MeSci
ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
- Messages
- 8,231
- Location
- Cornwall, UK
I'm not sure about the climate change scepticism. She has posted (not written) two SMC articles arguing for the reality of climate change, such as this one.
-
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, 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 briefing on new Hornig, Lipkin et al. immune study
- Thread starter Dolphin
- Start date
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,869
I have looked at those, and the only accusations of bias I can find in them is the suggestion that the SMC may over represent the corporate or government line. I find nothing about a pro-biopsychosocial stance for example; nor did I see any evidence of Fiona Fox putting her own personal scientific agenda forward, and misrepresenting the scientific community (but if you have some evidence of this, please provide a link to it).
For example, it is well known that most scientists in the UK and Europe are pro-GM, whereas the general public, and sometimes governments as well, tend to be anti-GM in the UK and Europe. So if the SMC is pro-GM, that cannot be considered the SMC's own scientific agenda, but rather a reflection of the views of most UK scientists.
You can see the SMC's GM related articles here.
True, you don't see any statements by anti-GM campaigners among those SMC articles, and I would like to have seen some input from intelligent people with anti-GM views.
I myself don't hold an opinion on GM, neither for nor against, mainly because I simply don't have the mental stamina anymore to read though all the material and issues in that field, and come to my own conclusions. Unfortunately the brain fog of ME/CFS does tend to dramatically limit your intellectual interests.
- Messages
- 1,446
.
@Hip @MeSci and All,
.
‘Complaint about Science Media Centre and the LM group’
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/ne...t-about-science-media-centre-and-the-lm-group
on 16 April 2007.
1.Introduction to the submission - LobbyWatch
2.Submission to the Board of the Science Media Centre - Andy Rowell
NOTE: It may be useful to read this in conjunction with the George Monbiot interview about the LM group that LobbyWatch recently published at http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7748
---
1.Introduction to the submission
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=91&page=1
Below is an edited version of a submission made by the writer and investigative journalist, Andy Rowell, to the board of the Science Media Centre (SMC) at the suggestion of one of its board members.
The submission raises concerns about the role of the SMC's director, Fiona Fox, in the light not just of her long-term involvement with the climate-sceptical LM group but of the SMC's lack of proactivity in combatting climate change denial - something that stands in marked contrast with the SMC's record on a number of other issues, such as GM crops.
Andy Rowell's submission arose out of a talk he gave at a seminar organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry on The Science of Global Warming. On the panel with Rowell were Professor Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Professor John Mitchell - Chief Scientist at the Met Office, and Professor Colin Prentice of Bristol University.
http://www.rsc.org/images/pp 01- 08_280306103_tcm18-53677.pdf
Rowell was asked to shed light in his presentation on the often well-funded lobby groups that either deny that human-induced global warming is occurring or maintain that it's no problem. He explained how large oil corporations are funding groups to publish work questioning the link between climate change and fossil fuel emissions, and detailed a number of the groups in the UK who seem to be particularly active in encouraging climate change scepticism.
Amongst the sceptics Rowell talked about were Julian Morris and Roger Bate of the International Policy Network (IPN), a free market lobby group that has received nearly $300,000 to date from Exxon. Rowell also noted the IPN's close collaboration with the LM group, who also actively promote the idea that climate change is nothing to worry about.
The LM group were not only behind the magazine LM (originally known as Living Marxism), but also its successor organisations: Spiked-online and the Institute of Ideas. Rowell also mentioned that this group included people working in a number of other organisations such as Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre.
After the talk Rowell was approached by an SMC board member who asked him to justify his reference to the SMC, and this later lead on to the suggestion that he submit his concerns in writing to the SMC's Board. This he did on behalf of SpinWatch - www.spinwatch.org, which monitors corporate PR and spin. Not for the first time, the SMC's Board completely rejected the concerns about its director.
There are many interesting points that come out of Rowell's carefully referenced submission. Rowell points out, for instance, that - at the time of writing - out of about 120 press releases the SMC has issued "only about four have been on climate." This despite climate change being a major contemporary scientific issue and one where there's massive anti-science lobbying, much of which is ending up in the popular media.
Rowell notes how the small number of SMC press releases on climate compares "to over 40 on issues to do with genetics and roughly another dozen each on animals in research and GM crops." He also notes how the independence of those whose views the SMC has promoted to journalists is open to serious question. Industry executives, lobbyists and people connected to the LM group are all presented in SMC releases that claim to be giving the views of "the scientific community", and often without making their affiliations clear.
Perhaps the most startling material in Rowell's submission, though, are the extracts he includes from an internal Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) document authored by the SMC's director, and obtained by LobbyWatch and copied to Rowell. Fox has always tried to downplay her RCP/LM involvement as just short-term and marginal, despite clear evidence that she wrote a large number of articles for LM, including hugely controversial pieces involving genocide denial and support for terrorism. The leaked internal discussion document confirms the extremity of Fiona Fox's involvement in what many regard as a fundamentalist political sect.
In it Fox tells fellow RCP supporters about a friend who developed ME and mental health problems, and how she (Fox) often thinks "there but for the grace of the RCP go I". Fox also says this same "secret thought" occurs to her when she meets up with old friends who've left the RCP, because it's only thanks to the RCP that she's "one of the few people in the world who can really understand". Fox goes on to describe how she spent every Saturday for a year on the streets unsuccessfully trying to persuade members of the public that Oxfam, and the kind of humanitarianism it represents, is perhaps the biggest threat to world peace.
Rowell asks how on earth it could have come about that a tiny extremist faction with a magazine that only ever had a small number of contributors, now has so many of its supporters and contributors serving as leading lights in a whole series of influential science related groups. This is particularly the case when - like Fiona Fox - they often have no relevant background in science.
---
2.Submission to the Board of the SMC
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=91&page=1
What I said in my talk was that the people behind Spiked and the Institute of Ideas (IOI) are pro-corporate libertarians who are climate sceptics. I said that this network includes people working in other organisations such as Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre. I also said that the Spiked network had collaborated with [Exxon-funded] TechCentralStation, the Royal Institution [closely associated with the SMC - see below] and the [Exxon-funded] International Policy Network (IPN).
