Dr. R. L. Wysong
May 1991

    A study from the Medical Research council’s Epidemiology Unit in England is terrorizing some cherished beliefs. This five year prospective study of 2500 middle-aged men showed that those who ate butter, for example, were not at any greater risk for ischemic heart disease than those who spread polyunsaturated margarine on their foods. Another interpretation of the study showed that milk and butter were even strongly protective against heart disease. For example, nearly 10% of the men who drank no milk had IHD events during the study, compared to only 6.3% of those who drank pint of milk a day, and less than 1.2% for those who drank more than a pint a day.
    These findings, of course, jolt conventional medical and nutritional thinking. A hastily convened medical research council panel countered the results by saying any conclusions are premature, and that we should basically ignore the findings and continue to follow conventional medical advice.
    In an article in the April issue of Lancet a writer reflecting on this study argued that the current fashionable ideas about the link between heart disease and low-fats, for example, could never have survived without widespread censorship and selection of only concurring evidence and the evangelism of commercial interests.
    The writer presents further contradictory evidence to current popular ideas, by citing a study in the 1950’s in Norway. which showed that by increasing the use of soya margarine over butter there was a steep and continuing rise in deaths from coronary thrombosis. It is normal for current recommendations regarding increasing commercial polyunsaturates and decreasing saturated fats to not site controversial evidence in the catalog of references supporting such recommendations.
Cleave, in his 1974 work “The Saccharine Disease,” argues that there is a sugar, not a fat, heart disease link. He demonstrates that as refined carbohydrates have increased in populations so has coronary heart disease. And further, that the unexplained fall in cardiovascular deaths in the last twenty or thirty years in the U.S. can be linked too like fall in sugar consumption from 47 kilograms per person in 1958 to about 33 kilograms per person in 1987.
    Not mentioned in any of these discussions is the role of processing. Reports talk about saturated fats or milk fat, or polyunsaturated fat, or soy bean oil, but no mention is made whether these products are pasteurized, or homogenized, or isomerized through various processing methods, which, as we have discussed in previous Reviews, dramatically affects the character of the nutrients.
    This is not to discount the possibility that there may indeed be a refined carbohydrate cardiovascular disease link. Others have looked at the role of nutrient-depleted carbohydrates. and have suggested that much of modern civilization eating these foods are suffering from a chronic pleomorphic idiosyncratic form of beriberi, a pellagra like disease. Consuming refined carbohydrates without their associated nutrients, which are balanced appropriately to permit us to process them, is like choking an engine. We consume the calories, but we do not consume the right fuel mixture to properly bum them. The result could. indeed, be susceptibility to a wide range of diseases, certainly including cardiovascular disease.
    In a future issue of the Review. I want to go through a list of controversial topics that have appeared in the medical literature of late.
    This one, seemingly demonstrating a protective link between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease, in contrast to the data which shows the opposite, is simply one of many such issues continually appearing in the literature. One issue of a journal will argue the merits or demerits of a particular action, and another will argue the opposite. The reader, being exposed to only one or the other, is misinformed, and if the reader is exposed to both they are confused. Thus the need for us to develop an overriding, philosophic orientation that allows us to sift through such conflicting and confusing information, keeping our minds open, and permitting us to make health enhancing decisions.
        Yellowlees, W.W., “Milk, butter, and heart disease,” The Lancet, Volume 337, Number 8748, April 27, 1991,pp. 1941-1942.
        Cleave, T. L., “The saccharine disease,” Bristol: John Wright, 1974.
        Noticeboard, “Milk, butter, and heart disease,” The Lancet, Volume 337,Number 874l, March 9, 1991, p. 607.
    Fluoride is a controversial element Some argue it is an essential nutrient, others argue it is a toxin It’s likely that the truth lies somewhere in between, with caution always prudent. As we have mentioned before, knowing the dose makes the poison.
    Some research suggests that fluoride at certain levels may induce cancer. Some have suggested that there may be a connection with susceptibility to AIDS. Now, although calcium and fluoride are often prescribed for women with loss of bone mass due to osteoporosis, the very thing being addressed, namely fragility of bones, may be exacerbated by certain levels of fluoride.
    A study reported in the American journal of Epidemiology followed fracture incidents and bone mass of 800 women drinking water with varying amounts of fluoride and calcium. Those women post-menopausal were shown to suffer more than double the fracture risk of their counterparts consuming lower levels of fluoride. The calcium levels did not seem to be statistically linked with fracture.
