Posts Tagged ‘Consciousness’


High school testing eyed for schizophrenia signs

June 11th, 2002

High school testing eyed for schizophrenia signs
By Ellen Barry, Globe Staff, 5/25/2002

PHILADELPHIA – Hoping to head off the most debilitating of mental illnesses before it strikes, Yale University researchers are laying plans to search for a secret hidden in the brains of ninth-graders: In every group of 100 students, one will go on to develop schizophrenia.

For generations, schizophrenia has been diagnosed in late adolescence, after lives and relationships are already damaged by its painful early stages. In a scattering of research centers, including Yale’s, excitement is building around the possibility that doctors can spot ”pre-psychotic” symptoms and intervene in ways that could delay or weaken the onset of schizophrenia. Yale psychiatrists have been in talks with Connecticut schools to introduce a screen for high school freshmen.

But the idea of such early screening is contentious. Critics warn that it may be too early to identify people in the general population as being at risk for psychosis – both because prediction is still inexact and because there is no consensus on how to treat people who have not yet developed full-blown symptoms. Once a person is identified as at risk for schizophrenia, the most promising interventions – low-dose antipsychotic drugs – carry their own set of risks.

”We have to be cautious,” said Jim McNulty, president of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. ”We don’t know the long-term effects of medications on the human brain. It’s a trade-off.”

A Yale research center called Prevention through Risk Identification, Management and Education , or PRIME, is developing a possible student screen now, although Dr. Thomas McGlashan, PRIME’s chief investigator, said general screening was still some time in the future. ”We’re talking about a year from now” at the soonest, he said.

Schizophrenia, which afflicts 2.2 million Americans, tends to strike men in their late teens and early 20s and women slightly later, and rarely appears in older people. At the heart of the Yale plan is a tantalizing possibility: that early treatment with antipsychotics during that ”window of vulnerability” could protect them until the age when vulnerabililty lessens.

On Thursday, McGlashan presented hopeful new results at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in Philadelphia.

”There is evidence to suggest that intervention in this stage can have a preventive effect,” McGlashan said.

McGlashan is a year from the end of a clinical drug trial in which 60 patients thought to be at risk for schizophrenia are administered either sugar pills or the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa as a prophylactic measure. After eight weeks of treatment, the Zyprexa group had only half the level of psychotic symptoms as the placebo group, said researcher Scott Woods.

Those in the Zyprexa group also gained an average of 10 pounds in the eight-week period, contrasting to an average one-pound weight gain in the placebo group.

McGlashan has been under scrutiny for his research on pre-onset schizophrenia in the past, in large part because of the risks in giving powerful antipsychotic drugs to young people who are not diagnosed with any mental illness. Two years ago, he was cited by federal regulators for various ethical violations, including failing to fully inform participants of risks.

In the frustrating world of mental health care, early intervention has become a watchword, and Connecticut school officials have said they are eager to break ground by adding mental health to their roster of preventive health programs.

”We looked at it much like we look at eye screens and that sort of thing,” said Nancy Pugliese, who coordinates substance abuse prevention programs for the Connecticut public schools.

As part of that effort, Larry Davidson, a psychologist from the PRIME center, plans to begin an outreach program in the fall, teaching ninth-graders the early signs of psychosis, bipolar disorder, and other mental disorders. Both schools and parents must agree for students to be enrolled in the course, he said. When PRIME develops an accurate screen for pre-onset schizophrenia, it will be administered as part of the course, said Tandy Miller, the PRIME psychiatrist developing the screen.

Catching serious mental illness early is a wonderful opportunity, said Paul Appelbaum, chairman of the department of psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts and president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association.

”If we can actually intervene and try to prevent psychosis in half the people we’re treating, isn’t that a terrific accomplishment?” Appelbaum said.

The trouble, he said, is that even specialists are only right about half the time when they predict who is going to develop schizophrenia.

Patrick McGorry, who heads the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre in Victoria, Australia, found that 40 percent of adolescents he identified as ”pre-psychotic” experienced the onset of schizophrenia within a year.

McGlashan’s early results – published in the May issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry – show that 54 percent of 13 patients identified as pre-psychotic had developed schizophrenia within a year.

Therein lies the problem for potential screening. For the subjects who are incorrectly identified as pre-psychotic, the identification itself could be life-changing, Appelbaum said.