* Firstly that the Institute of Ideas (IOI) and Spiked collaborate with known climate sceptics such as Roger Bate and Julian Morris of the IPN
Their collaboration began in the late nineties when two key Living Marxism activists, Frank Furedi and Bill Durodie, started writing for the European Science and Environment Forum and Roger Bate, ESEF's founder, began writing for Living Marxism (the forerunner of Spiked and IOI).
Bate has also contributed to Spiked-Online, writing on issues such as DDT, GM[1] and depleted Uranium. The latter article by Bate is co-written with Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski,[2] who writes for 21st Century Science and Technology - the magazine of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, a scientist who believes that 'The Ice Age is Coming.'[3]
Julian Morris first spoke at a Spiked conference in May 2002.[4] In January 2003, Morris debated the benefits of recycling on Spiked[5]. Two months later, in March 2003, Spiked held a conference on 'GM food labelling' - co-hosted with the global PR company, Hill and Knowlton and the IPN. Pro-GM speakers included Gregory Conko, the director of food safety policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and co-founder of the avidly pro-biotech AgBioView, and Tony Gilland, ex-Living Marxism and now the Science and Society director at the Institute of Ideas. The following month, Morris spoke again at a Spiked event[6].
* Spiked/IOI are Climate Sceptics
If you look at Spiked's section on global warming7 it is consistently sceptical and includes articles from known sceptics such as Philip Stott[8] [who appeared in the recent documentary by the LM-linked director, Martin Durkin, The Great Global Warming Swindle] and from people associated with the International Policy Network, such as Dominic Standish.[9]
It has also held conferences with known sceptics and this is the one I mentioned in my talk. In May 2003 Spiked, TechCentralStation and the Royal Institution held a conference on risk, called 'Panic Attack'. It was co-sponsored by the IPN, the Social Issues Research Centre (see below) and Mobile Operators Association, amongst others.[10] The afternoon session, titled the Heated Debate was about global warming and included Bjorn Lomborg - author, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Sallie Baliunas a science co-host of [the Exxon funded] TechCentralStation[11 ..........
continues.....
.
@Hip @MeSci and All,
.
‘Complaint about Science Media Centre and the LM group’
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/ne...t-about-science-media-centre-and-the-lm-group
on 16 April 2007.
1.Introduction to the submission - LobbyWatch
2.Submission to the Board of the Science Media Centre - Andy Rowell
NOTE: It may be useful to read this in conjunction with the George Monbiot interview about the LM group that LobbyWatch recently published at http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7748
---
1.Introduction to the submission
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=91&page=1
Below is an edited version of a submission made by the writer and investigative journalist, Andy Rowell, to the board of the Science Media Centre (SMC) at the suggestion of one of its board members.
The submission raises concerns about the role of the SMC's director, Fiona Fox, in the light not just of her long-term involvement with the climate-sceptical LM group but of the SMC's lack of proactivity in combatting climate change denial - something that stands in marked contrast with the SMC's record on a number of other issues, such as GM crops.
Andy Rowell's submission arose out of a talk he gave at a seminar organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry on The Science of Global Warming. On the panel with Rowell were Professor Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Professor John Mitchell - Chief Scientist at the Met Office, and Professor Colin Prentice of Bristol University.
http://www.rsc.org/images/pp 01- 08_280306103_tcm18-53677.pdf
Rowell was asked to shed light in his presentation on the often well-funded lobby groups that either deny that human-induced global warming is occurring or maintain that it's no problem. He explained how large oil corporations are funding groups to publish work questioning the link between climate change and fossil fuel emissions, and detailed a number of the groups in the UK who seem to be particularly active in encouraging climate change scepticism.
Amongst the sceptics Rowell talked about were Julian Morris and Roger Bate of the International Policy Network (IPN), a free market lobby group that has received nearly $300,000 to date from Exxon. Rowell also noted the IPN's close collaboration with the LM group, who also actively promote the idea that climate change is nothing to worry about.
The LM group were not only behind the magazine LM (originally known as Living Marxism), but also its successor organisations: Spiked-online and the Institute of Ideas. Rowell also mentioned that this group included people working in a number of other organisations such as Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre.
After the talk Rowell was approached by an SMC board member who asked him to justify his reference to the SMC, and this later lead on to the suggestion that he submit his concerns in writing to the SMC's Board. This he did on behalf of SpinWatch - www.spinwatch.org, which monitors corporate PR and spin. Not for the first time, the SMC's Board completely rejected the concerns about its director.
There are many interesting points that come out of Rowell's carefully referenced submission. Rowell points out, for instance, that - at the time of writing - out of about 120 press releases the SMC has issued "only about four have been on climate." This despite climate change being a major contemporary scientific issue and one where there's massive anti-science lobbying, much of which is ending up in the popular media.
Rowell notes how the small number of SMC press releases on climate compares "to over 40 on issues to do with genetics and roughly another dozen each on animals in research and GM crops." He also notes how the independence of those whose views the SMC has promoted to journalists is open to serious question. Industry executives, lobbyists and people connected to the LM group are all presented in SMC releases that claim to be giving the views of "the scientific community", and often without making their affiliations clear.
Perhaps the most startling material in Rowell's submission, though, are the extracts he includes from an internal Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) document authored by the SMC's director, and obtained by LobbyWatch and copied to Rowell. Fox has always tried to downplay her RCP/LM involvement as just short-term and marginal, despite clear evidence that she wrote a large number of articles for LM, including hugely controversial pieces involving genocide denial and support for terrorism. The leaked internal discussion document confirms the extremity of Fiona Fox's involvement in what many regard as a fundamentalist political sect.
In it Fox tells fellow RCP supporters about a friend who developed ME and mental health problems, and how she (Fox) often thinks "there but for the grace of the RCP go I". Fox also says this same "secret thought" occurs to her when she meets up with old friends who've left the RCP, because it's only thanks to the RCP that she's "one of the few people in the world who can really understand". Fox goes on to describe how she spent every Saturday for a year on the streets unsuccessfully trying to persuade members of the public that Oxfam, and the kind of humanitarianism it represents, is perhaps the biggest threat to world peace.
