|
CTM
Eclub digest version, June 21st 2003
|
||||
|
Why the Euro Will Cost Your Job! Europe isn't working. Why? Because 20 million adults across the EU are idle and have little hope of ever finding jobs. The Eurozone has an 8.7 per cent unemployment rate, not far short of one in ten. Spain Italy Austria Portugal Germany And foreign investment plunged 90 per cent in a year as companies steer clear of a minefield of laws, tax regulations and ancillary costs that make German workers the most expensive in the world. The drastic decline in profits and the rising number of bankruptcies has caused the amount of local taxes collected by Germany's largest cities and towns to plummet. Three-quarters of them are now operating in the red. But Germany cannot borrow its way out of trouble as the euro is not a national currency. The shocked German people are making do and mend. A shop in Hanover has set up to repair women's tights - business is booming. France Exports have also been massacred by the current high
value of the euro and the European Central Bank's refusal to cut the zone's
interest rates. Phillipe Waechter, chief economist at Franc's Banques
Populaire Asset Management, said: "Without a cut in interest rates
to calm down the growth in the euro, the economic prospects look pretty
grim."
The Draft constitution gives us a European President, a European foreign minister and what amounts to a European Justice Department. It formally enshrines the primacy of EU law over national law. In almost every area of public policy - among them agriculture, transport, welfare, health and employment - we will have the right to legislate only where the EU waives its primacy. Still, let's take Mr Hain at his word. If the draft
constitution is no more than a consultative document, is it not reasonable
to expect that we will be consulted on it? Apparently not.
Time To Blow Away The Sir, Chris Sherwood's letter (13th May) was yet another example of a Brussels smoke screen, the like of which we have had to endure these past years. Successive governments have misled the nation, either by design or accident, each time some new major European Union procedure or concept has been on the blocks. To suggest that the constitution makes legal redress easier would be laughable if it were not such a serious proposal. Far from acknowledging the rights of its individual citizens, the constitution seeks to take away what few rights remain. The only way the EU can be made accountable is by a complete restructuring of its legal and executive framework. This the constitution fails to do. Mr Sherwood's comment that we have not suffered under EU membership takes some hoisting aboard. I doubt whether those left in the terminally declining fishing industry are delighted with the treatment they have received. Likewise the wretched and costly withdrawal from the ERM has obviously brought about a convenient degree of amnesia. Taken globally, the EU's economic performance has been appalling (compared even with Japan's). We have not been damaged because we have not followed the economic diktats of Brussels. Come the constitution, that will not be an option. Both as a citizen and a lawyer, I am deeply concerned
at the legal consequences that would follow acceptance of the constitution.
It is clear that the principle behind this instrument is to obliterate
our constitutional, judicial and individual birthrights to a degree hitherto
unknown.
We should also be ready for the ink with which the corrupt octopus in Brussels is about to obfuscate the completion of the new constitutional treaty. The Government's contribution to this phase will be to say: "We cannot tell you what we think about your proposal because we must not compromise our position in the (secret) negotiations. But you can trust us to protect the national interest." Of course - just as successive British governments have done since 1971. Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Although the Government no longer sets interest rates
- this has been the responsibility of the Bank of England since 1997 -
if the UK joined the euro monetary policy would be decided by the European
Central Bank. Its members are unelected and accountable to no national
parliament. If the economy goes wrong in Britain, then the Government
can be blamed and thrown out. If it goes wrong in a eurozone country,
nothing can be done about it. Sterling Virtues Whatever the argument between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, it isn't about economics. Yesterday, with impeccable timing, the Bank of England upgraded its forecasts, confirming that there's a 'Baghdad Bounce' in the British economy. Simultaneously, in Brussels, it was officially announced that the euro zone is not growing at all and its largest member, Germany, is in recession for the second time in two years. The British economy and the euro zone are actually diverging, not converging. The evidence is most striking if you look at unemployment. In Britain, unemployment is lower than in any other major economy. Over in the euro zone, by contrast, they are shedding jobs and unemployment at nearly twice the rate here. Part of the explanation is historical. In Britain, we are still benefiting - just - from the 1980s' free-market reforms. Germany, on the other hand, is still paying the bills for reunification run up a decade ago. But it is increasingly clear that the eurozone's plight is being made worse by the single currency itself. Euro members do not set their own interest rates; instead, they must accept the one-size-fits-all policy of the European Central Bank. What is more, they must sign up to the infamous Stability and Growth Pact. For Germany, once the power-house of the continent, this has proved a disaster. Its interest rates are too high, it is saddled with an exchange rate that is too strong, and it cannot borrow to get itself out of trouble. Gerhard Schroeder, the German Chancellor, has broken his election promise not to raise taxes. Despite his efforts, revenues are still falling short and the second emergency budget in six months is being mooted. The political consequences of this crisis are starting to look pretty scary, and Mr Schroder's Social Democrat/Green coalition has seen its popularity slump. He must look across in envy at Britain with its own currency, floating exchange rate and independent central bank. Mr Blair has never claimed economics to be his strong suit. But even he must be able to get his head around the starkly differing performances of Britain and Germany. The first, and most important, of Mr Brown's five economic tests considers whether the British and euro-zone economies have converged. All the other tests - to do with flexibility, investment, the City and jobs - are essentially a variation on this. The tests have been failed, and Mr Blair, by all accounts, has accepted the Chancellor's judgment. The problem is not the tests; it is that the two men
have very different conceptions of what the euro is ultimately about.
