The HOUSE TV SHOW

[Guest guest]

Sometime last week (I was in Florida on vacation) my ear caught interesting

part from that TV Show. My husband was watching one of the episodes from

first season I believe, I have no idea what was it about- but there where a

lady with a baby, who was sick, and she had no idea what is wrong with him

so she came to that hospital. Dr House asked her about vaccination and she

told him- they refused to vaccinate their child, because companies who makes

vax made ppl believe they need them, when ppl indeed do not need to get

vaccines. After that Dr House gave her a speech- something about how little

research was done on organic food, toys and clothes- and something else ( I

need to re watch that episode but hoped someone from this board knows what I

am talking about) - it all came up to - you should vaccinate your kid- that

is safest and most reasonable thing to do- those companies spend million and

billions of dollars on research so you should trust them.

What's you thought on that? ( well, not on should you or should you now

vaccinate of course!) Is someone out there trying to make a point to us -

people watching TV shows? Are those companies really loosing profits by

growing amounts of people refusing to vaccinate so they decide to pay TV

Shows and their producers to bring ppl " up to date " info- or is there a real

problem of spreading global epidemic diseases? Cause some people out there

trust everything ( or almost everything) said or shown on TV- media has a

really great power over people.

Just wanted to know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Leeka

_____________________________________

Excuse my typos.

[Guest guest]

Hi Leeka

Having worked in the marketing industry, companies are doing this more and

more. They pay for their products to be shown or mentioned in different

shows. It is great advertising for them. Can be anything from Coke to

brands of Alcohol, clothing or even what you describe. I don't think drug

companies can advertise their products directly on shows (although I may be

wrong) so having a blanket statement to vax would be the closest they could

come to that. If you watched the Biggest Loser last night, you will have

seen one of the trainers mentioning that every one should take a

multi-vitamins with two packages of One a Day. And that these two

multi-vitamins are special because they have one for males and one for

females. It was just one big advertisement for One-A-Day. All a way to

make a buck!

C

_____

From: Vaccinations [mailto:Vaccinations ] On

Behalf Of Leeka Rozenfeld

Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:24 PM

Vaccinations

Subject: The " HOUSE " TV SHOW

Sometime last week (I was in Florida on vacation) my ear caught interesting

part from that TV Show. My husband was watching one of the episodes from

first season I believe, I have no idea what was it about- but there where a

lady with a baby, who was sick, and she had no idea what is wrong with him

so she came to that hospital. Dr House asked her about vaccination and she

told him- they refused to vaccinate their child, because companies who makes

vax made ppl believe they need them, when ppl indeed do not need to get

vaccines. After that Dr House gave her a speech- something about how little

research was done on organic food, toys and clothes- and something else ( I

need to re watch that episode but hoped someone from this board knows what I

am talking about) - it all came up to - you should vaccinate your kid- that

is safest and most reasonable thing to do- those companies spend million and

billions of dollars on research so you should trust them.

What's you thought on that? ( well, not on should you or should you now

vaccinate of course!) Is someone out there trying to make a point to us -

people watching TV shows? Are those companies really loosing profits by

growing amounts of people refusing to vaccinate so they decide to pay TV

Shows and their producers to bring ppl " up to date " info- or is there a real

problem of spreading global epidemic diseases? Cause some people out there

trust everything ( or almost everything) said or shown on TV- media has a

really great power over people.

Just wanted to know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Leeka

_____________________________________

Excuse my typos.

[Guest guest]

(spoiler warning)

In the same episode (which just aired here in Finland yesterday), the

main plot line also was connected to vaccines, and the scene with the

mother of the baby you mention was just playing into the main

plotline. The episode was about a 16-year old boy having central

nervous system problems. The plot ending in the episode was that the

boy had contracted the measles virus which was dormant for 16 years

and then caused SSPE (20 cases in the last 30 years in USA according

to the show) with the CNS symptoms.

This was connected to the boy being adopted, and House asking whether

the biological mother had been vaccinated. The question was not

answered, but I'd guess that from the side scene about the baby's

vaccinations, most viewers think that the biological mother was not

vaccinated and this was connected to the infection/SSPE.

What's interesting is that House said _two times_ that mother's milk

protects the baby for the first six months, and that the question

about the biological mother's vaccination status was left unanswered.

I mean, especially with MMR diseases, I often read that one risk of

massive use of MMR is that it modifies the epidemiology so that one

catches the disease later, when it's more harmful. Also, I think

there've been studies reporting that antibodies lessen when one grows

older, and that while a mother has had measles or some other disease,

the protection is passed on the the baby, but not necessarily so with

the weaker vaccine infection. So in this sense, in reality the

vaccination (rather than lack of) of the mother could be connected

with the measles infection.

> Dr House asked her about vaccination and she

> told him- they refused to vaccinate their child, because companies

who makes

> vax made ppl believe they need them, when ppl indeed do not need to get

> vaccines. After that Dr House gave her a speech- something about how

little

> research was done on organic food, toys and clothes- and something

else ( I

> need to re watch that episode but hoped someone from this board

knows what I

> am talking about) - it all came up to - you should vaccinate your

kid- that

> is safest and most reasonable thing to do- those companies spend

million and

> billions of dollars on research so you should trust them.

Well, yes, but with House's character and sarcastic tones and

comparison of the toy and pharmaceutical industry, I think there was a

little of a twist to the message also. In my opinion, at least a

droplet of " think-this-through-yourself " message as compared to the

normal " authority-is-always-right-and-doctor-knows-best " message we

seen all the time in typical U.S. shows like ER.