Rowell asks how on earth it could have come about that a tiny extremist faction with a magazine that only ever had a small number of contributors, now has so many of its supporters and contributors serving as leading lights in a whole series of influential science related groups. This is particularly the case when - like Fiona Fox - they often have no relevant background in science.
---
2.Submission to the Board of the SMC
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=91&page=1
What I said in my talk was that the people behind Spiked and the Institute of Ideas (IOI) are pro-corporate libertarians who are climate sceptics. I said that this network includes people working in other organisations such as Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre. I also said that the Spiked network had collaborated with [Exxon-funded] TechCentralStation, the Royal Institution [closely associated with the SMC - see below] and the [Exxon-funded] International Policy Network (IPN).
* Firstly that the Institute of Ideas (IOI) and Spiked collaborate with known climate sceptics such as Roger Bate and Julian Morris of the IPN
Their collaboration began in the late nineties when two key Living Marxism activists, Frank Furedi and Bill Durodie, started writing for the European Science and Environment Forum and Roger Bate, ESEF's founder, began writing for Living Marxism (the forerunner of Spiked and IOI).
Bate has also contributed to Spiked-Online, writing on issues such as DDT, GM[1] and depleted Uranium. The latter article by Bate is co-written with Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski,[2] who writes for 21st Century Science and Technology - the magazine of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, a scientist who believes that 'The Ice Age is Coming.'[3]
Julian Morris first spoke at a Spiked conference in May 2002.[4] In January 2003, Morris debated the benefits of recycling on Spiked[5]. Two months later, in March 2003, Spiked held a conference on 'GM food labelling' - co-hosted with the global PR company, Hill and Knowlton and the IPN. Pro-GM speakers included Gregory Conko, the director of food safety policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and co-founder of the avidly pro-biotech AgBioView, and Tony Gilland, ex-Living Marxism and now the Science and Society director at the Institute of Ideas. The following month, Morris spoke again at a Spiked event[6].
* Spiked/IOI are Climate Sceptics
If you look at Spiked's section on global warming7 it is consistently sceptical and includes articles from known sceptics such as Philip Stott[8] [who appeared in the recent documentary by the LM-linked director, Martin Durkin, The Great Global Warming Swindle] and from people associated with the International Policy Network, such as Dominic Standish.[9]
It has also held conferences with known sceptics and this is the one I mentioned in my talk. In May 2003 Spiked, TechCentralStation and the Royal Institution held a conference on risk, called 'Panic Attack'. It was co-sponsored by the IPN, the Social Issues Research Centre (see below) and Mobile Operators Association, amongst others.[10] The afternoon session, titled the Heated Debate was about global warming and included Bjorn Lomborg - author, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Sallie Baliunas a science co-host of [the Exxon funded] TechCentralStation[11 ..........
continues.....
.
Last edited:
SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
If the SMC posted anything anti-Global Warming in the UK they'd be torpedoed straight off, we are not that bloody stupid
But, those Spiked/LM people are viciously against environmentalism, because as said they believe technology comes before ANYTHING, except their own agenda of course.
Please see their attacks on environmentalism over the years, and also of similar douchebags like "JunkScience.com" and their bullshit about DDT
For those who don't know, the corporate lobby spout lies about DDT, it was never banned for use in carefully controlled Human protection issues in Africa, such as mosquito nets
The point was and is, that mosquitoes become resistant to DDT within a few years, if it's used willy bloody nilly.
In large scale the only safe use of it is in complex *PUBLIC* health systems over huge areas to drain marshes etc, while the DDT helps keep the workers free of malaria, giving a short breathing space of a few years to clean an area up.
The corporate *SCUM* who try and push DDT now just want a cheap product to sell and use in such huge volumes it DOES become a major bloody health hazard. Small use in mosquito nets etc is not an issue.
Go see how evil scum like Monsanto have similarly forced the over use of glyphosate across the world in similar ways, and boy no wonder cancer, immune, CNS and endocrine problems have sky rocketed.
Those with a spiritual bent may have heard of the "Ahriman Principle" or varieties of it, the evil arrogance of power and technology is just as much corrosive, seductive evil as greed can be.
But, those Spiked/LM people are viciously against environmentalism, because as said they believe technology comes before ANYTHING, except their own agenda of course.
Please see their attacks on environmentalism over the years, and also of similar douchebags like "JunkScience.com" and their bullshit about DDT
For those who don't know, the corporate lobby spout lies about DDT, it was never banned for use in carefully controlled Human protection issues in Africa, such as mosquito nets
The point was and is, that mosquitoes become resistant to DDT within a few years, if it's used willy bloody nilly.
In large scale the only safe use of it is in complex *PUBLIC* health systems over huge areas to drain marshes etc, while the DDT helps keep the workers free of malaria, giving a short breathing space of a few years to clean an area up.
The corporate *SCUM* who try and push DDT now just want a cheap product to sell and use in such huge volumes it DOES become a major bloody health hazard. Small use in mosquito nets etc is not an issue.
Go see how evil scum like Monsanto have similarly forced the over use of glyphosate across the world in similar ways, and boy no wonder cancer, immune, CNS and endocrine problems have sky rocketed.
Those with a spiritual bent may have heard of the "Ahriman Principle" or varieties of it, the evil arrogance of power and technology is just as much corrosive, seductive evil as greed can be.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
A few years back I found some old discussion threads from the late 90s on some archived left-wing political forum with a lot of discussion about the Living Marxism group. A lot of their views did seem to dovetail with the corporatist approach to BPS, concern about calls for justice holding back innovation, compensation culture, etc. Furedi's book on Culture of Fear has some similar stuff. They weren't explicitly pro-biopsychosocial but were expressing a lot of similar values to those that seem to underpin BPS approaches to disability.
Sorry for not having more details and references on this.
- Messages
- 1,446
.