    It seems that no matter what intervention humans embark upon if it interferes with natural balances in some way, we eventually pay a price. Fluoridating water supplies is indeed a questionable practice, and in fact, a gigantic experiment in which all of us consuming such treated municipal water supplies are the unwitting subjects.
    “Fluoridation Level Linked to Fracture “Science News, Vol.139, No.21, May 25, 1991, page 35.
    I recently attended the graduation ceremonies for my oldest son, who was receiving his M D degree This is truly an occasion, for idealism The various speakers spoke of the noble goals of the healing profession, the heavy responsibility one takes when administering to the ill, and the limitations… specifically not everyone treated will get well.
    Certainly this is a time for mixed emotions for graduates, when they think back to the difficulties of the years through college training, upon reflection the speed with which it all passed, and the personal experiences and friendships which will become but memories as graduates disperse into various residencies across the country.
    It is also a time that rekindles and stirs the more pure motivations for becoming involved in medicine in the first place. Sometimes, these fade with the rigors, and even trauma, of academics. As I listened to the genuinely stirring presentations of both faculty and students, I could not help though but be struck by the disparity between ideals and practice. The selfless, philanthropic, altruistic patient’s best- interest pleadings so easily get lost as modern medicine, with its own economic pressures becomes the prime force guiding so many medical actions.
    But this holds true, whether it be an acceptance speech for o political winner, a high school graduation ceremony, or a wedding homily. They all speak in terms of ideals. which we would all wish our world consisted of and we somehow had the strength to hold to.
    Medicine will, over the course of the next few decades, likely experience dramatic changes. These changes will be forced upon it by financial constraints and other consumer pressures. Recently, news was released indicating many companies are raising the deductible for employees healthcare coverage, in some cases, to as much as $5,000. When third-party payment is restricted, the average consumer is going to be much more discretionary in spending health care dollars, since it will be direct out-of-pocket expense. The $600+ billion dollar medical care industry that continues to burgeon, primarily as a result of the technological approach, is, perhaps, not money well spent in the best interest of the health of the public. We have talked about this much in the Review and evidence indicates, with little doubt, that a reemphasis in medical care needs to be placed on prevention, rather than disease care.
    Usually at such graduation ceremonies the Hippocratic Oath is read, and students pledge to abide by the wisdom of this ancient healer, who, incidentally believed strongly in preventive care, nutritional medicine, if you will, and doing first no harm.
A new version of the Oath has recently been presented by Dr. Weinstein at the University of Arizona. In it, he captures many of the changes which need to be focused on by the Medicine of the Future. This is well written and helps us to appreciate the direction medicine should take. I quote it as follows,
    “In the eyes of God and in the presence of my fellow students and teachers, I at this most solemn time in my life do freely take this Oath, whereby I shall pledge to myself and all others the manner in which I shall live the rest of my days.
    I shall be ever grateful to my teachers who have planted the seeds of knowledge which I shall nurture forever, I thank them for allowing me to see the importance of learning and realize that lifelong study is critically important to becoming a Healer.
    I shall always act in the best interests of my patient and shall never allow personal reward to impact on my judgement. I shall always have the highest respect for human life and remember that it is wrong to terminate life in certain circumstances, permissible in some, and an act of supreme love in others. I shall never promise a cure, as only death is certain, and I shall understand that preserving health is as important as treating disease. When a patient for whom I have been caring dies, I shall have the strength to allow him or her to die with dignity and in peace.
    I shall have as a major focus in my life the promoting of a better world in which to live. I shall strive to take a comprehensive approach to understanding all aspects of life. To become the Healer I wish to be, I must expand my thinking and change from a system of episodic care to one of a preventive approach to the problems of mankind, including the social ills of malnutrition and poverty that plague the world in which we live.
    I am not a god and I cannot perform miracles. I am simply a person who has been given the rights and responsibilities to be a Healer. I pledge to myself and all who can hear me that this is what I shall become.”
    While I’m at it let me quote a veterinary oath. This was sent to me by a practitioner who, upon reviewing it, wrote that this was not what practice was in practice. He also remarked how that those who emphasize humanness, prevention, nutrition and brooder efforts to make a better world are more in tune with medical oaths than those in the mainstream of medical care who criticize the former as unscientific or even quacks. It says:
    “Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly dedicate myself and the knowledge I possess to the benefit of society, to the conservation of our livestock resources and to the relief of suffering of animals. I will practice my profession conscientiously with dignity. The health of my patients, the best interest of their owners, and the welfare of my fellow man, will be my primary considerations.
