UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL
PHILLIP DAY on CTE, the European Union
and the dastardly Food Supplements Directive (FSD)

Phillip Day is Chief Executive and founder of the Campaign for Truth in Medicine (CTM) and is an author, researcher, educator and world-class speaker of many years' standing. In a series of interviews EClub shall be publishing, entitled 'Up Close and Personal', our doughty editorial team decided to put their own CEO under the grill to find out where he is coming from on a number of thorny issues affecting the public today. Here, in the first of these interviews, Phillip Day explains his motivations behind the founding of the Campaign for Truth in Europe (CTE).

ECLUB: Phillip, thanks for taking time out to do this interview.

PHILLIP DAY: It's my pleasure.

ECLUB: Your new venture is the Campaign for Truth in Europe, which is designed to educate the public on the various dangers, as you put it, of Britain remaining inside the European Union. This might be construed by many as an unwelcome foray into the political arena when people know you chiefly for your work in health. Can you tell us what prompted this new project?

PHILLIP DAY: I'd be delighted to. From its inception, Credence's job as a research unit has been to uncover covert agendas that are harmful to the public and educate the public about them. Originally we began, not in health, but in the exposing of fraud in banking and finance in America - a job guaranteed for life. A number of years ago, my organisation began receiving briefs on the ulterior political intentions of the European federalist movement to bring Britain into the new federal superstate that was being planned for Europe, yet we saw there were no plans directly to consult the British people about it. So, in a sense, the new project with the Campaign for Truth in Europe is merely a continuation of the work we used to do in the political/economic realms before we commenced the health project.

ECLUB: What, in your opinion, do most British people think the EU stands for?

PHILLIP DAY: We've done a number of interviews and not one member of the public we spoke to actually realised the EU ultimately means a loss of British government control and citizen sovereignty over our nation's affairs and a handing over of our country to a cabal of European powers dominated by France and Germany. Those we spoke to, who bothered to comment about the EU at all - and the apathy issue I'll address in a moment - just see the EU as simply convenient for travel (not having to change pounds into pesetas, etc.), and a hazy conviction that if all the politicians are recommending full membership, then it must be a good thing for the country.

ECLUB: Are you saying that Britain made a bad mistake joining the EEC and EU?

PHILLIP DAY: Without any hesitation in my mind at all - and on all levels. In 1973, Prime Minister Edward Heath grossly misled the UK general public, stating that EEC membership would not threaten UK freedoms and sovereignty. With those deceitful words, Heath took Britain into the EEC. Ever since that time, Britain has suffered wave after wave of legislation that has bound her free-market tendencies, destroyed her farming and fishing industries, and created havoc with other areas of her commerce. How many British people know that the hated British sales tax, VAT (value-added tax), was introduced as an EEC tax, as a direct result of our impending membership to the Common Market, although most still believe it is a British levy. VAT, by the way, is projected to rise to 25% once we are fully in the euro. This, along with a devastating increase in income tax, will be required to continue funding the wasteful Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which mostly benefits the French farming community at the expense of our own. Also, there are all those poor ex-Soviet satellites like Poland, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia, to pay for when they come on board after 1st May 2004.

ECLUB: Why is the EU such a bad idea, given the problem Europe has traditionally had with war?

PHILLIP DAY: In a perfect world, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a united Europe at all, and actually I am not against the principle of it, so long as there are checks and balances. Churchill certainly believed that some sort of European union could be the answer to a rapid post-war recovery. But here is the point most often forgotten - Churchill never saw Britain ever being part of any European union. He saw us as sympathetic and friendly to a united Europe, but never a part of it. There's no question in my mind that Churchill would be horrified to see what is happening to Britain today.

ECLUB: But hasn't this United Europe movement kept peace on the Continent for the past 50 years?

PHILLIP DAY: The tendency of our socialist left to re-write history would have it that the EU, the EEC and their forerunners have been the ones to keep the peace in Europe these last 50 years, so you'd be forgiven for believing that was the case. It is politically uncomfortable for these unfortunates to admit that it has in fact been the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and in particular, the Americans, who have been the principal investors in European peace. Today, America actually spends more on the defence of Europe than all the European nations COMBINED. France, now safe and free to indulge in her traditional anti-Americanism, tends to forget this, and has spurned NATO even though the founding NATO allies liberated her from the Germans - twice.

ECLUB: So why wouldn't the EU work well for Europe rather than Britain?

PHILLIP DAY: It would be the ideal way to govern Europe, if it were set up as a parliamentary democracy with the appropriate checks and balances. But that is NOT what the European Union is. In fact, the EU is the complete antithesis of a democracy, even though it has been carefully constructed to look like one.

ECLUB: Is it because the European Union is federal?

PHILLIP DAY: Not at all. Federalisation itself is not evil or wicked. The idea of having a smallish federal government adjudicating the overall affairs of its separate states, with sufficient power devolved to the state governments to run their own affairs, is actually quite an efficient way of administrating a large land mass, and was the brainchild of the founding fathers of America after they gained independence from the British. Despite the traditional reservations, federalisation seems to have worked well for the USA; and Canada and Australia copied the model for their own governments. Whatever you say, the visible result has been peace within these regions. You don't often hear of California declaring war on Nevada. Or Manitoba on Ontario.

And then we must remember that Britain herself is a federation of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, brought about through England's necessity to secure its vulnerable northern border. And even though the governance of the United Kingdom, as it came to be known, was based in London, the idea for the UK was actually the brainchild of the Scottish, who have been tremendously important to the success of Britain since the Act of Union in 1707, as have the Welsh. Britain has seen its finest days under this system of federal union encompassed in the words 'Great Britain'. To illustrate this, the last clash of steel in England was heard in 1685 at Sedgemoor. Not a bad track record of peace for my own country. Of course, we have had some notably shameful episodes of power abuse, for instance, against the Irish and in a certain number of inhumane and totally unacceptable 'land-and-people-grabs' as The British Empire sought to expand and exert its authority. On the whole however, Britain has a history of achievement of which its citizens can be justifiably proud.

Now, when we examine the kind of federation the EU has set up for Europe, what we see taking shape is something altogether different… and incredibly dangerous.

ECLUB: In what way?

PHILLIP DAY: Firstly, to federate a group of areas into one overall zone, there are certain requirements within the states to be governed that are conspicuously and ominously missing in the European project. For instance, a similar language, a common currency, a symbiotic concordance of economic cycles, a free and easy movement of labour, and, perhaps most importantly, the desire of the people themselves to be so governed. In the USA, if you live in the state of Mississippi and work is scarce, it's not a huge bother to move to Illinois and try your luck up there. The language is the same, the money is still dollars, and you are still proud to be an American, and so on. In Europe, you are dealing with a huge disparity of language, culture, money, economic cycles, a stiff movement of labour, and a hostility of many towards this form of homogenisation. Think about it. Would anyone struggling for work in Putney, London seriously consider moving to Finland to better their prospects? It's not likely, is it?

ECLUB: So you're saying that the EU has bitten off more than it can chew?

PHILLIP DAY: I'm saying that most of the people who designed the EU were themselves not bad people. A few were communists and ex-Nazis however with their own agendas. Many today still remember the horrors of the last war, and the push towards a European union of some sort following 1945, which Churchill witnessed, was a natural response to preventing anything like this ever happening again. But there are problems - and serious ones - emerging now the whole EU operation has been up and running for a while.

ECLUB: Give us some examples.

PHILLIP DAY: Firstly, the idea that you can even dream of lashing a dozen and a half very different economies to one currency and one set of interest rates is hugely disconcerting. That's like trying to use one drug to cure all diseases. It's known in Europe as 'One Size Fits All', which is all well and good until the 'One Size' doesn't fit your country. Today, banks are shutting down in Frankfurt and Germany is having a horrible time with its economy. Ireland's struggling too, but in a different way. And here is the key issue: there is nothing either of these countries can do. All power has been handed over to the European Central Bank (ECB) and the EU Commission to run these economies, and the ECB works behind closed doors and doesn't publish the minutes of their meetings for 16 years! This is hardly democracy and transparent accountability at work. The national politicians in these countries now have to go back to their electorates and say: "We know the economy hurts, but there's nothing we can do. Talk to Brussels."

ECLUB: But doesn't Britain need this single currency to be able to participate in trade with Europe?

PHILLIP DAY: This is what everyone is being told. "Britain in Europe makes sense!" "Britain not being in Europe would be a catastrophe from which we would never recover!" Firstly, if we calm everyone down and give them a drink of water, Britain IS part of Europe geographically, and there's nothing anyone can do about that. But Britain is a global trader, and herein lies her traditional strength. She was the first maritime power. Today Britain plays host to some of the world's most innovative and brilliant people of all races and creeds, who have contributed and are contributing to Britain being the fourth largest economy on the planet by GDP.

Now here are the facts: Only 35-40% of our business is actually with Europe, the rest is with America, Australia, Canada and others in the international community. What most people in the UK are not being told is that the vast majority of this international trade is what Brussels wants Britain to dump, since Britain's trading prowess has historically acted as a huge magnet, drawing trade away from our jealous continental neighbours.

So the continental powers want to muzzle Britain so they can dip their beaks into the trough of world trade instead of just being local players. It's really that simple. Again, most trusting Brits think the Eurozone is some sort of 'free trade area'. This is about as far from the truth as you can get. Witness what disgraced former EU commissioner Yves Thibault de Silguy had to say years ago: "If Economic and Monetary Union did not come about, in what a trap would we find ourselves?…. There would be a great danger of seeing Europe drift progressively towards a free-trade zone - precisely what we have been trying to avoid these past 25 years."

Europe today is a highly regulated economic prison surrounded by a Common External Tariff boundary strapped down tight with tens of thousands of binding directives which tell the citizens and their companies what they can and can't do. Any nation outside the EU wishing to access the 400 million-person market inside the European Union has to pay up for the privilege. This type of protectionist economics is why the EU is financially stagnant while Britain with its open, friendly and flexible trading patterns is thriving… at least for now. Credence stocks an excellent video by Trevor Coleman which explains all the details surrounding the euro.

ECLUB: So how would Britain fare outside the EU?

PHILLIP DAY: That's another key question. We can best answer that by looking at those countries who today remain outside, having made a conscientious decision to do so. Switzerland and Norway are doing very well and still retain their independence. Norway was told by the EU she would have to hand over her huge fishing industry as a 'shared' EU resource if she joined. Naturally, she didn't think too much of that and scuppered her own bid to join after a referendum. Today, she enjoys fishing her own waters, just as our fishermen could do again if Britain regained her independence.

The simple fact is, Britain pays out £1.3 million AN HOUR to be a part of a protectionist trading bloc that has destroyed our fishing and farming industries, all the while telling us what we can and can't do with our own money, some of which it returns to us in the form of 'subsidies'. The laughable part is that some Britons actually believe these are free 'hand-outs'! Britain, if our own politicians are able to stop rubbishing her for a moment, is the number one source for inward investment capital and is an economic powerhouse. When the workforce and industry work hand-in-hand (and this hasn't always been the case), this nation is the wealthiest on the planet in terms of standard of living.

But here's the kicker: We are also the EU's number one customer! The reason Brussels wants Britain in with the euro is that it truly opens Britain up for the rest of Europe to plunder. This is in Europe's interest, not ours. If we chose to regain our independence and leave the European Union, a free-trade agreement could easily be negotiated with the EU circumventing the Common External Tariff, there is no doubt in my mind about it, since the EU would naturally be keen to keep on the good side of their leading customer. The fact is, the EU is bleeding itself slowly to death with its protectionist attitude, which has been fostered over the years to protect the economic interests of its two axis powers, France and Germany. You don't have to look any further than the agricultural industry to see this happening.

ECLUB: Those directives you were mentioning also now include the Food Supplements Directive, which I know has upset those in Europe, who want to have the chance to choose their own nutritional supplements. What's your take on all this?

PHILLIP DAY: The FSD is simply Brussels doing what Brussels does best, and that is, writing legislation that minutely directs what people can and can't do inside the Eurozone. This is the traditional Continental way of doing things. The moves that are currently afoot to take away people's right to choose nutritional supplements they have traditionally used has been a rude awakening for many in Britain and elsewhere, but the EU means no harm or offence in this. This is just business in Brussels as usual. Those who want Britain to become a permanent, full addition to the new European state better get used to this way of doing things, because it isn't going to change.

ECLUB: Can public pressure have any effect on thwarting the Food Supplements Directive?

PHILLIP DAY: I sincerely doubt it. Lobbying Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) is next to useless, since they do not have the power to override the EU Commission, where the FSD originated. The EU Commission is soviet in style and is one of three powerful forums that dictate policy within the EU, the other two being the Council of Ministers and the European Council. Remember that some 400 million pieces of mail of various kinds were sent in to Brussels to protest the proposed FSD legislation, and they had little to no effect. MEPs simply do not have any power. Most of them only get to speak around 90 seconds a week in parliament. If they override their speaking time, their microphone is cut off.

ECLUB: So you think, then, that the British and European public's determination to fight the FSD itself is misguided?

PHILLIP DAY: Many alternative health organisations are blanching at the thought of losing significant revenues over this new legislation, and have formed alliances to 'fight the EU directive'. However, they do so in woeful ignorance of the simple fact that, with the European Union, they are no longer operating on a democratic, accountable field where their voice matters. Their mistake, and this is the crucial point being missed by many, is that they are confusing Brussels with people who actually give a damn about what the public think. So here it is again in case you missed it the first time: BRUSSELS DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR SUPPLEMENTS!!! Brussels is simply doing what Brussels does, and is closing loopholes, working to standardise everything across its new European territory, and responding to corporate lobbying and plain paper envelopes from the drug industry in their usual way, all the while ruling their new fiefdom from behind closed and impenetrable doors. The public? What public? Former French prime minister Raymond Barre summed up the EU's attitude best when he said: "I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account."

ECLUB: So what IS the best course of action the public can take concerning the Food Supplements Directive?

