NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY
The enemies of democracy are flexing their muscles. A corporate front group calling itself Frontiers of Freedom has petitioned U.S. tax officials to revoke the tax-exempt status of Rainforest Action Network (RAN), a major environmental organization (www.ran.org). If successful, the petition would put Rainforest Action Network out of business, and would open the door for lethal attacks on other environmental advocates. Frontiers of Freedom acknowledged to the WALL STREET JOURNAL that, if successful against RAN, "it will challenge other environmental groups."
Frontiers of Freedom was founded in 1995 by Malcolm Wallop, a former U.S. Senator (R-Wyo.) and "friend of vice-president Dick Cheney," according to the WALL STREET JOURNAL. The JOURNAL reports that Frontiers is funded by Philip Morris Companies, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., and the Exxon Mobil Corporation.
This latest corporate attack on freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly, is not random. It is part of an accelerating campaign to replace representative democracy with control by corporate elites.
Now a new book, TRUST US, WE'RE EXPERTS! by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, provides a chilling, documented history of ongoing corporate efforts to use propaganda and "public relations" to distort science, manipulate public opinion, discredit democracy, and consolidate political power in the hands of a wealthy few.
The Big Idea behind the anti-democratic corporate-power movement is that people cannot be trusted to make political decisions because they are irrational, emotional, and illogical. This cynical view of humans is widely held by the public relations industry's experts but also by the scientific experts they employ to 'guide' the public. For example, physics professor H.W. Lewis (University of California, Santa Barbara), a well-known risk assessor, says people worry about non-problems like nuclear waste and pesticides because they are irrational and poorly educated. "The common good is ill served by the democratic process," he says.
If people are not rational they cannot be guided by reason, so they must be manipulated through emotion, PR experts say (thus justifying their own propaganda services). For example, a spokesperson for Burson-Marsteller, a PR firm that manipulates the public on behalf of Philip Morris, Monsanto, Exxon Mobil and others, told the Society of Chemical Industry in London in 1989, "All of this research is helpful in figuring out a strategy for the chemical industry and for its products. It suggests, for example, that a strategy based on logic and information is probably not going to succeed. We are in the realm of the illogical, the emotional, and we must respond with the tools that we have for managing the emotional aspects of the human psyche... The industry must be like the psychiatrist..."
The PR psychiatric manipulation industry is now enormous. Corporations spend at least $10 billion each year hiring PR propaganda experts and our federal government spends another $2.3 billion or so -- and these are no doubt underestimates. But these huge sums are not wasted -- they provide major benefits to the clients. For example, about 40% of all stories that appear in newspapers are planted there by PR firms on behalf of a specific paying client. Because most radio and TV news is simply re-written from newspaper stories, a substantial proportion of the public's "news" originates as PR propaganda. Naturally the connection to the PR source is edited out.
The COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW analyzed the WALL STREET JOURNAL and found that more than half its stories are "based solely on press releases" even though many carry the misleading statement, "By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter." Thus what passes for news these days is, as often as not, corporate propaganda. Tongue in cheek, Rampton and Stauber refer to the major news media as the disinfotainment industry.
Unfortunately, as Rampton and Stauber make crystal clear with example after example, all of this manipulation has devastating consequences for real people. The news media largely set the limits on public discussion, and thus on public policy debate. What is excluded from the news is often more significant than what gets inserted. For example, approximately 800,000 new cases of occupational illness arise each year, making occupational illness much larger than AIDS and roughly equivalent to cancer and all circulatory diseases, but most people have no idea that this is so.
Combined with on-the-job injuries, work-related illnesses kill about 80,000 workers each year -- nearly twice the national death total from automobile accidents. In 1991 former NEW YORK TIMES labor correspondent William Serrin reported (but, notably, NOT in the NEW YORK TIMES) that about 200,000 workers had been killed on the job since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1970, and that an additional 2 million workers had died from diseases caused by conditions where they worked. That's 273 work-related deaths EACH DAY, day after day after day. This corporate carnage is ignored by the news media, which prefer to keep us focused on yuppie SUV crashes, and crimes of passion.
During the same 20-year period, 1970-1990, an additional 1.4 million workers were permanently disabled in workplace accidents. Yet during those 20 years, only 14 people were prosecuted by the Justice Department for violation of workplace safety standards and only one person went to jail -- for 45 days for suffocating two workers to death in a trench cave-in.
PR experts "spin" stories for the media on the assumption that most reporters are too overworked (or too lazy) to search out the truth for themselves. But Rampton and Stauber exhaustively document that "spin" goes much farther than merely providing a "news hook," a viewpoint, or a few facts. Modern corporate propaganda involves purchasing scientific opinions and planting them in scientific journals (without, of course, mentioning the money connection to the corporate benefactor). Tobacco companies invented this technique, but now others are using it freely. For example, in the early 1990s, tobacco companies paid $156,000 to a handful of scientists to sign their names to letters written by tobacco company lawyers. The letters were published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, the LANCET, the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, and the WALL STREET JOURNAL, and were then cited by the tobacco companies as if they had been written by independent scientists. "It's a systematic effort to pollute the scientific literature," says professor of medicine Stanton Glantz (University of California, San Francisco), a longtime critic of Big Tobacco.