”Does it impact on your ability to get health insurance?” he said. ”What about the self-stigma? You may begin to think of yourself as somebody who is going to be schizophrenic.

Davidson said that stigma will be reduced through the educational efforts PRIME plans to start in September, funded by a $99,000 grant from the National Alliance for Research of Schizophrenia and Depression. A similar educational effort in the classrooms and movie theaters of Norway had significant effects: the average delay from the first episode of psychosis to treatment went from 21/2 years to 2 months. The average delay before treatment in the United States is two years, largely because of a lack of awareness of the symptoms of mental illness, he said.

If Connecticut high school students were identified as at risk for psychosis, teenagers and their families would be carefully monitored, possibly at the PRIME clinic or a planned affiliate clinic in Hartford, McGlashan said.

But doctors can not confidently advise any preventive treatment at the moment. Although there are numerous experimental treatments being explored for pre-onset psychosis – such as antidepressants or cognitive behavioral therapy – no method has been broadly tested as a preventive measure.

”You don’t recommend any treatment unless you’ve got a thorough evaluation,” Davidson said. ”The state of knowledge right now is that you would not make” the recommendation to prescribe antipsychotics.

One observer said it is crucial that a broad screening tool not be used to nudge subjects toward an experimental treatment.

”The assumption always is that screening does no harm,” said Steven Hyman, who stepped down as the director of the National Institute of Mental Health to become Harvard’s provost. But screening for depression, a common disease for which treatment is reasonably safe and effective, is different from screening for a disease that is difficult to identify and treat.

”We don’t have proven ways of knowing who is schizophrenic, and the risk-benefit ratio of treating them prior to onset of serious symptoms is not established,” Hyman said.

Ellen Barry can be reached at barry@globe.com

www.boston.com
web.archive.org

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything

January 13th, 2002

The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
by Dr. Tim O’Shea
(www.thedoctorwithin.com)

We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the
world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and
attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our
very awareness of the whole design seems like it is
being subtly and inexorably erased.

The doors of our perception are carefully and
precisely regulated. Who cares, right?

It is an exhausting and endless task to keep
explaining to people how most issues of conventional
wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public
consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an
effort to save time, I would like to provide just a
little background on the handling of information in
this country.

Once the basic principles are illustrated about how
our current system of media control arose
historically, the reader might be more apt to question
any given story in today’s news.

If everybody believes something, it’s probably wrong.
We call that Conventional Wisdom.

In America, conventional wisdom that has mass
acceptance is usually contrived: somebody paid for it.
Examples:

Pharmaceuticals restore health
Vaccination brings immunity
The cure for cancer is just around the corner
When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
Hospitals are safe and clean.
America has the best health care in the world.
And many many more
This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions
and billions to conjure up. Did you ever wonder why
you never see the President speaking publicly unless
he is reading? Or why most people in this country
think generally the same about most of the above
issues?

How This Set-Up Got Started

In Trust Us We’re Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull
together some compelling data describing the science
of creating public opinion in America.

They trace modern public influence back to the early
part of the last century, highlighting the work of
guys like Edward L. Bernays, the Father of Spin. From
his own amazing chronicle Propaganda, we learn how
Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle
Sigmund Freud himself, and applied them to the
emerging science of mass persuasion.

The only difference was that instead of using these
principles to uncover hidden themes in the human
unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does, Bernays
used these same ideas to mask agendas and to create
illusions that deceive and misrepresent, for marketing
purposes.

The Father Of Spin

Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and
was a significant force for another 40 years after
that. (Tye) During all that time, Bernays took on
hundreds of diverse assignments to create a public
perception about some idea or product. A few examples:

As a neophyte with the Committee on Public
Information, one of Bernays’ first assignments was to
help sell the First World War to the American public
with the idea to “Make the World Safe for Democracy.”
(Ewen)

A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to
popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes. In
organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New York City,
Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with.

He organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which
suffragettes marched in the parade smoking cigarettes
as a mark of women’s liberation. Such publicity
followed from that one event that from then on women
have felt secure about destroying their own lungs in
public, the same way that men have always done.

Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.

Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the
advertising format along with the AMA that lasted for
nearly 50 years proving that cigarettes are beneficial
to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or Time
from the 40s and 50s.

Smoke And Mirrors

Bernay’s job was to reframe an issue; to create a
desired image that would put a particular product or
concept in a desirable light. Bernays described the
public as a ‘herd that needed to be led.’ And this
herdlike thinking makes people “susceptible to
leadership.”

Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to
“control the masses without their knowing it.” The
best PR happens with the people unaware that they are
being manipulated.

Stauber describes Bernays’ rationale like this:

“the scientific manipulation of public opinion was
necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in a
democratic society.” Trust Us p 42
These early mass persuaders postured themselves as
performing a moral service for humanity in general –
democracy was too good for people; they needed to be
told what to think, because they were incapable of
rational thought by themselves. Here’s a paragraph
from Bernays’ Propaganda:

“Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true
ruling power of our country. We are governed, our
minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested
largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human
beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to
live together as a smoothly functioning society.

In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere
of politics or business in our social conduct or our
ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively
small number of persons who understand the mental
processes and social patterns of the masses. It is
they who pull the wires that control the public mind.”

Here Comes The Money

Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology
to mass media were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more
corporate clients than he could handle. Global
corporations fell all over themselves courting the new
Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and services
and ideas to be sold to a susceptible public. Over the
years, these players have had the money to make their
images happen. A few examples:

Philip Morris Pfizer Union Carbide Allstate
Monsanto Eli Lilly tobacco industry Ciba Geigy
lead industry Coors DuPont Chlorox
Shell Oil Standard Oil Procter & Gamble Boeing
General Motors Dow Chemical General Mills Goodyear

The Players

Though world-famous within the PR industry, the
companies have names we don’t know, and for good
reason.

The best PR goes unnoticed.

For decades they have created the opinions that most
of us were raised with, on virtually any issue which
has the remotest commercial value, including:

pharmaceutical drugs vaccines
medicine as a profession alternative medicine
fluoridation of city water chlorine
household cleaning products tobacco
dioxin global warming
leaded gasoline cancer research and treatment
pollution of the oceans forests and lumber
images of celebrities, including damage control
crisis and disaster management
genetically modified foods aspartame
food additives; processed foods dental amalgams

Lesson #1

Bernays learned early on that the most effective way
to create credibility for a product or an image was by
“independent third-party” endorsement.

For example, if General Motors were to come out and
say that global warming is a hoax thought up by some
liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM’s
motives, since GM’s fortune is made by selling
automobiles.

If however some independent research institute with a
very credible sounding name like the Global Climate
Coalition comes out with a scientific report that says
global warming is really a fiction, people begin to
get confused and to have doubts about the original
issue.

So that’s exactly what Bernays did. With a policy
inspired by genius, he set up “more institutes and
foundations than Rockefeller and Carnegie combined.”
(Stauber p 45)

Quietly financed by the industries whose products were
being evaluated, these “independent” research agencies
would churn out “scientific” studies and press
materials that could create any image their handlers
wanted. Such front groups are given high-sounding
names like:

Temperature Research Foundation Manhattan Institute
International Food Information Council Center for
Produce Quality
Consumer Alert Tobacco Institute Research Council
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Air
Hygiene Foundation
American Council on Science and Health Industrial
Health Federation
Global Climate Coalition International Food
Information Council
Alliance for Better Foods

Sound pretty legit don’t they?

Canned News Releases

As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds
of others like them are front groups whose sole
mission is to advance the image of the global
corporations who fund them, like those listed on page
2 above.

This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of
‘press releases’ announcing “breakthrough” research to
every radio station and newspaper in the country.
(Robbins) Many of these canned reports read like
straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the
news format.

This saves journalists the trouble of researching the
subjects on their own, especially on topics about
which they know very little. Entire sections of the
release or in the case of video news releases, the
whole thing can be just lifted intact, with no
editing, given the byline of the reporter or newspaper
or TV station – and voil?! Instant news – copy and
paste. Written by corporate PR firms.

Does this really happen? Every single day, since the
1920s when the idea of the News Release was first
invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22) Sometimes as many
as half the stories appearing in an issue of the Wall
St. Journal are based solely on such PR press
releases.. (22)

These types of stories are mixed right in with
legitimately researched stories. Unless you have done
the research yourself, you won’t be able to tell the
difference.