PHILLIP DAY: The first thing is for all citizens concerned with the FSD to understand some plain facts of life about the European Union. Here they are:- Brussels doesn't recognise that you even have a right to complain about what it does. Get used to it. This is the Roman/Napoleonic system operating in Europe, as well as now in Britain. There is nothing you can do about any of this through what you perceive as 'traditional parliamentary channels'. There aren't any. The European parliament does not elect the European government, since the true power of the European government lies in the hands of those three powerful forums, the EU Commission, the European Council and the Council of Ministers. This is nothing like the parliamentary process by which Britain has been traditionally governed. Your politicians have been too cowardly to tell you that this is the state of affairs for Britain from here on in. Westminster is in the process of being gutted and has no power over any of this. European law has superseded UK law through the power of successive treaties our politicians have signed since 1972. The sooner everyone understands that it is the EU and the way it works that is the fundamental problem behind, not just the FSD, but many other areas of British concern, the wiser you will become.

ECLUB: That's a pretty bleak picture.

PHILLIP DAY: It's a true picture.

ECLUB: So, apart from understanding how the true land lies, what are the options open to those wanting to combat the FSD?

PHILLIP DAY: For European nations already fully part of EU integration, there is nothing they can do. They are now suffering the penalty of allowing their politicians to sign them and their nation into the European Union's way of doing things, which brooks no protest or dissention. For British citizens, there is some good news. We still have a window open to us to leave the European Union and regain our independence, and thus redress problems like the FSD through our own democratic parliamentary process. More about the independence angle in a moment. This window of opportunity will exist up to, but not beyond the point when we join the euro and achieve full economic union with Brussels. After this, it's all over and we will have to tolerate our new masters and their laws with no hope of redress.

The better news is that there are indications that there might be a delay in Britain taking on the euro based on the appalling economic problems Germany is presently enduring and the fact that the Labour Government's five economic tests cannot visibly be met to the satisfaction of British industry. This buys the British a little more time to get more of their people educated on what the European Union actually is and to initiate a series of direct, legal actions accordingly. Remember again that the EU would not be a problem if it had been set up as a true parliamentary democracy where the MEPs have the power to vote in the European government. If this were the case, then we could all go about fighting the FSD in the traditional way, through lobbying, demonstrations, placards, etc. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE!

ECLUB: Are there many in Britain who have woken up?

PHILLIP DAY: Yes. Polls seem to indicate that around 60% of the British people want to keep the pound, and this rises to 80% if the public could be reassured that Britain's long-term trade interests would not be harmed by leaving the EU. Of course they wouldn't. In spite of all the rubbish bandied about, Britain is a huge market, inside or out of the EU, and still a tempting cherry in the fruit bowl of world trade. The fact is, when Britain decided to postpone entering the euro, the level of inward investment into our country actually rose significantly!

People in this country are also waking up from their apathy to the extent that the EU has trod on their toes. For instance, many only had their rude awakening to what the EU is capable of after the Food Supplements Directive was passed. So, if you are upset with the Food Supplements Directive, then take heart! You have everything in common with those angry with what the EU has done to kill our fishing and agricultural industries. Our art marketeers, our metric martyrs, our financial sector workers and thousands of companies also have much in common with you, as they too are suffering the unwelcome bite of the New European Order.

There is one answer to all our woes and one answer only, and we must face it. We must leave the EU IMMEDIATELY, regain our independence, negotiate a free-trade agreement with the EU to keep both markets free and greased (which the EU cannot afford not to do), and then repeal those thousands of asinine laws, including the FSD, that have been progressively strangling this country and robbing her citizens of their customary freedoms.

ECLUB: What do you say to those people who think that this course is too late, futile, parochial, 'You can't fight City Hall', etc… and that withdrawal from the EU is never going to happen?

PHILLIP DAY: I would say that those people have fallen for the enemy's oldest trick in the book, and that is the concept of 'inevitability'. Everyone thought the same thing about the Nazis in 1938-39. "Oh, my God. There's nothing we can do! Better make the best of it!" Looking back, it's a good job this belief did not ultimately prevail and that Churchill was able to boot the country in the backside and get it busy.

ECLUB: Sounds like a classic 'British' problem!

PHILLIP DAY: Yes it is. Believing in inevitability is unfortunately a peculiarly British disease. I have a cure. WAKE UP NOW AND GET BUSY OR ELSE SUFFER WHAT YOU MUST SUFFER. It's the same message Churchill preached before the war, and the one I have been teaching the world over in the health realm to those who think their death is inevitable because of cancer, AIDS or some other problem. My answer? Your death WILL BE inevitable if you don't get off your backside now, get busy and get educated, and fast. EClub has been reporting on my activities for a few years. How many people have cheated, for example, the inevitability of their cancer death through not choosing to believe in the inevitability of the diagnosis their doctors gave them, who took the right action and took it consistently and lived? Hundreds, if not thousands. Who knows the number? And it's the same here.

ECLUB: And what do you say to those in this country who support Britain being part of the European Union?

PHILLIP DAY: I would ask: why do you support this? What actual benefits do you see Britain receiving? The majority of people who support Britain's continued membership of the EU (and there aren't as many as you might imagine) are ordinary, trusting souls who refuse to believe that what they have been told is rubbish and lies. No one likes to be fooled or hoodwinked. At first, the concept of quitting the EU seems extreme to these people simply because Europe, in its various EU guises, has been a part of British political and economic life since 1972. But then these people start considering the fact that this nation has been a free, independent country for 1,000 years, and has done very well, and many simply want this state of affairs to continue. Most just want to be in charge of their own fate and destiny… what's wrong with wanting that?

As Lord Pearson remarks, there is nothing 'right-wing', 'extreme', 'racist' or 'xenophobic' about wanting to retain our right to govern ourselves. It would indeed be a very healthy and inspiring thing to do, and we would recover a great deal of our national pride and honour by doing it.

ECLUB: But what about the EU diehards inside Britain?

PHILLIP DAY: There's a core of people in this country committed to overthrowing the British state by any and all means possible. They seek to introduce socialism/communism across Europe - in effect, Big Government, where the rulers take little or no heed of the people's needs and wishes. Many of these quislings can be found in the media, government, the civil service, the judiciary, the arts and other legitimate areas, burrowed into our institutions which have provided aid and comfort to these, our country's internal enemies. These people's only goal is towards establishing Big Government socialism/communism, which is actually what the EU is, in the plainest language, if you examine the way its institutions operate, as I have done.

The EU is the ideal manifestation of these people's desires for the future of Britain and this small but determined group of British fifth columnists, who hate the country of their birth and all she has stood for, has worked fiercely to see her demise. These people have been able very effectively to worm their way into powerfully leveraged positions of influence among us. We read their words in the newspapers each day. We watch their TV documentaries in the evening. Through their skills they have striven to make us apologise and feel embarrassed for our collective past. They have hamstrung our right to free speech, and have penetrated and corrupted our institutions. As I explain in my new book, in which I name names, these people deserve a traitor's contempt and shall deservedly find it.

Do not be deceived with what you are told about the EU. It represents a potentially profound threat to the stability and order of Europe and thus the world, and this is no exaggeration. It may all look cuddly and friendly at the moment, but much is being done to sprinkle the pixie dust to conceal the totalitarian reality of this New Order.

ECLUB: Give us an example.

PHILLIP DAY: Certainly. Remember I was talking earlier about checks and balances? Under Article 12 of Chapter 5 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU, a blanket, life-time immunity has been extended to all members of the EU's governing structure for all acts and deeds committed, and this includes the tens of thousands of bureaucrats and civil servants who run the union - all have been granted a lifetime immunity from prosecution for anything they do. This also goes for the new European police force, Europol, and the commanders and soldiers of the new European Army. All buildings, offices, records, archives and minutes belonging to the EU and its institutions are inviolate. They cannot be entered or inspected by the public. So all personnel serving the EU are above the law, as declared in the treaties which our successive politicians have signed on our behalf.

ECLUB: I imagine most people have no idea about that either?

PHILLIP DAY: Not a clue. An entity like the European Union, which has taken upon itself the task of removing all public scrutiny of its affairs, all media reporting of its forum meetings and which has expeditiously granted lifetime immunity from prosecution to all its personnel and officers for their future action and deeds - what can a government possibly want with such powers? Can such an entity not reasonably be expected in the future to exercise this awesome might and do bad things to its citizens with the likelihood that it will be able to get away with it? By the way, these are traditionally the same powers all totalitarian regimes have granted themselves before going to war with their own people and those of other nations. History has shown this repeatedly.

This, then, is the foreign governmental structure, dominated by France and Germany, which has gradually taken over Britain. The reader must decide whether any of these changes to the British way of life bode well for their own future.

ECLUB: You certainly have a fight on your hands. Do you think you'll win?

PHILLIP DAY: It's not up to me. It's up to the British people. I am an educator and researcher. My job and the job of my organisation is not to tell people how to vote or what to do, it is to equip them with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions that will affect their welfare and that of their loved ones. The politics I leave to others. Listen, if the vast majority of Britain decides it wants full economic integration with Europe, I will respect that, even though I may abhor it. But I do not want Britain to make such a weighty and momentous decision based on the lies, omissions and disinformation they are currently getting about the EU. I want them going into their future with their eyes wide open, so they know what they are taking on. That is the purpose of my new book.

ECLUB: Are you getting resistance to the Campaign for Truth in Europe?

PHILLIP DAY: Actually, we have had fantastic support since the launch. But to those reading this interview who may not agree with any of this, take heart also! Our country will do what our country will ultimately do. I truly believe this nation will get the destiny it deserves, one way or the other. But if the EU is to be Britain's fate for the future, then it will surely be the last democratic decision this country may take as an independent nation, and we mustn't grumble or complain down the road when we realise the enormous and hideous implications of the destiny we have chosen to embrace for ourselves.

ECLUB: And the alternative?

PHILLIP DAY: The alternative is to wake up, realise how close we came to losing it all. And then regain our freedom through the proper channels and take up our right again to choose our own destiny as a strong, vibrant, flexible, powerful, independent and FAIR nation. I know which one I'd sooner live in.

ECLUB: Phillip Day - thank you.

PHILLIP DAY: You're most welcome.

ECLUB FOOTNOTE: Phillip Day's new book is 'Ten Minutes to Midnight', published by Credence, and is due out on 1st February 2003, in time for the start of his 'Let's Fix Britain!' tour, which starts in Milton Keynes on 3rd February 2003. Advanced orders can now be placed for this book through Credence Publications. Credence also sells Ashley Mote's excellent and more in-depth treatment on the subject, entitled 'Vigilance'. This can be obtained also from the Credence bookstore at www.credence.org.

If you want more information on the issues discussed in this interview, please visit the new Campaign for Truth in Europe web-site. If you are not currently a member of the Campaign for Truth in Medicine or our sister organisation, the Campaign for Truth in Europe, you can join both FOR FREE today by clicking here and submitting your membership form to us in the strictest confidence. Your free membership will entitle you to our Health Review magazine and the regular EClub bulletins.

More detail on Phillip's forthcoming tour and Internet ticketing can be found by clicking here. Tickets will be available for purchase after Christmas Day and can also be obtained by calling the UK ticket line on (01622) 832386.

AIDS Orthodoxy Quote of the Month:
HAART Treatment Worse Than AIDS?

..."in addition, long-term use of HAART has now been associated with significant metabolic abnormalities which could lead to unintended morbidity. In some patients, this morbidity could be worse than what one could expect from the progression of HIV-associated immune disease itself over the same period of time..."

In other words, some patients taking the AIDS drug regimens known as HAART may experience side effects that are worse than the illnesses the drugs are supposed to prevent!

CTM RECOMMENDED READING: World Without AIDS by Steven Ransom and Phillip Day. www.credence.org

Bid to Lock Britain into EU
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels

Britain could be forced to stay in the European Union against the will of Parliament and the wishes of the British people, under proposals gathering support in Brussels.

The Convention on the Future of Europe, which is preparing a draft constitution for the EU, is examining a clause that would allow member states to block the secession of any country that wanted to leave.

Under the so-called "exit clause", the rebel state would have to secure the backing of three-quarters of the votes in the EU Council of Ministers, as well as two-thirds of the European Parliament, and ratification by the parliaments of every single country.

The mechanism would make it extremely hard for Britain ever to leave the EU by legal means.

The plans were presented by Andrew Duff, MEP, the chief draftsman of the European Liberals on the Convention and observers expect that a version of the "exit clause" will find its way into the final draft next summer.

Mr Duff said his proposal was intended to avoid the sort of confusion that led to the American Civil War. "We don't want to end up like the US when the South wanted to leave and the North had to fight to keep them in," he said.
The Daily Telegraph, 19 September 2002

Breast Cancer Money-Go-Round

"Most of the well-financed breast cancer organizations make little or no mention of the non-genetic causes of breast cancer. Go to their websites. Read their literature. These organizations don't focus on the environmental and pharmacological causes of this epidemic because it's a dank, dark alley that leads right to their corporate sponsors."

by Lynn Landes, 23rd October 2002

They're good girls and boys. Racing for the cure. Crying for the cameras. Sharing their pain. Wearing that crown of thorns like a halo. Nice folks. And aren't they "better people" for just having "survived" breast cancer?

Or... are they being played for suckers? Conned by a clever marketing strategy that makes heroes out of victims, and saints out of sinners. Racing for the cure, but running from the cause.

Most of the well-financed breast cancer organizations make little or no mention of the non-genetic causes of breast cancer. Go to their websites. Read their literature. These organizations don't focus on the environmental and pharmacological causes of this epidemic because it's a dank, dark alley that leads right to their corporate sponsors.

"National Breast Cancer Awareness Month was established by Zeneca, a bioscience company with sales of $8.62 billion in 1997. Forty-nine percent of Zeneca's 1997 profits came from pesticides and other industrial chemicals, and 49% were from pharmaceutical sales, one-third (about $1.4 billion's worth) of which were cancer treatment drugs," says the Green Guide, a publication of Mothers & Others for a Liveable Planet.

Zeneca also makes Tamoxifen, "a known carcinogen" according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). After only a few years of exposure, Tamoxifen can actually cause breast cancer, says a 1999 study from Duke University. "There is strong evidence of Tamoxifen's toxicity, including high risks of uterine, gastrointestinal and fatal liver cancer," reports The Cancer Information Network, adding, "The Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) conducted by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) "found that women taking Tamoxifen had more than twice the chance of developing uterine cancer compared with women on placebo."