Mr Brown believes it is primarily an economic issue, to be decided by
him. But Mr Blair thinks it is more about power. He believes that if he
could only squeeze us in somehow, sometime, Britain would be at the forefront
of Europe and he would go down in history as a saviour who healed the
wound with America. That is all very well, but he should realise that
joining the euro is no way to put such a vision into practice. More European
integration of any kind is not only strongly opposed by the electorate,
it is fraught with economic danger. PHILLIP DAY COMMENT: Although the Telegraph should be mildly applauded for starting to talk about the EU and the problems, none of these major papers are actually discussing the real issues, which are: 1) Who wants to join a monetary union run by fraudsters
and corrupt politicians who have not had the EU's accounts signed off
FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS because of fraud and mismanagement? Do not be put off by a) 'the euro is inevitable' or b) all the supposed high-brow economic chattering that is supposed to impress us that someone has actually done some original thinking about Britain joining the euro. If you are in any doubt about the dangers of Britain joining, go to Germany, France or Portugal and ask what the euro has done for them and their economy. They'll tell you… and you won't even need to speak the language to understand the price they've paid. RESOURCES: Available through www.credence.org Ritalin Debate: Some Experts Doubt Existence of ADHD A youth conference in the eastern city of Brisbane this week was told that no proof has been found that ADHD exists at all. U.S. psychologist Dr. Bob Jacobs told the Youth Affairs Network Queensland conference that doctors and pharmaceutical companies had turned behavioral problems in children into a disorder. He voiced concern that misdiagnoses resulted in youngsters being prescribed powerful drugs like Ritalin, which may affect their long-term mental and physical development. In a radio interview afterwards, Jacobs - who is on the advisory board of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology - said his conclusions had been made as a result of his own observations during many years in practice, working with children and families. He cited cases where parents reported that their ADHD-diagnosed children could not pay attention - but then those same children could play video games for hours without being distracted. Sometimes where parents made changes in the way they were doing things, the symptoms would go away. "A real disease doesn't go away when somebody else does something," he argued. Jacobs said experts had put labels on different behaviors and called them a disease. "There's no proof. Nobody has ever presented any evidence of a condition called ADHD, except to say all these children are hyperactive; all these children are inattentive, and therefore they all have the disease. It's the 'and therefore' that I'm concerned about." Jacobs acknowledged that many parents would disagree with him. Parents tend to believe what has become the mainstream view, in part because the drugs prescribed for ADHD do work in that they make the child more docile and more compliant. "The child's not getting into trouble at school any more. The child's easier to manage at home, so we say, well this is great, it works." Also, parents struggling with a behavior problem were made to feel better. Instead of feeling inadequate as parents, they felt they were now struggling with a sick child and doing the best they could. Money trail In the United States in 2001, pharmaceutical companies made more than $600 million in profits just on stimulant drugs used for attention deficit disorders. "If ADHD doesn't exist, those hundreds of millions of dollars in profits go away." "You have to follow the money," agreed Peyton Knight, legislative director at the American Policy Center, a Virginia-based think tank. "It's big money," he said by phone late Thursday. "The more diagnoses there are every year the more Ritalin and other mind-altering drugs they are going to be able to market and sell." Many would vehemently disagree with the arguments against the existence of ADHD, he said. "But it's never been validated as a disease," Knight said. "It's arbitrary." "The number of diagnoses has risen exponentially over the past decade. It's not like some epidemic is sweeping the nation like a flu virus. It's just a matter of diagnoses going up because of the popularity of diagnosing children with ADHD," he said. "In today's society, parents look for the easy way out. If their kids are unruly, we give them a pill and it sedates them. That becomes a very easy thing to do and if a doctor tells them to do this, they feel good about it." Knight said there was a fairly sizeable grassroots citizens' movement in the United States questioning these issues, and more parents and teachers were becoming aware of the problems. Unfortunately a similar movement had yet to take hold in the scientific community, although there were some bold specialists who disagreed with the wider-held views. One of them is neurologist Dr. Fred Baughman Jr., who in a 1998 letter to the then Attorney General Janet Reno, called the representation of ADHD as a disease and the drugging of millions of normal children "the single, biggest heathcare fraud in U.S. history." Massive increase in drug use According to Baughman, 500,000 children were diagnosed ADHD in 1985 and between 5 and 7 million were today. Substantial growth has also been reported in Australia, a country of just 19 million people, where it's estimated that at least 50,000 children are now on drugs prescribed for ADHD. A report in the Medical Journal of Australia last November said Australia and New Zealand have the third-highest rate in the world of the drug use, after the United States and Canada. Unlike the United States, where Ritalin (methylphenidate) is most often prescribed, in Australia dexamphetamine is more widely used. University of Queensland figures show that legal use of dexamphetamine in Australia has risen from 8.3 million tablets prescribed in 1984 to 38.4 million tablets in 2001. Over the same period Ritalin prescriptions rose from 1.5 million tablets to 19.3 million. The federal government early this year approved use in Australia of long-acting Ritalin-LA, which is said to be effective for longer than the usual four-hour period for standard Ritalin. Rosemary Boon, a child psychologist in Sydney for more than 20 years, acknowledged in a recent article that the drugs were effective in settling the child and this benefited teachers, parents and classmates. But there was little benefit to the afflicted child, she added. Boon does not argue that ADHD doesn't exist, but says it can be managed with the help of diet, exercise, behavior modification, stress management, identification of "triggers" of the symptoms, and a supportive family environment. Critics list among the problems with drugs like Ritalin the fact children on them tend not to grow as tall as they might otherwise. There are also concerns that a child's intelligence, creativity and spontaneity may be dampened. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists says medication should not be the first line of intervention for the vast majority of children. Alternatives should be looked into first. On its website, Novartis, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Ritalin, describes ADHD as "a physical disorder caused by differences in how the child's brain works." Novartis has an article in the April-May edition of its journal, Pathways, arguing for the existence of ADHD. It quotes Prof. Russell Barkley of the Medical University of South Carolina as saying that ADHD is not overdiagnosed in the United States. "We have more diagnosis now than before due
to better public awareness and greater referrals," he said. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: In my book, The Mind Game, we discuss the bogus nature of many psychiatric illnesses. ADHD is one of the leaders. Every working day, millions of children around the world are given mind-altering drugs because they have been told they have a behavioural problem only drugs can solve. For the full story of this pernicious drugging of our children for profit and control, not to mention our elderly, please obtain a copy of The Mind Game. We Can Change What Foods We Like and Don't Like by Sheryl McMillan Probably the two biggest factors that concern most of us when faced with the prospect of changing our diets are taste and quantity. We want our food to taste good to us and we want enough of it to avoid feeling hungry. Something that many people don't realise, however, is that our individual likes and dislikes for various foods can be changed radically. Some of us know we should alter our diets to something more healthy but many continue eating foods that range from less than healthy to downright dangerous and yet believe there is nothing wrong with such a diet. This is because much of what influences our perception of what constitutes a healthy diet is based on erroneous information. We are largely conditioned to believe certain food are good for us because we were told this as a child by our parents, schools etc., who were also perpetuating unsound nutritional advice. In addition we are bombarded by multi-million pound ad campaigns by everyone from the fast food chains to organisations that promote the various industries. One such slogan which I recall vividly growing up in the USA went "milk, it does a body good". Now, this statement is actually true, however, they forgot to mention whose body it "does