Jyrki

[Guest guest]

At 10:23 PM 9/28/2006 -0400, you wrote:

>Sometime last week (I was in Florida on vacation) my ear caught interesting

>part from that TV Show. My husband was watching one of the episodes from

>first season I believe, I have no idea what was it about- but there where a

>lady with a baby, who was sick, and she had no idea what is wrong with him

>so she came to that hospital. Dr House asked her about vaccination and she

>told him- they refused to vaccinate their child, because companies who makes

>vax made ppl believe they need them, when ppl indeed do not need to get

>vaccines. After that Dr House gave her a speech- something about how little

>research was done on organic food, toys and clothes- and something else ( I

>need to re watch that episode but hoped someone from this board knows what I

>am talking about) - it all came up to - you should vaccinate your kid- that

>is safest and most reasonable thing to do- those companies spend million and

>billions of dollars on research so you should trust them.

>What's you thought on that? ( well, not on should you or should you now

>vaccinate of course!) Is someone out there trying to make a point to us -

>people watching TV shows? Are those companies really loosing profits by

>growing amounts of people refusing to vaccinate so they decide to pay TV

of course they are. We see this a lot - MMR show on ER years ago comes to

mind

>Shows and their producers to bring ppl " up to date " info- or is there a real

>problem of spreading global epidemic diseases? Cause some people out there

>trust everything ( or almost everything) said or shown on TV- media has a

>really great power over people.

Corporations own your media. And they will do everything they can to

continue the brainwashing.

Sheri

>Just wanted to know your thoughts.

>Thanks,

>Leeka

>

>

>_____________________________________

>Excuse my typos.

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 05:26 AM 9/29/2006 -0000, you wrote:

>(spoiler warning)

>

>In the same episode (which just aired here in Finland yesterday), the

>main plot line also was connected to vaccines, and the scene with the

>mother of the baby you mention was just playing into the main

>plotline. The episode was about a 16-year old boy having central

>nervous system problems. The plot ending in the episode was that the

>boy had contracted the measles virus which was dormant for 16 years

>and then caused SSPE (20 cases in the last 30 years in USA according

>to the show) with the CNS symptoms.

>This was connected to the boy being adopted, and House asking whether

>the biological mother had been vaccinated. The question was not

>answered, but I'd guess that from the side scene about the baby's

>vaccinations, most viewers think that the biological mother was not

>vaccinated and this was connected to the infection/SSPE.

>

>What's interesting is that House said _two times_ that mother's milk

>protects the baby for the first six months, and that the question

>about the biological mother's vaccination status was left unanswered.

> I mean, especially with MMR diseases, I often read that one risk of

>massive use of MMR is that it modifies the epidemiology so that one

>catches the disease later, when it's more harmful. Also, I think

>there've been studies reporting that antibodies lessen when one grows

>older, and that while a mother has had measles or some other disease,

>the protection is passed on the the baby, but not necessarily so with

>the weaker vaccine infection. So in this sense, in reality the

>vaccination (rather than lack of) of the mother could be connected

>with the measles infection.

The vaccine doesn't give immunity so immunity can't be passed on.

The vaccine injects a chronic case of illness into you.

Once the body overcomes that (if it ever does) then you can get an acute

case of the illness.

Sheri

>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

>

I can only agree with this up to a point. Let's not become hopelessly

paranoid. The writers and actors on these shows have little connection

to companies that support their network or show, and at any rate would

be very unhappy being pushed around because they view themselves as

" artistes. " A more likely scenario is this one:

(a) Most people have bought into the idea that vaccines are a wonderful

thing and that if you don't get them you are foolish to the point of

trusting witchdoctors.

( Believe it or not, people care about your kids (that's why we on

this list encourage people NOT to vaccinate) and want to keep them safe

© The show's writers like drama

(d) The show House is about the worship of medicine and medical

doctors. Vaccines are part of that.

So, the medical consultants to the show suggest an episode where

somebody has foolishly not vaccinated and a long-term problem results.

The writers, who have bought into the idea that vaccines are good,

think, yeah, that's a good idea. It's dramatic, and it gives everybody

a good feeling to think that they will be able to help spread the

message that people should get their vaccines (since they've all bought

into the idea that they're good).

It's not any different than a show that teaches fire safety or tells

kids to talk to a trusted adult if somebody is hurting them, etc. Falls

under " public service announcements " of a sort.

The only way this will change is if enough awareness is raised about

the dangers of vaccines that some prominent people in the medical

community publicly question it. Then it will be an issue " in vogue " and

people will want to write shows about it because it is " topical. "

-Angie

> Corporations own your media. And they will do everything they can to

> continue the brainwashing.

> Sheri

>

[Guest guest]

Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote: >I can only agree with this

up to a point. Let's not become hopelessly

paranoid. The writers and actors on these shows have little connection

to companies that support their network or show, and at any rate would

be very unhappy being pushed around because they view themselves as

" artistes. " A more likely scenario is this one:

The way I understand it, pharmaceutical companies are one of largest

contributors to networks and have a huge amount of say in their programming...A

>(a) Most people have bought into the idea that vaccines are a wonderful

thing and that if you don't get them you are foolish to the point of

trusting witchdoctors.

( Believe it or not, people care about your kids (that's why we on

this list encourage people NOT to vaccinate) and want to keep them safe

© The show's writers like drama

(d) The show House is about the worship of medicine and medical

doctors. Vaccines are part of that.

