MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : The media molds perception of "disease."
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 3 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  (Original Message)Sent: 11/3/2008 11:24 PM
QUOTE: Popular media coverage of infectious diseases greatly influences how people perceive those diseases, making them seem more dangerous, according to a new study from McMaster University...

"The media tend to focus on rare and dramatic events," says Meredith Young, one of the study's lead authors and a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour. "When a certain disease receives repeated coverage in the press, people tend to focus on it and perceive it as a real threat. This raises concerns regarding how people view their own health, how they truly understand disease and how they treat themselves..." UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081029121818.htm

What's interesting is that even when the media gets something totally wrong, for example, all the reports about how "HIV/AIDS" was going to kill millions of Americans, "crossing over" into the heterosexual population, they don't question claims that can't possibly be correct (though of course there are a few notable exceptions, such as Celia Farber).


First  Previous  2-3 of 3  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 3 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameRockJawTomSent: 11/12/2008 8:56 AM
I see that we long ago lost the habit of using the terms "mass media" and "popular literature." The mass media influences things a certain way. People who go through the more technical literature learn an entirely different picture. All of this material about AIDS has always been readily available through the media, to those who chose media that appealed to more intelligent people. AIDS dissidents always got our information from mainstream sources, sometimes indirectly, but it was from mainstream medicine.

Reply
 Message 3 of 3 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrectSent: 11/12/2008 7:57 PM
There's actually a book that shows how the claims about "HIV" and "AIDS" changed over the years, from the tentative initial reports to possessing a sense of definitiveness, within the space of several years, despite no additional evidence of importance being published. I know I cited it somewhere. It was written by a woman who was a historian but then became a journalist. If I remember, I'll post back here with the citation. That one section about how "HIV/AIDS" reporting changed was certainly worth reading, in the context of this thread.