Shared Moment of Truth Oh One
Abbreviated version posted over at Oprah/Jenny McCarthy
To Nancy Snyderman/Re:Dateline show on alternative medicine
I was surprised that on the recent Dateline show regarding Suzanne Somers, you did not query in more detail the apologist for mainstream medicine when she went on critiquing "anecdotal" experiences with alternative medicine.
The word "anecdotal" was never used by industry scientists until the anti-pesticide activists began to make some headway. Once activists helped communities see to it that pesticide bans take effect, the industry came up with this notion of "anecdotal..."
In the past, before 1985, the word "anecdotal" meant a "happy or pleasant story." Or it meant that a person had heard someone say that they knew someone who knew some who had experienced such and such. In other words, anecdotal meant an unsubstantiated event.
But the industry forces are now using that word to marginalize people as they relate their own experiences. A person's experiences used to be part of inductive reasoning, and a diagnostic tool, and scientific evidence. I have served for over twenty years as a nursing assistant, and when one of my charges became ill, the ER Drs always would ask me what I observed about the client's life prior to the stroke, or other impairment. That is just good diagnostic strategy.
But now the main stream cancer people and the main stream vaccine people no longer want us to relate our experiences. Why?
Inductive reasoning is part of the process. If you know someone who has indeed become a cancer survivor, and they would like to put their experience into a date base, can they? Have any large Pharmaceutical companies ever let people in the public relate their experiences?
You hear again and again from the "experts" that an alternative medicine practitioner's experiences do not involve enough cases. So why don't those experts pressure the pharmaceutical companies to take the time and put together a compelling data bank of evidence?
I myself and many others think it is because the Big Pharma people do not want to have the truth about anything that they cannot patent to come out for the public to rely on. However, every day another person realizes the health benefits of medical marijuana, which again, is something the Big Pharma companies have tried to keep away from the public's use until they can patent it.
Even in the 1990's Big Pharma companies were reporting on the one hand how marijuana helped MS sufferers in the journals related to such neural illnesses, and then telling the Media that marijuana had no health benefits.
Decent scientific methods demand that people be able to become part of a data base that will examine their experiences and that will count the numbers. I have no idea what words of what people were cut off in the "shaping" of the piece you did on Ms Somers, but even my husband kept saying in frustration, what is it they are editing out of the material to frame the experiences in the way that the Powers that Be want them to be framed?