If the shows writers were looking for some real juicy drama, they would do a

show from the non-vaxing point of view, reveal some truthful and solid

information that would leave their viewers with their mouths hanging open; this

cannot and will not happen because of restrictions ...A

>So, the medical consultants to the show suggest an episode where

somebody has foolishly not vaccinated and a long-term problem results.

The writers, who have bought into the idea that vaccines are good,

think, yeah, that's a good idea. It's dramatic, and it gives everybody

a good feeling to think that they will be able to help spread the

message that people should get their vaccines (since they've all bought

into the idea that they're good).

This is true..A

>It's not any different than a show that teaches fire safety or tells

kids to talk to a trusted adult if somebody is hurting them, etc. Falls

under " public service announcements " of a sort.

Any show addressing vaccinations is very different than safety issues; highly

controversial. They wouldn't want to inform parents that there might be

something wrong or dangerous with vaccines and compromise the profits of their

high paying sponsors...A

>The only way this will change is if enough awareness is raised about

the dangers of vaccines that some prominent people in the medical

community publicly question it. Then it will be an issue " in vogue " and

people will want to write shows about it because it is " topical. "

Awareness is high. Given the acceptance of an incredibly high percentage of

parents of autistic children (47% I believe) who believe that vaccinations are

the cause, not to mention the same belief in a growing body of doctors, I

believe it would be quite in vogue at this point in time

Just my two cents,

Anita

> Corporations own your media. And they will do everything they can to

> continue the brainwashing.

> Sheri

>

[Guest guest]

Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote: >I can only agree with this

up to a point. Let's not become hopelessly

paranoid. The writers and actors on these shows have little connection

to companies that support their network or show, and at any rate would

be very unhappy being pushed around because they view themselves as

" artistes. " A more likely scenario is this one:

- I don't think I went far enough in my previous comment to your

statement above; I pretty much reiterated what you were saying. It's just that I

don't think actors are going to refuse a job because they don't want to be

pushed around due to viewing themselves as *artists*. They are merely actors

following a script. Writers for mainstream television are not going to rock the

boat either; there's too much money at stake; they know better than any one how

the media game is played...Anita

---------------------------------

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Anita:

> The way I understand it, pharmaceutical companies are one of largest

> contributors to networks and have a huge amount of say in their

> programming...A

The " large contributors " I can buy; the " huge amount of say in their

programming " I cannot. Now, do I think TV shows walk on eggshells about

certain things so as not to alienate their sponsors? Yes. But, as we

know, sponsors have been known to withdraw support from shows that

paint them in a negative light. So it's not as if " the media " are

unwilling to challenge their sponsors.

I think it is more subtle. Again, the writers are less likely to give a

damn about the sponsors than they are to want to help further an idea

that they think is going to help or educate people.

> If the shows writers were looking for some real juicy drama, they

> would do a show from the non-vaxing point of view, reveal some

> truthful and solid information that would leave their viewers with

> their mouths hanging open; this cannot and will not happen because of

> restrictions ...A

What restrictions?

As to your other point: shows are willing to push the envelope, but

only so far, unless it's in a sci-fi kind of show like " The X Files, "

where every conceivable conspiracy and alternate theory out there was

aired, it seemed. If the writers believe in vaccines, they're not going

to go against their own beliefs.

>

> Any show addressing vaccinations is very different than safety issues;

> highly controversial. They wouldn't want to inform parents that there

> might be something wrong or dangerous with vaccines and compromise the

> profits of their high paying sponsors...A

The parallel I was drawing was pro-vaccine being like safety issues;

both are thought of as things you do to protect yourself. What no show

is going to want to do is be accused of by everybody of promoting

dangerous ideas. People think not vaccinating is a dangerous idea. That

belief is more powerful at " keeping people in line " than any fear of

annoying " high-paying sponsors. "

>

> Awareness is high. Given the acceptance of an incredibly high

> percentage of parents of autistic children (47% I believe) who believe

> that vaccinations are the cause, not to mention the same belief in a

> growing body of doctors, I believe it would be quite in vogue at this

> point in time

I disagree. I think people tend to think everyone thinks like they do,

so if you hang around the anti-vax community, you think it's got

stronger representation out there than it really does. Most people out

there are staunchly pro-vax. Staunchly pro-vax to the point that they

feel their worldview is threatened if you challenge it. I got this

reaction from a friend of mine when I said we were considering not

vaxxing. She really freaked out and got angry. If more doctors come

forward, and, most importantly, if the people in Hollywood start

believing it and feel the public would be at least somewhat receptive

to an anti-vax episode, it will happen.

I just don't believe in conspiracies, not big ones at least. People all

march to the same drummer because they have bought into an idea, not

because some puppetmaster is behind the scenes controlling them. Yes,

people with vested interests can work hard to be puppetmasters, can put

out information repeatedly until people buy into it (like Bush building

the case for war with Iraq), but the people still have to buy it. And

even the puppetmasters usually believe they are doing it for the

greater good, even if they are totally wrong. Gosh, I feel like an

entire book could be written about this: how ideas are embraced, what

causes them to change, resistance to change, etc.

-Angie

[Guest guest]

>

> - I don't think I went far enough in my previous comment to

> your statement above; I pretty much reiterated what you were saying.

> It's just that I don't think actors are going to refuse a job because

> they don't want to be pushed around due to viewing themselves as

> *artists*. They are merely actors following a script. Writers for

> mainstream television are not going to rock the boat either; there's

> too much money at stake; they know better than any one how the media

> game is played...Anita

>

>

True about actors, to an extent. I was thinking more of the writers.

