• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Science Media Centre: "more than public relations"

Messages
13,774
And as I've said
If these dangerous extremists are anti ME, then ME must be related/threatens big business (probably big tech business)

ergo, they must know ME is caused or related to vaccines or some other major tech/business item
ie it's "environmental", not normal transmissable disease, or random, natural health problem.

They wouldn't be out to let us rot otherwise.

My assumption would be that it's not so much a desire to hide things that they know, but a tendency to make assumptions in favour of big business/capital when the evidence is still not clear. Then as the evidence becomes more overwhelming, to emphasise how no-one could have possibly known what was true previously.

That's not to say the researchers themselves are intentionally corrupt (although the recent spin around PACE, and Crawleys claims that PACE showed a 30-40% recovery rate for CBT/GET have left me feeling that CFS researchers are more likely to be corrupt than I'd previously assumed).

When the evidence surrounding a matter is not clear, and one group of researchers hold beliefs which will benefit those in power, while another hold beliefs which will be costly to those in power, who do you think is most likely to get funding/promotions/influence? The researchers themselves could be entirely sincere in their beliefs, and believe that their rise was the result of meritocracy in action.

I'd be amazed if CFS was caused by any one thing, never mind something which was already known. Fatigue is such a universal symptom, that I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of currently undiagnosed/discovered medical problems have it as a feature.

edit: I've said very similar things to Mark, despite having not read his post when I was typing and coming at things from a quite different angle. I've never really looked in to the government's classified files on CFS. I wonder if any of the big organisations are keen to get them open.
 
Messages
1,446
.


.
Esther 12 wrote: "I'd be amazed if CFS was caused by any one thing"

.

'CFS' as defined by the Oxford Criteria, the Nice Guidelines, the Pace Trial Criteria, and numerous UK NHS CFS Clinic Criteria, consists of little more than fatigue of 6 months duration, and so could be caused by just about anything.

.
 

Merry

Senior Member
Messages
1,378
Location
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Now that I've had time to read most of the material at George Monibot's lobbywatch.org, I want to thank you again, Snow Leopard, for directing me to the website.

This is a bizarre story. Science Media Centre director Fiona Fox is a member of a cult led by sociology professor Frank Furedi. The group, originally Marxist, evolved into right-wing libertarians with ties to US libertarian and neo-conservative organization such as the American Enterprise Institute (remember George Bush?). Since this obviously old news to most or all who have contributed to this thread I won't go on.

Simon Wessely is not mentioned at the site, but I saw elsewhere that he has contributed to the group's magazine Spiked. I haven't read Frank Furedi's books, but it appears that he's made a career of ridiculing those who he sees as having irrational fears. Simon Wessely's habit of labeling others as hysterics certainly meshes with Frank Furedi's tactics (as does the strategy of both to cry loudly that they are being persecuted by extremists).

What makes these people tick? What words best describe them? Bullies? They are people trying to improve their status in society by attacking the weak and aligning themselves with corporate power? Would it be accurate to call them mercenaries?

Don't mind me. I'm just writing a novel or screenplay in my head (not that I've ever written novel or a screenplay).
 

Jarod

Senior Member
Messages
784
Location
planet earth
The deeper you go, the crazier it gets Merry. This same kind of strange history and behavior spreads all through corporate america, governments, and even to the Vatican

on another note:

Couple things popped out at me from Wildcats article. "Genetic engineering" and "denying Rwandan genocide".
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
People take things ot extreme
psychologicla studies show this, it's part of the "I was just following orders" problem.
Most people lack storng enough sense of sel fand morality/ehtics to not "go with the flow"! and soon, the "group" becomes a self-perpetuating horror
See Abu Ghraib for example, those folk weren't monsters at all to begin with, they became monsters because of a bad situation that warped and exploded out of their control (this is well know and they should neve rhave been in that poistion/lack of hard over sight etc)

Wellcome Trust is now on the stock market, it is thus now NOT a charity but a menace, because i'ts "profitability" resoloves aroun ensuring that the stock market remaings strong, so how the hell can it have impartiality ins ay, chekcing medical/drug regimes etc are effective and honest, hm?

As I keep saying, corporations are the worst evil Mankind has as yet created, because unlie etyrants etc, they have no concern except the enxt Quarterly profits, where as even a tyrant has ot ensure neough support/food/safety etc to keep in power
Corporations are seductive vampires, internal threats.
SMC are their "go to go guys" to Fear Uncertianty Doubt problems out of existance
these problems of course can be misery and death, but people do not count, only power and money do
blech
 

Merry

Senior Member
Messages
1,378
Location
Columbus, Ohio, USA
The deeper you go, the crazier it gets Merry. This same kind of strange history and behavior spreads all through corporate america, governments, and even to the Vatican.

on another note:

Couple things popped out at me from Wildcats article. "Genetic engineering" and "denying Rwandan genocide".

Sorry, Jarod, but I couldn't find anything about the Vatican in the LobbyWatch article you provided a link for.

