|
CTM
Eclub digest version, Aug 24th 2004
|
|||||||
|
Up Close and Personal
ECLUB: Been off researching? EU Costing us £40bn a Year Britain could save up to £40 billion a year - or 14p off income tax - by quitting the European Union, a study reveals today. Costly payments to EU funds coupled with the drain on business through red tape would go at a stroke. Experts used the Government's own figures to show how the UK would benefit from striking a trade-only deal with Brussels. And think-tank Civitas slams Tony Blair's repeated claims that Britain would lose 60 per cent of its trade and three million jobs. The bombshell for the PM comes just after he buried
the hatchet with Gerhard Schroeder yesterday following a bitter row over
who leads Europe. He welcomed the German Chancellor to No 10 for talks
and they were all smiles.
EU is Exclusive Club SIR - I object to Denis MacShane's statement that euroscepticism is xenophobic (report, Aug 7). Far from it. What I object to about the European Union is that it is itself overtly xenophobic, a closed-bordered Caucasian club looking to create confrontation in trade talks with the rest of the world, where we used to just get on with it to the betterment of all. The EU is intentionally deeply damaging to other places. Africa, for instance, wants to trade more with Europe but finds itself discriminated against by the EU. Not by Britain, nor by France nor by Russia or Portugal, but by the EU. This is wrong; different areas of the world are different, not inferior. The European dream might have seemed rosy 50 years
ago to generations who turned my home continent into one big bomb site,
but to me it is an unrequired exclusive club, an extension of the political
élitism that caused two world wars in one century. Further Resources Ten
Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
Change Law to Give Us Vote on EU, Say Germans The German Government is under growing pressure to hold a referendum on the new European constitution after 30 of the country's most eminent legal scholars declared that federal law could easily be changed to allow a vote. Opinion polls show that 70 per cent of Germans want a vote on the treaty but Chancellor Gerhard Schroder has refused to follow the British and French in staging a referendum. Mr Schroder insists that Germany cannot do so because the country's post war constitution expressly forbids extra-parliamentary plebiscites, to make it harder for an extremist party to seize power. "Even if we wanted to have a vote, we would not be allowed to. Plebiscites are illegal under German law," he said last week, declaring that his government would override public opinion and seek only parliamentary approval for the EU constitution this year. The legal scholars have, however, undermined Mr Schroder's claims. In a joint statement published last week, 34 professors, led by Hans Herbert Arnim from the University of Speyer, declared: "A small addition to the text of the [German] constitution could enable the German people to vote in a referendum." The letter said that a vote was "necessary" because Germans had been denied the chance to elect directly members of the European convention, which drew up the EU constitution. Previously, they had been denied a vote on whether to join the euro. Nine of the EU's member states, including Britain, France and Spain are to hold referendums on the constitution next year. Fourteen other member states remain undecided. Germany and Greece have ruled out the idea. German politicians were surprised when Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, caved in to pressure for a referendum earlier this year, and shocked when president Jacques Chirac followed suit last month. Germany's ban on national referendums was designed to ensure that, unlike its Nazi predecessor, post war Germany remained anchored in parliamentary democracy. Supporters of a referendum point out that the Nazis did not use plebiscites to gain power, but initially won it in an election. However, in 1934 Hitler won overwhelming backing in a referendum for his move to become president and assume dictatorial powers. German law stipulates that ratification of key EU reforms can only be achieved through a two-thirds parliamentary majority. The professors' statement has added to a growing clamour for a vote from across the political spectrum. Edmund Stoiber, the conservative Bavarian prime minister who ran against Mr Schroder in Germany's 2002 general election, declared last week: "If the French, the British and the Spanish are to hold a referendum on this issue, the Germans cannot be barred from the process." Mr Stoiber's views are echoed by Roman Herzog, Germany's former conservative president, who argued recently that Germany faced the prospect of being the "only country in Europe" not to hold a referendum. Other advocates include Guido Westerwelle, the leader of the country's liberal Free Democratic party, Wolfgang Thierse, Germany's Social Democrat parliamentary president, leading Green party MPs and at least 5 of Germany's 16 regional branches of Mr Schroder's governing party. Mr Stoiber's Bavarian conservatives