Not rocking the boat... yes, their money is at stake if they piss off

the producers (who may care more about the sponsors). But that's

different from this idea that the pharmaceutical companies sat down and

conjured up a script that was pro-vaccine and coerced the writers into

writing it. I know they'll write PR and get journalists to print it

like an article, but, again, I think the journalists have to basically

buy into the idea in order to go along with that. People just think

vaccines are super. -Angie

[Guest guest]

- If you don't want to believe Big pHARMa has as much control as they do

in the media; you certainly won't believe that they have clear subject

restrictions for their networks.

People are indeed marching to the same drummer because they have bought into

an idea (as you put it). Ideas that are based on lies and deceit. If it looks

like a conspiracy and smells like a conspiracy...well...

I must disagree that even *puppetmasters* repeatedly putting out " information "

are doing so for the greater good as you pointed out using a political example.

Doctors on the other hand are so deeply indoctrinated into the allopathic belief

system, they are incapable of having an independant thought and are condemned by

their peers when they do; look at Andy Wakefield.

For the real puppetmasters of world, it's all about the money and power. That

is the only greater good any of them are interested in. And the higher they go,

the more desensitized they become, though they would have us believe otherwise.

I appreciate your point of view...Anita

Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote:

Anita:

> The way I understand it, pharmaceutical companies are one of largest

> contributors to networks and have a huge amount of say in their

> programming...A

The " large contributors " I can buy; the " huge amount of say in their

programming " I cannot. Now, do I think TV shows walk on eggshells about

certain things so as not to alienate their sponsors? Yes. But, as we

know, sponsors have been known to withdraw support from shows that

paint them in a negative light. So it's not as if " the media " are

unwilling to challenge their sponsors.

I think it is more subtle. Again, the writers are less likely to give a

damn about the sponsors than they are to want to help further an idea

that they think is going to help or educate people.

> If the shows writers were looking for some real juicy drama, they

> would do a show from the non-vaxing point of view, reveal some

> truthful and solid information that would leave their viewers with

> their mouths hanging open; this cannot and will not happen because of

> restrictions ...A

What restrictions?

As to your other point: shows are willing to push the envelope, but

only so far, unless it's in a sci-fi kind of show like " The X Files, "

where every conceivable conspiracy and alternate theory out there was

aired, it seemed. If the writers believe in vaccines, they're not going

to go against their own beliefs.

>

> Any show addressing vaccinations is very different than safety issues;

> highly controversial. They wouldn't want to inform parents that there

> might be something wrong or dangerous with vaccines and compromise the

> profits of their high paying sponsors...A

The parallel I was drawing was pro-vaccine being like safety issues;

both are thought of as things you do to protect yourself. What no show

is going to want to do is be accused of by everybody of promoting

dangerous ideas. People think not vaccinating is a dangerous idea. That

belief is more powerful at " keeping people in line " than any fear of

annoying " high-paying sponsors. "

>

> Awareness is high. Given the acceptance of an incredibly high

> percentage of parents of autistic children (47% I believe) who believe

> that vaccinations are the cause, not to mention the same belief in a

> growing body of doctors, I believe it would be quite in vogue at this

> point in time

I disagree. I think people tend to think everyone thinks like they do,

so if you hang around the anti-vax community, you think it's got

stronger representation out there than it really does. Most people out

there are staunchly pro-vax. Staunchly pro-vax to the point that they

feel their worldview is threatened if you challenge it. I got this

reaction from a friend of mine when I said we were considering not

vaxxing. She really freaked out and got angry. If more doctors come

forward, and, most importantly, if the people in Hollywood start

believing it and feel the public would be at least somewhat receptive

to an anti-vax episode, it will happen.

I just don't believe in conspiracies, not big ones at least. People all

march to the same drummer because they have bought into an idea, not

because some puppetmaster is behind the scenes controlling them. Yes,

people with vested interests can work hard to be puppetmasters, can put

out information repeatedly until people buy into it (like Bush building

the case for war with Iraq), but the people still have to buy it. And

even the puppetmasters usually believe they are doing it for the

greater good, even if they are totally wrong. Gosh, I feel like an

entire book could be written about this: how ideas are embraced, what

causes them to change, resistance to change, etc.

-Angie

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

[Guest guest]

,

Can you please cut and paste the article? I followed the link but was

required to type in my email address before it would let me view the

article. Don't want to do that! Thx -Angie

On Saturday, September 30, 2006, at 12:09 PM, wrote:

> http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

>

>

[Guest guest]

> - If you don't want to believe Big pHARMa has as much control

> as they do in the media; you certainly won't believe that they have

> clear subject restrictions for their networks.

No, I'm not going to believe it. Why would you go from just believing

that Big Pharma is bad (which I do) to believing that they actually

have the power to control the media? Is it just based on the positive

coverage they get in the media? Because I think that would be a faulty

conclusion based on lots of assumptions and a good dose of

old-fashioned fear. Plus, the media has done a fair share lately

questioning Big Pharma and some of its drugs, like Vioxx.

>

> People are indeed marching to the same drummer because they have

> bought into an idea (as you put it). Ideas that are based on lies and

> deceit. If it looks like a conspiracy and smells like a

> conspiracy...well...

I'm going to answer this is an admittedly snarky way: if it looks and

smells like black-and-white thinking, then...