In 1999 drug maker Wyeth Laboratories commissioned ghost writers to manufacture ten medical articles promoting a combination of Wyeth drugs called fen-fen, as a treatment for obesity. Two of the articles actually got published in peer-reviewed journals. After fen-fen was pulled from the market for permanently damaging peoples' heart valves, lawyers for injured victims discovered that Wyeth had edited the articles to play down and occasionally delete descriptions of side effects caused by fen-fen. Prominent scientists put their names on these articles in return for fees as small as $1000 to $1500 -- and journal editors published the articles as if they represented independent scientific inquiry. Wyeth could then cite these "independent" studies to convince doctors to prescribe fen-fen.
In 1996, Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University examined 789 articles published by 1105 researchers in 14 leading life science and biomedical journals. In 34% of the articles, at least one of the chief authors had an identifiable financial interest connected to the research. None of these financial interests was disclosed in the journals. Krimsky said the 34% figure was probably an underestimate because he couldn't check stock ownership or corporate consulting fees paid to researchers.
Science, like democracy, depends crucially upon the free flow of information. When secrecy is imposed, errors go undetected and fallacies proliferate -- only to be discovered years later, if at all.[4] For example, secrecy has allowed the U.S. military to create a "pattern of exaggeration and deception" in its reports to Congress, just as secrecy allowed the military to waste more than $100 billion (!) in failed attempts to create a workable "star wars" missile defense system. In 1993, a front-page story in the NEW YORK TIMES began, "Officials of the 'Star Wars' project rigged a crucial 1984 test and faked other data in a program of deception that misled Congress..." Secrecy invites deception and destroys democratic accountability.
Rampton and Stauber point out that "Corporate funding creates a culture of secrecy that can be as chilling to free academic inquiry as funding from the military. Instead of government censorship, we hear the language of commerce: nondisclosure agreements, patent rights, intellectual property rights, intellectual capital."
A key feature of the corporate anti-democracy strategy of the past 20 years is reduced government funding for needed research, thus inviting corporate funders to step in. This is what "tax cut" really means. Tax cuts are not primarily aimed at giving families another $300 to spend -- they are mainly intended to reduce the capacity of governments to fund needed public services, such as medical research. As a result, corporations are asked to provide the funds and thus they gain an opportunity to influence the national research agenda and the results.
In 1994 and 1995 researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed more than 3000 academic scientists and found that 64% of them had financial ties to corporations. They reported in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA), that 20% of the 3000 researchers admitted that they had delayed publication of research results for more than 6 months, to obtain patents and to "slow the dissemination of undesired results." "Sometimes if you accept a grant from a company, you have to include a proviso that you won't distribute anything except with its OK. It has a negative impact on science," says Nobel-prize-winning biochemist Paul Berg. In 1999 Drummond Rennie, editor of JAMA, said private funding of medical research was causing "a race to the ethical bottom.... The behavior of universities and scientists is sad, shocking, and frightening," Rennie said. "They are seduced by industry funding, and frightened that if they don't go along with these gag orders, the money will go to less rigorous institutions," he said.
In this rich, deep book, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have painstakingly documented the specific techniques that PR experts and their corporate masters employ to deceive the courts, the legislatures, the media, educators, and the public. The next time someone accuses you of "chemophobia" or of relying on "junk science" you'll know you're dealing with corporate manipulators who are being guided by PR skanks. Their overriding goal is to discredit decision-making by the public and replace it with control by corporate elites. They know better, they're experts, trust them.
The final chapter of this important book tells us how to fight back. If you care about democracy, science or simple truth and want to know exactly how corporate elites subvert all three, this is the book for you.
FLUORIDATION: TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK?
In 1997 the union representing scientists, engineers and lawyers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C., voted to support a California citizen initiative to stop fluoridation of public drinking water. In 1999 the union's vice-president released a paper explaining the union's opposition to fluoridation.
Fluoridation is the practice of adding fluoride to the public water supply to reduce dental decay. U.S. fluoridation trials began in 1945 and by 1992 approximately 56% of the U.S. public received its water from fluoridated systems.
Typically, fluoride-containing (or -generating) compounds are added to water to bring the level up to 1 milligram of fluoride ion per liter (1 part per million). In 1986 EPA set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in drinking water at 4 ppm.
The MCL was based on only one adverse health effect: skeletal fluorosis, a crippling bone disease.
Fluoridation of public water supplies has stirred passionate debate for over 50 years. Now new data is refining the debate. It appears that some of the early claims for fluoridation's benefits were inflated. In recent years tooth decay has declined in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. In fact, the largest U.S. survey indicates that the benefit to fluoridated communities amounts to 0.6 fewer decayed tooth surfaces per child, which is less than one percent of the tooth surfaces in a child's mouth.