and the liberal Free Democrats have already drawn up proposals which would allow the constitution to be altered by a two-thirds majority in the country's upper and lower houses of parliament to enable a one-off referendum on the EU constitution next year. Mr Schroder does have one key ally, the opposition leader. Angela Merkel, who is also resolutely opposed to circumventing parliament on a key EU issue. Senior government and opposition MPs said last week that Mr Schroder's reluctance to consider a referendum stemmed from fears that a plebiscite could backfire, and be used to deliver a vote of no confidence in the government. German politicians are still smarting from the disaster in 1996 when a regional referendum on whether to merge the city state of Berlin with the surrounding region of Brandenburg resulted in the proposal being rejected outright despite a vigorous pro campaign by the main political parties. Wolfgang Schauble, the former Christian Democrat party leader, warned: "There is a danger that a referendum on the EU constitution would lead to a vote that has nothing to do with the EU at all." Reflecting the prevailing mood in the Berlin Chancellery, Michael Muller, the deputy head of the Democrats' parliamentary party, added: "Sometimes the electorate has to be protected from making the wrong decisions." German constitutional experts such as the Frieburg
lawyer Thomas Wurtenberger insisted last week that Germany's constitutional
ban on national referendums was out of date. "It is simply no
longer convincing," he said. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: I suppose we should not be surprised European politicians with a lot to lose are trying to deny their nations a voice in the future, knowing already the destructive effects of the Union have turned many against them. But who gets the chills when Michael Muller arrogantly intones: 'Sometimes the electorate has to be protected from making the wrong decisions'? Unpopular, minority or even extremist agendas can only succeed if the majority of the public are cowed into apathy from being told they are dumb, gullible, stupid and unable to come to the 'right decision' about what's best for them. This is Global Socialism, one big, overarching, all-knowing and all-powerful government (doubtless in the foreseeable future, soon to be a world-wide monstrosity), calling the shots on everything, and if you don't like it, so much the worse for you. In this edition of EClub, you will see this supercilious condescension leveled at alternative medicine, those who oppose vaccination, those who want law and order instead of liberal anarchy, and those who want the simple right to choose alternative medications if they so desire. The EU is probably the single-most shameful 'human rights' violation in Europe today, the scale of which can only begin to be comprehended when one stops to take even a cursory glance at what we're being sold. Do not go another day without understanding the real issues at stake here, and what they will mean for you. Further Resources Alternative Vs. Conventional: Why Doctors Don't Get
It If you live in the United States and need medical care or treatment for a disease, you can follow one of two paths to better health: conventional or alternative. In making this decision it is important to know the differences between the two practices. A Comparison of Conventional to Alternative Medicine
A growing number of people are turning to alternative therapies, more and more now the chosen form of medical treatment among Americans. Consider these statistics: · One in every three Americans uses some kind of alternative medicine. · Between 1990 and 1997 there was a 47 percent increase in visits to alternative practitioners, from 427 million to 629 million, bypassing the estimated total number of visits made to all conventional primary-care doctors in 1997. Since these statistics reveal the rapidly increasing number of people choosing alternative therapies, the debated question among the health care industry is, "Why don't more conventional doctors recommend alternative medicine?" Pharmaceutical Ties Medical Schools Receive Funding From Drug Companies The Media Favors Drug Advertising Even the American Medical Association maintains a relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Just a brief visit will see a sizable advertisement for the statin drug, Crestor. Research Discrepancies The lack of alternative medicine research funding results in three critical consequences: · The prevention of relevant research projects Questionable Research Over 60 percent of clinical studies involving human participants receive financial backing from drug companies and not from the federal government. Studies also show it is common for companies to hold off publication of data which might reveal that their drugs are ineffective. Conclusion Convincing doctors and the media of the value of alternative
medicine might be some way off yet, considering their ties with the drug
industry. Profit-hungry corporations will never make the move to change
the attitude of conventional doctors unless brought under heavier pressure.