A warped perception of ME from Fiona Fox.
.
Fiona Fox wrote that only RCP (the Revolutionary Communist Party Trotskyist splinter group) politics saved her from "going the same way" as an old friend of hers (Carol) who 'developed ME and mental health problems and is on antidepressants'.... Fiona Fox goes on to state that her old RCP colleagues who have left the group, and her old friend Carol who developed ME, "have lost their framework for understanding the world." ..... and "if it is [sic] choice between carrying the burden of RCP politics or ending up like my old friend Carol there's no choice involved!"
‘Complaint about Science Media Centre and the LM group’
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/ne...t-about-science-media-centre-and-the-lm-group
.
* More on Fiona Fox [the SMC's director]
'...... In George Monbiot's article he credits much of the work exposing the LM network to the researcher, Jonathan Matthews. His profile of Fiona Fox is accessible at: http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=45
In that profile, you will see she wrote a hugely controversial article playing down the genocide in Rwanda under her "pseudonym" Fiona Foster. The Guardian called this article a "bid to rewrite history in favour of the murderers"[22]. The Guardian also noted that the article was written by Fiona Fox under the Foster alias. A piece in the Guardian Diary later quoted Fox as admitting involvement in the article.[23]
This article is far from an isolated example of Fiona's writing for the RCP. Indeed, during a time in the 1990s she was one of LM's most frequent contributors. It is also worth noting that although her public role in the group's activities was less than her sister's [Claire Fox], her known contributions to the group's political activities were far more controversial.
For example, a document from 1997, under the headline "Contribution to OTAM" (which stands for On Tactics and Methods - a discussion process within the RCP on its future), contains some interesting views. "Fiona Foster" writes about a friend, Carol, who was suffering from ME and is on anti-depressants.
She wrote: "There are plenty more like Carol ... I often think 'there but for the grace of the RCP go I'. This secret thought is even present when I meet up with those mates who have dropped out of RCP politics. Slowly but surely they have lost their framework for understanding the world... I do feel that being one of the few people in the world who can really understand imposes a certain burden and a definite isolation. But I also feel it is a great privilidge [sic] and quite frankly, if it is [sic] choice between carrying the burden of RCP politics or ending up like my old friend Carol there's no choice involved!"
.
A warped perception of ME from Fiona Fox.
.
Fiona Fox wrote that only RCP (the Revolutionary Communist Party Trotskyist splinter group) politics saved her from "going the same way" as an old friend of hers (Carol) who 'developed ME and mental health problems and is on antidepressants'.... Fiona Fox goes on to state that her old RCP colleagues who have left the group, and her old friend Carol who developed ME, "have lost their framework for understanding the world." ..... and "if it is [sic] choice between carrying the burden of RCP politics or ending up like my old friend Carol there's no choice involved!"
‘Complaint about Science Media Centre and the LM group’
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/ne...t-about-science-media-centre-and-the-lm-group
.
* More on Fiona Fox [the SMC's director]
'...... In George Monbiot's article he credits much of the work exposing the LM network to the researcher, Jonathan Matthews. His profile of Fiona Fox is accessible at: http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=45
In that profile, you will see she wrote a hugely controversial article playing down the genocide in Rwanda under her "pseudonym" Fiona Foster. The Guardian called this article a "bid to rewrite history in favour of the murderers"[22]. The Guardian also noted that the article was written by Fiona Fox under the Foster alias. A piece in the Guardian Diary later quoted Fox as admitting involvement in the article.[23]
This article is far from an isolated example of Fiona's writing for the RCP. Indeed, during a time in the 1990s she was one of LM's most frequent contributors. It is also worth noting that although her public role in the group's activities was less than her sister's [Claire Fox], her known contributions to the group's political activities were far more controversial.
For example, a document from 1997, under the headline "Contribution to OTAM" (which stands for On Tactics and Methods - a discussion process within the RCP on its future), contains some interesting views. "Fiona Foster" writes about a friend, Carol, who was suffering from ME and is on anti-depressants.
She wrote: "There are plenty more like Carol ... I often think 'there but for the grace of the RCP go I'. This secret thought is even present when I meet up with those mates who have dropped out of RCP politics. Slowly but surely they have lost their framework for understanding the world... I do feel that being one of the few people in the world who can really understand imposes a certain burden and a definite isolation. But I also feel it is a great privilidge [sic] and quite frankly, if it is [sic] choice between carrying the burden of RCP politics or ending up like my old friend Carol there's no choice involved!"
.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,446
.
The Science Media Centre orchestrated national media trashing of BBC drama (‘eco thriller’) ‘Fields of Gold’. One of the authors of the drama, Ronan Bennet wrote about it (below). The other author of Fields of Gold was Alan Rusbridger, at the time he was also the editor of the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/jun/02/gm.comment
‘The conspiracy to undermine the truth about our GM drama’
Ronan Bennett
‘A BBC eco-thriller is at the centre of a furious row. Ronan Bennett, co-author of Fields of Gold, says that the attacks are orchestrated and groundless’
Sunday 2 June 2002
… ‘ …. Conspiracies are the stuff of thrillers, not real life. Except that Fields of Gold, a two-part drama about genetically-modified crops, has become the centre of an ugly little conspiracy by those with a vested interest in discrediting it and personal grudges to settle.
Last week The Times and Daily Telegraph ran prominent news stories in which a number of senior scientists, who appear not to have seen Fields of Gold, attacked the drama, which will be shown on BBC1 on 8 and 9 June.
According to Lord May, president of the Royal Society, it is an 'error-strewn piece of propaganda'. Mark Tester, a Cambridge researcher who gave the production team some helpful notes as we were about to start filming but has since changed his mind on some of his earlier advice, claimed it risked 'inflaming further the anti-GM attitude in the West, to the detriment of the developing world'.
Fields of Gold was likened variously to Spiderman, Star Wars, The X-Files and Day of the Triffids, and the BBC was upbraided for treating GM as 'fatuous science fiction. Just now, when the Prime Minister has spoken so forcefully in favour of rational discussion, it is particularly important to keep the debate on a realistic footing.'