good". If we're talking about the body of a baby cow then it is correct but if we're talking about a human it is not. Nonetheless we have grown up in an environment where these types of messages have become so pervasive as to appear to be fact. In summary we have become a society with eating habits driven by conditioning and heavy advertising and the result is often food choices that are unhealthy and yet many believe their diets are perfectly sound. We are chronically over-stimulated by processed foods with elevated salt and sugar content and as a result our perception of taste has become altered. Professor Bob Ritter and his colleague Mihai Covasa believe that a lot of us have become IMMUNE or insensitive to fat. Their experiments suggest that if all you eat is chips and fast food, which tend to be very high in fat, eventually your body's "I'm full" signals quit working properly. And eventually you become what you eat. You become… fat. http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/foods.html The good news is that our perception of what tastes good can be changed, it is not set in stone. We humans are extremely adaptable. Think about it logically, people in various parts of the world have wildly varying diets. We are not born liking this and hating that. I had a friend once who purported to hate rice of any kind. If he had been born in Vietnam do you think he would just starve? Of course not, he would instead have developed a perfectly normal appreciation for rice. His so-called hatred of rice was conditioned or was possibly not taste related at all but may have been an association with something else that triggered a negative emotion. There are a few factors that do influence our sense of taste and differ between individuals. We each are born with around 9000 taste buds and these sensors detect sweet, sour, salty and bitter. Some people are what scientists call 'supertasters' who have increased sensitivity to certain taste elements like bitterness or sweetness. Most of our ability to taste food, however, is actually due to our sense of smell. Changing our perception of foods and 'acquiring a taste' for new and more healthy alternatives to our current eating habits can be done simply by realising that it is possible. We must break our resistance to change and break out of our 'comfort zones' and simply start eating the foods that are more healthy and in this process we WILL begin to enjoy these foods and find ways to make dishes incorporating them that fit us individually. (For great recipe ideas see Phillip Day's book Food For Thought) I have found this to be true for myself with regard to sugar for example. Many years ago I had to have several sugars in my tea and drinking tea without sugar was not an option, it was horribly bitter. I began by reducing the sugar, little by little, until in a few weeks I was happily drinking the exact same tea with no sugar at all and it didn't taste bitter to me. Adaptability is the key and it is perfectly logical when you think about the diverse cultures all over the world and the varied diets and yet we (as humans) are all still basically the same creatures. Children can be a bit of a challenge to get to eat healthy because they are driven entirely by taste with no regard for the nutritional aspect. They are also heavily marketed to and led by peer pressure in many areas of their lives. Nonetheless the same process of change applies. Wendy Vukosa writes in an article on the food doctor website: "Many of the processed foods manufactured for children contain artificial colourings, preservatives, sweeteners and flavour enhances. Many of these have subclinical addictive properties. If the diet is high in sugar, salt and processed foods then taste sensation and taste perception is slightly altered due to the intense flavour reactions from these foods. When removing these foods from your child’s diet and steering them towards a more natural diet you may find that they go through a couple of weeks when they are very difficult and make high demands for their old processed favourites. This is like a withdrawal period, when subclinical addictions are worked through and taste buds and taste perception are restored to a normal setting. Once this has occurred your children should be more able to enjoy healthy natural foods and will of course be at less risk of becoming overweight or developing obesity or diabetes". http://www.thefooddoctor.com/displayarticle_HV.htm?ArticleID=150 One should also be aware that drugs can alter our perception of taste. Research has shown that someone taking several medications at the same time can need almost 12 times as much salt and three times as much sugar to get the same taste sensation as someone who is not taking several medications. http://www.assisted.com/seniorguide/tastebuds.htm Once we are aware of these concepts we can eliminate barriers to changing to more healthy diets. Not everyone perceives taste the same but we can all change our individual perceptions over time once we realise we are eating out of habit or erroneous conditioning. So no more excuses! Get out of the 'comfort food' cycle and reap the benefits. For more information on this subject see; Health Wars and Food For Thought by Phillip Day Comparing Sensory Experiences Across Individuals: Recent Psychophysical Advances Illuminate Genetic Variation in Taste Perception, LindaM. Bartoshuk, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine Some News Anchors Paid by Drug Companies Some broadcast journalists, including Aaron Brown of
CNN and Walter Cronkite, are hired to host videos that resemble news programs
but are actually paid for by drug manufacturers and other health care
companies. The journalists are paid to provide an introduction
to the programs, which feature health care companies and products. Along these lines, some drug marketing companies hire
local television and radio journalists to appear in video Webcasts that
can be viewed through the Web sites of many large newspapers, such as
The Los Angeles Times and The Miami Herald. In the Webcasts, which are paid for by drug companies,
the journalists interview doctors and patients about their products and
viewers often have the option of clicking on links to go to the supporting
drug company's Web site or choosing to be sent additional information
about the drug. Federal drug regulations prohibit drug companies from
advertising experimental drugs or promoting drugs for certain illnesses
that have not been approved for such treatments. According to government
officials, the programs might violate such regulations. According to the programs' makers, the videos are educational
rather than promotional, and the drug companies do not control the content
of the programs. DR MERCOLA'S COMMENT: The first step to finding the truth about any matter, whether it is health-related or otherwise, is to realize that everything you read or hear may not be true. It is up to you to "do your homework" and make sure that the information you are hearing is from a reliable, independent source. As you all know, the drug industry is one of the largest and most powerful industries on the planet. They will use everything in their power to maintain and expand their control and economic prominence; this includes continuing to deceive you by creating the illusion of "fixing" your health so they can extract even more of your money. Don't be fooled by their illusions: what they typically
provide you with is just a symptomatic Band-Aid that will only further
accelerate your path toward degeneration, allowing them to sell you even
more Band-Aids down the line. What you should be addressing - and what
they won't address because it is not profitable - are the underlying causes
of your health issues. Fish Oil in Pregnancy Treats Depression Risks Eating omega-3 fatty acids found in seafood such as tuna, herring, salmon and sardines might stave off depression in pregnant women, both before and after childbirth. The federal government has issued warnings to pregnant women about eating fish due to their potentially harmful levels of mercury, but government recommendations still allow eating up to 12 ounces a week of a variety of species. In the study, researchers analysed 11,721 British women. They found that women who consumed greater amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in seafood during the third trimester were less likely to show signs of major depression during pregnancy and for up to eight months after the birth. Women with the highest intakes of omega-3, who consumed fish two or three times a week, were half as likely to suffer from depression as women with the lowest intakes. According to researchers, the 12-ounce-a-week government recommendation would allow for two servings of fish per week. Salmon, catfish and scallops reportedly have very little mercury and fish-oil supplements are supposed to be mercury free. About 10 percent of pregnant women--13 percent to 15 percent among new mothers--develop depression severe enough to interfere with their functioning. Although studies looking at the risk of antidepressant drugs in pregnant and nursing women have showed low risk, there have been few studies about long-term effects. The current research shows a strong correlation between low levels of omega-3 fatty acids and symptoms of depression, researchers said. However, further studies are needed to prove that boosting levels of fatty acids will fight depression. Government warnings have urged pregnant women to avoid
eating shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish because they can contain
high levels of mercury, which can damage the nervous system of the foetus.
