THE
DOORS OF PERCEPTION:
WHY
AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING
- Tim O'Shea
|
A |
ldous Huxley's inspired 1956
essay detailed the vivid, mind-expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline
adventures. By altering his brain
chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley tapped into a rich and fluid world
of shimmering, indescribable beauty and power. With his neurosensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able
to enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space captain in
recorded history. Whether by
hallucination or epiphany, Huxley sought to remove all controls, all filters,
all cultural conditioning from his perceptions and to confront Nature or the
World or Reality first-hand - in its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched,
infinite rawness.
Those bonds are much harder to
break today, half a century later. We
are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known.
Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and
molded; our very awareness of the
whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased.
The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
It is an exhausting and
endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom
are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media
clips per day. In an effort to save
time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of
information in this country. Once
the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media
control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given
popular opinion.
If everybody believes
something, it’s probably wrong. We
call that
Conventional Wisdom.
In America, conventional
wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually contrived:
somebody paid for it. Examples:
This is a list of illusions,
that have cost billions and billions to conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the President speaking
publicly unless he is reading? Or
why most people in this country think generally the same about most of the above
issues?
HOW THIS
WHOLE SET-UP GOT STARTED
In Trust Us We're Experts,
Stauber and Rampton pull together some compelling data describing the science of
creating public opinion in America. They
trace modern public influence back to the early part of the last century,
highlighting the work of guys like Edward L. Bernays, the Father of Spin.
From his own amazing chronicle Propaganda, we learn how Edward L.
Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself and applied
them to the emerging science of mass persuasion.
The only difference was that instead of using these principles to uncover
hidden themes in the human unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does,
Bernays used these same ideas to mask agendas and to create illusions that
deceive and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.
THE FATHER OF SPIN
Bernays dominated the PR
industry until the 1940s, and was a significant force for another 40 years after
that. (Tye)
During all that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to
create a public perception about some idea or product.
A few examples:
As a neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of Bernays' first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the American public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." (Ewen)
A few years later, Bernays set up a
stunt to popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes.
In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New York City, Bernays showed
himself as a force to be reckoned with. He
organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes marched in the
parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's liberation.
Such publicity followed from that one event that from then on women have
felt secure about destroying their own lungs in public, the same way that men
have always done.
Bernays
popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.
Not one to turn down a challenge, he
set up the advertising format along with the AMA that lasted for nearly 50 years
proving that cigarettes are beneficial to health.
Just look at ads in issues of Life or Time from the 40s and
50s.
During the next several decades Bernays
and his colleagues evolved the principles by which masses of people could be generally swayed through messages repeated
over and over hundreds of times. One the value of media became apparent, other countries of the world tried to follow our lead.
But Bernays really was the gold standard. Josef Goebbels, who was Hitler's minister of propaganda, studied the principles of Edward
Bernays when Goebbels was developing the popular rationale he would use to convince the Germans that they had to purify their race. (Stauber)
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that would put a particular product or concept in a desirable light. Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to leadership." Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to "control the masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens with the people unaware that they are being manipulated.
Stauber describes Bernays'
rationale like this:
"the scientific manipulation
of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic
society." Trust Us
p 42
These early mass persuaders
postured themselves as performing a moral service for humanity in general -
democracy was too good for people; they
needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of rational thought
by themselves. Here's a paragraph
from Bernays' Propaganda:
"Those who manipulate the
unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true
ruling power of our country. We are
governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by
men we have never heard of. This is
a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.
Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to
live together as a smoothly functioning society.
In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or
business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the
relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and
social patterns of the masses. It
is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."
A tad different from Thomas Jefferson's view on the subject:
Inform their discretion. Bernays believed that only a few
possessed the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be entrusted with this sacred task.
And luckily, he saw himself as one of that few. HERE COMES THE MONEY Once the possibilities of
applying Freudian psychology to mass media were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more
corporate clients than he could handle. Global
corporations fell all over themselves courting the new Image Makers.
There were dozens of goods and services and ideas to be sold to a
susceptible public. Over the years,
these players have had the money to make their images happen.