"General Electric is a huge global conglomerate that provides all kinds of products and services. GE also owns health clinics that use GE equipment that can expose patients to different types of radiation. GE makes ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and mammography machines - a known cause of breast cancer in younger women. In addition, there are 91 nuclear power plants based on the GE design operating in 11 countries," says GE on its website. Nuclear power plants are a known source of radiation leakage.

"Radiation is a complete carcinogen," says Dr. Peter Montegue, in his 1997 5-part series, "The Truth About Breast Cancer." Montegue writes, "Very few things have the ability to initiate cancer AND promote it AND make it progress." Things that can do this are called complete carcinogens. By analyzing 50 years of U.S. National Cancer Institute data, Dr. Jay Gould, director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, Inc., says, "…of the 3,000-odd counties in the United States, women living in about 1,300 nuclear counties (located within 100 miles of a reactor) are at the greatest risk of dying of breast cancer." GE is also a contributor to many efforts to "battle" breast cancer.

Other corporations, such as Rhone-Poulec, Rohm & Hass, Eli Lilly Novartis, American Cyanamid, and Dupont, have also profiteered from both sides of this manufactured epidemic.

In addition to these duplicitous industries and their heavily financed non-profit partners-in-deception, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It's cozy relationship to (and increasing financial reliance on) business and industry through organizations like the Centers for Disease Control Foundation, is a blatant conflict of interest. Not surprisingly, the NIH website for breast cancer research is very similar to research funded by the top breast cancer organizations... it's all about detection, cures, and genetics. Of the 14 areas of research listed, only 2 studies relate to the links between breast cancer and non-genetic influences. And those studies dismiss the notion of any connection.

The NIH studies are grossly misleading.

On June 26, 2002, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC, part of NIH) issued a news release that said, "Study Finds No Association Between Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer For Women 35 and Over." Actually the study did not include women older than 65 or younger than 35, which begs the question, why not? What also makes this study hard to swallow are the results of the study on Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) two weeks later. On July 9, 2002 (and after more than forty years of widespread use) the NIH announced that HRT (low dose estrogen plus progestin), can cause an increase in heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and ...breast cancer.

So, are we to believe that the low dose estrogen-progestin combination is okay for contraception, but not for menopause?

Actually, there was no difference between the outcome of those two studies, admitted Dr. Bob Spirtas, of the National Institute of Child Health and Development (part of NIH), in a conversation with this writer. "A woman's risk for breast cancer is 16% higher at the time she is taking oral contraceptives or HRT and for five years after she stops, at which point the risk is 3% or "statistically insignificant," said Dr. Spirtas.

Well, that certainly wasn't the message conveyed by the NIH, which seemed to give oral contraceptives a clean bill of health.

The NIH has also come to the rescue of the chemical industry. On May 15, 2001, the NIH announced, "DDT, PCBs Not Linked to Higher Rates of Breast Cancer, an Analysis of Five Northeast Studies Concludes." However, the highly regarded authors of www.OurStolenFuture.com point out that most studies are flawed, "The problem is that DDE and the commonly-studied most persistent PCBs act as an anti-androgen and anti-estrogens, respectively, not estrogens. Findings that indicate these contaminants are not associated with breast cancer risk are completely irrelevant to the hypothesis that xeno-estrogens may induce breast cancer."

It's pretty clear. We're firing blanks in this "war against breast cancer." While industries release toxic chemicals, unsafe drugs, and radiation, they also fund government agencies and large non-profits who provide effective "cover" for their devastating activities.
I call it the Breast Cancer Money-Go-Round.
This article can be accessed online at http://www.ecotalk.org/BreastCancer.htm

Breast Cancer Unawareness Month -
What Women Don't Know can Kill Them!

Letters to the Editor
Vitality
P.O. Box 1066
East Harwich, MA 02465

To the Editor:

I would like to commend Vitality for publishing a dissenting view on mammography, evoking Dr. Kopans' accusation of "tabloid sensationalism." At the risk of further provoking Dr. Kopans, may I comment on some of his questionable criticisms and assertions.

Contrary to Dr. Kopans, mammography is highly profitable. Multibillion-dollar industries, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker support and fund breast imaging programs and professionals. If all U.S. premenopausal women, about 20 million according to the Census Bureau, submitted to annual mammograms, minimal annual costs would be $2.5 billion. These costs would increase to $10 billion, about 5 percent of the $200 billion 2001 Medicare budget, if all postmenopausal women were also screened annually; this is about 14 percent of the estimated Medicare spending on prescription drugs.

Such costs will further increase some fourfold if the industry, enthusiastically supported by radiologists, succeeds in its efforts to replace film machines, costing about $100,000 each, with the latest high-tech digital machines; these were approved by the FDA in November 2000, costing about $400,000 each. Screening mammography thus poses major threats to the financially strained Medicare system. Inflationary costs apart, there is no evidence of the greater effectiveness of digital than film mammography, as confirmed by a study reported at the November 2000 annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, of which Dr. Kopans may be aware. Digital mammography is also likely to result in the increased overdiagnosis of non-invasive cancer, ductal carcinoma-in-situ, which has about the same, about 1 percent mortality, whether diagnosed and treated early as late.

In 1992 Congress passed the National Mammography Standards Quality Assurance Act. This requires FDA to ensure that screening centers review their results and performance, collect data on biopsy outcomes and match them with the original radiologist's interpretation of the films. However, screening centers still do not release these data as the Act does not require them to do so. It is essential that this information now be made fully public so that nationwide concerns on the reliability of mammography can be further evaluated. Dr. Kopans could be of great assistance in assuring such well overdue quality control.

Dr. Kopans believes that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial and "may be ten times higher" than a chest X-ray. In fact, exposure from a chest X-ray is about 1/1,000 or one millirad of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose), while mean glandular dosage from one mammogram is about 300 millirads, narrowly focused on the breast rather than the entire chest. Thus, the common practice of taking two films for each breast results in some 600-fold greater radiation exposure than a chest X-ray. Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a cumulative total radiation dose of about 6 rads for each breast.

Surely, Dr. Kopans would accept that women are entitled to know just how much radiation they are exposed to during each mammography. Thermoluminescent radiation dosimetry (TLD, which measures entrance dose from which mean glandular dose can be simply calculated) has been well developed and available for about three decades. (Sources include the Medical Physics Laboratory, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Telephone 608-262-6320).

As emphasized some three decades ago, by the prestigious Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation committee of the National Academy of Sciences, each rad exposure increases breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, resulting in an approximate 6 percent increased risk over ten years of current premenopausal screening. It should be recognized that the track record of radiologists on indifference to the dangers of mammography is disconcerting. This is well exemplified by their enthusiastic participation in the 1970's Breast Cancer Detection Program, in which some 300,000 women received 2 to 3 rads exposure, and in some instances very much more, to each breast annually for over five years.

As well documented, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene, and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation. By well-documented estimates, this accounts for up to 20,000 of the 205,000 breast cancers diagnosed in 2001.Breast self examination (BSE) is a safe, effective and very low cost alternative to mammography. That most breast cancers are first recognized by women themselves was admitted in 1985 by the ACS, an aggressive advocate of routine mammography for all women over the age of 40: "We must keep in mind the fact that at least 90 percent of the women who develop breast carcinoma discover the tumors themselves." Furthermore, as well documented, "training increases reported breast self-examination frequency, confidence, and the number of small tumors found."

A pooled analysis of several 1993 studies showed that women who regularly performed BSE detected their cancers much earlier and with fewer positive nodes and smaller tumors than women failing to examine themselves. BSE would also enhance earlier detection of missed or interval cancers, especially in premenopausal women. There is a strong consensus that the effectiveness of BSE critically depends on careful training by skilled professionals, and that confidence in BSE is enhanced by annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by an experienced professional using structured individual training. The tactile sensitivity of BSE can be further increased by the use of Mammacare techniques to enhance lump detection skills, and by the use of FDA-approved and nonprescription thin and pliable lubricant-filled pads.

The critical importance and reliability of BSE and CBE has been strikingly confirmed by the 2000 Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. This reported the results of a unique individually randomized controlled trial on some 40,000 women, aged 50 to 59 on entry, followed by record linkage for nine to 13 years, with active follow-up of cancer patients for an additional three years. Half the women performed monthly BSE, following instruction by trained nurses, had annual CBEs by trained nurses or clinicians, and had annual mammograms, while the other half practiced BSE and had annual CBEs but no mammograms.

It should be noted that the CBE performance by trained nurses was shown to be better than by clinicians. This finding is of particular interest in view of the growing perception that nurses are more sensitive than male clinicians to women's health issues. The results of this study also provided clear evidence on the reliability of CBE, in combination with BSE: "In women age 50-59 years, the addition of annual mammography screening to physical examination has no impact on breast cancer mortality." In other words, the mammographic detection of nonpalpable cancers failed to improve survival rates, as "the majority of the small cancers detected by mammography represent pseudo-disease or overdiagnosis."

It should be further noted that the mammogram group had a three-fold increase in the number of false positives compared with the CBE and BSE group, resulting in unnecessary biopsies and surgery. In spite of such evidence, radiologists persist in their dismissiveness of CBE and BSE, particularly as "a substitute for screening practices that have a 'proven' benefit such as mammograms." This may also reflect bias by radiologists against encroachment on their own interests, apart from self-empowerment by women.

The comparative cost of CBE and mammography in the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Study was reported to be 1 to 3. However, this ratio is virtually meaningless as it ignores the very high costs of capital mammography items including buildings, equipment, and mobile vans, let alone the much greater hidden costs of overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies, specialized staff training, and programs for quality control and professional accreditation. This ratio would be even more favorable for CBE and BSE instruction if both were conducted by trained nurses.

The excessive costs of mammography screening should be diverted away from industry and radiologists to research and aggressive public education on well-documented scientific evidence on avoidable causes of breast cancer. Of particular interest is the notable absence of any information on breast cancer prevention in the annual October Breast Cancer Awareness Month, promoted by the American College of Radiologists and American Cancer Society. Surely, the alarming escalation in the incidence of breast cancer from 1980 to 1999, 14 percent for premenopausal and 45 percent for postmenopausal women, more than merits at least as great priority on prevention as on damage control by screening.

For further details and documentation, I refer readers to my recent article "Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective and Practical Alternative," in the peer reviewed International Journal of Health Services, 31(3):605-615, 2001.

Sincerely,

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. Professor emeritus Environmental and Occupational Medicine University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition epstein@uic.edu
August 14, 2002

RECOMMENDED READING: Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom; Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day. www.credence.org

Doc's Attempts to Attend Codex Meeting Thwarted

I have just organized a camera crew to the CODEX meeting and attempted to [enter] the meeting with a film crew. Even though I have a valid press pass issued by the CODEX Organizers, they stopped us at the gate with camera rolling behind me. We captured my attempt to get into the meeting and the conversation in German between the guards at the gate and the people inside. I had to leave the camera crew behind (as expected) and then go into the building to plead for PRESS FREEDOM.

When I got into the building, I was escorted in true regime style to the press office and was told that no cameras are allowed into the building even if we are press. This took place during a tea break, so we explained that we wanted to interview delegates. The answer was a resounding "NO". I did, however manage to force the press secretary to let the crew through the gates and stand at the main doors of the meeting hall upon advising them that I was going to make a call to the South African Embassy.

I then fetched the crew and concluded my speech on camera before leaving them behind. In my opinion this is the worst type of scam I have ever witnessed. There were only two accredited members of press present at the meeting, namely myself and another from India who is on our side. Yesterday, I asked the Press Coordinator why there was so few press representatives and I was told "We did not encourage the press or invite them because there is really nothing of interest for them here". I think that restricting natural health, as used by 80% of the world's population is newsworthy.
Dr. Anthony Rees

Danish Doctors Want New System
to Report Medical Errors

Up to one third of Danish doctors and nurses consider leaving the profession because they are concerned about committing errors and harming patients, according to a new survey by researchers from the DSI Danish Institute for Health Services Research. The as yet unpublished study recommends that the Danish medical profession create a new system of reporting medical error that is managed by health professionals.

The survey of 2000 doctors and nurses found that most considered a system in which they could report errors confidentially to their superiors could be useful for patient safety. The research was commissioned by the Danish Ministry of Health and the government is expected to respond to the recommendations in the coming months.

In Denmark, "one in ten hospitalised patients is victim of a damaging medical action", said lead author Niels Hermann, from the DSI Danish Institute for Health Services Research. "It is estimated that about half of these accidents could be prevented", he adds. According to the report, the number of medical errors in Denmark is similar to that found in other countries with similar health systems.

The authors recommend an unconditional, confidential reporting system, in which the identity of the professional who reports an error would not be disclosed by those who receive and administer the system. However, most of the surveyed doctors and nurses did not find such a system acceptable. "An anonymous system would not allow us to collect more information on the case, which could be necessary if we want to use this system to promote quality", says Doris Østergaard, from the Danish Institute for Medical Simulation at Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen.

The report compared medical and non-medical systems of reporting errors, especially within the aviation industry. The study suggests that the name of the medical department where the error took place should not be made public or be ranked by "quality of service". "There is no evidence that sanctions and publication of these data increases safety", says Hermann. The report suggests that reporting should be compulsory but flexible enough to allow reporting of other events that staff consider worth logging. There is also a clear preference for a system that allows the person reporting the error to speak to a someone in the same professional category.

One of the main issues facing any attempt to log errors is underreporting. To avoid this problem the report suggested that any new system would need support from leaders of medical departments and hospitals. The focus of any system should be to promote better quality health care and not disciplinary measures.
The Lancet, Vol 360, No. 9336, September 2002

CTM COMMENT: These data from Denmark corroborate the similar incidences of iatrogenic (doctor-induced) death we have examined in previous bulletins. Phillip Day's Health Wars covers this disturbing phenomenon in more detail, with regard to America, Britain, Australia and other nations, and also explains the simple measures that could be, but are not being taken to avoid it. www.credence.org

Eli Lilly Wins Protection From Autism Lawsuits

WASHINGTON - Eli Lilly and Co. won what may be a short-lived victory Tuesday. The Senate narrowly upheld language in a homeland security bill that could help shield the company from damages in pending and future lawsuits for selling a mercury-based preservative put in childhood vaccines.

In order to get enough votes to ensure final passage of the bill, Republican congressional leaders and the White House had to agree to revisit the issue in January.