Additionally, fish may also pose other contamination risks. Researchers
suggested that women follow local recommendations in regard to eating
fish. DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: First and foremost, especially with pregnant women as the above study suggests, the use of omega-3 oils is an absolute must. It is also clear that omega-3 fat supplementation and restriction of omega-6 fats will profoundly improve the brain function. Dr. Stoll, director of the psychopharmacology research lab at Boston's McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, discusses this extensively in his book The Omega-3 Connection. He also reviews the new evidence supporting the use of omega-3 oils for depression. However, as the FDA and EPA both strongly state, pregnant women should avoid fish as most are contaminated with mercury that can cause neurodevelopmental delays in about 10 percent of children. When choosing your fish oil or cod liver oil, it is important to remember that not all brands are the same. In my research - and in my clinical experience with my patients - I have found that: 1) the liquid form is superior to capsules So what is the difference between fish oil and cod liver oil? In short, fish oil should be consumed in warm weather months and warm climates, while cod liver oil should be consumed in cool weather months and cool climates. Cod liver oil is high in vitamin D (and vitamin A); those in cool weather climates do not generally get enough vitamin D. However, in warm weather, their vitamin D is usually sufficient, as sunshine is one of the primary methods of obtaining this vitamin; if you consume too much vitamin D in these warm weather months, you do risk overdosing. A reasonable dose for both fish oil and cod liver oil is one teaspoon for every 50 pounds of body weight daily. Rather than using antidepressants to treat depression, it sure seems to make a lot more sense to use the simple therapies recommended above, which are far more effective and virtually non-toxic. However, antidepressants are the top-selling therapeutic drug class, with $12.5 billion in retail sales annually, so it is easy to see why many people use a drug-based solution to address depression. RESOURCES: Available through www.credence.org Mental Cure Lambasted Mental health groups are outraged at claims by a British nutritionist that schizophrenia can be cured. TV presenter and author Patrick Holford, who is visiting Melbourne next week, claims the psychotic disorder affecting 45,000 Victorians can be cured in most people by simple changes to diet. The Mental Illness Fellowship warned the "misguided and irresponsible" advice could convince people with schizophrenia to stop taking medication, with disastrous results. "Because it's a rotten illness, people of course want simple answers and some are likely to try this solution and go without medication," chief executive Liz Crowther said. "People (can then) become very, very unwell." Ms Crowther said Mr Holford's theory centred on the belief that intolerances to some foods caused schizophrenia, and by adding and deleting some foods from the diet, the illness could be cured. The organizer of Mr Hilford's seminar in Melbourne next week, Catherine Walker, said critics should listen to his ideas before judging him. Mr Holford, founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition
in Britain, could not be contacted yesterday.
The Great Australian Supplements Round-up April 29th, 2003 was a cool autumn day in Australia. To the average Aussie it seemed a day like any other. Most tuned into the 6 o'clock news, aware that history was being made in other countries with SARS and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But few were aware that something of historical importance was unfolding in the "Lucky Country". To seasoned observers who saw it coming it was nothing
short of breathtaking when the near mortal blow to health freedom was
finally struck, and for a while, dissenting voices were stunned into silence.
Many pundits expected other countries to be the more likely targets but
like any interesting social experiment, there was an elegant logic behind
the choice. Australians were historically spared the great upheavals of
the twentieth century. They seemed more trusting, less suspicious of political
and corporate agendas than their counterparts in the northern hemisphere
or in Europe, where entire populations still recall the spin-doctoring
of totalitarian governments under the guise of this or that benefit for
the public good. Jim Selim, the founder and CEO of Pan, is an Egyptian-born pharmacist who, by all accounts, has a passionate belief in natural products and expert knowledge of herbs and supplements. Selim had single-handedly built up his company and, within 20 years, was the largest supplier of complementary health products in Australia. His astonishing success catapulted him onto the world stage as the fourth largest manufacturer of natural health products. Along with this distinction came some unwanted attention from the multi-national pharmaceutical industry, which had been lobbying against natural health supplements and products because of the significant erosion they made into drug company profits. Studies show that 60% of consumers have spent some of their health dollars on supplements and natural remedies. Many use natural products to maintain good health or facilitate recovery from various conditions after orthodox medicine has failed, as it often does in the case of chronic illness. Doctors trained in nutritional medicine, as well as qualified naturopaths, use supplements therapeutically as an adjunct to orthodox treatments or as holistic treatments. The science behind natural medicine has been widely denied by orthodox medicine and is largely kept out of the medical student's curricula. However, nutrients have been used and studied for thousands of years and there is a large body of valid scientific evidence that shows therapeutic nutrients are highly effective in treating a wide range of conditions. Most health consumers take supplements because they perceive a health benefit and are not even aware that there is solid science behind nutritional therapies. This research is little mentioned in the media, which nearly always portrays nutritional therapies as being solely practiced by unqualified quacks. Media disinformation is issued directly from pharmaceutical
company public relations departments on a daily basis through journalists
and industry-sponsored doctors embedded in the media and other key positions.
(8) This has been occurring for over 40 years and is well documented in
the chemical industry archives, documents released through litigation.
(7) The regulator cited serious concerns as to the quality,
safety or effectiveness of these natural remedies. Class 1 recalls are
only issued when it has been shown that the product is likely to cause
serious, irreversible health damage or death. By its extreme action of
issuing a class 1 recall, the TGA indicated to the general public that
the calcium tablet or vitamin C or Echinacea or chamomile or any other
of the 1369 natural products they had been taking without any problems,
are now expected to cause death or irreversible health damage. Many consumers
questioned this logic when they had experienced no adverse health effects
from the supplements they had already taken. Those whose suspicions were
aroused were even more surprised that the TGA had not given specific information
about the nature of the problem with the products. Then Mayne Health,
a large healthcare company whom Pan supplied with products, stated that
their company had regularly conducted their own rigorous testing of Pan's
products and had not found any cause for concern. The TGA offered no explanation
as to why an independent distributor of Pan's products could find no problem
on testing when the regulator claimed there was a life-threatening problem.
The interim week saw a run on 5000 health food stores
which reported an influx of panicked customers demanding refunds for all
manner of products, even those they'd fully consumed, and those that were
out of date. Some demanded money for taxi fares. The TGA remained tight-lipped
about the offending substance that had allegedly rendered all these supplements
life threatening overnight. Instead, the regulator issued numerous public
announcements stating that; "drugs and pharmaceuticals are perfectly
safe and persons should keep on taking them". The NSW State Premier
chimed in with his own message to that effect. Even more incredibly, no large multi-national company
has ever been shut down by a government regulator after one of its products
has been recalled, even if deaths have occurred as a result of using the
drug or chemical. This discovery was guaranteed to make any independent
journalist even more curious about the TGA's action over Pan. Any parent would consider it a tragedy to watch their
child suffer from the disease of addiction, let alone have it published
in the newspapers. The journalists Mercer and Stevenson used a psychologist's
report to speculate on Jim Selim's shortcomings as a parent. Hardly a
need-to-know issue for the Australian public, who had still not been informed
of the results of the regulator's testing of the 1369 urgently recalled
Pan products. Not surprisingly, Jim Selim voluntarily resigned as CEO
from his own company, amidst one of the most vicious tabloid vilification
campaigns in the history of the Australian press. Embedded industry-sponsored TV journalists worked feverishly
behind the scenes to spin horror exposés about herbs and vitamins
that were screened within a week of the breaking news. And still no one
had suffered any adverse effects from having taken vitamins. Embedded
'experts' emerged from the closet with their editorials, published under
the guise of objective articles. Still the TGA remained silent about the
exact reason why the natural products were classed as being capable of
causing death. Pundits assumed TGA was checking all recalled products,
just as they had checked Travacalm, and would make public the exact nature
of the problem. Among the mystery and intrigue surrounding this historical
event, one thing appears to be certain. Had any test shown a lethal toxicity
supporting a class 1 recall, the TGA would have told us by now. Part 2 TGA"Protecting the Health and Safety of All
Australians" Like its US FDA counterpart, the Australian TGA states
that it "is obligated to take action where there is concern in
relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of medicines."