The Language Of Spin

As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays
gained more experience, they began to formulate rules
and guidelines for creating public opinion. They
learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on
emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of
rational thought, motivation must be based not on
logic but on presentation. Here are some of the axioms
of the new science of PR:

technology is a religion unto itself
if people are incapable of rational thought, real
democracy is dangerous
important decisions should be left to experts
when reframing issues, stay away from substance;
create images
never state a clearly demonstrable lie
Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional
impact. Here’s an example. A front group called the
International Food Information Council handles the
public’s natural aversion to genetically modified
foods.

Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now
in the case of GM foods, the public is instinctively
afraid of these experimental new creations which have
suddenly popped up on our grocery shelves which are
said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC wants to
reassure the public of the safety of GM foods, so it
avoids words like:

Frankenfoods Hitler biotech
chemical DNA experiments
manipulate money safety
scientists radiation roulette
gene-splicing gene gun random

Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:

hybrids natural order beauty
choice bounty cross-breeding
diversity earth farmer
organic wholesome

It’s basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The
fact that GM foods are not hybrids that have been
subjected to the slow and careful scientific methods
of real crossbreeding doesn’t really matter. This is
pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and
substance just a passing myth. (Trevanian)

Who do you think funds the International Food
Information Council? Take a wild guess. Right –
Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, Nutrasweet –
those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods.
(Stauber p 20)

Characteristics Of Good Propaganda

As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms
developed further guidelines for effective copy. Here
are some of the gems:

dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name
calling
speak in glittering generalities using emotionally
positive words
when covering something up, don’t use plain English;
stall for time; distract
get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports
figures, street people – anyone who has no expertise
in the subject at hand
the ‘plain folks’ ruse: us billionaires are just like
you
when minimizing outrage, don’t say anything memorable,
point out the benefits of what just happened, and
avoid moral issues
Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques.
Not hard to find – look at today’s paper or tonight’s
TV news. See what they’re doing; these guys are good!

Science For Hire

PR firms have become very sophisticated in the
preparation of news releases. They have learned how to
attach the names of famous scientists to research that
those scientists have not even looked at. (Stauber, p
201)

This is a common occurrence. In this way the editors
of newspapers and TV news shows are often not even
aware that an individual release is a total PR
fabrication. Or at least they have “deniability,”
right?

Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came
into the picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered
that adding lead to gasoline gave cars more
horsepower.

When there was some concern about safety, GM paid the
Bureau of Mines to do some fake “testing” and publish
spurious research that ‘proved’ that inhalation of
lead was harmless. Enter Charles Kettering.

Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial
Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering also
happened to be an executive with General Motors.

By some strange coincidence, we soon have the Sloan
Kettering institute issuing reports stating that lead
occurs naturally in the body and that the body has a
way of eliminating low level exposure.

Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene
Foundation and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane
Kettering opposed all anti-lead research for years.
(Stauber p 92). Without organized scientific
opposition, for the next 60 years more and more
gasoline became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% of our
gasoline was leaded.

Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a
major carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the
late 1980s. But during those 60 years, it is estimated
that some 30 million tons of lead were released in
vapor form onto American streets and highways. 30
million tons.

That is PR, my friends.

Junk Science

In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and
coined a new term. The book was Galileo’s Revenge and
the term was junk science. Huber’s shallow thesis was
that real science supports technology, industry, and
progress.

Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not
surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber’s book was
supported by the industry-backed Manhattan Institute.

Huber’s book was generally dismissed not only because
it was so poorly written, but because it failed to
realize one fact: true scientific research begins with
no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the truth
because they do not yet know what the truth is.

True scientific method goes like this:

Form a hypothesis
Make predictions for that hypothesis
Test the predictions
Reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research
findings
Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains
that ideas in science are themselves like “living
organisms, that must be nourished, supported, and
cultivated with resources for making them grow and
flourish.” (Stauber p 205)

Great ideas that don’t get this financial support
because the commercial angles are not immediately
obvious – these ideas wither and die.

Another way you can often distinguish real science
from phony is that real science points out flaws in
its own research. Phony science pretends there were no
flaws.

The Real Junk Science

Contrast this with modern PR and its constant
pretensions to sound science. Corporate sponsored
research, whether it’s in the area of drugs, GM foods,
or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.

It is the job of the scientists then to prove that
these conclusions are true, because of the economic
upside that proof will bring to the industries paying
for that research. This invidious approach to science
has shifted the entire focus of research in America
during the past 50 years, as any true scientist is
likely to admit.

Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate
sponsorship of university research. (206) This has
nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge.
Scientists lament that research has become just
another commodity, something bought and sold.
(Crossen)

The Two Main Targets Of “Sound Science”

It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast
majority of corporate PR today opposes any research
that seeks to protect

public health
the environment
It’s a funny thing that most of the time when we see
the phrase “junk science,” it is in a context of
defending something that may threaten either the
environment or our health.

This makes sense when one realizes that money changes
hands only by selling the illusion of health and the
illusion of environmental protection. True public
health and real preservation of the earth’s
environment have very low market value.

Stauber thinks it ironic that industry’s
self-proclaimed debunkers of junk science are usually
non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again they can
do this because the issue is not science, but the
creation of images.

The Language Of Attack

When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups
and alternative medicine people, they again use
special words which will carry an emotional punch:

outraged sound science
junk science sensible
scaremongering responsible
phobia hoax
alarmist hysteria
The next time you are reading a newspaper article
about an environmental or health issue, note how the
author shows bias by using the above terms. This is
the result of very specialized training.

Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of
the environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous
and untested product that poses an actual threat to
the environment. This we see constantly in the PR
smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified foods.

They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow
more food and to end world hunger, when the reality is
that GM foods actually have lower yields per acre than
natural crops. (Stauber p 173)

The grand design sort of comes into focus once you
realize that almost all GM foods have been created by
the sellers of herbicides and pesticides so that those
plants can withstand greater amounts of herbicides and
pesticides. (The Magic Bean)

Kill Your TV?

Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start
reading newspaper and magazine articles a little
differently, and perhaps start watching TV news shows
with a slightly different attitude than you had
before.

Always ask, what are they selling here, and who’s
selling it? And if you actually follow up on Stauber &
Rampton’s book and check out some of the other
resources below, you might even glimpse the
possibility of advancing your life one quantum simply
by ceasing to subject your brain to mass media.

That’s right – no more newspapers, no more TV news, no
more Time magazine or Newsweek. You could actually do
that. Just think what you could do with the extra time
alone.

Really feel like you need to “relax” or find out
“what’s going on in the world” for a few hours every
day? Think about the news of the past couple of years
for a minute.

Do you really suppose the major stories that have
dominated headlines and TV news have been “what is
going on in the world?” Do you actually think there’s
been nothing going on besides the contrived tech
slump, the contrived power shortages, the re-filtered
accounts of foreign violence and disaster, and all the
other non-stories that the puppeteers dangle before us
every day?

What about when they get a big one, like with OJ or
Monica Lewinsky or the Oklahoma city bombing? Do we
really need to know all that detail, day after day? Do
we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if
we wanted to? What is the purpose of news?

To inform the public? Hardly. The sole purpose of news
is to keep the public in a state of fear and
uncertainty so that they’ll watch again tomorrow and
be subjected to the same advertising.

Oversimplification? Of course. That’s the mark of mass
media mastery – simplicity. The invisible hand. Like
Edward Bernays said, the people must be controlled
without them knowing it.

Consider this: what was really going on in the world
all that time they were distracting us with all that
stupid vexatious daily smokescreen? Fear and
uncertainty — that’s what keeps people coming back
for more.

If this seems like a radical outlook, let’s take it
one step further:

What would you lose from your life if you stopped
watching TV and stopped reading newspapers altogether?

Would your life really suffer any financial, moral,
intellectual or academic loss from such a decision?

Do you really need to have your family continually
absorbing the illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated,
desperately brainless values of the people featured in
the average nightly TV program? Are these fake,
programmed robots “normal”?

Do you need to have your life values constantly
spoon-fed to you?

Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary
distraction to keep you from looking at reality, or
trying to figure things out yourself by doing a little
independent reading?

Name one example of how your life is improved by
watching TV news and reading the evening paper.

What measurable gain is there for you?

Planet of the Apes?

There’s no question that as a nation, we’re getting
dumber year by year. Look at the presidents we’ve been
choosing lately. Ever notice the blatant grammar
mistakes so ubiquitous in today’s advertising and
billboards?

Literacy is marginal in most American secondary
schools. Three fourths of California high school
seniors can’t read well enough to pass their exit
exams. (SJ Mercury 20 Jul 01)

If you think other parts of the country are smarter,
try this one: hand any high school senior a book by
Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them to open to any
random page and just read one paragraph out loud. Go
ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily shifted lower
and lower to disguise how dumb kids are getting year
by year.