Lawmakers opposed to the provision said the parties had agreed the liability protection would at least not extend to the 45 lawsuits already filed against Lilly by parents who allege their children suffered autism, a neurological disorder, from a mercury-based preservative used in many childhood vaccines until about three years ago. Lilly developed and sold the preservative, called thimerosal, for more than 40 years.

A White House spokesman said he could not comment on the specifics of the agreement but did say the White House would work with the next Congress "to address these issues and some members' concerns."

The protection was one of several items slipped into the bill that didn't become widely known until after the House approved the measure last week.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said he thought the vaccine protections "had merit" but was bothered by the help for companies that reincorporated abroad.

"I just thought on balance, this was not the right thing to do," Bayh said.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said he supported the provisions because making substantial changes would have delayed passage of the bill. He said he has no opinion on the merit of the liability protection.

Defenders of the provision said it's needed to make sure fear of lawsuits doesn't doesn't cause pharmaceutical companies to stop making vaccines, particularly those needed to fight bioterrorism.

No one, however, was claiming ownership of the provision.

Lilly - which is a major GOP campaign donor, has a large lobbying presence in Washington, and connections to the White House that include CEO Sidney Taurel's appointment to the White House Homeland Security Advisory Council -- said it did not ask for the change.

Senators pointed to House Republicans, who pointed to the White House, which denied proposing it.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., called on White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels - a former Lilly executive - to explain how the language got in the bill.

Daniels' spokeswoman said his office "had absolutely no involvement" on the issue.

Lilly spokesman Ed Sagebiel said the company was pleased with the language approved Tuesday.

"We think this legislation will help protect manufacturers from lawsuits that are either without merit or scientific evidence," he said.

The National Vaccine Information Center, www.909shot.com
By Maureen Groppe, Indianapolis Star, 11th December 2002

Drain Cleaner and Quicklime Poisons Approved for Food Supplements as Safe Vitamins are Banned

Three substances approved for use in food supplements by the European Commission and the Food Standards Agency are exposed today as fatal to humans.

Sodium Hydroxide, Potassium Hydroxide and Calcium Oxide - also known as Caustic Soda, Caustic Potash and Quicklime - are all contained in a list of "safe" substances for supplementation in the EU's Food Supplements Directive, supposedly devised to protect consumers.

Sodium Hydroxide and Potassium Hydroxide are widely used as constituents of drain and oven cleaners, while Calcium Oxide is commonly used to destroy carcasses of humans and animals.

Thus, the Directive licenses three potentially fatal chemicals, while seeking to ban hundreds of vitamins and minerals in beneficial doses, at levels recognised by UK and international scientists as perfectly safe.

The revelation, say campaigners, should force a full review of the Directive by the UK and the EU. More than 1,000,000 consumers signed a petition handed to Government last week, urging politicians to resist the draconian restrictions, which will force many people to resort to pharmaceutical drugs.

Highlighting the "ludicrously flawed" legislation, Consumers for Health Choice said the Directive will actually allow the inclusion of poisons, while banning hundreds of safe, proven, vitamin and mineral products, that have been on the UK market for decades.

It was CHC who commissioned the report into the list of so-called "approved substances" from Phylax Ltd., consultants in toxicology.

The independent report says: "The list contains three substances that if included in food supplements could prove fatal if ingested. These substances.…as their names imply….are caustic substances with well-established toxic effects when administered orally or by skin exposure or in aerosol form".

"All the three caustic substances have been used in the past as constituents of pastes used to destroy skin growths such as warts but are rarely or ever used today."

"Due to the caustic nature of these substances, humane practice precludes modern, conventional animal toxicity testing…. References to the damaging effects of these substances are listed in standard texts dealing with the hazards of industrial chemicals."

Sue Croft, Consumers for Health Choice, said: "In the past Calcium Oxide has been combined with sodium hydroxide as a constituent of London Paste, used to destroy skin tissue

"This report just illustrates the superficial and farcical nature of the way Government and the EU has approached the whole subject. If they want to regain consumer confidence, it's not enough to say 'we'll drop these three, then' - they must go back to the drawing board, and simply start again."

The Food Supplements Directive, due to become law in the UK next year, contains a list of nutrients and nutrient sources for use in dietary supplements. At present over 300 safe and popular nutrients and nutrient sources, which have been on the UK market for decades, are not on the permitted list and unless comprehensive safety dossiers are submitted and approved for each, they will be banned.
For further information\interviews contact:
Sue Croft at Consumers for Health Choice on 01275 371812 or 07860 286425
Dr Bob Lister, Phylax Ltd., 01494 675758

Toxicity of the Three Preparations Listed in the EU Supplements Directive

By DR. R.E. LISTER BSc ( Hons Pharmacol), PhD, CBiol, FIBiol
Phylax Ltd - Consultants in Toxicology

Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic Soda, NaOH)
This substance is widely used in industry as a constituent of powerful cleaning agents such as lye and domestically as a constituent of drain and oven cleaners. Its use in these latter applications has declined due to its obvious dangers and it has been replaced largely by less corrosive agents.

Animal Studies

Acute Toxicity
LD50 Mouse i.p. 40 mg/kg (2)

Other Studies
Oral intubation of a 4% solution in rabbits caused mucosal and sub-mucosal necrosis within 10 seconds, a 12% solution eroded into the muscle, and a 28% solution caused perforation. Similar results are seen in cats. A 5% aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide applied to the skin of rabbits for 4 hr produced severe necrosis; however, a 1% solution (pH 13.4) failed to cause gastric, oesophageal, or other damage. (1)

Human Experience
Human exposure by ingestion leads to symptoms and outcomes similar to that for Potassium Hydroxide (q.v)

Potassium Hydroxide (Caustic Potash, KOH)
This chemical possesses similar caustic properties to sodium hydroxide and is used for similar purposes.

Human Toxicity Excerpts:

Acute poisoning: Ingestion of potassium hydroxide is followed by severe pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, & collapse. The vomitus contains blood and desquamated mucosal lining. If death does not occur in the first 24 hours, the patient may improve for 2-4 days and then have a sudden onset of severe abdominal pain, board-like abdominal rigidity, and rapid fall of blood pressure indicating delayed gastric or oesophageal perforation. Oesophageal stricture can occur weeks, months, or even years later to make swallowing difficult. Carcinoma is a risk in later life. (5)

Calcium Oxide
This is a constituent of lye, a powerful chemical disinfectant used to destroy carcases of humans and animals that may pose a risk to health. It has been used in the past combined with sodium hydroxide as a constituent of London Paste, used to destroy skin.

Human Toxicity Excerpts:

Ingestion of calcium oxide causes swallowing to become painful and difficult almost immediately burning pain extends down the oesophagus to stomach. Contaminated areas of lips, chin, tongue and the pharynx become oedematous and covered with exudate. There is profuse salivation and because of pharyngeal and oesophageal oedema, it may become impossible after a few hours to swallow even saliva. Mucous membranes are at first white but later brown, oedematous, gelatinous, and necrotic. Vomitus is thick and slimy due to mucus; later it may contain blood and shreds of mucous membrane. Death may ensue if not treated (6)

REFERENCES

1. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 6th ed. Volumes I,II, III. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 1991. 1416.

2. Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996. 297

3. National Institute 0f Safety and Health (NIOSH); Criteria Document: Sodium Hydroxide p.46 (1975) DHEW Pub. NIOSH 76-105

4. Mor'on F et al; Int J Tissue React 5(4): 357-362 (1983)]

5. Dreisbach, R.H. Handbook of Poisoning. 12th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1987. 211

6. Gosselin, R.E., H.C. Hodge, R.P. Smith, and M.N. Gleason. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1976.,p. II-72

Can Fresh Fruit Really help You Beat Cancer?

'More and more cancer patients, among them motorcycle champion Barry Sheene, are turning down radiation and chemotherapy in favour of a vitamin-rich diet.'
By Carmen Wheatley

Some 20 years ago I watched a young woman friend of my mother die of ovarian cancer. My mother, an indomitable Spaniard with an almost obsessive interest in good food - to the point where she had been known to march into restaurant kitchens and re-cook her own dinner - fed Ludmilla aggressively and devotedly through nine months of chemotherapy. Perhaps as a result, Ludmilla, a buxom Czech, seemed scarcely affected. Within less than half a year, however, the cancer returned.

I visited Ludmilla at the Churchill Hospital in Oxford where she had been operated on because a tumour was obstructing her intestines. Again, she did not appear particularly ill. But after my mother's sustaining Mediterranean feasts, I was concerned to see Ludmilla subsisting on made-up powdered soups, synthetic 'fruit' juices and trays of nameless sludge. I could not imagine how someone could rally and recover on such dead food. (Much later this sentiment would echo for me in the words of a Japanese doctor explaining why in Japan food in hospitals is provided by the patient's family. "We certainly cannot expect a sick person to eat hospital food, which is not edible even for a healthy person."

I did not see Ludmilla for two weeks, during which time her condition worsened and she was transferred to the Royal Marsden. When I next saw her, this 38-year-old in her luxuriant prime was now a scarcely recognisable crone, a living mummy.

My mother asked Ludmilla if she could fetch her anything from her home in Oxford. Ludmilla had only one wish: a pair of black satin pyjamas. In view of her appearance, an infinitely pitiable request. Three days later she was dead. What struck me was that Ludmilla appeared to have died not so much of cancer as of malnutrition, and I was convinced this must be preventable.

A few years after this, Dr George Blackburn of Harvard Medical School published a paper, 'The Skeleton In the Hospital Closet', which backed this up. He pointed out that conventional intravenous feeding of terminal cancer patient accelerates the wasting process by feeding the cancer large amounts of sugar and the patient insufficient protein. Dr Blackburn drastically reversed the proportions of such formulas.

Other American oncologists, notably Dr Keith Block at Edgewater Hospital, University of Illinois Medical School, followed suit. About the same time Dr Charles Simone, an oncologist who treated President Reagan, was heard to tell a story of a patient at the National Cancer Institute, Washington, who was totally cured of cancer by conventional therapies. Yet he was still dying - as a result of his treatment - not of cancer but of pellagra, the vitamin B3 deficiency usually associated with the Third World, not a top cancer institute in the First.

Nutritional deficiencies, a result both of cancer and its treatment, are alarmingly common in cancer patients. In one study 46 per cent were shown to have such low levels of Vitamin C that they technically had scurvy, while 76 per cent had below normal levels of C.

Malnutrition is a treatable and often preventable condition. Treatment can be a complex business, given the metabolic derangement of 'terminal' cancer patients, but not impossible. There are drugs, such as insulin or hydrazine sulphate, that switch off cancer's supplies of sugar in the liver, and particular nutrients such as the omega 3 fatty acids in fish oil or the synthetic hormone, megestrol acetate, that can put a substantial spoke in this devastating process. Yet, such is the mindset of the medical establishment that when 'cachexia' - the wasting process of late cancer - sets in, so does medical fatalism.

This medical fatalism is largely based on ignorance. Some years ago at a meeting in Westminster on 'Diet And Cancer', organised by the Parliamentary Committee for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, I met Dr Sandra Goodman, a biochemist. She had had the same surreal experience that I had. We both stumbled on a massive amount of scientific research on nutrition and cancer, literally thousands of studies worldwide, and realised the paradox of its existence alongside an oblivious medical community fighting the greatest cancer epidemic ever known. (In the last half century cancer incidence has gone up by 50 per cent, with a current rate of growth of 2.1 per cent per year.)

It's as if there were a glass wall between nutritional scientists and cancer doctors in the UK. An otherwise excellent cancer textbook by two distinguished professors at a notable London teaching hospital contains a page headlined 'Cancer Quackery', dismissing in one sentence the notion that nutrition can have any part to play in cancer treatment.

Yet diet has been estimated to be the cause of up to 60 per cent of all cancers. Now that cancer prevention through diet has become a trendy nostrum, and so much is now known about how the molecular biology of cancer and nutrition interact at the level of the gene, 'not to assess and treat every cancer patient nutritionally is a form of malpractice by omission', according to the American Dr Jeffrey Bland.

It is illogical to say that nutrition can prevent cancer but has no role in treatment. It is an unscientific notion too, contradicted by hundreds of animal studies in which tumours have regressed, or survival has been considerably extended precisely through nutritional manipulation.

If human trials are relatively thin on the ground, there is a basic reason. Much cancer research is controlled by the drug industry, whose chief interest must be in producing drugs, not investigating unpatentable natural compounds. And the drug industry dominates doctors' therapeutic education.

But all this may be about to change. In the past two decades an extraordinary mainstream medical movement has sprung up in America, spearheaded originally by twice Nobel-prize winner Linus Pauling, dedicated to bringing nutritional therapies into clinics along side conventional treatment. The thesis is not only that such therapies protect patients against the rigours of treatment and dangers of infections, (which cause some 67 per cent of cancer deaths), but actually enhance the effects of conventional treatment so that less is needed and survival is extended. Virtually every major American medical school and university hospital is to a greater or lesser degree involved in this movement, as are many smaller clinics.

The M.D. Anderson Cancer Centre in Texas, for example, has done research into nutritional status and outcome in childhood cancers, indisputably establishing its importance. Nearly every issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute carries items or articles on nutrition and cancer. There are more than 1,000 doctors in America treating cancer not just with vitamins and diet but with a host of 'biological response modifiers', natural compounds known, from extensive investigation, to modify the cancer process.

The list is endless: enzymes, glandular and organ extracts such as thymosin, T3 thyroid, melatonin, amino acids, green tea, grapeseed extract, garlic, algae, mistletoe, ginkgo biloba and saw palmetto - established in the Journal of the American Medicine Association as a viable treatment for prostate pre-cancer. Other herbs, in particular Chinese mixtures, soy extracts, spices, such as turmeric, citrus pectin, alkylglycerols from shark oil and mothers' milk, have an anti-tumour effect while protecting from the side effects of radiation.

Dr Hugh Riordan's intravenous high dose vitamin C (now in phase II trials), is a broad spectrum tumour cell killer particularly effective against kidney cancer. Then there's Venus fly trap, nucleic acids, urea and Dr Burzynski's 'anti-neoplastons', peptides derived from human urine which have demonstrated considerable efficacy against otherwise untreatable brain tumours.