The regulator also oversees the safety of food and chemical products as
well as consumer items and medicines. The TGA states its role is to "…protect
the health and safety of all Australians." However, an audit
of the regulator's performance reveals an astonishing picture. The director replied to her complaint, claiming that all chemicals are rigorously tested and regulated by Australian government departments. He maintained that her claim that this chemical product had caused serious illness was a result of "a strong interaction with personal belief factors". By this, he dismissed her complaint, alleging that she was imagining the (medically diagnosed) serious effects the chemical exposure had on herself and her child. The woman wrote back enquiring as to what kind of testing is done by the regulators on toxic chemicals that are manufactured by large multi-national companies, that stream directly onto the Australian market. She received no reply. She later found out that no independent testing of any kind is done on these products before they reach the consumer. Meanwhile she encountered others who'd had similar experiences with the same chemical and other toxic consumer products. She discovered that they too had written letters of complaint to the TGA, and they had received the same response. She joined a support group for chemically injured persons, and became the group's newsletter editor. Soon she was inundated with letters from persons who related the identical or similar responses from the TGA after they had lodged complaints to the regulator about harmful effects from toxic chemicals in consumer products. Intrigued, she investigated these allegations and found that the TGA had dismissed all of them. None of these dozens (and possibly thousands) of complaints alleging serious and sometimes life threatening effects on consumers by various chemical products were ever investigated by the TGA. The multi-national chemical manufacturers were never
held accountable and the TGA never co-operated with calls to start an
adverse events register for chemical products despite years of lobbying
by individuals, advocates and support groups. Since 1998, statistics indicated some serious adverse
effects were occurring among patients taking the drug. Complaints were
flowing in to Health Canada, to the UK regulator and to the manufacturer,
GlaxoSmithKline. The company had received 1127 adverse reports about the
drug from Canada alone between May 1998 and 28th May 2001. This included
19 deaths. Meanwhile the Medicines Control Agency, UK's version of the
FDA/TGA, reported 3,457 adverse reaction reports to the drug, including
18 deaths. Since then there have been 7,500 adverse reactions and 58 deaths
in the UK up to April 2002. The 'research', however, was far from ethical, as it
was commissioned and paid for by the drug's manufacturer. (3,4) Shortly
after the pharmaceutical giant lodged its drug application to the TGA
in Canberra, the regulator commenced its stringent "pre-market evaluation"
of bupropion, now known as Zyban. The registration process involved an
in-depth assessment of the drug, its efficacy, and safety. The regulator
was required to review the adverse effects, including convulsions and
death associated with the drug's use overseas, figures that were by then
readily available. While the TGA was still busy "protecting the health
and safety of all Australians" with its rigorous safety assessment
of the drug, the global death toll continued to escalate. By mid-2002,
the manufacturer had already received reports of 245 deaths associated
with the use of this drug. (5) Part 3 WHO owns the TGA? Canada has recently harmonised with Codex, with its
regulator withdrawing nearly half of the stocks in health food stores
overnight. Possession of one popular supplement, DHEA, in Canada now attracts
the same penalties as crack cocaine. The Canadian regulator is empowered
to classify any substance as a drug and it makes no difference if that
substance is a food that has been consumed for thousands of years and
is perfectly safe. That product can be recalled or removed from the market.
Once patented, useful herbs will then be banned and
removed from the public domain, even for garden use. There has already
been a federal police raid carried out on a couple in northern New South
Wales who planted a Chinese herb in their garden to use as tea. (10) About Eve Hillary My Victory Over Liver Cancer Dear Phillip, I found a lump in my left breast in June 1997. I saw my GP who referred me to a consultant. He said that, as the lump was on the left side of my breast, I could have a mastectomy or lumpectomy and removal of 14 lymph glands. I opted for the lumpectomy and had the operation in July 1997. One of the lymph glands was affected but I was assured there was nothing to be worried about as "one was the same as none". I gather that is still the case, but the tumour had been looked at and found to be very aggressive, so had spread before the operation. I had 5 weeks' radiation treatment all through September 1997 and was taking Tamoxifen, which the surgeon prescribed on the first appointment. I was checked regularly at the breast clinic and had my "5-year check-up" last 15th April 2002. We all agreed it was wonderful that I had made the five-years' survival mark and we all congratulated each other! I was told I could come off the Arimidex, which I had taken for the last year as the side-effects of Tamoxifen had been very unpleasant, and was told I would be expected to return for a mammogram in two years. After 3 1/2 weeks I noticed a pain in my stomach when I bent over to tie my shoe laces and also some discomfort. I saw my GP on 9th May who said it was probably the Voltarol I was taking for the arthritis in my feet, so I stopped taking the Voltarol. After 3 weeks the feet were agony and the stomach pain rather worse and I was beginning to feel generally unwell. I saw my GP on 30th May and had a blood test on the 5th June. I saw my GP again on the 18th June, as I had been busy organizing our ruby wedding lunch on the 15th June in spite of feeling very unwell. He said the blood test indicated there might be something wrong with my gall bladder and added as an afterthought, or your liver. Afterwards he said he was sure it was my gall bladder and so was I, as I had noticed for some time that my stools were very pale and I was feeling nauseous. As I was now very unwell and had lost well over a stone in weight, without meaning to(!), the GP advised an ultrasound scan. I had the scan on 27th June and was advised to see my GP as soon as possible. I saw him the next morning and he had a hand-written note which said "multiple metastases" in the liver. We were all taken by surprise and rather shattered. The cancer had spread! He immediately arranged on the phone that I should see an oncologist on 11th July. The oncologist was very good and explained that it was not possible to operate or radiate, so the only option was a very powerful concoction of chemotherapy. He explained it would take 4 ½ - 6 months for the treatment and there was a 60 % chance it would work and would probably give me 18 months to live. He said if I did not have the treatment I would be lucky to live for 6 months. I agreed to have the chemo. He put me on 10 mg Prostigmine BD. I knew I did not want to have chemo but would rather have the 6 months, and I wanted to be in control of what happened to me. I talked it all over with my husband and children and they were wonderful and said they would support me whatever I decided to do. So I rang the oncology department and said I would not be coming for treatment, and they were very nice about it. As soon as my family and friends heard I was really ill, I was inundated with "do's" and "don'ts" and "must's and "must nots". I put them all in a pile as each one seemed worse than the last. One was a treatment which said one must have 5 litres of water a day! Among the pile was your book, "Cancer, Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth"!!! I did look at it but only dipped into it and it seemed to me you were running down all the doctors and the whole pharmaceutical industry. After a couple of weeks I had a look through the pile and found the "blurb" about cancer and the diet, which our