
http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
Chemtrails Data Page http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
New Mexicans for Science and Reason: Chemtrail Fears Thrive on Internet http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm
[8] References
[ref. 1a] Cleary, Thomas; "The Art of War"; book
published by Shambala Publishers, Boston, c1988.
[ref. 1b] Machiavelli, Niccolo; "Discourses"; book
published by Cambridge University Press, c1988.
[ref. 1c] "Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The
Rules of Disinformation";
http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html#25r
The Professional Paranoid; PO Box 1941; Clackamas,
OR 97015; email: [email protected] (H. Michael
Sweeney)
[ref. 1d] "Disinformation"; by James Fetzer;
http://www.assassinationscience.com/disinformation.html
[ref. 3] "Conditioned-response learning"; from the
textbook "Elements of Psychology", by David Krech,
Richard Crutchfield, and Norman Livson, c1969,
Alfred Knopf, Inc., New York.
[ref. 4a] "Mind Control Research"; Ground Zero
Minnesota;
http://www.gzmn.org/v0000005.htm
[ref. 4b] "Mind Control Slavery and the New World
Order"; Nexus Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1999
Feb-Mar);
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/MindControlNWO.html
[ref. 4c] "Project MKUltra, the CIA's Program of
Research in Behavioral Modification"; Joint hearing
before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of
the Committee on Human Resources, United States
Senate (1977);
http://parascope.com/ds/documentslibrary/documents/mkultrahearing/index.htm
[ref. 4d] "MKULTRA Documents"; Parascope;
http://parascope.com/ds/mkultradocs.htm
[ref. 4e] DeCamp, John; "The Franklin Cover-up:
Child Abuse, Satanism and Murder in Nebraska";
book published by AWT, Inc.; PO Box 85461, Lincoln,
NE 68501 USA; c1996, 2nd ed.
[ref. 4f] Chaitkin, Anton; "Franklin Witnesses
Implicate FBI and U.S. Elites in Torture and Murder
of Children"; article in The New Federalist, 1993.
[ref. 4g] "Project Monarch"; by Ron Patton;
http://www.aches-mc.org/monarch.html
[ref. 4h] "Psychosocial Manipulation of Human
Populations"; Leading Edge International Research
Group; c1999;
http://www.cco.net/~trufax/menu/mind.html
[ref. 4i] Estabrooks, G.H.; "Hypnosis Comes of Age";
Science Digest, 1971 Apr, pp.44-50;
http://www.mindspring.com/~txporter/scidig.htm
[ref. 4j] "Mind Control"; TOTSE Media Ventures;
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/mind_control/index.html
[ref. 5a] "Scientific Conflict Of Interest
Regulations Offer Loophole To Small Business
Program"; The Scientist 5[6]:1, 1991 Mar 18;
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1991/mar/mervis_p1_910318.html
[ref. 5b] "Research and conflict of interest: how
ÒtruthfulÓ is corporate funded research";
InfactCanada Newsletter, 1998 Summer;
http://www.infactcanada.ca/newsletters/summer98/research.htm
[ref. 5c] "FDA & conflict of interest:
Pharmaceuticals just the tip of the iceberg"; letter
to FDA from Jason Boehk, Former Administrative
Coordinator, Alliance for Bio-Integrity;
http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/emf-l/Sep2000/FDA-&-conflict-of-interest-Pharmaceuticals-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-.html
[ref. 5d] Resnik, David B.; "Conflicts of Interest
in Science"; Perspectives on Science, 6.4 (1998)
pp.381-408; Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/perspectives_on_science/v006/6.4resnik.html
[ref. 6a]; Goldberg, J.P., and Shuman, J.M.; "Making
Sense of Scientific Research about Diet and Health";
Food and Nutrition Science Alliance Statement, 1997
Aug;
http://www.ift.org/resource/news/news_rel/FANSA/goldberg.shtml
[ref. 6b]; "IFIC Review: How to Understand and
Interpret Food and Health-Related Scientific
Studies"; 2000 May;
http://ificinfo.health.org/brochure/ificrevu.htm
[ref. 6c]; "Internet Resources: Research Methods";
BUBL Information Service;
http://bubl.ac.uk/link/r/researchmethods.htm
[ref. 6d]; Mitchell and Jolley; "Research Design
Explained", online textbook; Clarion University;
http://spsp.clarion.edu/mm/RDE3/start/RDE3start.html
[ref. 7] "The autonomic nervous system and its role
in controlling visceral activities"; from "Medical
Physiology", (13th ed.); C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis,
c1974.
[ref. 8a] "The Mysterious Life and Death of Dr.
Wilhelm Reich"; Linda Moulton Howe, c1999;
http://www.earthfiles.com/earth003.html
[ref. 8b] "A Brief History of Wilhelm Reich's
Discoveries, and the Developing Science of
Orgonomy"; Orgone Biophysics Research Lab;
http://www.orgonelab.org/b_wrhist.htm
[ref. 9a] "How Would You Like To Be Bill Clinton's
Friend?"; from www.bluestarbase.org;
http://www.sightings.com/general8/fob.htm
[ref. 9b] "'Lone Nuts' And High-Level Violence";
Rense.com; http://www.sightings.com/general8/lone.htm
[ref. 10a] "Mbeki vs. AIDS Experts"; Washington
Post Foreign Service, 2000 May 16;
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6835-2000May15.html
[ref. 10b] "Mbeki, AIDS, and the intolerance of the
media"; WOZA Internet (Pty) Ltd, 2000 Mar 24;
http://www.woza.co.za/news/mar00/aidsmbeki24.htm
[ref. 11] Simopoulos, A.P. and Robinson, Jo; "The
Omega Diet"; book published by Harper Perennial, c1999.
Roger W. Wicke, Ph.D.
Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute
PO Box 579
Hot Springs, Montana 59845
email: [email protected]
|