Too much money to make. Too much money to lose. Which leaves it up to
the public to take control over their own health and continue making their
choices. Further Resources Click
here to purchase or review any of the above. An Unnatural Point Of Entry With all the recent controversy about the dangers of MMR, thimerosal, formaldehyde, etc., notice the only choices now being given to parents: Do you want the triple or quintuple vaccine, or do you want them administered separately? At no time is it ever remotely discussed that you do not need the infernal things at all. It would seem reasonable to suggest that introducing a toxic vaccine directly into the bloodstream is a dangerous intervention. Surely, if a child gets a naturally-occurring illness such as measles, (not generally a serious condition), the body reacts to that condition in its own natural way. But when you inject a vaccine into the body, you're actually performing an unnatural act because you are injecting a toxic substance directly into the bloodstream. In the case of measles and smallpox, or any disease for that matter, this is not the natural port of entry. In fact, the whole immune system in our body is geared to prevent this from happening. The body has several defence mechanisms to prevent the entry of poisonous and toxic material and takes a lot of care to ensure the purity of the bloodstream. A toxin will smell or taste bad and the nose and mouth should reject them. If it is nevertheless swallowed and not vomited out, the liver and stomach will do their best to neutralise it and the kidneys eliminate it. Vaccination bypasses all our natural defence mechanisms. How long does this toxic material from the vaccine stay in the bloodstream? How overloaded does the immune system become from such an unnatural attack? And could this overload prolong the original illness? And could it also increase the chance for an apparently unconnected and potentially even more serious illness to manifest as a result? Again, these issues are never discussed in standard vaccine promotions. RB Pearson is the author of Pasteur, Plagiarist, Imposter: The Germ Theory Exploded. (Pasteur's germ theory is looked at in more detail later in this book.) Pasteur's own experiments with vaccination - his infamous rabies experiments, for instance - were actually responsible for causing rabies in his patients, not curing the condition. Pearson argues against any form of vaccination thus: "…But when nature's coat of mail, the skin, is violated, and the drug inserted beneath the skin, nature's line of defence is taken in the rear, and rarely can anything be done to hinder or prevent the action of the drug, no matter how injurious, even fatal it may be. All the physicians of the world are incompetent either to foresee its action or to hinder it." MMR FOR INSTANCE THIMEROSAL INSIDER TIES DO DOCTORS PRACTICE WHAT
THEY PREACH? The 20th February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, contained an article entitled 'Rubella Vaccine in Susceptible Hospital Employees, Poor Physician Participation'. The report stated that the lowest vaccination rate among medical personnel for the German measles vaccine occurred among obstetricians and gynecologists and the next lowest rate occurred among paediatricians. The authors conclude, "The fear of unforeseen vaccination reactions was the main reason for the low uptake rate of physicians to be vaccinated." Dr. Robert Mendelson wrote a report about a Los Angeles physician who refused to vaccinate his own 7-month-old baby. According to Dr Mendelson, this doctor stated, "I'm worried about what happens when the vaccine virus may not only offer little protection against measles but may also stay around in the body, working in a way that we don't know much about." Yet the doctor was still vaccinating his patients and justifying his actions: "As a parent I have the luxury of making a choice for my child. As a physician, legally and professionally, I have to accept the recommendations of the profession." In the British Medical Journal, an article entitled 'Attitudes of General Practitioners Towards their Vaccination against Hepatitis B' tells us that, of 598 doctors questioned about hepatitis B vaccine, 86 percent believe that all general practitioners should be vaccinated against hepatitis B. Yet 309 of those practitioners had not been vaccinated themselves. This less than enthusiastic response by physicians is further noted in another British Medical Journal article on hepatitis B vaccination and surgeons: "Infection with hepatitis B virus is a serious hazard for health workers. Surgeons are particularly at risk with potentially devastating consequences to their well-being and a major threat to their livelihood if they become carriers. Despite good evidence of an increased risk of infection, a high percentage of surgeons in this study had not been immunised. Clearly, there is a failure by all surgeons to protect themselves and to insist that junior staff are protected." The alarmist reporting on the 'condition' known as hepatitis B bears uncanny resemblance to the hysteria surrounding HIV, which is discussed in more detail in another Credence title, World Without AIDS. VACCINATION - AN ICON OF
MODERNITY "Another element that feeds into the way in which vaccines can be regarded as icons of modernity relates to the eradication of smallpox. The elimination of this disease is seen as a successful model for universal disease-prevention strategies. The successful campaign offers incredibly powerful imagery that encourages efforts to re-create this success in other domains. It can be suggested that the hope of emulating this achievement and thus, wiping deadly diseases from the face of the earth, establishes goals that allow for no dissension, and that if there is a price to pay for some in terms of adverse reactions, then this is ultimately for the good of the whole community, and the whole world. At a much broader level, concern has been expressed over the way in which the World Health Organization and UNICEF have imposed programs on nations, with such an imposition being eagerly accepted by governments despite the lack of 'scientific' evidence to support them." FEAR AND PRESSURE "Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will, the biggest job of a health department