    I will, at all times, be humane and temper pain with anesthesia where indicated. I will not use my knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity, nor in contravention to the ethical code of my profession. I will uphold and strive to advance the honor and noble traditions of the veterinary profession.
    These pledges I make freely in the eyes of God and upon my honor.”
    The ideals are basically the same in all such pledges.
    Prevention, being sure no harm comes to patients as a result of treatment, and altruism, often don’t reflect the mind set or practice of the modern medical technocrat who has become removed from patient contact by having machines and drugs intercede, and does not emphasize, or even have knowledge of, most preventive nutritional practices, nor give them respect. It is easy to gravitate too view of successful medicine in terms of practice growth and economic challenge, rather than healing, with the best overall and long term health of the patient at the fore.
    Change is on the horizon. Unfortunately, it does not happen automatically when rationally we understand the errors in a particular system. Usually change occurs only after economic pressures force revision or public outcry demands it. When physician and patient learn that health and healing lie usually within the capabilities of the patient, and that the physician must be a teacher and a guide to help patients assume control over their own health destiny, it is then that health care will truly progress.
    The answers lie in the oaths of all new graduates. Physicians simply need to hold true to and apply these ideals.
        Weinstein, Louis, M.D., “The Oath of the Healer,”
        JAMA, Volume 265, Number 19,May 15, 1991, page 2484.
    Last Sunday night as I was tucking my seven year old boy Lucas into bed I noticed his chin dragging on the floor. I asked him what the problem was. He said he was in a very bad mood and quite sad. Then I asked him why and he said it was because he didn’t have a very good day. He also said he didn’t like his mom very much anymore either. I pressed this a bit, trying to find out what it was that brought him to such straits. He said that he had a boring day, and that Mom didn’t do anything for him that day.
    When I confronted Mom with this, she said that she was simply trying to recover Sunday from the previous Saturday, and indeed, she had not beckoned to Luke’s every call that day. She proceeded to give me a litany of what had occurred Saturday, including taking him to soccer practice, then to a friend’s home, then picking him up from the friend’s home, then taking him out to lunch, then taking him to a sports shop to try to find some more, as if there could be any more, Michael Jordan basketball cards, and then taking him with a friend to play basketball at the local community center, then picking them up, taking the friend home, bringing Luke back, and feeding everyone supper, then bathing his grimy little body, and sending him off to bed.
    As we chuckled about this, and I reflected on it, I couldn’t help but be struck by how perfectly in tune it is with a child’s personality to think so egocentrically. When first born a child is, of course, absolutely committed to only their own needs. They want their food, their diapers changed, and lots of tender loving care, and they’ll let you know if you don’t accomplish any of those. They give nothing in return out of design, but, of course, give us love which to them is simply this list of demands and their absolute dependence upon us to fulfill them.
    As the child grows, it begins to learn that it cannot only take, but must give and must respond empathetically to the feelings and needs of others. First, the child extends to the family. Parents and siblings don’t forever simply bend to the desires of the child, particularly as the child becomes old enough to begin fulfilling the needs of others. As a child grows and it learns that other people have the capacity to feel pain and suffering just like him or herself, moral concern is extended; for example, to tribe, if there is such a thing, then to nation, and then perhaps race or gender.
    An individual who simply extends him or herself morally to the family could be considered socially maladjusted. The same could be said for those who only extend themselves to a tribe or a nation, or a race, or a gender. Such restriction of moral extension is the root cause of many of the difficulties which keep the world separated into parts and pieces, each convinced of their own moral superiority over that of others outside of their particular group. This, then, permits license to treat others in away which you would not treat your own family, or your own group. It makes warring, and Death on the other side, palatable, but tragic if it occurs close to home on “our” side. The question arises, when should compassionate empathetic, moral if you will, treatment for things other than ourselves end. Should it end with the family? Most would say no. Should it end with the tribe or nation? Most would say no also. Should it end with your race, or your gender? And most would say no. Should it end with all humans? Now the issue becomes more gray. Some might argue that it is simply a matter of further moral maturation to extend moral concern beyond just humans, to primates. and to mammals, and to vertebrates, and to any animal that feels, and perhaps even beyond that to all animals, and even ultimately beyond that to the ecosystem at large -all animals, the air, land, water, plants, rocks, and so forth.