The Times headlined its piece: 'BBC drama peddles ludicrous lies on GM'; the Telegraph's story was billed: 'Adviser accuses BBC of being anti-GM in "ridiculous" thriller'. More puzzling, it accuses me of 'contaminating the GM debate with the methods of Irish Republican agitprop' - puzzling because the drama is nothing to do with Ireland, but understandable in the context of Telegraph editor Charles Moore's bizarre personal crusade against me and my work.
Since the Telegraph accuses us of 'dramatically modified truth' and the Times accuses us of 'lies', it seems odd that they are not being open about the origin of the story. Nowhere did they mention it had been brought to them by a lobbying organisation, Science Media Centre.
SMC was set up recently and, according to its website, has 'a brief to renew public trust in science'. Its funders include Dupont, Merlin Biosciences, Pfizer, PowderJect and Smith & Nephew - all biotech or pharmaceutical companies with a direct interest in the promotion of the technologies the drama explores.
Though SMC seems keen to become a sort of Mandelsonian rapid rebuttal unit, it has yet to learn the subtler arts of black propaganda. When 'Fiona' from the centre was touting the story around last week, she finished her email with a last inducement: 'There will no doubt be others keen to have a pop at BBC/Guardian in one go.' Helpfully, she sent the email to the Guardian, sister paper of The Observer. The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, my co-writer on Fields of Gold, declined the honour. …..’
...... ‘…..More pertinent is the over-excited way in which a certain section of the scientific community has responded. In orchestrating their unpleasant campaign to denigrate the programme-makers, they are confirming the suspicions of those who have legitimate concerns about how and why the new technologies are being developed. Campaigners on GM are used to the smear tactics described by George Monbiot last week in the Guardian when he revealed how GM giant Monsanto used fake email addresses to lobby on its behalf and attack opponents.
Equally unappetising has been the readiness of certain newspapers to run the story without asking basic questions about its origins.'
.
The Science Media Centre orchestrated national media trashing of BBC drama (‘eco thriller’) ‘Fields of Gold’. One of the authors of the drama, Ronan Bennet wrote about it (below). The other author of Fields of Gold was Alan Rusbridger, at the time he was also the editor of the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/jun/02/gm.comment
‘The conspiracy to undermine the truth about our GM drama’
Ronan Bennett
‘A BBC eco-thriller is at the centre of a furious row. Ronan Bennett, co-author of Fields of Gold, says that the attacks are orchestrated and groundless’
Sunday 2 June 2002
… ‘ …. Conspiracies are the stuff of thrillers, not real life. Except that Fields of Gold, a two-part drama about genetically-modified crops, has become the centre of an ugly little conspiracy by those with a vested interest in discrediting it and personal grudges to settle.
Last week The Times and Daily Telegraph ran prominent news stories in which a number of senior scientists, who appear not to have seen Fields of Gold, attacked the drama, which will be shown on BBC1 on 8 and 9 June.
According to Lord May, president of the Royal Society, it is an 'error-strewn piece of propaganda'. Mark Tester, a Cambridge researcher who gave the production team some helpful notes as we were about to start filming but has since changed his mind on some of his earlier advice, claimed it risked 'inflaming further the anti-GM attitude in the West, to the detriment of the developing world'.
Fields of Gold was likened variously to Spiderman, Star Wars, The X-Files and Day of the Triffids, and the BBC was upbraided for treating GM as 'fatuous science fiction. Just now, when the Prime Minister has spoken so forcefully in favour of rational discussion, it is particularly important to keep the debate on a realistic footing.'
The Times headlined its piece: 'BBC drama peddles ludicrous lies on GM'; the Telegraph's story was billed: 'Adviser accuses BBC of being anti-GM in "ridiculous" thriller'. More puzzling, it accuses me of 'contaminating the GM debate with the methods of Irish Republican agitprop' - puzzling because the drama is nothing to do with Ireland, but understandable in the context of Telegraph editor Charles Moore's bizarre personal crusade against me and my work.
Since the Telegraph accuses us of 'dramatically modified truth' and the Times accuses us of 'lies', it seems odd that they are not being open about the origin of the story. Nowhere did they mention it had been brought to them by a lobbying organisation, Science Media Centre.
SMC was set up recently and, according to its website, has 'a brief to renew public trust in science'. Its funders include Dupont, Merlin Biosciences, Pfizer, PowderJect and Smith & Nephew - all biotech or pharmaceutical companies with a direct interest in the promotion of the technologies the drama explores.
Though SMC seems keen to become a sort of Mandelsonian rapid rebuttal unit, it has yet to learn the subtler arts of black propaganda. When 'Fiona' from the centre was touting the story around last week, she finished her email with a last inducement: 'There will no doubt be others keen to have a pop at BBC/Guardian in one go.' Helpfully, she sent the email to the Guardian, sister paper of The Observer. The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, my co-writer on Fields of Gold, declined the honour. …..’
...... ‘…..More pertinent is the over-excited way in which a certain section of the scientific community has responded. In orchestrating their unpleasant campaign to denigrate the programme-makers, they are confirming the suspicions of those who have legitimate concerns about how and why the new technologies are being developed. Campaigners on GM are used to the smear tactics described by George Monbiot last week in the Guardian when he revealed how GM giant Monsanto used fake email addresses to lobby on its behalf and attack opponents.
Equally unappetising has been the readiness of certain newspapers to run the story without asking basic questions about its origins.'
.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,446
.
LM magazine (formerly Living Marxism) are notorious for accusing war reporter Ed Vuliamy and ITV television company of fabricating evidence of concentration camps in Bosnia in 1992. ITV sued LM and won. LM went financially bust, but re-emerged as the online magazine Spiked.
