Dental Fluorosis Photos - Dental Fluorosis Photos -

Sponsored by:
Calgary Real Estate
Selling Calgary Group
Phone Elke: 403-225-9491

Indoctrination vs. Education

Public consent to fluoridation is invariably manufactured by advocates with public funds. Informed consent on a community-wide level is not possible when politics masquerade as science. A campaign of indoctrination is the tool and tactic of spin-doctors, not of responsible community leaders.

See also: pro.htm, crha.htm

Indoctrination vs. Education. by Robert H. Sorge, N.D., Ph.D., Townsend Letter for Doctors (Date unknown)

We hear much these days about our young adults being indoctrinated into cults, not realizing that we all can become indoctrinated into a cult or special interest group or school of thought of some sort if we fail to recognize the difference between indoctrination and education and the techniques applied by both.

Our nation today faces a serious threat of being incapacitated, even annihilated by drugs. Most of us have been indoctrinated into drugs and drug medicine since youth. Our nation's drug problem is an extension of our drug mentality. We accept drugs, we think they're good, we believe in them, and most of us do not think there is an alternative. We're locked into a system that is now responsible for more sickness and disease than it is helping. This irony is iatrogenic, or drug-induced disease.

Because the news media is controlled by the medical establishment, for your own health, safety and future it is vital that you become aware of the fact that when we read a report or watch medical news on TV we tend to assume it's truthfulness, and that's the problem. Medical propaganda masquerades as news and information. This is also one of the problems with scientific research. Science pretends to be inductive, to search for answers. Too often vested interests indicated the most profitable answers and fund scientists to research for evidence to support them. Thus politics can masquerade as science.

Indoctrination (Propaganda) Education
  1. Uses generalizations, "allness" statements: Lacks specific references and data.
  1. Uses qualifiers: Statements supported with specific references and data.
  1. One sided: Different or opposing views are either ignored, misrepresented, underrepresented, or denigrated.
  1. Circumspect and multifaceted: Issues examined from many points of view. Opposition fairly represented.
  1. Card stacking: Data carefully selected to present only the best or worst possible case. Language used to conceal.
  1. Balanced: Presents representative samples from a wide range of available data on the subject. Language used to reveal.
  1. Misleading use of statistics.
  1. Statistical references qualified with respect to size, duration, criteria, controls source, and subsidizer.
  1. Lumpism: Ignores distinctions and subtle differences. Lumps superficially similar elements together. Reasons by analogy.
  1. Discrimination: Points out differences and subtle distinctions. Uses analogies carefully, pointing out differences and nonapplicability.
  1. False dilemma (either/or): There are only two solutions to the problem or two ways of viewing the issue -- the "right way" (the writer or speaker's way) and the "wrong way" (any other way).
  1. Alternatives: There are many ways of solving a problem or viewing an issue.
  1. Appeals to authority: Statements by selected authority figures used to clinch an argument. "Only the 'expert' knows."
  1. Appeals to reason: Statements by authority figures used to stimulate thought and discussion. "Experts" seldom agree.
  1. Appeals to consensus (bandwagon): "Everybody's doing it" so it must be right.
  1. Appeals to fact and logic: Supports arguments with impartially selected data and logic.
  1. Appeals to emotions and automatic responses: Uses words and pictures with strong emotional connotations.
  1. Appeals to people's capacity for thoughtful, reasoned responses: Uses emotionally neutral words and illustrations.
  1. Labeling: Uses labels and derogatory terms to describe proponents of opposing viewpoint.
  1. Avoids labels and derogatory language. Addresses the argument, not the people supporting a particular viewpoint.
  1. Ignores assumptions and built-in biases.
  1. Explores assumptions and built-in biases.
  1. Language usage promotes lack of awareness.
  1. Language usage promotes greater awareness