    If the ultimate morality is to protect healthful life and prevent suffering, then moral extensions beyond just humans become Imperative. As we learn we are a part of a larger system, an intricate, inextricable part, we are finding that harm to these parts can ultimately result in harm to us and our fellow humans. Thus, concern for animals or rocks or plants or air and land become as important as concern for the individual family members, it’s just that we have used our intelligence to extend our moral obligation beyond that which is just in front of our nose.
    I was watching a commentary recently on television where an author who made it a profession to write novels on criminals was interviewed. She studied the crimes thoroughly, talked with victims as well as the perpetrators. She had a special interest in true sociopaths, such as mass murderers. The interviewer discussed the personality of mass murderers, and others who have committed similar heinous crimes. The psychiatrist felt that there was hope in early detection and therapy because many personality traits were common to these sociopaths. Examples include often being brutalized in some way by parents, showing lack of concern for the pain or suffering of fellow children or animals, and when questioned regarding such cruel actions often responding flippantly, with apparent lack of concern, lack of empathy for others.
    The thought came to my mind that this is the way we have acted from an environmental standpoint. Most of us are guilty probably of at one time being ecopaths. That is, we harm or destroy the world around us, particularly those outside of our close human sphere, namely animals and the environment, and have done so with little concern or empathy. Perhaps we have even acted flip and joked at the harm we caused, such as throwing garbage out of our automobile windows when this was not legislated against, driving certain creatures to extinction, and ruining habitat for our recreation and making the death of creatures a form of entertainment..
    Thus, moving our moral concern to higher levels and extending it to synorgon ,the entire world around us ,is a maturation process, and moves us one step closer to being compassionate humans.
    It takes considerable reflection and insight to move beyond the more childlike egocentric attitude. Growing up physically does not always mean growing up emotionally, intellectually, or ethically. Just as many people may have learned of the vocabulary they will have their entire life by the age they are twelve. So, too, may people only move up the pyramid of moral extension to the point where they can directly feel the reward or the consequence from an action. In other words, it is much more difficult to directly feel a reward or consequence from an environmental action, since it requires foresight, judgement, the application of rational extension. On the other hand, treating a family member abusively, quickly returns like abuse or treating a family member with kindness, will bring kindness and reward. We thus need to continue to grow, to mature beyond the direct physical cause and effect, reward- punishment stimuli required for animals to that of foresight, judgement, and a sense of long term fiduciary responsibility. Luke is learning, he’s only seven. We as adults have not necessarily arrived anywhere first because we are adults but need to continue in the process of growth and moral extension.
        Smith, Rod, “Human relationships with animals depend on extension of moral concern,” Feedstuffs, Volume 63, Number 19, May13, 1991, page 46.
    Once upon a time a ruler invaded and all but destroyed Iraq and many surrounding lands in order to gain access to vital resources and retain the power which one specific natural resource gave his nation. I’ll bet you’re thinking I’m talking about President Bush and about oil. That could be summed up similarly, but I’m actually describing Hulagu the Mongol in a Middle East invasion that occurred in 1258. His purpose in war, his reason to conquer the part of the world which we today call the Middle East, was to gain access to a single resource - grass. Nomadic Mongol society depended exclusively on ever-expanding pastures to support its growing herds of horses. By the early 13th century the Mongols had exhausted their own grasslands and instead of deciding to make a change in their way of life - which was becoming less and less supportable by its gluttony- they began to conquer everything surrounding them in order to obtain more grass.
    My purpose in bringing up this topic is not to get political but rather to point out what happens to Mother Earth during times of war. I want to stress that after the last bullet has been fired and the last bomb dropped, we really are only beginning to see and assess the destruction it all has caused the Earth. We are of course most concerned about how many lives are lost - and rightfully so since human loss and suffering is one of the greatest tragedies of war. But beyond that are the larger global deaths which are a by-product of war, often slow deaths which continue for decades after a major war.
    Hulagu’s army was typically overzealous- they obliterated not only the Baghdad of that day and the other major population centers of the Persian plateau, but also the highly complex and necessary irrigation systems between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the canals and dams which had made the floodplain of Iraq what was known as the Fertile Crescent of ancient civilization. In that day it must have appeared such o mess that the people couldn’t imagine how it would ever be cleaned up and how their world would ever be restored to its natural and beautiful order. And all that senseless and terrible destruction for a single natural resource - grass? But somehow Earth wounds heal, and time does take care of much of the problem so that a habitable, functioning homeostasis is once again achieved. Is there an end to that ability to heal?