A few examples:
Philip Morris
Pfizer
Union Carbide Allstate
Monsanto Eli Lilly
tobacco industry
Ciba Geigy
lead industry
Coors
DuPont
Chlorox
Shell Oil
Standard Oil
Procter & Gamble
Boeing
General Motors
Dow Chemical
General Mills
Goodyear THE PLAYERS Dozens of PR firms have
emerged to answer that demand. Among
them:
Burson-Marsteller
Edelman
Hill & Knowlton
Kamer-Singer
Ketchum
Mongovin, Biscoe, and Duchin
BSMG
Buder-Finn Though world-famous within the
PR industry, these are names we don't know, and for good reason. The best PR
goes unnoticed. For decades they
have created the opinions that most of us were raised with, on virtually any
issue which has the remotest commercial value, including:
pharmaceutical
drugs vaccines medicine
as a profession alternative
medicine fluoridation
of city water chlorine household
cleaning products tobacco dioxin global
warming leaded
gasoline cancer
research and treatment pollution
of the oceans forests
and lumber images
of celebrities, including damage control crisis
and disaster management genetically
modified foods aspartame food
additives; processed foods dental
amalgams
LESSON #1 Bernays learned early on that
the most effective way to create credibility for a product or an image was by "independent
third-party" endorsement. For
example, if General Motors were to come out and say that global warming is a
hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives,
since GM's fortune is made by selling automobiles.
If however some independent research institute with a very credible
sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a scientific
report that says global warming is really a fiction, people begin to get
confused and to have doubts about the original issue. So that's exactly what Bernays
did. With a policy inspired
by genius, he set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and
Carnegie combined." (Stauber p
45) Quietly financed by the
industries whose products were being evaluated, these "independent"
research agencies would churn out "scientific" studies and press
materials that could create any image their handlers wanted.
Such front groups are given high-sounding names like: Temperature
Research Foundation International
Food Information Council Consumer
Alert The
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Air
Hygiene Foundation Industrial
Health Federation International
Food Information Council Manhattan
Institute Center
for Produce Quality Tobacco
Institute Research Council Cato
Institute American
Council on Science and Health Global
Climate Coalition Alliance
for Better Foods Sound pretty legit don't they? CANNED NEWS RELEASES As Stauber explains, these
organizations and hundreds of others like them are front groups whose
sole mission is to advance the image of the global corporations who fund them,
like those listed on page 2 above. This
is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press releases' announcing
"breakthrough" research to every radio station and newspaper in the
country. (Robbins) Many of these
canned reports read like straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the
news format. This saves journalists
the trouble of researching the subjects on their own, especially on topics about
which they know very little. Entire
sections of the release or in the case of video news releases, the whole thing
can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given the byline of the reporter or
newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant
news - copy and paste. Written by
corporate PR firms. Does this really happen?
Every single day, since the 1920s when the idea of the News Release was
first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22)
Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the Wall
St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases..
(22) These types of stories
are mixed right in with legitimately researched stories.
Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able to tell the
difference.
THE LANGUAGE OF SPIN As 1920s spin pioneers like
Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more experience, they began to formulate rules
and guidelines for creating public opinion.
They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on emotion, not
facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought, motivation must be based
not on logic but on presentation. Here
are some of the axioms of the new science of PR: ü
technology is a religion unto itself ü
if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is
dangerous ü
important decisions should be left to experts ü
when reframing issues, stay away from substance;
create images ü
never state a clearly demonstrable lie Words are very carefully
chosen for their emotional impact. Here's
an example. A front group called
the International Food Information Council handles the public's natural aversion
to genetically modified foods. Trigger
words are repeated all through the text. Now
in the case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these
experimental new creations which have suddenly popped up on our grocery shelves
which are said to have DNA alterations. The
IFIC wants to reassure the public of the safety of GM foods, so it avoids words
like: Frankenfoods Hitler biotech chemical DNA experiments manipulate money
safety scientists radiation roulette gene-splicing gene
gun random
Instead, good PR for GM foods
contains words like: hybrids natural
order beauty choice bounty cross-breeding diversity earth farmer organic wholesome. It's basic Freudian/Tony
Robbins word association. The fact
that GM foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful
scientific methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really matter.