Belief in a giant conspiracy stems from the same part of human nature

that demonizes whomever we perceive our " enemy " to be. It's a universal

human trait that has led to wars and atrocities against other people

(genocide, etc.) If you believe your enemy is incapable of basic human

traits like compassion, concern for others, etc., then it is much

easier to fight them. It's like the " debate " in the U.S. over

terrorism. Heaven forbid that terrorists might have genuine grievances

(for example, Big Pharma experimenting with new drugs on their populace

-- something I do believe Big Pharma does, because there is evidence of

it). It doesn't mean that what they do isn't evil, but it does mean

that they are not one-dimensional charicatures lacking humanity. By the

way, our enemies have lots of conspiracy theories about us too, some of

which are laughable. But they believe in them as fervently as you (or

anyone else) believe in your conspiracy theories. Isn't it possible,

then, that yours are wrong, too? In fact, isn't it possible that

conspiracy theories are, in fact, a flaw in the way the human brain

works, rather than a fact? I'm not talking about small conspiracies,

like two or three people conspiring to have someone killed, or even

moderate-size conspiracies. I'm talking about this big " THEY are evil

and OUT to GET US " stuff.

>

> I must disagree that even *puppetmasters* repeatedly putting out

> " information " are doing so for the greater good as you pointed out

> using a political example.

I think some of them are, and some of them aren't.

> Doctors on the other hand are so deeply indoctrinated into the

> allopathic belief system, they are incapable of having an independant

> thought and are condemned by their peers when they do; look at Andy

> Wakefield.

I would agree with this 100%. But it's like anything else: the culture

or subculture forms a consensus and those who diverge from it are

mocked and/or ostracized. Doesn't just happen with medicine, but any

field. Of course, in some fields, the stakes are not as high, so the

group may be more open to new ideas. Consensus is a very basic

component of culture. It's how people decide on what is " sacred " and

what is " profane, " what is acceptable and what is not. Many years ago

there was " consensus " that women and blacks were inferior. When people

started challenging this, they were met with strong resistance, because

people are very resistant to change their fundamental view of the

world. However, over time, people started changing their views. Now

what you see is the reverse: those who champion the rights of women and

minorities feel they must hold on tight to those fought-for rights, and

are very suspicious of and hostile to those who challenge it. That's

where political correctness comes from.

Back to medicine: it's not just the vaccine issue that you would see on

a show like " House. " Take childbearing: most MDs think it's best to

birth in a hospital where it's " safe. " I, and many midwives, believe

birthing at home is safer. There is evidence to support this, but

changing the medical culture is difficult. If House were to do an

episode about a dangerous childbirth situation, which scenario do you

think it would choose? One where a woman gives birth in a hospital, has

multiple interventions, ends up with a c-section she didn't want or

need and then her baby suffers complications? Or one where a woman

" foolishly " tries to give birth at home and ends up with something

terrible happening, and then House lectures her (and the viewers) about

the foolishness of giving birth anywhere other than a hospital.

Actually, this probably wouldn't happen on House because of the nature

of the show (House uncovering a rare condition that nobody can figure

out -- this is the plot for every show), but it would on other medical

shows like ER. Now, none of this has anything to do with

pharmaceuticals or Big Pharma, so you can't blame this pro-medical view

on that bogeyman.

I could probably come up with more examples but I think that's a good

one. The issue is the belief that doctors and western medicine are

gods, that's what's coming through on the show. It's unrelated to Big

Pharma.

>

> For the real puppetmasters of world, it's all about the money and

> power. That is the only greater good any of them are interested in.

> And the higher they go, the more desensitized they become, though they

> would have us believe otherwise.

You know, the more I hear people talk about how much money and power

those in " the conspiracy " have, the more I think I ought to join! And I

could even control the media! Wow!

No, seriously, the real reason is usually the most commonplace and

least dramatic: human nature. And, by the way, take the time to do that

thing we always tell our children to: put yourself in their position.

Suppose you were able to convince everyone that vaccines were bad, and

the entire world stopped vaccinating. But then there were still

problems here and there, and soon some " renegade " scientists started

suggesting that maybe vaccinating was actually a good idea. What would

you do? Wouldn't you find them a threat? Wouldn't you try to exclude

them from the discussion because people might start believing their

" dangerous " ideas and start hurting people again?

Anyway, I gotta go, my baby is crying, but I just plead with people to

think these things through. The world is not so black and white. -Angie

[Guest guest]

My previous career was doing pharmaceutical company PR -- I worked for many of

the biggies, and I can assure you that lots of money is spent pitching story

ideas for Hollywood. It doesn't mean that every story line out there comes from

them but it's just like product placement in movies -- a lot of them do. And

although I wasn't involved at these levels, they certainly do have the

influence, via advertising dollars, to request rewrites of potentially negative

stories.

Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote:

> - If you don't want to believe Big pHARMa has as much control

> as they do in the media; you certainly won't believe that they have

> clear subject restrictions for their networks.

No, I'm not going to believe it. Why would you go from just believing

that Big Pharma is bad (which I do) to believing that they actually

have the power to control the media? Is it just based on the positive

coverage they get in the media? Because I think that would be a faulty

conclusion based on lots of assumptions and a good dose of

old-fashioned fear. Plus, the media has done a fair share lately

questioning Big Pharma and some of its drugs, like Vioxx.

>

> People are indeed marching to the same drummer because they have

> bought into an idea (as you put it). Ideas that are based on lies and

> deceit. If it looks like a conspiracy and smells like a

> conspiracy...well...

I'm going to answer this is an admittedly snarky way: if it looks and

smells like black-and-white thinking, then...

