On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:53:17 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
Reg Griswold <
reg...@gmail.com> wrote:
How well written is this?
This appears to a wiki knock off
>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pharmaceutical
It's basically wiki article by two different people Lisa G. Leming
and Anne Landman.
Neither seem to be historians (and it shows) and both seem to have
some active and unfounded bias in their writhing.
>
>History of pharmaceutical interests
Initial Claim (C1):
>"In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized
>a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities.
Second Claim: Will accept this as factual.
>The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to
>universities and medical schools which had drug based research.
Statement of fact: Accepted
>They
>further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical
>schools where research was drug based through their "International
>Education Board".
Forth statement: no evidence found other than Post Hoc Fallacy
>Establishments and research which were were not drug
>based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the
>lucrative pharmaceutical industry.
fifth Statement:
>In 1939 a "Drug Trust" alliance was
>formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company I.G.
>Farben (Bayer). After World War II, I.G. Farben was dismantled but
>later emerged as separate corporations within the alliance. Well known
>companies included General Mills, Kellogg, Nestle, Bristol-Myers
>Squibb, Procter and Gamble, Roche and Hoechst (Sanofi-Aventis). The
>Rockefeller empire, in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan
>Chase), owns over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the United
>States. It is the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world.
>Since WWII, the pharmaceutical industry has steadily netted increasing
>profits to become the world's second largest manufacturing industry;
>[3], [4] after the arms industry.
Actually This isn't correct at all. several points are historical;y
incorrect, and can be shown by several different and independent
sources to be wrong.
http://www.generalmills.com/en/Company/History.aspx
Established in the US in the 1860s
http://www.pg.com/en_US/downloads/media/Fact_Sheets_CompanyHistory.pdf
Proctor and Gamble founding in 1837
http://www.kelloggcompany.com/en_US/our-heritage.html
More than 100 years ago, W.K. Kellogg founded our company through his
belief in nutrition and dedication to well-being.
I suggest this is a sign of carole lack of general knowledge which
directly limits her ability to screen information for factuality.
Everyone should know the end of WW2 was 1945, and these three
corporation have been in existence since before WW2.
It seems the article consists of very few real facts and a lot of
*Post Hoc Fallacies*, and outright misrepresentations)
The following looks ok on the surface as factual:
>The Rockefeller Foundation was originally set up in 1904 as the
>General Education Fund. The RF was later formed in 1910 and issued a
>charter on May 14, 1913 with the help of Rockefeller millions.
Then is followed up with a post hoc fallacy (a switch to what they
want you to believe.):
>Subsequently, the foundation placed it's own "nominees" in federal
>health agencies and set the stage for the "reeducation" of the public.
This looks odd:
>A compilation of magazine advertising reveals that as far back as
>1948, larger American drug companies spent a total sum of
>$1,104,224,374 for advertising. Of this sum, Rockefeller-Morgan
>interests (which went entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's death)
>controlled about 80%. [5] See also AMA."
So this article cites figure of advertising money spend between the
years 1948 and 1993. $24,538,319 average per year was spend on
advertizing campaigns, the "larger" drug companies.
The problem is this information has no real context, and is posted to
be inflammatory in nature. The real figures come from:
http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html#Millions%20of%20Dollars%20Free%20Publicity
and appear to be a post hoc fallacy on the face, Also the source has
been edited out of context to misrepresent what was written in the
source:
<citing the above source:>
It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had
its own "nominees" planted in all Federal agencies that have to do
with health. So the stage was set for the "education" of the American
public, with a view to turning it into a population of drug and
medico dependents, with the early help of the parents and the
schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least, the
influence the advertising revenues had on the media-makers.
A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back
as 1948 the larger companies in America spent for advertising the sum
total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still worth a dollar and
not half a zloty. Of this staggering sum the interlocking
Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after
Morgan's death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to
manipulate public information on health and drug matters - then and
even more recklessly now.
<end of citation>
This full citation shows the entire section only an opinion and
written with a bias to start, then citation on the wiki page was
then edited to make what initially appears to be a biased opinion
into a fact.
This shows a lack of due diligence on carole's sock reg to read and
understand what she has read. It also shows a deliberate and unfair
bias as well as a large degree of laziness on carole's part.
>reg
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.
Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <
f3b680d9-da69-4c7e...@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>