This is pseudoscience, not science.
Form is everything and substance just a passing myth.
(Trevanian) Who do you think funds the
International Food Information Council? Take
a wild guess. Right - Monsanto,
DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes
from GM foods. (Stauber p 20) CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD
PROPAGANDA As the science of mass control
evolved, PR firms developed further guidelines for effective copy.
Here are some of the gems: -
dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling -
speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words -
when covering something up, don't use plain English;
stall for time; distract -
get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures, street people -
anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand -
the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you -
when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable -
when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits of what just happened -
when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues Keep this list.
Start watching for these techniques.
Not hard to find - look at today's paper or tonight's TV news.
See what they're doing; these
guys are good!
SCIENCE FOR HIRE PR firms have become very
sophisticated in the preparation of news releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous
scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked at.
(Stauber, p 201) This is a common occurrence.
In this way the editors of newspapers and TV news shows are often not
even aware that an individual release is a total PR fabrication.
Or at least they have "deniability," right? Stauber tells the amazing
story of how leaded gas came into the picture.
In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to gasoline gave cars
more horsepower. When there was
some concern about safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake
"testing" and publish spurious research that 'proved' that inhalation
of lead was harmless. Enter Charles
Kettering. Founder of the world famous
Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering also
happened to be an executive with General Motors. By some strange coincidence, we soon have the Sloan Kettering
institute issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in the body and
that the body has a way of eliminating low level exposure.
Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation and PR
giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed all anti-lead research for
years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized scientific opposition, for the next 60
years more and more gasoline became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% or our
gasoline was leaded. Finally it became too obvious
to hide that lead was a major carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the
late 1980s. But during those 60
years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of lead were released in
vapor form onto American streets and highways.
30 million tons. That is PR, my friends. JUNK SCIENCE In 1993 a guy named Peter
Huber wrote a new book and coined a new term.
The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science.
Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports technology,
industry, and progress. Anything
else was suddenly junk science. Not surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was
supported by the industry-backed Manhattan Institute. Huber's book was generally
dismissed not only because it was so poorly written, but because it failed to
realize one fact: true
scientific research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the truth because they do not yet
know what the truth is. True scientific method goes
like this: 1. form a
hypothesis 2. make
predictions for that hypothesis 3. test the
predictions 4. reject
or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings Boston University scientist
Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in science are themselves like
"living organisms, that must be nourished, supported, and cultivated with
resources for making them grow and flourish."
(Stauber p 205) Great ideas
that don't get this financial support because the commercial angles are not
immediately obvious - these ideas wither and die. Another way you can often
distinguish real science from phony is that real science points out flaws in its
own research. Phony science
pretends there were no flaws.
THE REAL JUNK SCIENCE Contrast this with modern PR
and its constant pretensions to sound science.
Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area of drugs, GM
foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.
It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these conclusions are
true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to the industries
paying for that research. This
invidious approach to science has shifted the entire focus of research in
America during the past 50 years, as any true scientist is likely to admit. Stauber documents the
increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of university research. (206)
This has nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge.
Scientists lament that research has become just another commodity,
something bought and sold. (Crossen)
THE TWO MAIN TARGETS OF
"SOUND SCIENCE" It is shocking when Stauber
shows how the vast majority of corporate PR today opposes any research that
seeks to protect public
health the
environment It's a funny thing that most
of the time when we see the phrase "junk science," it is in a context
of defending something that may threaten either the environment or our health.
This makes sense when one realizes that money changes hands only by
selling the illusion of health and the illusion of environmental
protection. True public health and
real preservation of the earth's environment have very low market value. Stauber thinks it ironic that
industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of junk science are usually non-scientists
themselves. (255)
Here again they can do this because the issue is not science, but the
creation of images.
THE LANGUAGE OF ATTACK When PR firms attack
legitimate environmental groups and alternative medicine people, they again use
special words which will carry an emotional punch: outraged
sound science junk
science
sensible scaremongering
responsible
phobia
hoax alarmist
hysteria The next time you are reading
a newspaper article about an environmental or health issue, note how the author
shows bias by using the above terms. This
is the result of very specialized training. Another standard PR tactic is
to use the rhetoric of the environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous
and untested product that poses an actual threat to the environment.