    Seven and a half centuries later, our allied forces bombed Baghdad, then invaded Iraq. Again, the underlying cause of the war was lust for a single resource - this time, oil. We’ve become as dependent on oil as the Mongols were on grass, and like them we have exhausted our own most productive supplies of this resource and -rather than change a way and scale of life which obviously cannot be supported at home, we use our economic and military power to get the resource from others. Our policies in the Persian Guff area are no doubt mainly implemented in order to make the internal-combustion engine a viable thing for us on into the future. This is no different than grass for the Mongol’s horses.
    Happily for anyone with a conscience, this time there were other concerns and values at stake in the recent war with Iraq. The vision of Saddam Hussein in control of the majority of the world’s oil appeared threatening and it appeared he had to be stopped, since some argued he intended to head next for Saudi Arabia itself. But what a dangerous balancing act we all were attempting in order to have our oil -we had been so kind to Iraq and Hussein in order to keep their oil flowing in export – kind enough to send money, weapons, and to share our technologies. As he was poised and prepared to conquer other lands, his power over the industrial world was too much to bear; he was on the brink of controlling 40 percent of the world’s oil some feared. But, if this hadn’t been the case – if it had been a similar political crisis in almost any other Third World country, but minus the oil issue  we probably would hove stayed out of it.
    Nevertheless, as I promised I am not intending political commentary. I am not sure that I am fit to judge when issues become so complex and information is filtered Os It is. What I do want to point out is what happened to our planet during all this. On January 25th, the first of many oil spills poured into the northern Persian Gulf. Within days, something like 11 million barrels of oil from at least three spills had entered the waters. It isn’t even important who did it - Saudi and American officials said the oil was deliberately dumped by Iraq from Kuwaiti oil terminals: the Iraqis claimed that allied bombers were responsible for the spills. It only really matters that it was several times the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez spill.
    But the spills weren’t the end. In February, as the Iraqi army prepared to leave Kuwait, the troops exploded the charges they had laid at Kuwait’s principal oil-production facilities. Within hours more than 500 oil wells were in flames and dark clouds began to spread over the region. High noon looked like midnight, and rain which was black with soot fell to the ground. Finally, the addition of the direct destruction of the desert ecology by bombs, shells and tanks was the frosting on the cake, so to speak, which made this war the greatest environmental disaster in modem history.
    Once the bombs began to fall it was too late to talk environment. Knowing that during the eight years of war between Iron and Iraq, Saddam Hussein had turned marshes in the area into a chemical and electrical killing zone for Iranian guards - which of course spelled doom for any wildlife which hod, up until then, managed to escape decades of full-speed ahead mining of oil - knowing this about him, we should hove known he wouldn’t be in the mood to spare the Earth. How the surrounding ecosystems fared became and remains very, very secondary. Ironically, a war that was not to be against the people of Iraq, not there leader, left 150,000 people dead and the leader still in power.
    Centuries hence, will our children’s, children’s, children wonder(assuming they’re there) how we could make such a mess for the sake of having one natural resource? Will they compare us with the Mongols and their grass? During the 1970’s we made a feeble attempt to throw oft our dependence on foreign oil. During the oil crisis of the 70’s, alternative energy technologies and energy efficiency efforts were working better, faster, and more cheaply than anyone had guessed they could. But subsequent cutbacks and administration indifference, the return of cheap gas, and larger car designs all combined to put us into an oil glut relapse.
    Hopefully, the tragic events of this last year in the Gulf will make us see that a civilization which needs one single resource too much is doomed. When all else is riskable or expendable in order to have that one resource, we teeter on the brink of disaster.
        Sierra-May/June 1991
    Is there any one not affronted by much of modern advertising?
    The assault we all experience in printed materials, radio, and television by various, more or less, barker efforts to attract our attention is so continuous and pervasive that most of us see it almost as normal as the sun rising and the wind blowing. We are left with the impression that to be big, commercially, means to be big from an advertising and marketing standpoint. We think because gigantic corporations spend millions of dollars on an advertising campaign that makes basically no sense and has nothing to do with product merit, such as Michael Jackson performing in a cola commercial, that the masses somehow respond to this. We reason that we’re too smart to, of course, be led just because of an actor or singer dancing in front of us, but we assume that others are not. Who exactly are these ignoramus masses who respond like lemmings to nonsense? I don’t know and I’m not sure they even exist.