The list is so exotic it sounds medieval and one can almost hear the 'quackbusters' muttering 'sorcery' under their breath. But the fact is that all these compounds have been and are the subject of rigorous scientific scrutiny. A trial of melatonin plus the immune system hormone interleukin-2 showed a remarkable 45 per cent one-year survival rate in lung cancer patients compared to 19 per cent on chemotherapy.

Chekhov, in his incarnation as doctor, once said: "If many cures are proposed for a disease, it is a sure sign that it is incurable." Most cancers to date have been incurable unless caught early.

In a definitive survey, the German statistician Ulrich Abel found that chemotherapy alone cures fewer than 3 per cent of all advanced epithelial cancers.

The quietly revolutionary notion of the American movement is to combine all the supposed 'cures' into one arsenal so that each individual input is enhanced, and then added to conventional approaches. To this is further added spiritual, emotional, physical and psychological care in a model of integration which for the present may be the only way to push through the success plateau of current treatments. Instead of treating just the symptoms of cancer, these pioneer doctors - of whom there are a handful in the UK - have heeded Pasteur's deathbed pronouncement: "Le terrain, c'est tout."

The wonder cures of tomorrow are some way off. When Gordon McVie of Cancer Research UK said cancer cures were realistically 50 years away, the medical journal The Lancet headlined its editorial against him "Over-optimism about cancer."

In the face of persecution by the FDA and extraordinary penalties and legal sanctions for doctors who try to practise medicine in a way that honours the premise 'First do no harm', the American movement is making great strides. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) now has an Office for Alternative and Complementary Medicine with an annual budget of $68 million. Human trials for the nutritional approaches to cancer are part of this programme. The most noteworthy is that of Dr Nicholas Gonzalez's enzyme and nutrition therapy for pancreatic cancer, a test case if ever there was one. Pancreatic cancer is the most deadly of cancers, with most patients dead within weeks to months of diagnosis. Yet in a small study in 1994 Gonzalez took 11 pancreatic cancer patients. Nine survived a year, five survived two years, four survived three to four years, and two are still alive and well today.

These results were unheard of. Since the newest chemotherapy, gemcitabine, seems to offer at best a few extra months, NIH decided to trial Gonzalez's approach in a big way, coffee enemas and all. They have only one problem: few patients want to be on the chemotherapy comparison arm of the study.

By the time my friend and old Oxford tutor, Michael Gearin-Tosh, was diagnosed in 1994 with multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer, I had come a long way from my innocent observations at Ludmilla's death-bed. I was armed with knowledge of this new and promising field, 'nutritional oncology'. Textbooks and articles lined my shelves. I knew a number of key doctors and scientists, such as Linus Pauling's founding associate, Dr Abram Hoffer of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine. Thus I was able to help Michael devise a regime tailored to his particular needs that is remarkably similar to the Gonzalez regime tested by the NIH. Michael's random chance of surviving eight years, without the chemotherapy he rejected, was .05 per cent. If he was just lucky, he is very, very lucky indeed. The predictable cries of protest from UK doctors - luck, impossible, not proven, a danger to other cancer patients - merely show their lack of curiosity and their ignorance.

Dr Peter Gravett, a more enlightened UK cancer doctor who routinely uses nutritional and other therapies with chemo and bone marrow transplants and has demonstrated their benefits, puts it succinctly. "Oncologists here in Great Britain must be among the world's most conservative and least innovative. Though it may be unfair to attribute the poor performance of UK oncology entirely to the inertia of our oncologists, constrained as they are by the health service and its financial restrictions and the rationing imposed by organisations such as NICE, nevertheless our consistent position near the bottom of the European league table in results for treatment of disease such as cancer attests to the tenacity with which the average practitioner persists with treatments that he or she is perfectly well aware are ineffective, and to the suspicion, if not positive hostility, with which new developments are greeted."

Is it surprising, economics aside, that we find ourselves in the present appalling situation? A multi-pronged approach that supports every aspect of a patient's life has greater gains to offer.

Moreover, such approaches are not dependent on access to the newest chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Much can be done now, by patients for themselves, even while they wait, however long, for standard treatment. The UK-registered charity, Orthomolecular Oncology, was set up to show patients the way. Medical history shows that doctors have often overlooked the obvious with tragic consequences: Lind's lime cure for scurvy was implemented only after his death, though the cause of scurvy had actually been known for nearly three centuries; both Semmelweis and Lister were originally laughed to scorn when they made their basic observations on antisepsis, connecting poor hygiene by doctors with killer epidemics of childbed fever and post-operative infections; Goldberger was similarly derided when he connected pellagra epidemics with consumption of polished rice.

Cancer is more complex, of course. Yet the 'simple' approaches still have something fundamental to offer.

If Michael and I are 'credulous', as Dr Theodore Dalrymple stated, we are in the company of some very modest and truly eminent men. Never mind Professor Sir David Weatherall, or Dr Robert Kyle at the Mayo Clinic, a true seeker after truth and one of the giants of the Myeloma world.

As Schopenhauer said, "medical truths have always evolved thus: first they are ridiculed, then they are violently opposed, and finally they are accepted as self-evident". Ludmilla and my mother, both now at the eternal banqueting table, will drink to that.
The Guardian, September 14 2002

Dr Carmen Wheatley is director of the cancer charity Orthomolecular Oncology: www.canceraction.org.gg

CTM RECOMMENDED READING: Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day; Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom; B17 Metabolic Therapy - a Technical Manual by Phillip Day. www.credence.org

International Fluoride Information Network

Good News from California

Dear All,

We received three news items from Jeff Green in California today. The most exciting news is that, despite the sour grapes of the newspaper reporting the matter, we WON in Watsonville. Earlier it was too close to call. Now, all the mailed-in votes have been counted. Another piece of good news is that Redding has officially sealed in the vote against fluoridation there, by turning down the grant of over 1.6 million dollars intended to provide the capital costs of installing the fluoridation equipment there.

A third item is intriquing. The state is refusing to disclose the details of a deal it cut with Cargill for the conversion of the salt ponds it owns in the San Francisco Bay area, into wetlands. Cargill provides most of the hexafluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate most of the water supplies in the US. According to Jeff, "Cargill supplies 70% of the fluoridation chemicals used in the U.S., yet never once has submitted toxicological data on their chemicals and their impurities as required by ANSI/NSF- Standard 60, even under Business Confidentiality Act that seems to be the basis for their secrecy in this salt pond purchase."

Paul Connett - www.fluoridealert.org
November 16, 2002
_________________________________________________________________
News Release Contact: Jeff Green
November 16, 2002 Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (800) 728-3833 greenjeff@cox.net

City of Redding rejects funding for fluoridation
Citing the passage of Ballot Measure A by an approximate 56% majority of voters on November 5, in a short, two-paragraph letter dated November 15, 2002 from City Manager Michael Warren, the City of Redding, California has formally informed the Executive Director of the California Dental Association Foundation that they are unable to accept the Foundation's offer of $1,600,250 for the purpose of fluoridation.

Measure A, enacted by the voters of the City of Redding:
In order to ensure that the public water of Redding is safe to drink, it shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person, agent, or any public or private water system, to add any product, substance, or chemical to the public water supply for the purpose of treating or affecting the physical or mental functions of the body of any person, rather than to make water safe or potable, unless the substance meets the following criteria:

1) The substance must have been specifically approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for safety and effectiveness with a margin of safety that is protective for all adverse health and cosmetic effects at all ranges of unrestricted consumption.

2) The substance, at Maximum Use Levels, must contain no contaminants at concentrations that exceed U.S. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals or California Public Health Goals, whichever is more protective.

If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity may not affect other provisions or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

Also from Jeff Green:

Once again we see a newspaper create their own facts. You might think that being a reporter would require an ability to read and discern.

The story below, once again, reports that the FDA does not regulate the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. The fact that this is true has nothing to do with measures that are to be enacted in Redding and Watsonville, CA.

Measure A in Redding, CA, and Measure S in Watsonville, CA require that a substance added to the water FOR THE PURPOSE OF FULFILLING A HEALTH CLAIM must have been approved by the U.S. FDA as safe and effective for fulfilling that health claim at the dosages expected from unrestricted consumption. No entity has the authority to make claims of health and safety for a product without the approval of the FDA.

Once again we must reiterate that these two Measures do not require the FDA to regulate water or water additives. These are specifically excluded by the Measures. However, a manufacturer who attempts to sell a product to fulfill a health claim that has not submitted their product for approval from the FDA should expect that these ordinances will prohibit their use in the drinking water, just as they are supposed to be prohibited for any other distribution.

The media's repetition of the opinions of the proponents of fluoridation or even the statements by "State Fluoridation Consultants" belong on the opinion page. The omission of facts about the State law and the Measures passed reveal more about the media's agenda than a true reporting of the actual events.

For those of you that may have missed the importance of the earlier update today, entitled "Cargill deal to stay secret," Cargill supplies 70% of the fluoridation chemicals used in the U.S., yet never once has submitted toxicological data on their chemicals and their impurities as required by ANSI/NSF- Standard 60, even under Business Confidentiality Act that seems to be the basis for their secrecy in this salt pond purchase.

For some reporters, the movie Erin Brockovich must still be a fantasy without any basis in real life.

Voters reject Watsonville fluoridation
By Karen A. Davis - Sentinel staff writer

WATSONVILLE - The final tally on Measure S is in - and it appears those opposed to adding fluoride to the city's water supply have floated to the top. Still, officials say state law may be the final word in the matter.

After all absentee ballots were tallied, the measure apparently passed with 50.9 percent of the vote, or 3,043 votes. Meanwhile, 2,931 voters - 49.1 percent - said no to the measure. A yes vote on the measure meant a voter opposed fluoridation, while a no vote meant a person supported fluoridating the city's water.

It remains to be seen whether the new council, to be seated Nov. 26, will stand on the side of local voters or the state mandate that says the city must fluoridate regardless of the public vote.

Nick Bulaich, spokesman for the fluoridation-opposition group Watsonville Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, is taking a wait-and-see approach.

"We need to see what the council does," he said. "One thing is for sure: A law has been passed by the voters here, and I would fully expect the city attorney (and council) to defend that law."

While City Attorney Alan Smith must wait to see what the council directs him to do, he says the state still mandates that the city fluoridate.

In April, city officials, on a 4-2 vote, accepted a grant of nearly $1 million from the Fluoridation 2010 Work Group to fund the design, purchase and installation of fluoridation treatment equipment and one year of operation and maintenance.

State health officials have said the city is locked into its decision to fluoridate. State Assembly Bill 733 mandates the fluoridation of water systems that have 10,000 or more hookups when funding to do so is provided by a source other than the water agency or the taxpayers the water system serves.

Chuck Carter, one of five council members who supported fluoridation, says he believes some people were confused by the initiative's wording and that could have affected the outcome.

Dr. Jim Jacobson, a Watsonville orthodontist and fluoridation supporter, agreed. Jacobson is a member of the city's Dientes! Community Dental Clinic board and the Monterey Bay Dental Society's Fluoridation Task Force.

Though the initiative did not specifically mention fluoride, the measure was aimed at preventing the city from adding that or other chemicals to the local water supply. Not included were chemicals such as chlorine that make the water safe to drink. Still, the federal Food and Drug Administration does not regulate the addition of fluoride to public water supplies.

Jacobson also believes state mandate will be the final authority in deciding the issue.

"If the state is not going to support its own laws, then any small group of citizens can organize and change state law as they see fit," Jacobson said.

Fluoride opponent Dan Hernandez, also a member of the Citizens for Safe Drinking Water group, said the state's money would be better spent on health programs that teach area residents good dental hygiene habits, rather than on fluoridating the city's water.

"The people have spoken," Hernandez said. "I hope the council will take that into consideration. But no matter what, we'll prepare for a lawsuit because that will probably come next."
Contact Karen A. Davis at kdavis@santa-cruz.com.
You can find this story online at:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/November/16/local/stories/03local.htm
Copyright © Santa Cruz Sentinel. All rights reserved.
________________________________________________________________

Cargill deal to stay secret
By Paul Rogers

The Davis administration on Friday said it will not release copies of contracts, toxic studies and other key documents surrounding its proposed $100 million purchase of industrial salt ponds ringing the South Bay from Cargill Salt to create wetlands.

The announcement, made at a public hearing in Palo Alto, brought immediate criticism from environmentalists, taxpayer groups and open government advocates. They said the high level of secrecy threatens to erode public support for the deal, which, if successful, could rank as the nation's largest wetlands restoration outside the Florida Everglades.

"This is the biggest wetlands acquisition ever to take place in California,'' said Marc Holmes, a spokesman for the Bay Institute, an environmental group that has backed the sale. "It has enormous importance. The public has a right to scrutinize the details.''

State officials also said the close of the deal, already two months behind, will probably be completed in March.

At the hearing, the state's two top negotiators, state Fish and Game Director Bob Hight and state Wildlife Conservation Board Executive Director Al Wright, said they will not release the purchase contract, independent toxics studies of the land, appraisals and other reports. All the documents are expected to be finished by mid-February.

Hight and Wright said they are following state law and working to protect the privacy of Cargill Salt, the Minneapolis-based agribusiness giant that is offering 16,500 acres of salt evaporation ponds for sale. The ponds stretch from Redwood City to Alviso to Hayward.

"The reason for that is to protect the private party's rights in case acquisition doesn't occur,'' Hight said.

Hight said an agreement between Cargill and the government should be reached in mid-December. The state Wildlife Conservation Board, an agency that buys parklands with public money, will vote on the final deal in mid-February, he said.

Under questioning from state Sen. Byron Sher, D-San Jose, who chaired the hearing, both Hight and Wright said they plan to issue a synopsis of the documents.

But they will not release the actual documents, they said. Wright said toxics reports, which reportedly have found some levels of mercury contamination on the lands, contain "proprietary information'' that Cargill does not want released, Wright said.

Sher urged them to reconsider.

"In my view this is not enough,'' he said. "The public needs to be able to make a judgment about whether this is a good deal.''

Both the state and federal governments have refused requests by the Mercury News to make public the appraisals that placed the land's value at $243 million. Cargill is expected to seek a tax write-off for $143 million of the price.

Sher told the Mercury News that he asked to see the appraisals but was told by Hight, Wright and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that he must first sign a confidentiality agreement. He declined.