Belief in a giant conspiracy stems from the same part of human nature

that demonizes whomever we perceive our " enemy " to be. It's a universal

human trait that has led to wars and atrocities against other people

(genocide, etc.) If you believe your enemy is incapable of basic human

traits like compassion, concern for others, etc., then it is much

easier to fight them. It's like the " debate " in the U.S. over

terrorism. Heaven forbid that terrorists might have genuine grievances

(for example, Big Pharma experimenting with new drugs on their populace

-- something I do believe Big Pharma does, because there is evidence of

it). It doesn't mean that what they do isn't evil, but it does mean

that they are not one-dimensional charicatures lacking humanity. By the

way, our enemies have lots of conspiracy theories about us too, some of

which are laughable. But they believe in them as fervently as you (or

anyone else) believe in your conspiracy theories. Isn't it possible,

then, that yours are wrong, too? In fact, isn't it possible that

conspiracy theories are, in fact, a flaw in the way the human brain

works, rather than a fact? I'm not talking about small conspiracies,

like two or three people conspiring to have someone killed, or even

moderate-size conspiracies. I'm talking about this big " THEY are evil

and OUT to GET US " stuff.

>

> I must disagree that even *puppetmasters* repeatedly putting out

> " information " are doing so for the greater good as you pointed out

> using a political example.

I think some of them are, and some of them aren't.

> Doctors on the other hand are so deeply indoctrinated into the

> allopathic belief system, they are incapable of having an independant

> thought and are condemned by their peers when they do; look at Andy

> Wakefield.

I would agree with this 100%. But it's like anything else: the culture

or subculture forms a consensus and those who diverge from it are

mocked and/or ostracized. Doesn't just happen with medicine, but any

field. Of course, in some fields, the stakes are not as high, so the

group may be more open to new ideas. Consensus is a very basic

component of culture. It's how people decide on what is " sacred " and

what is " profane, " what is acceptable and what is not. Many years ago

there was " consensus " that women and blacks were inferior. When people

started challenging this, they were met with strong resistance, because

people are very resistant to change their fundamental view of the

world. However, over time, people started changing their views. Now

what you see is the reverse: those who champion the rights of women and

minorities feel they must hold on tight to those fought-for rights, and

are very suspicious of and hostile to those who challenge it. That's

where political correctness comes from.

Back to medicine: it's not just the vaccine issue that you would see on

a show like " House. " Take childbearing: most MDs think it's best to

birth in a hospital where it's " safe. " I, and many midwives, believe

birthing at home is safer. There is evidence to support this, but

changing the medical culture is difficult. If House were to do an

episode about a dangerous childbirth situation, which scenario do you

think it would choose? One where a woman gives birth in a hospital, has

multiple interventions, ends up with a c-section she didn't want or

need and then her baby suffers complications? Or one where a woman

" foolishly " tries to give birth at home and ends up with something

terrible happening, and then House lectures her (and the viewers) about

the foolishness of giving birth anywhere other than a hospital.

Actually, this probably wouldn't happen on House because of the nature

of the show (House uncovering a rare condition that nobody can figure

out -- this is the plot for every show), but it would on other medical

shows like ER. Now, none of this has anything to do with

pharmaceuticals or Big Pharma, so you can't blame this pro-medical view

on that bogeyman.

I could probably come up with more examples but I think that's a good

one. The issue is the belief that doctors and western medicine are

gods, that's what's coming through on the show. It's unrelated to Big

Pharma.

>

> For the real puppetmasters of world, it's all about the money and

> power. That is the only greater good any of them are interested in.

> And the higher they go, the more desensitized they become, though they

> would have us believe otherwise.

You know, the more I hear people talk about how much money and power

those in " the conspiracy " have, the more I think I ought to join! And I

could even control the media! Wow!

No, seriously, the real reason is usually the most commonplace and

least dramatic: human nature. And, by the way, take the time to do that

thing we always tell our children to: put yourself in their position.

Suppose you were able to convince everyone that vaccines were bad, and

the entire world stopped vaccinating. But then there were still

problems here and there, and soon some " renegade " scientists started

suggesting that maybe vaccinating was actually a good idea. What would

you do? Wouldn't you find them a threat? Wouldn't you try to exclude

them from the discussion because people might start believing their

" dangerous " ideas and start hurting people again?

Anyway, I gotta go, my baby is crying, but I just plead with people to

think these things through. The world is not so black and white. -Angie

[Guest guest]

It is hard to believe, but I believe it. Do you remember the ER episode where

the kid died of measles because his mother wouldn't vaccinate him? Anyway, I

remember watching that with my husband when it first aired and we both were in

shock when during the commercials, right after the boy died, a commercial for

the chicken pox vaccine came on, you know the one with the crying rubber duckie?

It was like " See child not be vaccinated. See child die. See what can " save "

your child. " It was so obvious!

--

Sara

Find out what stinks in Genesee County!

http://geneseecountystinks.blogspot.com

-------------- Original message --------------

From: Totten <afaltotten@...>

> - If you don't want to believe Big pHARMa has as much control

> as they do in the media; you certainly won't believe that they have

> clear subject restrictions for their networks.

No, I'm not going to believe it. Why would you go from just believing

that Big Pharma is bad (which I do) to believing that they actually

have the power to control the media? Is it just based on the positive

coverage they get in the media? Because I think that would be a faulty

conclusion based on lots of assumptions and a good dose of

old-fashioned fear. Plus, the media has done a fair share lately

questioning Big Pharma and some of its drugs, like Vioxx.