“But history - the history of genocide in particular - is thankfully built not upon public relations or melodrama but upon truth; if necessary, truth established by law. And history will record this: that ITN reported the truth when, in August 1992, it revealed the gulag of horrific concentration camps run by the Serbs for their Muslim and Croatian quarry in Bosnia.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/mar/15/pressandpublishing.tvnews
‘Poison in the well of history’
‘Living Marxism accused ITN of distorting the truth about Bosnia. Now, it faces ruin after losing the ensuing libel battle. Ed Vulliamy , who filed the first reports on the horrors of the Trnopolje camp, explains why an unholy alliance of Serb apologists and misguided intellectuals had to be defeated in court’
Wednesday 15 March 2000
'Some will say that Living Marxism won the "public relations battle", whatever that is. Others will cling to the puerile melodrama that ITN's victory in the high court yesterday was that of Goliath over some plucky little David who only wanted to challenge the media establishment.
But history - the history of genocide in particular - is thankfully built not upon public relations or melodrama but upon truth; if necessary, truth established by law. And history will record this: that ITN reported the truth when, in August 1992, it revealed the gulag of horrific concentration camps run by the Serbs for their Muslim and Croatian quarry in Bosnia.
The law now records that Penny Marshall and Ian Williams (and myself, for that matter) did not lie but told the truth when they exposed this crime to the world, and that the lie was that of Living Marxism and its dilettante supporters who sought, in the time-honoured traditions of revisionism, to deny those camps existed.
Of course Living Marxism was unable to offer a single witness who had been at Trnopolje, the camp they claimed to be a fake, on that putrid afternoon of August 5, 1992. Indeed, they were unable to produce any witnesses at all. Unlike any member of Living Marxism or their sympathisers, I was there with ITN's cameras that day. We went to two camps: Omarska and Trnopolje....'
'......What does it take to convince people? The war ground on, the British foreign office and Living Marxism in perfect synergy over their appeasement of the Serbs while other, worse camps were revealed. The bench in The Hague issued its judgment on Trnopolje in 1997: a verdict that described the camp as infinitely worse than anything we reported - an infernal place of rape, murder and torture. Witness after witness confirmed this. The Financial Times enthusiastically re-iterated Living Marxism's claims of a fabrication, but published a hasty and grovelling retraction when it looked at LM's non-evidence.
It was dispiriting to have to report that in the first year of what was proclaimed as the new united, democratic Europe such places as Trnopolje and Omarska existed. It was worse still to return to London and find an obscure group of supposed intellectuals putting such effort into trying to convince society that the camps had been a fabrication and that I had committed perjury when testifying to their existence and horrors at the war crimes tribunal at The Hague My friends and colleagues Marshall and Williams - brave reporters of the highest calibre - were being branded as liars. I suffered a whole lot less but there was a steady stream of hate mail. "You piece of shit," read one letter from an LM supporter revelling in the destruction of Vukovar, "probably a nasty little Jew.'"
Those most horribly insulted, of course, were the disbelieving camp survivors and relatives of the dead. I happen to believe that those who survive and are left bereaved by such monstrous crimes are owed at least one thing. They should be given back their lives by an admission that what happened happened. Their sanity requires that history records and acknowledges the truth of the atrocities that were committed against them and those they lost....'
continues on the link
.
LM magazine (formerly Living Marxism) are notorious for accusing war reporter Ed Vuliamy and ITV television company of fabricating evidence of concentration camps in Bosnia in 1992. ITV sued LM and won. LM went financially bust, but re-emerged as the online magazine Spiked.
“But history - the history of genocide in particular - is thankfully built not upon public relations or melodrama but upon truth; if necessary, truth established by law. And history will record this: that ITN reported the truth when, in August 1992, it revealed the gulag of horrific concentration camps run by the Serbs for their Muslim and Croatian quarry in Bosnia.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/mar/15/pressandpublishing.tvnews
‘Poison in the well of history’
‘Living Marxism accused ITN of distorting the truth about Bosnia. Now, it faces ruin after losing the ensuing libel battle. Ed Vulliamy , who filed the first reports on the horrors of the Trnopolje camp, explains why an unholy alliance of Serb apologists and misguided intellectuals had to be defeated in court’
Wednesday 15 March 2000
'Some will say that Living Marxism won the "public relations battle", whatever that is. Others will cling to the puerile melodrama that ITN's victory in the high court yesterday was that of Goliath over some plucky little David who only wanted to challenge the media establishment.
But history - the history of genocide in particular - is thankfully built not upon public relations or melodrama but upon truth; if necessary, truth established by law. And history will record this: that ITN reported the truth when, in August 1992, it revealed the gulag of horrific concentration camps run by the Serbs for their Muslim and Croatian quarry in Bosnia.
The law now records that Penny Marshall and Ian Williams (and myself, for that matter) did not lie but told the truth when they exposed this crime to the world, and that the lie was that of Living Marxism and its dilettante supporters who sought, in the time-honoured traditions of revisionism, to deny those camps existed.
Of course Living Marxism was unable to offer a single witness who had been at Trnopolje, the camp they claimed to be a fake, on that putrid afternoon of August 5, 1992. Indeed, they were unable to produce any witnesses at all. Unlike any member of Living Marxism or their sympathisers, I was there with ITN's cameras that day. We went to two camps: Omarska and Trnopolje....'
'......What does it take to convince people? The war ground on, the British foreign office and Living Marxism in perfect synergy over their appeasement of the Serbs while other, worse camps were revealed. The bench in The Hague issued its judgment on Trnopolje in 1997: a verdict that described the camp as infinitely worse than anything we reported - an infernal place of rape, murder and torture. Witness after witness confirmed this. The Financial Times enthusiastically re-iterated Living Marxism's claims of a fabrication, but published a hasty and grovelling retraction when it looked at LM's non-evidence.
It was dispiriting to have to report that in the first year of what was proclaimed as the new united, democratic Europe such places as Trnopolje and Omarska existed. It was worse still to return to London and find an obscure group of supposed intellectuals putting such effort into trying to convince society that the camps had been a fabrication and that I had committed perjury when testifying to their existence and horrors at the war crimes tribunal at The Hague My friends and colleagues Marshall and Williams - brave reporters of the highest calibre - were being branded as liars. I suffered a whole lot less but there was a steady stream of hate mail. "You piece of shit," read one letter from an LM supporter revelling in the destruction of Vukovar, "probably a nasty little Jew.'"