Open-records experts said Friday that the state is violating the law if it refuses to release a signed purchase contract or the toxics studies before the Wildlife Conservation Board votes.

"There's nothing in the law that makes it confidential or allows an agency to take this position,'' said Terry Francke, general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition, based in Sacramento.

"This is the public's money. People rightfully want to know all the conditions. Is this a white elephant? Is it a good deal for the state?''

Francke said that the last time the Davis administration withheld information about major contracts was when it was negotiating with power companies for long-term electricity purchases two years ago. Public outcry was so great that Gov. Gray Davis finally released the contracts, revealing that he had paid three times the current market rate for electricity, locking the state into $43 billion in debt.

"If a developer were to tell a family buying a home, `I'm sorry we can't share termite reports and safety inspections with you because it is proprietary and if it got out it might hurt our business,' what would your reaction be?'' Francke said.

Taxpayer groups agreed.

"It is the taxpayers who are the buyers,'' said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "To suggest that those who are footing the bill should not be informed is an arrogant attitude on the part of those making the deal.''

California Government Code Section 6254 says state agencies have discretion to release or keep secret "The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations . . . until all of the property has been acquired or all of the contract agreement obtained.''

Francke said that language doesn't allow the state to withhold the Cargill purchase contract or toxics studies.

"This is about accountability,'' he said. "The public must have the ability to keep its eye on its own purse and to evaluate the quality of people who are negotiating these deals.''
San Jose Mercury News Posted on Sat, Nov. 16, 2002
Contact Paul Rogers at progers@sjmercury.com or (408) 920-5045. © 2001 mercurynews and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.bayarea.com

International Fluoride Information Network
Update from Geelong, Australia - November 4, 2002

Dear All,

David McRae davidmcrae@ozemail.com.au has sent us this news update from Geelong, Australia. It is very disturbing that the local paper has refused to print any more letters on fluoridation. Instead of cutting off the flow of information on this important issue, perhaps they should invite longer articles from both sides.
Paul Connett.
www.fluoridealert.org

On the evening of November 1st a Geelong audience of 400 was treated to an inspiring seminar by Phillip Day, from the Campaign for Truth in Medicine. Among other topics he spent about 10 minutes on the dangers and poor science behind the farcical practice of public water fluoridation. He asked local members of the 'Freedom from Fluoridation Association' to identify themselves and say a few words about their efforts at keeping the region of Geelong free from this absurd 'water contamination' program. At the interval in his three-hour presentation, some 200 people signed the petition to go to the state government.

Geelong, a city of 200,000 people, has long been a thorn in the side of the pro-fluoridation fanatics in the Health Department and Dental Association of the state of Victoria. A government campaign to make Geelong people start swallowing fluoride in the 1980s was thwarted by massed action of the citizenry, plus, at the eleventh hour, support from trade unions refusing to operate the equipment. The equipment has laid idle since then. It is probably unusable now, but the government health minister, John Thwaites, announced in March this year that Geelong was to be fluoridated soon. In the newspaper picture he was flanked by past and present Dental association heavies, who were being given medals as "fluoride heroes" for their efforts 25 years ago in getting the city of Melbourne fluoridated. Of course there were the usual announcements of Melbourne having 50%, 60%, 80% (you name it) less tooth decay than unfluoridated towns like Geelong. No references to any peer reviewed publications of these findings of course. Secret information that the 'experts' are privy to.

Since March there have been public meetings, much correspondence with the government and health department, and the hugely informative seminar by Paul Connett in July. Dental Association and health department officials stayed away from that one in droves. Geelong has NOT YET been fluoridated. It won't be, unless it is over the dead bodies of hundreds (and rapidly growing) well informed people in the area. Letters to the health department currently get replies stating that "options for examining community attitudes are currently being considered". Our group wrote to say we would like community representation on this panel to prepare how community attitudes will be surveyed. This offer has been declined by replies which deliberately misunderstand the request.

The reason for wanting to help develop the method of community survey is that Health Minister Thwaites is on the record as saying that community consultation would include "educating the community about the phenomenal benefits of fluoridation". Yes, we have seen that before! Since the 1940s, in fact. Massive propaganda campaigns. Unfortunately the leader of the main opposition party, in the coming election, Robert Doyle, recently chastised the present government for being too slow to force fluoridation upon regional cities. He said that fluoridation is marvellous because of its "fantastic safety benefits". Excuse me? Is he educated on the topic or what? Is he talking about safety or about benefits. He cleverly rolled them into one concept, demonstrating total ignorance of the issue and the arguments about it. Clearly some dental heavyweight with political connections had been blowing in his ear telling him to get to work pushing this most bizarre of mass chemical dosing programs.

A twist in the campaign is that the local newspaper, The Geelong Advertiser, has stopped publishing any letters on fluoridation! They were publishing them regularly, but not one for the last six weeks. The editor told me "we have had more letters on this subject than any other in 10 years". I suggested that it must be important to the people of Geelong. He said no, that someone had complained that the letters were stale and getting repetitive! Who complained, I wonder, and was able to force the paper to stop reporting on it? I'll say it is getting repetitive. Fifty years of communities saying "NO" and health authorities forcing it upon them. Shame on the Geelong Advertiser for censoring the wishes of the Geelong people to express their outrage at heavy handed fluoride pushers. (yoursay@geelongadvertiser.com.au)
David McRae - Community Health Worker, Geelong.
(davidmcrae@ozemail.com.au)

A Miracle in Wisconsin

October 14. In Appleton, Wisconsin, a revolution has occurred. It's taken place in the Central Alternative High School. The kids now behave. The hallways aren't frantic. Even the teachers are happy.

The school used to be out of control. Kids packed weapons. Discipline problems swamped the principal's office.

But not since 1997.

What happened? Did they line every inch of space with cops? Did they spray valium gas in the classrooms? Did they install metal detectors in the bathrooms? Did they build holding cells in the gym?

Afraid not. In 1997, a private group called Natural Ovens began installing a healthy lunch program. Huh?

Fast-food burgers, fries, and burritos gave way to fresh salads, meats "prepared with old-fashioned recipes," and whole grain bread. Fresh fruits were added to the menu. Good drinking water arrived.

Vending machines were removed.

As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, "Grades are up, truancy is no longer a problem, arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their time teaching."

Principal LuAnn Coenen, who files annual reports with the state of Wisconsin, has turned in some staggering figures since 1997. Drop-outs? Students expelled? Students discovered to be using drugs? Carrying weapons? Committing suicide? Every category has come up ZERO. Every year.

Mary Bruyette, a teacher, states, "I don't have to deal with daily discipline issues…I don't have disruptions in class or the difficulties with student behavior I experienced before we started the food program."

One student asserted, "Now that I can concentrate I think it's easier to get along with people…" What a concept---eating healthier food increases concentration.

Principal Coenen sums it up: "I can't buy the argument that it's too costly for schools to provide good nutrition for their students. I found that one cost will reduce another. I don't have the vandalism. I don't have the litter. I don't have the need for high security."

At a nearby middle school, the new food program is catching on. A teacher there, Dennis Abram, reports, "I've taught here almost 30 years. I see the kids this year as calmer, easier to talk to. They just seem more rational. I had thought about retiring this year and basically I've decided to teach another year---I'm having too much fun!"

Pure Facts, the newsletter that ran this story, is published by a non-profit organization called The Feingold Association, which has existed since 1976. Part of its mission is to "generate public awareness of the potential role of foods and synthetic additives in behavior, learning and health problems. The [Feingold] program is based on a diet eliminating synthetic colors, synthetic flavors, and the preservatives BHA, BHT, and TBHQ." Thirty years ago there was a Dr. Feingold. His breakthrough work proved the connection between these negative factors in food and the lives of children. Hailed as a revolutionary advance, Feingold's findings were soon trashed by the medical cartel, since those findings threatened the drugs-for-everything, disease-model concept of modern healthcare.

But Feingold's followers have kept his work alive.

If what happened in Appleton, Wisconsin, takes hold in many other communities across America, perhaps the ravenous corporations who invade school space with their vending machines and junk food will be tossed out on their behinds. It could happen.

And perhaps ADHD will become a dinosaur. A non-disease that was once attributed to errant brain chemistry. And perhaps Ritalin will be seen as just another toxic chemical that was added to the bodies of kids in a crazed attempt to put a lid on behavior that, in part, was the result of a subversion of the food supply.

For those readers who ask me about solutions to the problems we face---here is a real solution. Help these groups. Get involved. Step into the fray. Stand up and be counted.

The drug companies aren't going to do it. They're busy estimating the size of their potential markets. They're building their chemical pipelines into the minds and bodies of the young.

Every great revolution starts with a foothold. Sounds like Natural Ovens and The Feingold Association have made strong cuts into the big rock of ignorance and greed.

Go for it.

Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)

CTM RECOMMENDED READING: The Mind Game by Phillip Day
www.credence.org

My Bout of So-Called AIDS

This past March, I had the unsettling experience of being diagnosed with an AIDS defining condition. The news arrived with cruel precision on the 10-year anniversary of my testing HIV positive, coinciding perfectly with the orthodox axiom that we get a decade of normal health before our AIDS kicks in.

The diagnosis was based on a grade 3 Pap smear with cervical dysplasia, a result that insinuates cancer. Devastating enough on its own, my HIV positive label added a layer of complication.

As you may know, cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer were added to the AIDS definition in 1993 causing the number of women classified with AIDS to increase notably. Even though some 65,000 Americans are diagnosed each year with cervical cancers, and only a small fraction of these (about .0015%) are among women that test positive, HIV + cervical abnormalities = AIDS.

I imagined Dr. Matilde Krim cackling with delight at this seemingly tragic turn of events. Director of the orthodox AIDS research group AmFar, Krim had pronounced me 'delusional' in a national television broadcast last fall for daring to consider myself healthy. According to the good doctor, I am merely enjoying the so-called latency period between testing positive and getting sick. During her interview, she did everything short of wish I would die of AIDS.

As an outspoken representative for alternative AIDS views, a full time mascot for healthy HIV positives, and a new mother for the second time, tackling this challenge was the last assignment I wanted. The diagnosis was totally inconvenient to my life and work. I fell prey to despair, called my husband and sobbed into the phone. Together, we recovered my rationality. I dried my tears and asked the doctor to perform another test.

Given the unreliability of diagnostics in general, and the fact that Pap smear slides are read by lab technicians for a matter of seconds, this seemed a perfectly reasonable request. She refused, however, imploring me to 'stop being in denial,' and acquiesced only after I politely but unrelentingly insisted. Holding my own was emotionally exhausting, and in the end it felt more as if she were humoring me than respecting my judgment.

The second Pap came back grade 2, a slightly less concerning level of diagnosis. According to my doctor, this suggested the presence of Human Papilloma Virus or HPV, a supposedly contagious condition associated with cervical cancer. Since I have never been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease, my husband's never had one, we've been together for six years, and all my previous Paps have been normal, I questioned the new results. My skepticism seemed to reinforce her notions I was lolling in denial. Our conversation turned contentious.

I cited information refuting the HPV/cervical cancer hypothesis, Professor Peter Duesberg's well-referenced deconstruction in particular. I recalled how the assumption that HPV caused cervical cancer had risen to popularity in the late 1970s following the complete failure of the Herpes Virus/cervical cancer hypothesis of the 1960s. That according to studies, half the American adult population is infected with HPV yet only 1 percent of women develop the cancer, and while equal numbers of men and women have HPV, men rarely develop penile cancers.

My doctor responded by recommending I see a specialist.

After much discussion, the new gynecologist acknowledged the presence of HPV only correlates with cervical cancer in some cases, and there is no evidence of a direct, causal relationship.

Both gynecologists agreed I should disregard the second test and consider the one indicating cervical dysplasia to be correct. Both recommended a colposcopy (a fairly invasive and painful procedure), to prepare for a biopsy, and urged me to act promptly. Instead, I decided to gather other opinions from holistic health practitioners.

In consultation with a naturopath, I determined I would follow the gynecologist's advice and act as if the worst-case scenario were true, that I had cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer. Together, we created a protocol that would serve to better my health no matter what diagnosis were correct. This program included detox, colon hydrotherapy, digestive enzymes, daily juicing, food combining, some new supplements, and regular exercise, I added ozone therapy to the regimen.

Life went on as normal, apart from the whirr of the juicer every morning and arranging for childcare during the ozone infusions.

Although I vacillated between dauntless, nervously hopeful and scared, my confidence in what I know about HIV and AIDS did not waiver. What makes sense in times of health makes the same sense in time of health challenge. I felt no temptation to suddenly regard my positive HIV test as an illness in need of treatment. Sometimes I worried how others might interpret or use my situation, but the possibility of cancer did not inspire any panicked denouncing or erosion of what I understand about science, medicine, natural health, HIV and AIDS. If given a choice, I would have preferred not having to deal with another dreaded diagnosis, but as long as life dished it up, I accepted the opportunity to learn.

In August, I had a new Pap smear performed by a third gynecologist. I used an assumed name and did not mention my HIV status. This time the result was normal.

My doctor was at lunch when I called with the good news, so I left a message with the front office manager who was totally unimpressed. She explained, "That happens all the time. Most women get an abnormal Pap after having a baby. We just run the test again and it usually comes back normal. If not, the doctor gives them this little cream and that takes care of it."

Until that moment, neither doctor had mentioned an abnormal test was normal after childbirth, that second smears are routinely performed in such cases, or that there was any "little cream."

I have since discovered that the overwhelming majority of my female friends had results like mine. For them, a second test was a matter of course rather than a hard won concession. In every case, their results reverted to normal with no therapy.

Testing HIV positive often means being treated differently based on unfounded assumptions, and as though well informed decisions are elaborate forms of denial. It seemed the dysplasia diagnosis confirmed my doctor's beliefs about HIV, and my supposed illness was the expected outcome. I felt frustrated, and even humiliated.

Whenever I speak in public someone invariably asks, "If HIV doesn't cause AIDS, why do a lot of people who test HIV positive get sick and die? I think a better question is: How does anyone who tests positive remain well?"