This we see constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically
modified foods. They talk about how
GM foods are necessary to grow more food and to end world hunger, when the
reality is that GM foods actually have lower yields per acre than natural crops.
(Stauber p 173) The grand design
sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost all GM foods have been
created by the sellers of herbicides and pesticides
so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of herbicides and
pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW Publish or perish is the
classic dilemma of every research scientist.
That means whoever expects funding for the next research project had
better get the current research paper published in the best scientific journals.
And we all know that the best scientific journals, like JAMA, New
England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are peer-reviewed.
Peer review means that any articles which actually get published, between
all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical centerfolds, have been reviewed
and accepted by some really smart guys with a lot of credentials.
The assumption is, if the article made it past peer review, the data and
the conclusions of the research study have been thoroughly checked out and bear
some resemblance to physical reality. But there are a few problems
with this hot little set up. First
off, money. Even though prestigious
venerable medical journals pretend to be so objective and scientific and
incorruptible, the reality is that they face the same type of being called to
account that all glossy magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions,
Jack. How long will a
pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that prints some very
sound scientific research paper that attacks the safety of the drug in the
centerfold? Think about it. The editors aren't that stupid. Another problem is the
conflict of interest thing. There's
a formal requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties between an
author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the article.
In practice, it never happens. A
study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such
disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2 Feb 99) A 1998 study from the New
England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles
had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998)
Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah,
right. This study should be pointed
out whenever somebody starts getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer
review, like they often do. Then there's the outright
purchase of space. A drug company
may simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed.
(Stauber, p 204) Fraud in peer review journals
is nothing new. In 1987, the New
England Journal ran an article
that followed the research of R. Slutsky MD over a seven year period.
During that time, Dr. Slutsky had published 137 articles in a number of
peer-reviewed journals. NEJM found that in at least 60 of these 137, there was
evidence of major scientific fraud and misrepresentation, including: o
Engler Dean Black PhD, describes what
he the calls the Babel Effect that results when this very common and
frequently undetected scientific fraudulent data in peer-reviewed journals are quoted by
other researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on. Want to see something that
sort of re-frames this whole discussion? Check
out the McDonald's ads which often appear in the Journal of the American
Medical Association. Then keep
in mind that this is the same publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette
ads proclaiming the health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins) Very scientific, oh yes.
KILL YOUR TV? Hope this chapter has given
you a hint to start reading newspaper and magazine articles a little
differently, and perhaps start watching TV news shows with a slightly different
attitude than you had before. Always
ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it?
And if you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check
out some of the other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility of
advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your brain to mass
media. That's right - no more
newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time magazine or Newsweek.
You could actually do that. Just
think what you could do with the extra time alone. Really feel like you need to
"relax" or find out "what's going on in the world" for a few
hours every day? Think about the
news of the past couple of years for a minute.
Do you really suppose the major stories that have dominated headlines and
TV news have been "what is going on in the world?"
Do you actually think there's been nothing going on besides the contrived
tech slump, the contrived power shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign
violence and disaster, and all the other non-stories that the puppeteers dangle
before us every day? What about
when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or the Oklahoma city
bombing, or now with Gary Condit? Do we really need to know all that detail, day after day?
Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we wanted to?
What is the purpose of news? To
inform the public? Hardly.
The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and
uncertainty so that they'll watch again tomorrow and be subjected to the same
advertising. Oversimplification?
Of course. That's the mark
of mass media mastery - simplicity. The
invisible hand. Like Edward Bernays
said, the people must be controlled without them knowing it. Consider this:
what was really going on in the world all that time they were distracting
us with all that stupid vexatious daily smokescreen?
Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming back for more.