>

> People are indeed marching to the same drummer because they have

> bought into an idea (as you put it). Ideas that are based on lies and

> deceit. If it looks like a conspiracy and smells like a

> conspiracy...well...

I'm going to answer this is an admittedly snarky way: if it looks and

smells like black-and-white thinking, then...

Belief in a giant conspiracy stems from the same part of human nature

that demonizes whomever we perceive our " enemy " to be. It's a universal

human trait that has led to wars and atrocities against other people

(genocide, etc.) If you believe your enemy is incapable of basic human

traits like compassion, concern for others, etc., then it is much

easier to fight them. It's like the " debate " in the U.S. over

terrorism. Heaven forbid that terrorists might have genuine grievances

(for example, Big Pharma experimenting with new drugs on their populace

-- something I do believe Big Pharma does, because there is evidence of

it). It doesn't mean that what they do isn't evil, but it does mean

that they are not one-dimensional charicatures lacking humanity. By the

way, our enemies have lots of conspiracy theories about us too, some of

which are laughable. But they believe in them as fervently as you (or

anyone else) believe in your conspiracy theories. Isn't it possible,

then, that yours are wrong, too? In fact, isn't it possible that

conspiracy theories are, in fact, a flaw in the way the human brain

works, rather than a fact? I'm not talking about small conspiracies,

like two or three people conspiring to have someone killed, or even

moderate-size conspiracies. I'm talking about this big " THEY are evil

and OUT to GET US " stuff.

>

> I must disagree that even *puppetmasters* repeatedly putting out

> " information " are doing so for the greater good as you pointed out

> using a political example.

I think some of them are, and some of them aren't.

> Doctors on the other hand are so deeply indoctrinated into the

> allopathic belief system, they are incapable of having an independant

> thought and are condemned by their peers when they do; look at Andy

> Wakefield.

I would agree with this 100%. But it's like anything else: the culture

or subculture forms a consensus and those who diverge from it are

mocked and/or ostracized. Doesn't just happen with medicine, but any

field. Of course, in some fields, the stakes are not as high, so the

group may be more open to new ideas. Consensus is a very basic

component of culture. It's how people decide on what is " sacred " and

what is " profane, " what is acceptable and what is not. Many years ago

there was " consensus " that women and blacks were inferior. When people

started challenging this, they were met with strong resistance, because

people are very resistant to change their fundamental view of the

world. However, over time, people started changing their views. Now

what you see is the reverse: those who champion the rights of women and

minorities feel they must hold on tight to those fought-for rights, and

are very suspicious of and hostile to those who challenge it. That's

where political correctness comes from.

Back to medicine: it's not just the vaccine issue that you would see on

a show like " House. " Take childbearing: most MDs think it's best to

birth in a hospital where it's " safe. " I, and many midwives, believe

birthing at home is safer. There is evidence to support this, but

changing the medical culture is difficult. If House were to do an

episode about a dangerous childbirth situation, which scenario do you

think it would choose? One where a woman gives birth in a hospital, has

multiple interventions, ends up with a c-section she didn't want or

need and then her baby suffers complications? Or one where a woman

" foolishly " tries to give birth at home and ends up with something

terrible happening, and then House lectures her (and the viewers) about

the foolishness of giving birth anywhere other than a hospital.

Actually, this probably wouldn't happen on House because of the nature

of the show (House uncovering a rare condition that nobody can figure

out -- this is the plot for every show), but it would on other medical

shows like ER. Now, none of this has anything to do with

pharmaceuticals or Big Pharma, so you can't blame this pro-medical view

on that bogeyman.

I could probably come up with more examples but I think that's a good

one. The issue is the belief that doctors and western medicine are

gods, that's what's coming through on the show. It's unrelated to Big

Pharma.

>

> For the real puppetmasters of world, it's all about the money and

> power. That is the only greater good any of them are interested in.

> And the higher they go, the more desensitized they become, though they

> would have us believe otherwise.

You know, the more I hear people talk about how much money and power

those in " the conspiracy " have, the more I think I ought to join! And I

could even control the media! Wow!

No, seriously, the real reason is usually the most commonplace and

least dramatic: human nature. And, by the way, take the time to do that

thing we always tell our children to: put yourself in their position.

Suppose you were able to convince everyone that vaccines were bad, and

the entire world stopped vaccinating. But then there were still

problems here and there, and soon some " renegade " scientists started

suggesting that maybe vaccinating was actually a good idea. What would

you do? Wouldn't you find them a threat? Wouldn't you try to exclude

them from the discussion because people might start believing their

" dangerous " ideas and start hurting people again?

Anyway, I gotta go, my baby is crying, but I just plead with people to

think these things through. The world is not so black and white. -Angie

[Guest guest]

Or how about the ER episode where the breastfed baby got sick (died?)

because the mom was taking something to keep her awake, and the

episode ended with the camera looking at the cast through a window,

and before that window was a table of formula (Similac?).

>

> It is hard to believe, but I believe it. Do you remember the ER

episode where the kid died of measles because his mother wouldn't

vaccinate him? Anyway, I remember watching that with my husband when

it first aired and we both were in shock when during the commercials,

right after the boy died, a commercial for the chicken pox vaccine

came on, you know the one with the crying rubber duckie? It was

like " See child not be vaccinated. See child die. See what

can " save " your child. " It was so obvious!

>

> --

> Sara

> Find out what stinks in Genesee County!