is always to persuade the unprotected people to get vaccinated. This we attempted to do in three ways, education, fear, and pressure. We dislike very much to mention fear and pressure, yet they accomplish more than education because they work faster than education, which is normally a slow process. During the months of March and April, we tried education and vaccinated only 62,000. During May we made use of fear and pressure and vaccinated 223,000 people." An elderly lady contacted me recently, concerned that her local heath authority was scaring their patients into the surgery to receive a flu vaccine. Her two appointment letters began thus, "Dear Miss C, on behalf of the Scottish Health Department, I urge you to take up the offer of your influenza vaccine this year." And "Dear …., according to our medical records, there is a risk of you catching a serious infection…. Please make an appointment to discuss this important vaccination." One of the letters was sponsored by Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd, the foremost flu vaccine manufacturer in the world today. 200 NEW VACCINES IN THE PIPELINE There are currently some 200 human vaccines in the pipeline, including Epstein Barr, cholesterol, diabetes, ulcer, multiple sclerosis, SV40, asthma, arthritis, allergy, clostridia, psoriasis, nicotine, gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia, cocaine, anti-marijuana, lumpy skin disease(!), STD, PCP, shingles, osteoporosis, Parkinson's Disease, anti-fertility, Candida, warts, herpes, periodontal, dental caries, RSV, diarrhoea, peanut allergy, fifth disease, E Coli, leptosporosis, malaria, fungal disease, Alzheimer's, ebola, penicillin-resistant infection, West Nile virus, HIV, Lyme disease, rhinovirus, rotavirus, TB, anthrax, smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid, cholera, and another 170 besides. The pharmaceutical industry has proven itself a consummate master at keeping up appearances and making extraordinary amounts of money from our misplaced faith that its glittering technology (as opposed to our own common sense) will eventually eradicate disease. These companies are the master weavers. They have successfully spun a garment without substance, a cloth without thread. Breaking free from the mummifying wrap of these silken vaccine garments frees us from the biggest enemy to human and animal health - toxic medicines and the corporations promoting and selling them - Big Pharma, Big Business and their biggest supporters - Big Government. Wherever there is a great deal of money being made by powerful corporations, there will always be difficulties in bringing to light any hidden dangers within those industries and the underhand means they use to boost income. Readers are encouraged to research this subject for themselves. There are also many texts which attest to the wide choice of non-toxic approaches available to prevent and reverse disease. The list of Credence titles covering some of these treatments is found below. But enough of this. Have your had your flu jab yet? © Copyright Steven Ransom 2003 Further Resources Click
here to purchase or review any of the above. Sweet Misery: The Horrors of Aspartame Revealed in
Documentary The new documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, thoroughly examines a hot-button many consider to be imaginary: the toxicity of aspartame. This man-made sweetener is certainly a fact of life and hard to avoid. Aspartame is found in more than 5,000 food products, including diet soft drinks and snacks like puddings. Sweet Misery starts with filmmaker and narrator Cory Brackett's moving story about how she discovered aspartame's effect on her health was affecting her fight with multiple sclerosis. Once she stopped using aspartame-sweetened products, her symptoms went away almost by magic. But that's just the beginning of Brackett's journey across the United States to learn more about the devastating effects of aspartame from a laundry list of well-known medical experts, including Dr. Russell Blaylock and Dr. Betty Martini. Martini is the director of Mission Possible, an Atlanta-based non-profit group that works to spread the word about the dangers of aspartame as a toxic poison, unfit for human consumption and a slow neurotoxin that's especially bad for diabetics. In addition to the experts, the filmmakers use archival footage from G.D. Searle and federal officials to describe the amount of propaganda and "dirty tricks" big business used to get aspartame on the market. Some of the most moving moments were heartfelt interviews sprinkled in between the scientific data with some of the victims of aspartame. One victim Brackett interviewed suffers in a different and more excruciating way than most: This middle-aged mother and spouse is serving a life sentence for allegedly poisoning her late spouse, although many of the health signs point to her late husband's bad reaction to aspartame. Another key interview is Brackett's fireside chat with
Arthur Evangelista, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator,
who exposes how far major conglomerates went to legalize the use of aspartame
in the United States, and the resulting domino-effect on its use in other
countries. DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: If you aren't familiar with all the diseases associated with this artificial sweetener - diseases like multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease - this movie will indeed open your eyes to a problem that has been covered up for far too long. For the record, aspartame is about 200 times sweeter than the refined sugar it is meant to replace, but it is known to erode intelligence and affect short-term memory. Once upon a time, aspartame was on a Pentagon list of biowarfare chemicals submitted to Congress, which just goes to show how lethal a chemical it really is. Although seizures are common among aspartame users, headaches are the most common complaint. According to a nutrition consultant, diet could be one of the reasons 18 million Americans suffer from migraines, with aspartame listed as a possible culprit. Because more than 5,000 products contain aspartame, it's in your best interests as well as your family's health to read the labels of any processed food you're concerned about. Your life may depend on it.