If this seems like a radical
outlook, let's take it one step further: What would you lose from your life
if you stopped watching TV and stopped reading newspapers altogether? Would your life really suffer any
financial, moral, intellectual, literary, spiritual or academic loss from such a decision? Do you really need to have your
family continually absorbing the illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated,
desperately brainless values of the people featured in the average nightly TV
program? Are these fake, programmed
robots "normal"? Do you need to have your life values
constantly spoonfed to you? Are those shows really amusing, or
just a necessary distraction to keep you from looking at reality, or trying to
figure things out yourself by doing a little independent reading? Name one example of how your life is
improved by watching TV news and reading the evening paper.
What measurable gain is there for you?
PLANET OF THE APES?
There's no question that as a
nation, we're getting dumber year by year.
Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately.
Ever notice the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's
advertising and billboards? Literacy is marginal in most American secondary schools.
Three-fourths of California high school seniors can't read well enough to
pass their exit exams. ( SJ Mercury
20 Jul 01) If you think
other parts of the country are smarter, try this one:
hand any high school senior a book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them
to open to any random page and just read one paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do
it. SAT scales are arbitrarily
shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb kids are getting year by year. (ADD: A Designer Disease)
At least 10% have documented "learning disabilities," which are
reinforced and rewarded by special treatment and special drugs.
Ever hear of anyone failing a grade any more? Or observe the intellectual
level of the average movie which these days may only last one or two weeks in
the theatres, especially if it has insufficient explosions, chase scenes,
silicone, fake martial arts, and cretinesque dialogue.
Radio? Consider the low
mental qualifications of the falsely animated corporate simians hired as DJs
-- seems like they're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they just repeat at
random. And at what point did
popular music cease to require the study of any musical instrument or theory
whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps
we just don't understand this emerging art form, right?
The Darwinism of MTV - apes descended from man. Ever notice how most articles
in any of the glossy magazines sound like they were all written by the same guy?
And this writer just graduated from junior college?
And yet has all the correct opinions on social issues, no original
ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized corporate omniscience, to assure us that everything is going to be fine...
Yes, everything is fine. All this is great news for the
PR industry - makes their job that much easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of
conditioning; fewer are capable of
understanding it even if somebody explained it to them.
TEA IN THE CAFETERIA Let's say you're in a crowded
cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And
as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across the room. So
you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to your friend for a few
minutes. Now, coming back to your tea, are you just going to pick it
up and drink it? Remember, this is
a crowded place and you've just left your tea unattended for several minutes.
You've given anybody in that room access to your tea. Why should your mind be any
different? Turning on the TV, or
uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities allow
access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda,
anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media.
As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something on
TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing.
So the idea here is, like the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth
limiting access to it. This is the only life we get.
Time is our total capital. Why
waste it allowing our potential, our personality, our values to be shaped,
crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass panderers?
There are many truly important decisions that are crucial to our physical, mental,
and spiritual well-being, decisions which require information and research.
If it's
an issue where money is involved, objective data won't be so easy to obtain.
Remember, if everybody knows something, that image has been bought and
paid for. Real knowledge takes a little
effort, a little excavation down at least one level below what "everybody
knows." 1
REFERENCES Ewen, Stuart
PR!: A Social History of Spin
1996 Tye,
Larry The
Father of Spin: Edward
L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations King, R Medical
journals rarely disclose researchers' ties Engler, R et al.
Misrepresentation and Responsibility in Medical Research Black, D PhD
Health At the Crossroads
Tapestry 1988. Trevanian
Shibumi 1983. Crossen, C
Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America 1996.
Robbins, J
Reclaiming Our Health
Kramer 1996. Bernays, E
Propaganda
Liveright, New York 1928. Jefferson, T
Writings New York Library of America, p 493; 1984.
O'Shea T
The Magic Bean 2000
www.thedoctorwithin.com
"I know of no safe
depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them
not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not take
it from them, but to inform their discretion."
Stauber & Rampton
Trust Us, We're Experts
Tarcher/Putnam 2001
ISBN: 0-465-06168-0
Published by Basic Books, A Division of Harper
Collins
Crown
Publishers, Inc. 2001
Wall St.
Journal, 2 Feb 99.
New England Journal of Medicine
v 317 p 1383 26 Nov 1987
Alternative
Medicine magazine May 2001.