daughter-in-law's parents sent me. They had a South African friend staying when they heard about me and when he heard I had terminal cancer said they must send me all the information about Vitamin B17. Well, I read about it and it seemed to me to make a lot of sense and I managed to track down the kernels. I also read your book!! I started on page 1 and read it right the way through and it all made sense to me. (I now call it my "Bible"!!). I wasn't sure what to do so I started with a few kernels and worked up until I was taking 60 a day which gave me a very sore stomach, so I reduced it to 40. I began taking them the first week in August, and I put myself on a more or less vegetarian diet as well. I gradually began to feel better and later went to see the GP as I was feeling so well. He was delighted and asked if I would have a blood test to see what was happening. Of course I said yes and had the test on 6th September. I got the result back on Friday 13th! And it was very good. Everything had improved but the liver function had improved considerably which was odd as I was 9 weeks into my 6 months, so I should have been worse and not better. We were all thrilled and I really was feeling better. The GP said whatever I was doing, it was working. Because of this, it made me think that if I could improve by just eating kernels and going vegetarian, what would happen if I went to the Oasis of Hope clinic of Dr Francisco Contreras for his three-week treatment? We talked about it and I didn't want to go before hearing from someone who had been there and, I think thanks to you, I was put in touch with Ann Ryecroft who sang its praises and encouraged me to go. I and my husband John went to Oasis in Mexico from 3rd -24th October 2002. It was the most amazing experience and everyone was wonderful. When I left I brought enough oral and liquid laetrile (Vitamin B17) to last me until the end of May. It is very reassuring to hear we can get it in this country (at least for now!). Since returning from Oasis I have had wonderful support from my GP and all at the surgery, supplying me with syringes and dressings etc.. I was very worried on New Year's Day when I did the flush on my Hickman Line. It was obvious that there was a leak somewhere inside me, I saw the GP who referred me to the hospital where I had the surgery and saw the oncologist. The GP said I might meet opposition as I'd had it put in in Mexico. To the contrary - they were wonderful and very supportive and tried their best to operate that day but the list was too full. I had a new one put in on 15th January 15th 2003 and it has been fine ever since. I give myself 20cc Laetrile (Kemdalin) on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and I take 500mg Kemdalin tablets on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday and rest on Sundays. I also take Arimidex each day and Voltarol as prescribed by Oasis and I take Maximol Solutions, Cascading Revenol and Revenol, Vitamin C tablets, garlic tablets and glucosomine tablets!! I eat mostly fruit and veg but some chicken and fish as much as possible organic. I have also invested in all safe household cleaners, soaps, etc., and personal soap, toothpaste, etc. I had an ultrasound scan on 22nd January and to everyone's amazement all the tumours had gone! I had never seen the result of the first scan but I did see it that day and it was plastered with lots of big, black shadows and looked really sinister. The doctor doing the follow-up scan couldn't believe they had all gone. I was thrilled, needless to say. I went to see the oncologist on 4th February which was a month after the deadline he had given me to live! He was delighted to see me looking so well, but unfortunately he had not seen the scan as it had been at another hospital. (My problem is that I live on Dartmoor and had the first scan at Torbay hospital, the surgery at Derriford in Plymouth and the radiation at Wonford Hospital, Exeter and the second scan at Newton Abbott Hospital!!) He had a meeting with both doctors who took the scans and then wrote to the GP. "The scans have confirmed a quite marked improvement in her liver metastases although there is still some residual disease remaining. Clearly this is an impressive result." The underlining was his! That completes a rather long account of my experiences and I would like to put in a good word for the poor old National Health Service. I cannot fault them at all. I have had wonderful care and treatment from everyone right from the very beginning, and have been very fortunate since I went alternative in the support and encouragement I have had from the GP and all the surgery and from the oncologist and all his staff. He was very interested in what I was doing and made notes about the kernels and where to get them as well as all about the treatment at Oasis. He has since referred one of his patients to me as she was quite keen to be alternative as well as having chemo. Best wishes Mary M, PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Mary's story is an inspiration and a great example of a cancer patient taking the reins and steering their own ship, with some help from their cancer specialists. It's a partnership, and Mary was fortunate that her doctors were so understanding and helpful. When my book Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth came out in 1999, it was hammered up hill and down dale by the medical fraternity for being 'quackery' and 'extreme'. Yet all it points out is the failure of modern oncology to beat the major epithelial cancers with poisons and radiation, and nutrition's prime role in giving the body the raw materials it needs to fix itself. Testimonies such as this have been flooding in since the launch of my book four years ago. If you are reading this and you have cancer, don't despair! Find out the facts, just as Mary did, and then act on them, and then we'll see what nature is going to do for you. Perhaps your story too will have an inspirational and happy ending. Resources:
Herbal Ban to be Tested in High Court The actress Jenny Seagrove and an association representing 426 health food shops have mounted a High Court test-case to challenge one of the more bizarre riddles of our time: why are our regulatory agencies so fanatical in their wish to outlaw harmless herbal remedies and vitamin supplements safely used by millions of people, when they seem happy to allow the continued sale of licensed drugs made by pharmaceutical companies which kill thousands of people every year? Miss Seagrove and the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) have applied for a judicial review of the statutory order which since January 13 has made it an offence to import or sell kava-kava, taken from a Polynesian shrub used for thousands of years to make a soothing drink similar to tea. Miss Seagrove is part of the action because she believes the Medicines Control Agency and the Food Standards Agency had no legal right to forbid her to use a herb which helps her to relax and sleep. The case prepared by Rhodri Thompson QC, of Matrix chambers, argues that both the decision to impose the ban and the way it was reached by the MCA and FSA make a complete mockery of the law. Its essence is that, under European Union and human rights law, the agencies can only override people's rights to trade in a substance like kava-kava if they can demonstrate clear public health reasons for such a ban. He argues that they have not only signally failed to make such a case, but seem wholly to have ignored their legal obligation to consider evidence given them during the statutory consultation process. The case for a ban on health grounds appears so flimsy as to be a parody of science. Although kava-kava is regularly drunk by millions of people all over the world, the officials can only come up with 70 "possible" or "probable" cases of supposed adverse reaction associated with its use, four of which are claimed to have been fatal (none in the UK). Of these, one was an 86-year-old American who died in his sleep after drinking a cocktail of herbs, only one of which was kava-kava. It turned out that he was a diabetic with severe heart problems and under heavy medication. The three other claimed "fatalities" are similarly dubious. On these grounds, the MCA claims its ban will prevent "one UK-based death per annum" (so far there have been none), which it claims will save "£1.4 million" a year, with further unquantified savings for the National Health Service on the treatment of liver complaints - for which it offers not a shred of hard evidence. What carries such claims into the stratosphere of absurdity, however, is that the officials who are prepared to ban this harmless herb are happy to allow the continued sale of a whole range of pharmaceutical products, licensed by the MCA itself as safe to use, from which thousands die, while hundreds of thousands more report adverse reactions. Non-prescription pain-killers alone kill 2,000 people a year, 83 of them patients waiting for hip operations. Adverse reaction rates recorded for many licensed drugs are far higher than those claimed for kava-kava without their being banned, quite apart from the continued sale of other potentially toxic products - such as peanuts, which cause around six deaths a year, alcohol and tobacco. The FSA and the MCA (which is funded by the pharmaceutical