At least 10% have documented “learning disabilities,”
which are reinforced and rewarded by special treatment
and special drugs. Ever hear of anyone failing a grade
any more?

Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie
which these days may only last one or two weeks in the
theatres, especially if it has insufficient
explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial arts,
and cretinesque dialogue.

Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications of the
falsely animated corporate simians they hire as DJs –
they’re only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they
just repeat at random.

And at what point did popular music cease to require
the study of any musical instrument or theory
whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps we just
don’t understand this emerging art form, right? The
Darwinism of MTV – apes descended from man.

Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy
magazines sound like they were all written by the same
guy? And this guy just graduated from junior college?
And yet he has all the correct opinions on social
issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug,
homogenized corporate omniscience, which enables him
to assure us that everything is going to be fine…

All this is great news for the PR industry – makes
their job that much easier. Not only are very few
paying attention to the process of conditioning; fewer
are capable of understanding it even if somebody
explained it to them.

Tea In the Cafeteria

Let’s say you’re in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a
cup of tea. And as you’re about to sit down you see
your friend way across the room. So you put the tea
down and walk across the room and talk to your friend
for a few minutes.

Now, coming back to your tea, are you just going to
pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a crowded
place and you’ve just left your tea unattended for
several minutes. You’ve given anybody in that room
access to your tea.

Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the
TV, or uncritically absorbing mass publications every
day – these activities allow access to our minds by
“just anyone” – anyone who has an agenda, anyone with
the resources to create a public image via popular
media.

As we’ve seen above, just because we read something or
see something on TV doesn’t mean it’s true or worth
knowing. So the idea here is, like the tea, the mind
is also worth guarding, worth limiting access to it.

This is the only life we get. Time is our total
capital. Why waste it allowing our potential, our
personality, our values to be shaped, crafted, and
limited according to the whims of the mass panderers?

There are many important issues that are crucial to
our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. If
it’s an issue where money is involved, objective data
won’t be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody
knows something, that image has been bought and paid
for.

Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little
excavation down at least one level below what
“everybody knows.”

References

Stauber & Rampton, “Trust Us, We’re Experts”,
Tarcher/Putnam 2001

Ewen, Stuart PR!: A Social History of Spin 1996 ISBN:
0-465-06168-0 Published by Basic Books, A Division of
Harper Collins

Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and
the Birth of Public Relations Crown Publishers, Inc.
2001

King, R Medical journals rarely disclose researchers’
ties Wall St. Journal, 2 Feb 99.

Engler, R et al. Misrepresentation and Responsibility
in Medical Research New England Journal of Medicine v
317 p 1383 26 Nov 1987

Black, D PhD Health At the Crossroads Tapestry 1988.
revanian Shibumi 1983.

Crossen, C Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in
America 1996.

Robbins, J Reclaiming Our Health Kramer 1996.

O’Shea T The Magic Bean 2000 www.thedoctorwithin.com.

Inhibitory effect of conjugated dienoic derivatives of
linoleic acid and beta-carotene on the in vitro growth
of human cancer cells CANCER LETT. (Ireland) , 1992,
63/2 (125-133)

Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by fatty acids
and monoglycerides APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIOL. (USA) ,
1992, 58/2 (624-629)

Copyright 1997-2001 by Joseph M. Mercola, DO. All
Rights Reserved. This content may be copied in full,
with copyright; contact; creation; and information
intact, without specific permission, when used only in
a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired,
permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.
http://mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

HR 2977 – Bill to ban Space-Based Mind Control Weapons

January 11th, 2002

BILL WOULD BAN SPACE-BASED MIND CONTROL WEAPONS

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives late last year that would ban weapons in space. But while there have been many similar legislative initiatives in the past, Rep. Kucinich’s bill is distinguished by its unusually expansive definition of “weapons.”

Among the weapons that it would proscribe the new measure includes “psychotronic” devices that are “directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of … mood management, or mind control.”

No explanation for this peculiar proposal was immediately available. But the text of “The Space Preservation Act of 2001″ (H.R. 2977), introduced on October 2, may be found here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

The Kucinich bill was hailed by Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse, one of a number of organizations of people who say they are victims of government experimentation involving electromagnetic and other psychotronic weapons. See their web site here:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh/

The bill has been referred to three House Committees.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)