> http://geneseecountystinks.blogspot.com

>

[Guest guest]

At 02:09 PM 9/30/2006 -0400, you wrote:

>,

>

>Can you please cut and paste the article? I followed the link but was

>required to type in my email address before it would let me view the

>article. Don't want to do that! Thx -Angie

>

>On Saturday, September 30, 2006, at 12:09 PM, wrote:

>

>> http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

>>

not sure why you would have to do that but I also posted it yesterday

" The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything "

>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

I remember the episode, but I don't remember the formula, wouldn't surprise me

though.

--

Sara

Find out what stinks in Genesee County!

http://geneseecountystinks.blogspot.com

-------------- Original message --------------

From: " LJL " <laura6307@...>

Or how about the ER episode where the breastfed baby got sick (died?)

because the mom was taking something to keep her awake, and the

episode ended with the camera looking at the cast through a window,

and before that window was a table of formula (Similac?).

>

> It is hard to believe, but I believe it. Do you remember the ER

episode where the kid died of measles because his mother wouldn't

vaccinate him? Anyway, I remember watching that with my husband when

it first aired and we both were in shock when during the commercials,

right after the boy died, a commercial for the chicken pox vaccine

came on, you know the one with the crying rubber duckie? It was

like " See child not be vaccinated. See child die. See what

can " save " your child. " It was so obvious!

>

> --

> Sara

> Find out what stinks in Genesee County!

> http://geneseecountystinks.blogspot.com

>

[Guest guest]

> Isn't it possible,

> then, that yours are wrong, too? In fact, isn't it possible that

> conspiracy theories are, in fact, a flaw in the way the human brain

> works, rather than a fact? I'm not talking about small conspiracies,

> like two or three people conspiring to have someone killed, or even

> moderate-size conspiracies. I'm talking about this big " THEY are evil

> and OUT to GET US " stuff.

I think has made many good points on the issue, points which

make it easier to understand how things work and help make a difference.

I think there's both direct and indirect influence - and to me the ER

episode with a commecial for a vaccine attached is an example of a

very direct influence of the drug companies to the media, much like

Sheri argues. On the other hand, the " House " episode looks to me like

an example of the more indirect influence via the public opinion which

I think also is real, and which so well describes. Maybe

these different ways of influencing the media could be described to be

a bit like the difference between the worlds of Orwell's " 1984 " and

Huxley's " Brave New World " .

On the subjects of " Us vs. Them " , modern marketing and public policy,

there's an interesting discussion between Noam Chomsky and

Trives at

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/09/noam_chomsky_robert_trivers.php

When looked at from the perspective of evolution, the " us vs. them "

mindset probably is not a flaw of thinking, but of course from the

point of view of rational analysis, it is a flaw.

> I could probably come up with more examples but I think that's a good

> one. The issue is the belief that doctors and western medicine are

> gods, that's what's coming through on the show. It's unrelated to Big

> Pharma.

Well yes, it's a different issue, but it's very profitable for

pharmaceutical companies if people belice that doctors and western

medicine are Gods, so I would think it makes sense that if the

companies have a choice, they will favor things which promote the

worldview that doctors and medicine are Gods. So it's not totally

unrelated. But I do agree that the phenomenon where medicine has

taken the place of religion has a life of it's own, to which many

other things besides drug company PR contributes to, and more often

than not, the influence of drug companies is indirect. This also means

that the influence is rarely absolute or all-encompassing, and that

ordinary people can make a difference.

Jyrki

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much. Honestly, I'm kind of giving up on trying to argue

this point, though, because it seems clear that people want to believe

what they want to believe and ain't listening to other opinions. In

fact, nobody else paid close enough attention to even get my name

right. I made a couple of comments below. Again, appreciate you

engaging what I wrote. -Angie/

> I think there's both direct and indirect influence - and to me the ER

> episode with a commecial for a vaccine attached is an example of a

> very direct influence of the drug companies to the media, much like

> Sheri argues. On the other hand, the " House " episode looks to me like

> an example of the more indirect influence via the public opinion which

> I think also is real, and which so well describes.

I agree with you 100%. It's not that Big Pharma or the medical

establishment doesn't try to buy influence, but that it's not the only

factor and has less direct control than others wanted to believe.

>

> When looked at from the perspective of evolution, the " us vs. them "

> mindset probably is not a flaw of thinking, but of course from the

> point of view of rational analysis, it is a flaw.

" Us " vs " them " , from an evolutionary standpoint, enables us to

differentiate between those we shouldn't reproduce (family members) and

those we should. Also helps protect against attacks because we are wary

of outsiders. But a look at history also shows that it's done us a lot

of damage as well. Even if you're not talking about war, the suspicion

of " other " leads us to fear and avoid those who are different, such as

the handicapped.

>

> Well yes, it's a different issue, but it's very profitable for

> pharmaceutical companies if people belice that doctors and western

> medicine are Gods, so I would think it makes sense that if the

> companies have a choice, they will favor things which promote the

> worldview that doctors and medicine are Gods.

Absolutely.

> So it's not totally

> unrelated. But I do agree that the phenomenon where medicine has

> taken the place of religion has a life of it's own, to which many

> other things besides drug company PR contributes to, and more often

> than not, the influence of drug companies is indirect.

Yep. The worship of medicine (and technology in medicine) is the status

quo. And the reason doctor shows do well. If people thought doctors and

their " machines that go ping! " were bumbling idiots, those shows would

hardly do well. Take a poll of the writers and producers of such shows

and ask them whether they believe in medicine or technology or

vaccines, and I'll bet the majority of them would say " yes. " No need

for Big Pharma or anybody else to pay big $$$ to convince them, they're

already convinced!