    We are led to believe that subliminal messages found within ice cubes in a whiskey commercial, or simple name exposure, can even create business success. Tell that to the tens of thousands of companies who must translate advertising dollars directly into profit. Are we really going to decide to buy at Ace Electric because we watched a softball game with Ace Electric printed on the shirts? I can just see it now as I sit there watching the game, remarking to my wife, “Gee, Honey, look at that - Ace Electric on the shirts. Let’s go buy some light bulbs there after the game.”
    There is no question that exposure of a product or venture can create sales. After all, if no one knows about you, how can you possibly expect them to patronize you. But, it is the manner of doing it, and often the dishonesty, that is a part of it that should be objectionable to us. Rarely do we see a truly credible, informative advertisement that educates us to the merit of a particular product. Instead, marketeers treat us as if we are intellectually infantile, and try to convince us to use products by jokes, cartoons, pretty women, hulky men, singers, actors, and absurd, if not outright dishonest, comparisons, and allusions to science where there really is none.
    For a thinking individual, it can become extremely difficult to find out where there is true product merit. Marketeers are so enamored by this modern form of merchandizing that they feel that if there is not the glitz and flash, if there is simply intelligent communication of product merit, that success is not possible. On the other hand, if there is no special product merit, flash and glitter can even be more pronounced. After all, if there is nothing substantial to say about something, then simply distract the consumer from the issue of product merit and attempt to get them to respond for reasons totally unrelated to why they should or should not make a purchase.
    The techniques used in modern marketing are suprisingly those most of us learned to be logically falacious in our 101 Psychology class in high school. Such tactics as “everybody’s doing it, therefore, you should,” or ”expert so-and-so believes it, therefore, you should,” or “if you don’t, you won’t be a part of the ‘in’ crowd,” and soon, and so forth. It’s also interesting that the more flagrant marketing tactics used in commercial advertising are used in more subtle ways within more serious appeals to win our minds. It can occur in scientific literature, in the popular press, in Sunday School, on the campaign trail, and even among our peers and family.
    Let’s contrast indoctrination or propaganda, or, in other words, spurious reasons to be convinced, as opposed to true education:
Indoctrination (Propaganda)
1.             Uses generalizations, “allness” statements: lacks specific references and data.
1.             Uses qualifiers: Statements sup-ported with specific references and data.
2.             One sided: Different or opposing views are either ignored, misrepresented, under represented, or denigrated.
2.             Circumspect and multifaceted: Issues examined from many points of view. Opposition fairly represented.
3.             Card stacking: Data carefully selected to present only the best or worst possible case. Language used to conceal.
3.             Balanced: Presents representative samples from a wide range of available data on the subject. Language used to reveal.
4.             Misleading use of statistics.
4.             Statistical references qualified with respect to size, duration, criteria, controls, source, and subsidizer.
5.             Lumpism: Ignores distinctions and subtle differences. Lumps superficially similar elements together. Reasons by analogy
5.             Discrimination: Points out differences and subtle distinctions. Uses analogies carefully, pointing out differences and nonapplicability.
6.             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).
6.             Alternatives: There are many ways of salving a problem or viewing an issue.
7.             Appeals to authority: Statements by selected authority figures used to clinch an argument. “Only the ‘expert’ knows.”
7.             Appeals to reason: Statements by authority figures used to stimulate thought and discussion. “Experts” seldom agree.
8.             Appeals to consensus (band wagon): ‘Everybody’s doing it’ so it must be right.
8.             Appeals to fact and logic: supports arguments with impartially selected data and logic.
9.             Appeals to emotions and automatic responses: uses words and pictures with strong emotional connotations and built-in biases.
9.             Appeals to people‘s capacity for thoughtful, reasoned responses: Uses emotionally neutral words and illustrations.
10.           Labeling: Uses labels and derogatory terms to describe proponents of opposing view point.
10.           Avoids labels and derogatory language: Addresses the argument, not the people supporting a particular viewpoint.
11.           Ignores assumptions and built-in biases.
11.           Explores assumptions and built in biases.
12.           Language usage promotes lack of awareness.
12.           Language usage promotes greater awareness.

Ecosystem:            All animals, air, land water
plants, rocks
All animals
Animals that feel
All humans
Race, gender