Fiona Fox, using the name Fiona Foster, wrote the article denying the Rwandan genocide. And the group's magazine LM attacked the reporters (including Ed Vullaimy -- the best!) who were writing about the Serbian atrocities, called them liars, I guess, because the magazine was successfully sued for libel and folded. Unlike many on the right in the US they seem not to have ties with the military industrial complex and have been (as shown in the Rwandan and Serbian examples) anti-interventionist.

The group has been involved in some strange campaigns, including one against breastfeeding, sponsored, as it turns out, by a manufacturer of formula. That got me wondering if they'll do anything if the money is right.

Difficult to figure out where they are coming from -- intellectually all over the place. They don't strike me as deep thinkers. But, then, neither am I. I'm struggling to sort this out!
 

Merry

Senior Member
Messages
1,378
Location
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Wellcome Trust is now on the stock market, it is thus now NOT a charity but a menace, because i'ts "profitability" resoloves aroun ensuring that the stock market remaings strong, so how the hell can it have impartiality ins ay, chekcing medical/drug regimes etc are effective and honest, hm?

As I keep saying, corporations are the worst evil Mankind has as yet created, because unlie etyrants etc, they have no concern except the enxt Quarterly profits, where as even a tyrant has ot ensure neough support/food/safety etc to keep in power
Corporations are seductive vampires, internal threats.
SMC are their "go to go guys" to Fear Uncertianty Doubt problems out of existance
these problems of course can be misery and death, but people do not count, only power and money do
blech

Hi,Silverblade.

I have wondered about the Science Media Centre's charity status, but I don't know what the law is in the UK.

I don't understand why you think corporations are inherently evil. How about amoral? What I came away thinking from my experience working for two corporations, both computer companies (not long either place I should say), is that it's a wonder that products ever get out the door and work. Chaos, ineptitude.

And now I'm too tired to continue.
 

oceanblue

Guest
Messages
1,383
Location
UK
Wellcome Trust is now on the stock market, it is thus now NOT a charity but a menace, because i'ts "profitability" resoloves aroun ensuring that the stock market remaings strong, so how the hell can it have impartiality ins ay, chekcing medical/drug regimes etc are effective and honest, hm?
That would be a very powerful point if only it were true :D. This from Wikipedia might explain

The Trust was established to administer the fortune of the American-born pharmaceutical magnate Sir Henry Wellcome.[3] Its income was derived from what was originally called Burroughs Wellcome, later renamed in the UK as the Wellcome Foundation Ltd.[4] In 1986, the trust sold 25% of Wellcome plc stock to the public. Overseen by incoming Director of Finance Ian Macgregor, this marked the beginning of a period of financial growth that saw the Trust's value increase by almost 14bn in 14 years, as their interests moved beyond the bounds of the pharmaceutical industry.[5] In 1995, the trust divested itself of any interest in pharmaceuticals by selling all remaining stock to Glaxo plc, the company's historic British rival, creating GlaxoWellcome plc. In 2000, the Wellcome name disappeared from the drug business altogether when GlaxoWellcome merged with SmithKline Beecham, to form GlaxoSmithKline plc.
The Wellcome trust is indeed a charity and derives its income from its investments.
 

Jarod

Senior Member
Messages
784
Location
planet earth
Hi all.

I fixed the Vatican link in my post above. New to this embedded link feature.

I know what you mean by trying to sort it all out Merry. I can't sort it all out yet, but have provided some links that I believe are pretty good/credible clues. Reality is so much different than what we have been taught in school.

There is so much mis-information around in the media and everywhere else. Just look at the science media centre. A huge world-wide media centre led by marxist's and cult leaders designed to feed us mis-information. Pretty much the same way Murdoch and the others run the media.

The truth is especially difficult to find on the internet, because for every legitimate artcile on the web, there are four articles with clever SPIN and deception. Remember Science Blogs, they have an agenda (science blogs is home to snarky little blogger ERV, ORAC, and more no doubt)

If one can sort through the deception and non-sense and truly follow the facts all the way to the top. Your view of the world will never be the same. I think we have been made sick, and fed lies as a way to succeed with the the bigger picture in mind. Not too much of a long shot if the Science Media Centre is led by marxists/cult leaders and supporting genocide?

We have basically been scammed for at least a 100 years in the United States. Goes back to 1910 when the most powerful people in the world created the Federal Reserve. (skroll down to "A talk by G Edward Griffin) remember Military, Medical, Money. The three BIG M's

Always great when somebody "wakes up". I think we are all well on our way now.The more people understand the big picture, explains the question you ask Merry.

Then we wonder why all this seemingly distant unrelated agendas from science media center? from fertilizers, to global warming, to genetics? That is the bigger picture. If we can grasp this quickly, we might have a shot at making the world a better, and healthier place for everybody on earth.

Time is running out with this business over in the mid-east with Iran and Syria. If Russia and others like China, don't take a stand soon. Things are looking more difficult in my opinion.
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
Well well....Spiked Magazine's latest, a lawyer calls for the age of consent to be lowered to 13!
yes, lot of rich old men arrested for sexual abuse of children and they come out with this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

Age of consent should be 13, says barrister




Ms Hewson calls Hall's crimes "misdemeanours" and warns against "fetishising victimhood"

Continue reading the main story
Related Stories


A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.

Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".

She also said that complainants should no longer receive anonymity.

The NSPCC called her views "outdated and simply ill-informed" and said to hear them "from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief".

Her remarks come after a number of high-profile arrests over allegations of historical sexual offences in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Among those to have been convicted is former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, who admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls, including one aged nine, between 1967 and 1985.

Ms Hewson described Hall's crimes as "low-level misdemeanours" which "ordinarily... would not be prosecuted".
'Prurient charade'
"What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle," she said.

"It's time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest."

She argues for an end to complainant anonymity, a strict statute of limitations to prevent prosecutions after a substantial amount of time has passed and a reduction in the age of consent to 13.

She said that "touching a 17-year-old's breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt" are not crimes comparable to gang rapes and murders and "anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality".

The NSPCC described crimes such as Hall's as "incredibly serious" and said that "to minimise and trivialise the impact of these offences for victims in this way is all but denying that they have in fact suffered abuse at all.

"Any suggestion of lowering the age of consent could put more young people at risk from those who prey on vulnerable young people."

It also argued that complainant anonymity should be maintained and that historical prosecutions should be allowed as "many who are abused are bullied, blackmailed and shamed into staying silent, often well into adulthood".

Wiki on Spiked

The magazine focuses on issues of freedom and state control, science and technology. It seeks to counter positions such as multiculturalism, environmentalism and what they see as a recent trend in Western foreign policy: humanitarian intervention.[7]
Spiked claims that it opposes all forms of censorship, by the state or otherwise. Its writers call for a repeal of libel,[8] hate speech[9] and incitement[10][11] laws. They have criticised laws targeted at paedophiles.[12] Spiked also regularly critique risk society; animal rights; political correctness; and environmentalism. As regards the latter, a particular Spiked target has been what they see as "exaggerated" and "hysterical" interpretations of the scientific consensus on global warming.[13]
well, well, well....
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
Merry
I just wish it were otherwise :(

There's an old saying, roughly, "you can judge a man by the nature of his enemies"
if so, what does that tell us about ourselves, the ME community?
if...scumbags x10³³³, like that are our enemy...we must be on the side of the angels :p
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
OK, kind of linked to this...posted about very VERY horrible stuff, on massively serious level, screw Watergate this is...unfrikkin believably evil and major

put it in the Liberal/progressives group, to vile to be posted here.
 
Messages
13,774
Just a little post, as I started reading Furedi's 'Culture of Fear'. I've only read the preface, and it's terrible.

He's obliviously described himself as having written a panicked and fearful book about people being too panicked and fearful. Instead of relaxing about the occasional tabloid scare story, and the small number of people who take them seriously, he's decided it's a terrifying problem that he must warn us all about before it's too late. He thinks that the government is trying to stop people falling passionately in love, because this is too risky, and his evidence for this is: "In August 1999, it was reported that the government is to warn women about the risk of opening joint bank accounts with their spouses, in case the marriage breaks down and leaves them vulnerable." There was no citation for that. Which is another thing: there are sixteen citations for the preface, but every time I came upon a claim which seemed worth checking, it was uncited.

He talks about the increase in the number of young people who class themselves as disabled (an increase of 40% from 1985-1996), as showing that "this sense of a diseased self expresses profound anxieties about a world that seems so threatening." Considering the fact that he's complaining about other people's destructive tendency to make dramatic statements on weak evidence, that's pretty funny. I don't know if the increase in the number of young people classing themselves as disabled reflects i) increased survival rates for premature births ii) increased survival rates for accidents iii) more elderly parents iv) increased recognition of mental health or developmental problems in children v) natural population growth or vi) an expression of profound anxieties about the world leading to them presenting themselves as diseased and disabled; but I'm not convinced it's sensible to assume vi is the primary factor here. Also, he has no citation for that bit.

He actually complains about people's tendency to assume correlation means causation. Yet he jumps to causation without even showing correlation.

Luckily I got the book for 50p from a charity shop. I think I'm going to give up on it now.

It reminded me a lot of some bits I read by Furedi colleague and Wessely co-author Bill Durodie (and Spiked author): http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/politics-bill-durodié-wessely-co-author-spiked-lm-etc.18384/
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Sean Said: "Science Media Centre: "nothing more than public relations"

The ScienceMedia Centre is Much Much more than Public Relations -

The Science Media Centre involves Manipulation of Public Opinion -

The Science Media Centre is not accountable to anyone!!!!

Living Marxism (LM), Spiked, and the Science Media Centre's modus operandi has spread disinformation about ME for many years now - that is not neutral nor benign, nor ethical.

That is the definition of public relations: how to communicate with the public to achieve a favourable view toward your agenda or clients. Its inherently biased, advertising rather than news, though a good source will be accurate, balanced and still pursuasive toward their agenda. Alas, the SMC seems to only be pursuasive, and then only to audiences who are unaware of the science.
 
Messages
13,774