companies through license fees) will no doubt defend their case in the
High Court with all the lavish resources at their command. But the only
official response so far received by Ralph Pike, the ex-policeman who
runs the NAHS, has been a letter from the MCA pointing out that it has
now changed its name to the "Medicines and Herbals Regulatory
Agency". RESOURCES: Available through www.credence.org New Zealanders Face 'Disturbing Rate' of Medical Errors
Results indicated that one in four New Zealanders who
suffered with serious health problems were victims of medical error. Those who had been to five or more physicians, about
one-third of the group, had the most problems. Conflicting advice from
physicians was one of the most common problems among this group. Other patients reported having to take duplicate tests
and poor coordination of care. Additionally, some patients who were taking
several different prescription drugs said that their treatments had not
been reviewed by their physicians recently. According to the study, one of the biggest problems
identified is when people are seeing multiple physicians for different
health problems. The other countries in the study had similar rates of
medical error. COMMENT BY HEALTH RESEARCHER NICK REGUSH: Medical
error in this story, as is typical, refers to such things as: duplicate
tests, unnecessary drug prescription, poor coordination of care, and receiving
conflicting advice from several doctors. The study referred to in this
story was conducted by the Harvard School of Medicine on behalf of the
Commonwealth Fund and surveyed 750 patients. However, medical error likely occurs more often than
the usual studies reveal because the research is far too narrow and does
not take into account the day-to-day gaps in care that occur in various
medical settings, particularly in hospitals. I'm referring here, for example, to lack of proper
diagnosis and monitoring of very ill patients on an ongoing basis because
of inadequate nursing staff or the unavailability of doctors who play
a game of "laissez-faire" with their patients. Among the omissions: patients end up with lung problems
because they were not given chest X-rays in a timely fashion. What do
we call that? I call that a medical error. My point is that if thorough research zeroed in on
gaps in care, the rate of medical error would not only be "disturbing"
as the Harvard study suggests, but rather the research would reveal huge
holes in conventional medicine that lead to widespread chronic illness
and needless deaths. The current conventional medical system hides behind simplistic and narrow studies of medical errors. The word "nightmare" would probably loom large if appropriate studies of gaps in care were ever conducted. Study Deals Another Blow to Hormone Therapy
"It's another nail in the coffin" for the use of hormones during and after menopause, said St. Louis gynecologist Dr. Robert Blaskiewicz, a Saint Louis University professor. The study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association. The findings in women 65 and older challenge the long-held notion that estrogen-progestin supplements can help women keep their minds sharp - a belief that was based on smaller, less rigorous studies. Last summer, a government study was abruptly halted after finding an increased risk of breast cancer, heart attacks and strokes in women who took one type of combined hormone pill. That finding shattered the conventional thinking about the health benefits of hormones and prompted millions of American women to stop taking supplements. Some experts say that based on what is now known about hormone supplements, women past menopause should not take hormones at all. Other experts say that women needing relief from night sweats and other menopausal symptoms should take the lowest possible dose for the shortest time. The new findings on dementia come from a subset of participants in last summer's study. Despite those earlier findings, many women have continued using supplements to relieve menopausal symptoms and in hopes of preventing memory loss and other mental decline, said Sally Shumaker, a public health professor at Wake Forest University who led the latest research. Women in the study who took hormones for an average of more than four years faced double the risk of developing Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia, compared with those on dummy pills. That means that in one year, for every 10,000 women taking hormones, there will be 23 more cases of dementia. Researchers also found that hormones did not protect against less severe mental decline, such as mild memory loss. One possible explanation for the confounding new findings is that hormones raise the risk of strokes - and strokes are known to cause brain damage and contribute to dementia, the researchers said. Will women change their minds? Nevertheless, the increased risk of dementia is very small, said Marilyn Albert, head of the Alzheimer's Association's scientific advisory council and a Johns Hopkins University neurology professor. Age remains the single greatest risk factor for dementia, and the study suggests that a 65-year woman on estrogen-progestin pills "would have the increased risk profile of a 70-year-old woman not taking hormone replacement therapy," Albert said. Dr. Judith Salerno, deputy director of the National Institute on Aging, said the results indicate older postmenopausal women should not use estrogen-progestin supplements in hopes of keeping their minds sharp. "There is no benefit, and possible harm, for older women taking this therapy," she said. Cindy Yeast, a 50-year-old Washington-area publicist, called the findings disappointing. She started taking supplements two years ago - partly to stave off mild dementia that affects her elderly parents. Still, she said she is not sure the new findings will change her mind. "Every time a new study comes out, you can't just react," Yeast said. "You have to weigh what is this doing for me now." The results come from the Women's Health Initiative Memory Study, which involved 4,532 women who used Prempro estrogen-progestin pills for an average of more than four years. It was funded in part by Prempro maker Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Probable dementia was diagnosed in 61 women - 40 in the hormone group and 21 taking placebo pills. The notion that hormone supplements are good for the mind has been around for at least a decade. Doctors have speculated that estrogen protects against cell damage and improves blood flow. Wyeth estimates that 1.2 million women are still taking Prempro pills, down from about 3.4 million before the study was halted last summer. Other types of hormone supplements include patches and creams. Wyeth's Dr. Victoria Kusiak said it is unclear whether the disappointing results would apply to younger patients. Still, she said she agrees with those doctors who say that hormones should be used only to treat menopause symptoms such as night sweats and hot flashes "for the shortest duration and the lowest dose." An arm of the Women's Health Initiative study involving
estrogen-only supplements in women who have had a hysterectomy is continuing.