Between the initial devastation of the diagnosis, the subsequent social isolation, dire predictions by doctors, lab tests measuring our remaining time, medical care that assumes our inevitable early demise, AIDS organizations poised to usher us into death, negative expectations of friends, family and the public, constant media reports on the incurable fatal virus, pressure to consume toxic drugs, to regard ourselves as infected, abnormal, and ill, pitches to sell off our life insurance, exchange work for disability, and get a handicapped parking pass, and the orders to keep a safe, latex-covered distance from people we love, I wonder how so many of us manage to live.

According to official definitions, I had AIDS a few months ago. I'll never know if the detox, ozone treatments, and dietary changes 'cured' me, if the diagnosis changed along with my name, or as with most women, my cervical abnormalities went away on their own as if they never existed in the first place. Of one thing, however, I feel certain: My knowledge and convictions prevented me from accepting an unverified diagnosis, engaging in unnecessary invasive procedures, and from believing my ability to live in health had come to a crashing halt.

All too often, our options are limited by medical authorities that encourage us to believe the worst, disregard the facts, deny our intuition, doubt our health, and quietly obey orders. I offer my experience with hopes that those of you also labeled HIV positive will create a foundation of knowledge that supports your choices and that enables you to act in your best interests. Alive & Well Emailer November 5, 2002

Relax, It's Just Sex
AIDS Dissidence Hollywood Style

Relax, 'It's Just Sex' is the first feature film with an AIDS dissident character. It airs several times this month and next on a few cable stations.

Writer/Director PJ Castellaneda actually attended Alive & Well meetings as part of his research for the character who challenges popular AIDS ideology with intelligence and confidence.

Here's the official write up on the film along with air dates.

At a dinner party thrown by Tara (Jennifer Tilly), assorted guests wax philosophical about the hot button topics of AIDS and sex, and a violent incident is revealed, leading to some couples disintegrating while new alliances are formed. T.C. Carson, Mitchell Anderson, Cynda Williams, Lori Petty, Serena Scott Thomas and Billy Wirth costar in this ensemble romantic comedy.

The Movie Channel East 11/12/02 12:15 AM
Showtime Too East 12/05/02 2:30 AM
SHO Women East 12/12/02 2:15 AM
Showtime East 12/22/02 2:15 AM

CTM RECOMMENDED READING: World Without AIDS by Steven Ransom and Phillip Day. www.credence.org

More Than 100 Turn Out to Hear South African
Sally in Stonehouse Talk on Natural Hormones

"There are two common errors made by many doctors in relation to progesterone. The first is to think natural progesterone and synthetic progestins are one and the same - they are not. The second is to tell women who suffer from worse symptoms in the second half of their cycle that it is due to progesterone - when in fact in most cases it is because of a LACK of progesterone."

So said former cancer victim, Sally Longden, in a health talk about natural progesterone held at Stonehouse Court Hotel. Well over 100 women and a few men attended the presentation given by the South African mother-of-two, who cured herself of the hormonal breast cancer she suffered more than 14 years ago, mainly through nutritional and holistic therapy. Sally now believe estrogens to be the cause of many health problems and is a strong advocate of the use of natural progesterone as well as good nutrition as a preventative measure for breast cancer. Osteoporosis was also among the range of topics covered at the event, which was part of a UK tour which finished in late November 2002.

The menopause, PMS, depression and infertility were a few of the other problems which Sally said could be alleviated with the use of natural progesterone cream. "Sally talked about the major part good nutrition can play in people regaining their health as well as the importance of adequate progesterone levels in the body," said Diane Harris from Stroud, who used progesterone to help alleviate the symptoms of post natal depression. "Her main message is that people have to take more responsibility for their own well-being - there is no magic pill to solve any health problems despite what the pharmaceuticals would like us to think."

A teacher and lecturer, Sally, who has a BSc in Biology and Mathematics, is a long-standing proponent of natural progesterone cream as a means of alleviating the symptoms of many 'women's problems' including PMS, the menopause and also endemetriosis, fibroids and hypothyroidism. Sally's lectures include the work of world-renowned progesterone expert Dr John Lee, who has just brought out the book: "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer."

Judy Evans, who runs the UK Progesterone-Link support group based in Somerset, has helped a number of women around the Stroud area with advice and attended the Stonehouse talk. "Many women have never heard of natural progesterone because not many doctors know about it, or have the time to research its many benefits for women's health," said Judy. But a growing number of women are now successfully using natural progesterone to help combat problems ranging from PMS to post natal depression, menopause, osteoporosis, endometriosis and cancer. "My group is involved with an osteoporosis trial being conducted by Harley Street doctor, Shirley Bond and many women at the Stonehouse meeting were interested in this."

Any other women from Stroud who would be interested in joining this trial can contact Progesterone Link. Natural progesterone is called natural, not because it is an alternative remedy but because the progesterone in the cream exactly matches the make-up of the molecular structure of the hormone in your body. It comes from plant sources and you simply use the cream by spreading it on different areas of the body. "It is taking off around the UK as a safe and effective alternative to HRT and other treatments with known side effects," said Judy.
Anyone interested in finding out more about natural progesterone or the osteoporosis trial can go to www.progesteronelink.co.uk website or phone Judy Evans at the Progesterone Link support group on 01935 474343 or Diane Harris on 01453 755366.

Thank you to Joseph Hasslberger of www.laleva.com for forwarding this letter to us, written by a concerned New Zealand resident to the NZ government.

Open Letter to the Hon Annette King, New Zealand Minister of Health and Minister of Food Safety

Dec 2002

Dear Minister
Research into causes of death in New Zealand presented at the recent NZ Society for Risk Management Conference at Te Papa, stemmed from my membership of the Ministry of Health's Sentinel Events Project Working Group. It quickly became very evident that empirical data exists to give concerns about systemic dysfunction within the Ministry of Health; especially with regard to development of policy and policy advice. It seemed incongruent that on the one hand officials select and rabidly support certain public health policy initiatives that seem insignificant in the context of the big picture, yet quickly reject and even deny, to the point of data stripping, major public health issues.

In this month's column in New Zealand's top "people's" health magazine, Healthy Options, I'm taking the liberty of raising a series of questions and offer you the opportunity to respond via this column. I will donate $150 to a charity of your choice if you take up the offer. Did you know that highly preventable medical injury is the number three cause of death in New Zealand following all-cancer deaths and vascular disease?

Have you been advised that highly preventable medical injury resulted in 43,385 potential years of lost life (PYLL) in 1998 - second only to vascular disease? Traffic related deaths resulted in 23,196 PYLL and meningococcal meningitis deaths 1,000 PYLL. Have your officials explained to you why they removed all reference to medical injury related admissions to hospitals in their policy report "The Burden of Disease and Injury in New Zealand"? (BDINZ) This is really puzzling as in the Ministry's own 306 page publication, "Selected Morbidity Data for Publicly Funded Hospitals 1998/99," (SMDPFH), upon which the BDINZ report was based, 35% of injury related admissions to hospital are due to medical injury - versus 25% for falls, and only 6.6% for traffic accidents.

Have your officials told you that for every hospital bed taken up with a patient with a traffic injury, 5 beds are taken up with medical injury related patients? Can they explain why they stripped such important public health information from a document that claims to provide the basis for policy advice to the government?

This is not only puzzling, but I'm sure you agree it is very concerning. Page 34 of BDINZ refers to "Unintentional injuries and adverse effects of health care" and page 36 notes "Adverse effects (surgical, medical, pharmaceutical)." Yet, despite giving the perception that they are included, officials left all of the data out and adjusted the number of injury related admissions accordingly. I'm sure you agree that if your officials have deliberately stripped the third leading cause of death in New Zealand, the second leading cause of PYLL and the leading cause of death in under forty five year olds, something is terribly wrong. Words like malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or simply downright incompetence spring to mind. Either way, do you agree that an inquiry is in order?

Can you explain to the readers of Healthy Options why the Government has committed $200 million to subsidise research and pharmaceutical interests in attempting to develop a vaccine with only a 50% chance of success to reduce about 15 deaths per year due to meningococcal meningitis (MOH estimates) when your own Ministry of Health officials have blocked efforts to get Professor Peter Davis' research team funded to continue their wonderful work on documenting the carnage due to medical injury?

Minister, it simply does not make sense. We are talking about $200 million being championed and committed on a 50/50 chance of reducing 15 deaths per year or 1,000 PYLL, versus apparent deliberate data stripping and rejection of requests for $50 million to target the reduction of more than 1,500 highly preventable medical injury deaths (43,000 PYLL).

We're talking about committing $2.66 million per potential life saved over five years - yet refusing to commit a dime to targeted funds to reduce the highly preventable carnage in our publicly funded health system. Minister, does this make sense to you?

Another example of the Ministry of Health's apparent dysfunctional approach to policy making relates to cot deaths. The British Medical Journal has just published further research pointing out that second hand mattresses have a strong relationship with cot death. This fits with earlier research showing that 2nd, 3rd, 4th born children are at increasing risk of succumbing to cot death. On the other hand, New Zealand research shows that over 25% of all babies are sleeping on thick polyethylene sheets in line with Dr Jim Sprott's recommendations. Not a single cot death has been recorded amongst these babies whereas one would have expected over 100 such deaths.

Simple logic concludes that all cot deaths in New Zealand occur amongst babies not sleeping on thick plastic under sheets. Minister, regardless of the spin that your advisors might put on this evidence, a Ministry that rabidly invokes the 'precautionary principle' when it suits them should be advising all mothers to utilise such a stunningly simple and cheap public health initiative. Why do your officials continue to deny the facts? 100,000 plastic sheets saving 100 lives equates to a few thousand dollars per saved life paid for from private funds. Minister, your advisers' myopic policy advice is perplexing to say the least. It simply defies logic. One could even suggest it is criminal.

There are many other discrepancies that I could document, such as criminal folic acid advice, but space does not permit. Highly preventable medical injury impacts on the economy to the tune of more than $4 billion per year. I would recommend a $50 million capital injection, $5 million of that to go to Professor Peter Davis's research team to monitor progress via annual safety audits of randomly selected patient records.

You'll receive howls of protest from your advisors; such a strategy would not fit with their fashion-based approach to setting policy which includes systematically stripping unwanted data from official reports. It would, however, go a long way toward reducing the 1,500 plus extra empty seats at the Christmas dinner table each year and might even stave off a Royal Commission of Inquiry. After all, Cave Creek only resulted in 14 deaths and the Gisborne debacle in a similar number. Quality Ministers can only make quality decisions it they are provided with quality advice.

Healthy Option readers look forward to your response in the New Year.

Have an enjoyable festive season.
Ron Law

Australia and New Zealand - Au Revoir!

A big thank-you to all who organised, attended or otherwise participated in my 2002 tour of Australia and New Zealand. What memories Samantha and I have taken away with us! My encouragement and thanks also goes out to the hundreds of sick folks who had the bravery and commitment to turn up and listen to what was being said.

I am often asked what more can be done to spread this incredible information faster. The answer is, we need to form a thousand splinter groups to spawn all over your great countries run by dedicated citizens (that's you!) who are willing and able to help those who are in trouble by bringing this valuable information to them.

What better mission can there be than that?

See you next year!
Phillip Day

What's all the Fuss About?
An Introduction to the Vaccination Controversy

Many people who have contacted us have requested that we "send them all the information on vaccination" so that they can make an informed choice for themselves. It would be great if it was that easy. Unfortunately the issue is complex and it is not a simple task to become informed. However, having a basic understanding of the issues can help you get there more quickly. This article contains information and examples that are illustrative of the issues. The references cited are by no means extensive and represent a mere fraction of the information available from a range of sources. Suggestions on how to source further information on vaccine safety and efficacy are provided at the end of this article. The full list of references is provided on a separate sheet.

THE DECLINE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Vaccination has not been responsible for the major decline in infectious diseases', despite what you may have heard from those promoting vaccines. Improvements in living conditions including improved sanitation, hygiene, water supplies and housing, better nutrition and isolation procedures have been the main reasons for this.' In New Zealand the death rate from childhood diseases declined by up to 98 between 1890 and the 1940s before vaccination was introduced.2 The graphs below illustrate this decline. The death rate from diseases for which no vaccine was used also declined, e.g. Scarlet fever declined steadily throughout the 20th century to the point of being almost eradicated without the use of vaccination. The decline in the death rate from measles, whooping cough, tuberculosis and diphtheria in New Zealand before vaccination is mirrored by the statistics from other countries such as the United States,' England and Wales3 and Australia.4 It has been estimated that only 3.5 of the decline in death rate from infectious diseases can be attributed to the combined effect of vaccination and drugs.'

DISEASE, THE IMMUNE SYSTEM AND VACCINES
Modem infectious disease treatment, including vaccination, has its theoretic underpinnings in the "germ theory" as attributed to Louis Pasteur. Pasteur said "The microbe causes the illness. Look for the microbe, and you'll understand the illness." His followers today in the medical-industrial complex have conveniently forgotten he also said "I'm convinced that when a wound becomes infected and festers, the course that the wound takes depends upon the patient's general condition and even his mental condition."5 On his deathbed, Pasteur is alleged to have made a retraction saying "Bechamp is right. The microbe is nothing, the terraine is everything."6 The idea that the environment of the host (human) is so important in determining the development and progression of disease is unpopular with the pharmaceutical industry who profit from a widespread belief in, and desire for, a quick fix for health problems.

Vaccines are commonly believed to work by producing antibodies. However, a number of researchers have found that the presence of antibodies only indicates that the immune system has come into contact with an antigen. One medical paper said that "it is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody litres do not correlate with protection."7 For example, it has been established that there is no clear correlation between antibody levels and protection against whooping cough and that there is no generally accepted laboratory measure of immunity.8'9 The medical community does not have even a basic understanding of the human new-born immune system.10 Studies show that the immune systems of new-born animals can easily be perturbed to ensure that they cannot respond properly later in life.10 Two generations of vaccination has made today's babies more vulnerable to disease because vaccinated women pass less antibodies on to their babies than those women who have natural immunity to disease, making the babies of vaccinated women more susceptible to disease in the first year of life."' '2 Vaccination has been proven in medical studies to make children more susceptible to disease for a period afterwards due to its 'overload' effect on the immune system leading to generally lowered resistance.13 14 Viral vaccines have been shown to depress cellular immunity, which serves as the body's first line of defence against infection and disease.'5 This suppression of the cellular immune system results not in the prevention of disease but the inability of the body to manifest, to respond to and to overcome disease!