Those most horribly insulted, of course, were the disbelieving camp survivors and relatives of the dead. I happen to believe that those who survive and are left bereaved by such monstrous crimes are owed at least one thing. They should be given back their lives by an admission that what happened happened. Their sanity requires that history records and acknowledges the truth of the atrocities that were committed against them and those they lost....'
continues on the link
.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
That is some funny stuff. Thanks.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,869
Come on!
Before I developed ME/CFS and then spent years reading about viral and biochemical etiologies, I could have easily myself made an idle statement like that myself.
Such a statement is just a throwaway comment of folk psychology. Folk psychology is the way the average person offers simple and unsophisticated theories to explain human behavior. Discussions and gossip often involve people offering their amateur folk psychology explanations of events and other people's behavior. These are not scientific explanations, but more a form of idle chat.
A throwaway folk psychology comment like that cannot be held up as evidence that someone holds a scientific ideology based around biopsychosocial models of disease. To do so would be ridiculous.
Also, I cannot see the relevance to our present discussion of the writings Fiona Fox / Foster made when she was a member of the Living Marxist group.
Firstly, I don't see anything she wrote in her LM group years that is cause for concern; if someone is climate change skeptical, pro- or anti-GM, pro- or anti-environmentalist, or whatever, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. These are just valid views people may hold.
(However, if there is evidence that such personal views, if they are still held today, are affecting the balance at the SMC, then that would be an issue).
And I cannot judge the rights and wrongs of Fox's article 20 years ago about genocide in Bosnia without reading a whole lot of background info on that war, which I have no inclination of doing.
Secondly, even if Fiona Fox did write something that was cause for concern when in the LM group, that was 20 years ago, and most of us change over the decades in terms of our opinions.
Some of the views I held 20 years ago I now look back upon with some embarrassment. For example, I had this idea that people who developed diseases generally did so because of their own negligence. I had the idea that provided you ate well, exercised well, engaged in health-supporting practices like yoga, avoided environmental toxins, took vitamins, and so forth, you would be unlikely to be hit by disease. Having followed this very healthy lifestyle, I then had to eat humble pie — and radically revise my views on health — after a single respiratory virus plunged me into ME/CFS.
As for the eco-thriller on GM, again, without spending a lot time researching into that situation, I cannot judge the rights and wrongs of the SMC in their handling of it.
If you have a nice to-the-point article, preferably in a quality newspaper or journal, about the issues in the SMC, then that would be interesting. I this respect, I thought the article in Nature was good.
But so far I see little of great concern, apart from the possibility that the SMC may be a little biased towards corporate and government views on science.
And of course the inexplicable bias towards CBT / GET in their ME/CFS coverage, which does need investigation.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
A lot of people have seen concerns expressed about Fiona Fox, Furedi, LM, Tracey Brown, spiked and so on in the past. Personal connections, and so on that were reason for concern but nothing solid... and since then the sustained campaign from the SMC has occurred, including interventions from Tracey Brown and SAS. To me, that has added considerable weight to the concerns people previously expressed, and in and of itself is the primary problem - everything else is just background reading.
For brief reading, this was in the Guardian in 2003: http://www.monbiot.com/2003/12/09/invasion-of-the-entryists/
Have you looked through the articles on Spiked!? I'm not really sure what it is that you are looking for.
- Messages
- 1,446
.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...researchers-experiencing-harrassment-2013.pdf
Science Media Centre 2013
Advice for researchers experiencing harassment
‘All researchers should expect their work to be scrutinised by the public, policy makers
and campaigners. However, some researchers working on high-profile subjects that attract controversy, such as radiation, climate change, animal research or chronic fatigue syndrome/ME, have also found themselves targeted by people who have extreme views about their research.
In contrast to healthy debate about scientific research, this harassment could include abusive emails, threats to personal safety, malicious complaints to institutions or regulatory bodies, bombardment with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests or libellous posts about researchers on the internet. Not only can this hold up research and present a risk to the reputation of the researchers involved, it can also prevent researchers engaging effectively with the media, the public and other stakeholders.
There is a serious risk that researchers become focussed on answering those with extreme views rather than speaking to the media, wider public and policy makers. This means that valuable opportunities to communicate with the broader
public and stakeholders, who often have not formed an opinion about the issues, can be lost.
The Science Media Centre is an independent press office for science in the media dealing with high profile, controversial issues in the headlines. We spend time working with researchers who have been targeted and want
to share our tips on ensuring your voice is heard by the public and policy makers. We see time and time again how engaging with the media can help ensure public opinion is on your side, and how this reduces the chance of you being
targeted in future.’
Science Media Centre
We can offer support for researchers working in controversial areas that are likely to hit the news by helping you engage with the national news media to ensure your voice is heard. In some cases we may also be able to raise awareness of the harassment you are suffering in the media. We can also alert stakeholders such as press officers in relevant organisations, funding agencies etc.
Support4rs
Originally set up to support animal researchers, Support4rs has developed a good understanding of what to do to protect yourself against those with extreme views. They can give advice on the profile of someone with extreme views, how to deal with complaints, harassment, a large volume of FOI requests and give advice on the risks you may be facing.
Contact info@support4rs.com
.
.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...researchers-experiencing-harrassment-2013.pdf
Science Media Centre 2013
Advice for researchers experiencing harassment
‘All researchers should expect their work to be scrutinised by the public, policy makers
and campaigners. However, some researchers working on high-profile subjects that attract controversy, such as radiation, climate change, animal research or chronic fatigue syndrome/ME, have also found themselves targeted by people who have extreme views about their research.
In contrast to healthy debate about scientific research, this harassment could include abusive emails, threats to personal safety, malicious complaints to institutions or regulatory bodies, bombardment with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests or libellous posts about researchers on the internet. Not only can this hold up research and present a risk to the reputation of the researchers involved, it can also prevent researchers engaging effectively with the media, the public and other stakeholders.