The public health community justified medicating whole communities via public drinking water using certain arguments that recent research has now shown to be false. For example, in 1945 scientists believed that fluoride had to be swallowed to be effective. However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recently acknowledged that fluoride's mechanism of action is primarily topical, not systemic. This means that you don't need to swallow fluoride to reap its tiny benefits.
A second early belief, now known to be false, is that fluoride is an essential nutrient. There is no evidence of any disease related to fluoride deficiency. Natural levels of fluoride in human milk (0.01 ppm) are approximately a hundred times less than baby formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.
A third early belief was that dental fluorosis (a defect of the tooth enamel caused by fluoride's interference with the growing tooth) would occur in only about 10% of the children drinking water fluoridated at 1 ppm and would occur only in its mildest form. Today fluorosis occurs on two or more teeth in 30% of children in areas where the water is fluoridated, and not all in its mildest form.
A fourth early belief was that 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water provided an ample margin of safety against toxic effects. Not only is there no safety margin for dental fluorosis but there is growing evidence that there may be no safety margin for changes to bone structure and impacts on the brain, thyroid, and other soft tissues, especially when it is coupled with nutrient deficiencies, particularly iodide.
THE EVIDENCE
1) In 1998 the results of a long-term, low-dose rat study were published. Two groups of rats were exposed to two different kinds of fluoride at 1 ppm in distilled water. A third group received only distilled water. Amyloid deposits (associated with Alzheimer's Disease and other forms of dementia) were elevated in the brains of both fluoridated groups compared to the control group. The authors speculate that fluoride enables aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier.
2) Millions of people in India and China suffer a crippling bone disease called skeletal fluorosis, caused by moderate to high natural levels of fluoride (1.5 to 9 ppm) in their water. Skeletal fluorosis has several stages of severity, with the less severe being chronic joint pain. "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed." Arthritis is now at epidemic levels in the U.S. Fluoride's plausible contribution has been ignored, but needs to be taken seriously.
3) Since fluoridation began in 1945 our exposure to other sources of fluoride has increased substantially. These include processing food and beverages with fluoridated water; air pollution from fluoride emitting industries; pesticide residues; vitamins; and dental products. If 1 ppm in drinking water were the only source of fluoride, the average person would ingest 2 milligrams (mg) of fluoride each day, though some may get less because they use bottled water, or they drink less water than the average adult. In 1991, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) estimated that the range of exposure in communities with approximately 1 ppm fluoride in the water was 1.58 to 6.6 mg per day.
4) The dose of 1.58 to 6.6 mg per day overlaps the dose found to depress the functioning of the human thyroid gland. At 2.27 to 4.54 mg/day, fluoride has been found to "completely relieve" the symptoms of hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid). With fluoride's known capacity to depress thyroid activity, it seems that there may be a link between current fluoride consumption and the prevalence of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). More than twenty million people in the U.S. receive treatment for thyroid problems and many others are thought to go undiagnosed.
5) Fluoride is a hormone disrupter. It mimics the action of many water-soluble hormones by interacting with G proteins, which transmit hormonal messages across cell membranes. Additionally, fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and may reduce melatonin production.
6) Fluoride (50-75 mg per day) given to osteoporosis patients to strengthen bones has actually increased their rate of hip fractures. Of 18 studies conducted since 1990, 10 have found an association between water fluoridation and hip fractures in the elderly. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): "If this effect is confirmed, it would mean that hip fracture in the elderly replaces dental fluorosis in children as the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride exposure." Hip fracture is not a minor problem: in the U.S. up to 50,000 people die each year of osteoporosis-related hip fractures.
7) Some evidence suggests that fluoride causes bone cancer in male rats and perhaps in young men.
8) A recent report by the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility reviews studies showing that fluoride interferes with brain function in young animals and in children, reducing IQ.
Most European countries have rejected fluoridation. Recognizing that there are simple and effective alternatives, they have applied the precautionary principle. Their children's teeth have not suffered as a consequence. Parents willing to expose their children to fluoride can simply purchase fluoridated toothpaste (which contains 1000 to 1500 ppm fluoride -- read the warning label on the package). The American policy of giving fluoride to children by medicating whole communities with a potent drug that may harm some people seems a dubious practice at best. At worst it violates the primary principle of medical ethics: First do no harm. Furthermore, it violates the ethical principle of informed consent.
In May 2000 the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) was formed by a coalition of activists and scientists from 12 countries (see: https://www.fluoridealert.org). FAN's goal is to end fluoridation and minimize exposure to fluoride. FAN's founding members include the late David Brower; Teddy Goldsmith; Michael Colby; Gar Smith; Terri Swearingen; the union representing professional employees at EPA headquarters; and Dr. Hardy Limeback, Canada's leading dental authority on fluoridation who in 1999 apologized for having promoted fluoridation for 15 years.
We urge our colleagues working on public health and environmental issues to become involved and take a second look at fluoridation.
Written by: Paul Connett, a professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton N.Y.; Ellen Connett is editor of WASTE NOT , 82 Judson, Canton N.Y. 13617; Michael Connett is FAN's webmaster https://www.fluoridealert.org
NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|