VACCINE MANUFACTURE
Vaccines contain very toxic substances that are poisonous to our bodies. For example, many vaccines contain formaldehyde, an extremely toxic compound and a known carcinogen.16 Many vaccines also contain aluminium which frequently causes reactions at the injection site 17 and can cause an allergic response to subsequent doses of the vaccine. Aluminium has been associated with Alzheimer's disease and dementia.18

Two scheduled vaccines still contain thimerosal (flu and adult tetanus-diphtheria), an ethyl mercury sodium salt (49% mercury); mercury is a heavy metal that is extremely toxic. Concerns about the toxicity of mercury in vaccines and links between thimerosal and a vast number of illnesses and disabilities led to calls for thimerosal to be removed from childhood vaccines.19 However, the flu vaccine is recommended for children over the age of 6 months and the adult tetanus-diphtheria is scheduled at eleven years of age.

In some vaccines 2-phenoxyethanol has replaced thimerosal as a preservative. It is commonly used as a solvent for dyes, inks and resins, in germicides, and in other pharmaceuticals. It is an irritant for the skin, eyes, mucous membranes and respiratory tract and reactions to exposure can include coughing, headache, abdominal pain and nausea.20

Vaccines are manufactured using animal and human tissue including foetal calf blood, chick embryo fluid, monkey kidney cells and human diploid cells which are derived from two aborted human foetuses.2' Vaccines contain DNA derived from the cell culture and may contain other viruses.22'23 The presence of contaminating viruses or integrated gene sequences from cancer causing viruses is a major health concern and total safety requires the complete absence of DNA from the vaccines.22 Viruses that have contaminated vaccines include avian leukosis virus from chick embryos24 and bovine viral diarrhoea virus25 from foetal calf blood. Continuous monkey cell cultures can cause tumours26 and human foetal cells are also susceptible to malignancy.27

The most infamous episode of vaccine contamination is that of polio vaccines with the SV40 virus in the 1950s and 60s. This simian (monkey) virus contaminated both the killed and live virus vaccines that were administered to millions of children. It has been confirmed beyond doubt that the vims has caused a variety of cancers in a large number of vaccinees.28'2t> SV40 has also been found in the sperm and blood of healthy people30 indicating that the virus can be transmitted from generation to generation along gene lines.

Live virus vaccines have been proven to cause the disease that they are supposed to prevent in vaccine recipients and their close contacts. The most well known of these is the oral polio vaccine in which the polio virus can be excreted in the faeces of the vaccine recipient for six to eight weeks after vaccination and can infect non-immune people. Measles,31 mumps,32 hepatitis A33 and chickenpox34 vaccines have also all been documented to have caused the disease in vaccinees and close contacts who have no immunity.

VACCINE EFFICACY
Vaccines are not very effective in preventing the disease that they are supposed to protect against. There are many, many medical studies documenting outbreaks of disease in highly vaccinated populations; some outbreaks have occurred in 100 vaccinated communities. In New Zealand in 1999 68 of the notified cases of whooping cough were fully vaccinated.35 In the 1984-85 New Zealand measles epidemic in children over 15 months old (the age for vaccination) 40 of the cases of measles occurred in vaccinated children.36 In the US there are frequent measles outbreaks in 98 to 100 vaccinated communities.37'38

Outbreaks of mumps,39 rubella40 and polio41 have also occurred in highly vaccinated populations. Numerous studies have found that immunity to hepatitis B lasts only five to ten years after vaccination. One study found that only 50 of vaccinated people had any immunity after four years42 and in another 61 of teenagers had no immunity only 14 years after vaccination.43

One large World Health Organisation trial involving 260,000 people, that was done on the BCG vaccine for tuberculosis, found more cases of TB in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated and concluded that there was no evidence of a protective effect from tne^vaccine.44

VACCINE SAFETY
All vaccines can cause adverse reactions and most vaccines can be extremely dangerous for many children. There is no way of knowing beforehand whether your child's reaction will be of a minor and short lived nature, or a life-threatening, debilitating or ultimately lethal adverse effect. In addition, there is no way of knowing whether or not the vaccine will go on to cause an autoimmune condition years later.

There have been no long-term safety studies conducted on vaccines in which the health of vaccinated children is compared with a group of unvaccinated 'control' children! Vaccine safety tests are based on poor scientific methodology, the studies are too small, too short, and too limited in the populations represented, and are not subject to independent criticism.45'46'47

As more and more children in the world are vaccinated, it is becoming increasingly difficult to compare the health of unvaccinated with vaccinated children.46 The incidence of side-effects of vaccination is often compared to what is called the 'background incidence' of such a disease or condition. This 'background incidence' is the usual incidence of this occurring over the whole population. The use of vaccinated children as controls in vaccine safety studies is unscientific.

The peer reviewed medical journals publish hundreds of reports of serious adverse reactions to all vaccines including many reports of permanent disability and death. Adverse reactions to vaccines can occur soon after administration of a vaccine or progress slowly over the following weeks or months. The list below details some of the reactions that the manufacturers of vaccines used in New Zealand admit to. The information has been collated from the datasheets for individual vaccines.

Ø pain, hardness, redness and swelling at the injection site.
Ø fever, unusual crying, restlessness, irritability, sleeping more or less than usual, vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, sweating, chills.
Ø difficulty in breathing, convulsions, inconsolable screaming, encephalitis.
Ø Guillain-Barre syndrome, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, myalgia, loss of vision or loss of hearing, thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, swelling of the lymph nodes.
Ø collapse or shock-like state, brain damage, anaphylactic reactions, death.

In addition vaccines have been linked with or shown to cause autism,48'49 meningitis,50 diabetes,5' SIDS,52 and degenerative brain diseases leading to death.53

Many countries have a vaccine adverse reaction reporting system. In New Zealand it is the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring, or CARM, in Dunedin. Like many similar systems, such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US, CARM is a passive surveillance system that relies on health professionals and vaccinees voluntarily reporting adverse reactions. In the US between 1990 and 2002, 127,435 vaccine adverse reactions were reported to VAERS. There were 1,936 deaths reported, and 2,546 people were reported as being permanently disabled by vaccine reactions.54 The US the government has paid out US$1,355.4 million dollars to the families of vaccine damaged children since 1989.

Vaccine reactions are grossly under-reported and it is widely accepted that only 1 - 10 of all reactions are reported.55

THE MONEY TRAIL AND BIG BUSINESS
The vaccine industry earns billions of dollars annually. In 1989 - 1999 in New Zealand the Health Funding Authority expenditure orr vaccination was almost $11.8 million dollars, $6.3 million of which was just to buy the vaccines.57 The manufacturers all have to provide a return on their shareholders' investment and have been known to place profit before safety, placing people receiving the vaccines at greater risk. Shares in pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable in the world.58

A large number of the studies conducted and subsequently published in peer reviewed medical journals are funded by big pharmaceutical companies. Many of the supposedly independent people involved in research into the safety of vaccines, and those involved in licensing vaccines have financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies (shares, research funding, etc.).60'61

Doctors and health professionals worldwide who speak out against vaccination have been known to lose funding for research, be ostracised by their peers and in some cases lose their jobs. In New Zealand, for example, in 2002 the Director of Public Health made thinly veiled threats against the job security of midwives who disseminated information on vaccination that was not sanctioned by the Ministry of Health, suggesting that they were in breach of their contracts and stating that he was seeking legal advice on the matter.

CHOOSING NOT TO VACCINATE
In New Zealand vaccinating your children is not compulsory. There is no penalty for choosing not to vaccinate. However, the Health (Immunisation) Regulations 1995 require parents of children born since January 1995 to show their "Immunisation Certificate" when they enrol at an early childhood centre or school. If you do not show this form, your child will be registered as unvaccinated. No institution can force you to present a certificate, or to have your child vaccinated in order to enrol. In the event of a outbreak of measles or whooping cough the Medical Officer of Health may order that healthy, unvaccinated children be excluded from school for a period of up to two weeks.

While some vaccines are recommended for adults, e.g. 10-yearly DT boosters and flu vaccine, none are compulsory. However, if you are considering employment in any health sector which involves working with the public, your contract may be conditional on vaccination with any or all vaccines, as directed. In our opinion, this constitutes mandatory vaccination and is a breach of your right to choose your own medical care.

CHOOSING TO VACCINATE
If you choose to proceed with any vaccinations you should obtain the package insert of the vaccine(s) and read it thoroughly. Do not accept "Patient Information" which omits important information including side-effects. Request New Zealand Physicians Circulars, or Professional Data Sheets. Many of these are on the internet at http://www.medasfe.govt.nz/Profs/datasheet/DataSheet.htm#t. Note contraindications, warnings, precautions and adverse reactions. Ask your doctor to explain the signs and symptoms of all adverse reactions so that you may recognise them should they occur. Factors that can increase the risk of adverse reactions are:

Ø a child not well at the time of vaccination;
Ø a family history of allergies, vaccine reactions, convulsions, epilepsy or any other neurological or immunological problems;
Ø a bad reaction to a previous vaccine;
Ø an allergy to one of the ingredients in the vaccine;
Ø vaccinating a premature infant according to chronological not gestational age.

Obtain the following information prior to vaccination for your records, verified and signed by the vaccine administrator:

Ø evidence that you (or your child) are healthy;
Ø if for a child, evidence that the child is developing normally;
Ø time and date of administration;
Ø name of the vaccine administrator and his/her credentials;
Ø name and manufacturer of the vaccine;
Ø the lot and batch number of the vaccine;
Ø written verification that the vaccine has been stored correctly at all times.

This information is critical for obtaining Accident Compensation coverage in the event of compensatable injury. Any vaccine reaction should be reported on a H1574 form by your doctor, yourself, or the person who administered the vaccine. Send the completed form to: The National Toxicology Groups Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Ensure that ALL symptoms are recorded on the form and retain a copy for your own records. Request verification in writing that the data has been entered into their computer. The form should be available from your doctor but can be obtained by writing to the Toxicology Centre for Adverse Reactions, or at www.medsafe.govt.nz/regulatory/forms.htm.

"The only safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used." Dr. James A. Shannon, National Institutes of Health (USA)

"Immunisation barely figures as a protection against death... At the end of the day, whether you immunise or not isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference to the death rates." Dr Campbell Murdoch, Professor of General Practice, Otago Medical School, 1983 - 1992

"There is insufficient evidence to support routine vaccination of healthy persons of any age." Paul Frame, M.D., Journal of Family Practice

"The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunisation." Dr Robert Mendelsohn, Paediatrician and Author

UNVACCINATED CHILDREN ARE HEALTHIER
Unvaccinated children are generally healthier than their vaccinated siblings, cousins and schoolmates. A 1992 IAS survey on the incidence of chronic conditions showed that vaccinated children suffer significantly more from asthma, eczema, ear infections, tonsillitis, ADHD and apnoea attacks than unvaccinated children. There were 269 unvaccinated children and 226 vaccinated children surveyed from throughout New Zealand. Across a wide range of diseases, unvaccinated children always came out ahead. Another, independent survey by Dr Mike Godfrey in 1999 returned similar results from 864 children, 260 of whom were unvaccinated and 604 of whom were vaccinated. This survey found that incidence of asthma, eczema and tonsillitis was significantly higher in vaccinated children. The incidence of each of eleven chronic childhood conditions in vaccinated and unvaccinated children expressed as a percentage of the total vaccinated and unvaccinated children surveyed.

In a healthy well-nourished child with a healthy immune system, the vast majority of childhood diseases are mild and self-limiting.62'63 In fact, these diseases serve to strengthen and mature a child's immune system, enabling it to function better when facing more serious challenges later inlife.64'65'66

"I cannot see how it is justifiable to promote mass vaccination of children everywhere against diseases which are generally mild, which confer lasting immunity, and which most children escape or overcome easily without being vaccinated. " Professor Gordon Stewart, Department of Community Medicine, University of Glasgow.

INFORMED CONSENT
In New Zealand health professionals have a legal obligation to obtain informed consent before vaccinating a child or adult. Informed consent can only be provided by a patient or caregiver (parent) when the patient or caregiver has considered all the information pertaining to the risks and benefits of vaccination. There is pressure on health professionals to provide only information that is sanctioned by the Ministry of Health. However, "official" information is incomplete and it is recognised by New Zealand consumer advocacy and health organisations that further information is necessary in order for people to be able to make an informed decision.67

IMMUNISATION AWARENESS SOCIETY
The Immunisation Awareness Society liaises with similar overseas organisations and produces a quarterly newsletter for members which generally includes:

Ø information to encourage parents to make informed decisions and take full responsibility for their family's health regarding vaccinations;
Ø warnings about vaccine expectations;
Ø parents' experiences of vaccine reactions, childhood diseases and how they managed the illness, including the health options available to them;
Ø information from overseas about legal/medical problems relating to vaccines.

Other resources available on request are:
Ø a comprehensive library of books, videos and tapes;
Ø contacts with local support groups and/or parents of vaccine-damaged children (by mutual consent).

The Immunisation Awareness Society is a voluntary society, funded by membership subscriptions and donations. We can be contacted for further information in the following ways:

IAS,
P.O. Box 56-048,
Dominion Rd,
Auckland, New Zealand

Tel: +64 (0)9 303 0187 (cleared daily)
Web: http://www.ias.org.nz
E-mail: info@ias.org.nz

WELCOME MAT

Welcome to E-Club! This bulletin is FREE! If you have received this bulletin in error or wish to unsubscribe, please e-mail us at eclub@campaignfortruth.com and put “Cancel” in the message header. Please note that ptCTM accepts no responsibility if you have received this bulletin from a source other than CTM. If you have received this bulletin unsolicited from someone other than us and do not wish to subscribe, please contact the person who forwarded you the bulletin and request that they take you off their mailing list.

For those receiving this bulletin legitimately for the first time, you are part of an active and daily-growing group interested in the latest advances and news in the realm of alternative healthcare.The purpose of E-Club is to convey the latest and hottest news surrounding alternative health to subscribers by their thousand all over the world at the touch of a button. Have a friend who would be interested? Have them log on to www.campaignfortruth.com/join.htm to subscribe to the greatest alternative health phenomenon on the Internet! Have some great news or testimonies you feel others should know about? Don’t be shy! Send us an e-mail!

Published by Campaign for Truth in Medicine, UK