Estrogen alone is not recommended for women with intact wombs because
it increases the risk of uterine cancer. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: The last thing women who have menopausal or hormonal problems need is a) more estrogen and b) synthetic estrogens and progestins at that! No doubt drug giant Wyeth has made billions out of other people's misery - par for the course in the drug industry - without ever advising women what they can do NATURALLY (what a word) to sort any problems like this out. Personally, I think these drug giants should face the full weight of the law, class action suits at the very least, as a result of their pernicious concealment and withholding of vital information from the public. We've known for years that certain of their products can cause or will drastically increase the risk of cancer. RESOURCES: Available from www.credence.org Mailbag "I was a graduate nurse who wanted to work in Oncology and Hematology. During my first rotation which was a placement in mental health, I had the pleasure of meeting a person who quickly shoved an audio tape into my hands and said, "You're the only one I know on the staff who would believe this", then ran off. I listened to the tape and found it interesting, considering my next placement was Oncology and Hematology. My goal was to become an oncology nurse, (not yet knowing what to expect), and help people get better. What a shock I was in for. It got to the point where I was almost reported to the Nurses Board. Apparently making people laugh was unprofessional. Having witnessed the devastation of cancer first-hand, I decided to go to a presentation by a supporter of Philip Day's methods. When I informed my colleagues of the presentation,
I was met with replies of "Oh, that crap" and other such
comments. It was even reported to the charge nurse who forbade me from
speaking about any such treatments of quackery to the patients. It was
a doctor who approached me and pulled me aside to say, "Get out
of oncology and let as many people know as you can [about B17, diet, etc.].
I don't have a choice if I want to pass, but you do. Keep those rosy coloured
glasses of yours, it will get you into more trouble, but I think you can
do it." Since then I have given away books and tapes, letting
people do their own research." - Carol, Australia "We desperately need to unify or consolidate the many disparate anti-EU entities. I am regularly contacted by at least 5 others." - Alan H, London, UK "I am happy with a trade agreement ala Norway and Switzerland [not members of the EU] which I thought the Common Market was about. I agree with the thrust of your web-site that much undesirable and unwanted legislation and un-elected political moves come via the EU and I would prefer to see us leave and develop our other links worldwide." - Dr Alan W, Edinburgh, UK "Let us determine our destiny with Europe by referendum, and keep an independent, sovereign nation under God as our history and common sense confirm." - Christopher B, Suffolk, UK "You are so right that the majority of citizens do not appreciate that we have been sold out by a government we trusted to look after OUR interests, not their own. I think corruption must be the criterion (prerequisite) for being a member of Parliament. No wonder the EU struggles to maintain accounts. Truth is not a category on the agenda. I am sickened and disgusted by this revelation, it is just NOT BRITISH, more fool me for expecting honesty. Thank you for bringing these sad facts to my attention." - Mrs Beryl L, S Yorkshire, UK "Like so many I am appalled at the interference of unelected foreigners at national and everyday level who are allowed to determine our laws, erode our freedom and seek only to benefit themselves, whilst our Government is a mealy-mouthed machine of apologists for all things non-British. The sooner we become shot of our traditional enemies in Europe, rescind the Charter for Human Rights and once more look to real partners who stick with us in good times and bad, like the US, Australia and New Zealand, the better it will be for the British. Rule Britannia, not ruled by Brussels." - Chris F, Bedfordshire, UK "Phillip, I knew a man diagnosed with prostate cancer and his doctors were going to inject him with female hormones to treat the cancer. I asked him to read your book and he declined. I pleaded with him and he did. Months later he rang me to thank me as he read the book, applied your advice and it saved his life. The thanks should go to you. Keep up the good work!" - Henry, Australia.
Apricots Cured Me of Cancer A Newtown, Australia man claims eating kilos of apricot kernels cured him of prostate cancer. Ron Rankin has eaten 60 seeds a day since being diagnosed with the condition 12 months ago. He was given only four or five years to live, but with a radical change of diet is now almost cancer-free. "The doctor told me that the cancer was particularly aggressive and I was given four or five years to live," Ron said. "I shed a lot of tears and contemplated committing suicide because I was going to miss out on this stuff and my daughter getting married." Initially, the 61-year-old was given tablets to shrink the cancer and then injections and while on holiday in Noosa, Queensland, he came to terms with his impending death and decided to make the most of the time left. But after splurging on a brand new Subaru WRX, he discovered a diet which he credits with saving his life. A friend put him in contact with another man in Melbourne who had overcome prostate cancer by eating a diet high in B17, found in apricot kernels. "When he told me 'I have found the cure', I did not have any hesitation," Ron said. He gave up virtually all meat and alcohol and reverted to a diet high in vitamins, including apricot kernels. The kernels were discovered by Dr Ernst Krebs in the 1950s to contain the vitamin B17. Dr Krebs found B17, which contains cyanide, attacked the cancer cells when chewed or crushed. Because of the bitter taste, Ron initially found himself gagging as he tried to chew 60 seeds a day. He now grinds up the apricot kernels, which he buys in from South Australia, and swallows them in gel caps. Ron said this was coupled with pineapple which helped soften the walls of the cancer cells. He has lost almost 16 kg and feels back to normal. "I have not been sick in any way for a year, no colds, no coughs - it is wonderful," he said. His prostate specific antigen reading, which indicates cancer, has dropped from 95 to 2.8 and he expects to get the all clear at his next doctor's visit. Investigations by the American Cancer Society have
found no scientific evidence B17 shrinks tumours or increases cancer survival
rates. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Well done, Ron. Now what are the rest with cancer going to do? If you are reading this and you have cancer, and you do not know about the value of adopting an anti-cancer diet and taking various supplementary foods, vitamins and minerals, please get educated on this vital issue today.
RESOURCES: Vaccinations, Not Virus, Responsible for Spanish Flu The following is an interesting commentary about an article on the 1918-1920 pandemic, which the propaganda says was caused by Spanish flu (Irish Examiner, May 1). It took a British science team to identify the first virus in man in 1933, yet propaganda says that the virus of Spanish flu killed millions of civilians and soldiers during the pandemic from 1918 to 1920. Many would have us believe that all those American soldiers who died from non-combatant causes died from Spanish flu. However, U.S. Army records show that seven men died after being vaccinated. Further, according to a report from U.S. Secretary of War Henry L Stimson, the deaths were not only verified but also there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis reported as a direct result of yellow fever vaccination during only six months of the war. Plus, the yellow fever vaccination was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given to recruits. After vaccination became a requirement in the U.S. Army in 1911, cases of typhoid and vaccinal diseases increased rapidly, according to Army records. The death rate from typhoid reached the highest point in the history of the U.S. Army after America entered the war in 1917. In 1917, 19,608 men were admitted into army hospitals due to anti-typhoid inoculation and vaccinia, according to a report of the Surgeon-General of the U.S. Army; and this doesn't take into account others whose symptoms were attributed to other causes. The army doctors knew all these cases of disease and death were due to vaccination and were honest enough to admit it in their medical reports. Army doctors tried to suppress the symptoms of typhoid with a stronger vaccine, however it caused a worse form of typhoid, paratyphoid. They then concocted an even stronger vaccine to suppress the previous one and created an even worse disease--Spanish flu. After the war, this was one of the vaccines used to protect a panic-stricke | ||||