There is a serious risk that researchers become focussed on answering those with extreme views rather than speaking to the media, wider public and policy makers. This means that valuable opportunities to communicate with the broader
public and stakeholders, who often have not formed an opinion about the issues, can be lost.
The Science Media Centre is an independent press office for science in the media dealing with high profile, controversial issues in the headlines. We spend time working with researchers who have been targeted and want
to share our tips on ensuring your voice is heard by the public and policy makers. We see time and time again how engaging with the media can help ensure public opinion is on your side, and how this reduces the chance of you being
targeted in future.’
Science Media Centre
We can offer support for researchers working in controversial areas that are likely to hit the news by helping you engage with the national news media to ensure your voice is heard. In some cases we may also be able to raise awareness of the harassment you are suffering in the media. We can also alert stakeholders such as press officers in relevant organisations, funding agencies etc.
Support4rs
Originally set up to support animal researchers, Support4rs has developed a good understanding of what to do to protect yourself against those with extreme views. They can give advice on the profile of someone with extreme views, how to deal with complaints, harassment, a large volume of FOI requests and give advice on the risks you may be facing.
Contact info@support4rs.com
.
.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,446
.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf
'Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre'
February 2013
‘The SMC jointly nominated Simon Wessely for the inaugural Sense About Science John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science for his courage and bravery in speaking out on CFS in the face on intimidation, which Simon won’
.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf
'Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre'
February 2013
‘The SMC jointly nominated Simon Wessely for the inaugural Sense About Science John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science for his courage and bravery in speaking out on CFS in the face on intimidation, which Simon won’
.
ahmo
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,805
- Location
- Northcoast NSW, Australia
Jeeze, my emoti's are getting a workout today
- Messages
- 1,446
.
The SMC orchestrated the intensive and wholly PACE-Positive PACE Trial media reporting from 2011 onwards, and orchestrated the media attacks on the ME population of 2011/12/13, comparing campaigning patients to animal rights terrorists.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf
Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre
February 2013
'Supporting experts targeted by extremists
We have also been involved in supporting experts who have found themselves being targeted by individuals or groups who do not like their research. This has been particularly important in the case of psychiatrists and psychologists working on chronic fatigue sndrome/ME. These researchers have found themselves in the firing line from a small group of extremists who are opposed to psychiatrists or psychologists doing research on chronic fatigue syndrome/ME.
The SMC ran a press briefing on the first findings from the PACE trial, and supported the researchers involved throughout this process, for example, by organising media training in collaboration with the MRC.
When we became aware of the level of intimidation researchers were experiencing we brought together key parties for a brainstorm to discuss what could be done to aid researchers.
At this event it was agreed that these harassed experts should speak out publically about the harassment they were experiencing. As a result the BBC Radio 4 Today programme ran an exposé onthe piece (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14326514) and a number of outlets followed the story including the Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-myalgic-encephalomyelitis) and the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...reats-investigating-psychological-causes.html).
For some researchers this media work has dramatically reduced the harassment they are experiencing. For others, however, things have not improved. So the SMC ran a second brainstorm in early 2013 to discuss what can be done. It was agreed that more must be invested in putting the case for research of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME explaining the burden and seriousness of the disease both to the media and the public. The SMC will look for opportunities to do media work in this area.'
.
The SMC orchestrated the intensive and wholly PACE-Positive PACE Trial media reporting from 2011 onwards, and orchestrated the media attacks on the ME population of 2011/12/13, comparing campaigning patients to animal rights terrorists.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf
Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre
February 2013
'Supporting experts targeted by extremists
We have also been involved in supporting experts who have found themselves being targeted by individuals or groups who do not like their research. This has been particularly important in the case of psychiatrists and psychologists working on chronic fatigue sndrome/ME. These researchers have found themselves in the firing line from a small group of extremists who are opposed to psychiatrists or psychologists doing research on chronic fatigue syndrome/ME.
The SMC ran a press briefing on the first findings from the PACE trial, and supported the researchers involved throughout this process, for example, by organising media training in collaboration with the MRC.
When we became aware of the level of intimidation researchers were experiencing we brought together key parties for a brainstorm to discuss what could be done to aid researchers.
At this event it was agreed that these harassed experts should speak out publically about the harassment they were experiencing. As a result the BBC Radio 4 Today programme ran an exposé onthe piece (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14326514) and a number of outlets followed the story including the Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-myalgic-encephalomyelitis) and the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...reats-investigating-psychological-causes.html).
For some researchers this media work has dramatically reduced the harassment they are experiencing. For others, however, things have not improved. So the SMC ran a second brainstorm in early 2013 to discuss what can be done. It was agreed that more must be invested in putting the case for research of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME explaining the burden and seriousness of the disease both to the media and the public. The SMC will look for opportunities to do media work in this area.'
.
Last edited:
Really prefer you didn't.
Such views often become entrenched, especially if someone acts upon them. In this case, she basically ridiculed her friend publicly. It also seems pretty likely that her personal interactions with her friend were less than exemplary. And once someone has crossed that line, nothing is going to pull her out of that mindset, short of coming down with ME/SEID herself. To change her tune would require her to accept that she had done some unfair and cruel things in the past, and many people just can't handle that sort of self-awareness.
I think it does help a lot in understanding the problem - Fiona Fox has a personal bias regarding with ME/SEID. It's not a matter of a corporate interest having bought the SMC's assistance, but could certainly tie in with SMC being more willing to seek ties with psych-leaning groups on the subject, and to portray it in a purely psychological framework.
SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
There's an old saying and fact of life
If you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows
no that's not a death threat
If folk associate with ratbags willingly and support them....then they are no innocents.
LM/Spiked/SMC is NOT some nice bunch of "misunderstood philanthropists".
Their callous disregard for Human suffering, as was proven by the Bosnian war crap, is their true face.
If you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows
no that's not a death threat
If folk associate with ratbags willingly and support them....then they are no innocents.
LM/Spiked/SMC is NOT some nice bunch of "misunderstood philanthropists".
Their callous disregard for Human suffering, as was proven by the Bosnian war crap, is their true face.