Orphans on Trial
Maggiore was told that the AIDS drugs would make her sick, so she skipped them, instead relying on natural methods to support her health. A year and a half later, she was so healthy that her doctor said there was something wrong and she should retest. She did retest, several times. The tests came back negative, indeterminate and positive. Maggiore investigated the medical literature and found what was recounted above: HIV tests are highly inaccurate. She also discovered that there are gaping flaws in the HIV hypothesis itself. Believing that this is the sort of thing people should know, she founded Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a resource for people who, like herself, want to make fully informed decisions about their health. Since testing positive, Maggiore has had two children. Her kids, two and six years old, have never been tested. They've been raised on organic food, with a naturopathic approach to health. They're both intelligent and active. They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick. They regularly see their pediatrician, who has no medical complaints about their well-being. And they're not alone. There are thousands of healthy HIV-positive people who don't take the drugs, who rely on natural regimens to support their immune function. It was through Maggiore that I met Mona, whose children, Sean and Dana, have tested HIV-positive. By the state's definition, they're not actually her children; Mona is their great aunt and legal guardian. Her niece, a long-time drug user, was unable to act as a responsible mother, so Sean and Dana were remanded to state foster care. Mona took them back to raise as her own. When I first spoke with Mona, she was stressed and nervous. Sean had twice been sent to the Incarnation Children's Center (ICC), a "home for HIV positive children" located in Washington Heights. First, as an infant, then again four years ago. And Dana was there until June. "Why did they take her?" I asked. "They said I was a negligent parent because I didn't want to give the drugs." She'd been taking Sean and Dana to a naturopath. That the children were healthy didn't matter. When city agencies found out that the children weren't on the drugs, they took them away for mandatory treatment at a clinic and then transferred them to ICC. There, they were locked up and pumped full of drugs day and night. "What drugs?" "AZT, Nevirapine, Epivir, Zerit. All kinds of drugs." To read through the list of drug studies either currently underway or recently concluded at ICC - studies sponsored by government agencies - NIAID, NICHD; and huge pharmaceutical companies - Glaxo, Pfizer, Squibb, Genentech and Biocene... etc. is to take a trip through the nightmare world of pediatric drug research. For example, the study called "The Effect of Anti-HIV Treatment on Body Characteristics of HIV-Infected Children" is looking for the causes of "Wasting and Lipodystrophy [fat redistribution]" by using drugs known to cause wasting and lipodystrophy. Or consider "The Safety and Effectiveness of Treating Advanced AIDS Patients between the Ages of 4 and 22 with Seven Drugs, Some at Higher than Usual Doses." The seven drugs in the study are all known to cause debilitating, potentially fatal side-effects, yet they are administered at "higher than usual doses" in four-year-olds. Then there's a study with "Stavudine Alone or in Combination with Didanosine…" Stavudine plus Didanosine has killed pregnant women. Or the vaccine study to be administered to children "12 months to 8 years" using "live chickenpox virus," even though one of the consequences of a live virus vaccine can be the disease itself. Another measures "HIV Levels in Cerebrospinal Fluid." Cerebrospinal fluid can only be gathered from a spinal tap, a dangerous and invasive procedure. There's even a study on HIV-negative children born to HIV-infected mothers that uses an experimental HIV vaccine. Mona was never informed that Sean had once participated in clinical trials at ICC. "But they're always changing the children's medications," she said. I asked Mona how the children at ICC tolerate so many medications. She a lot of them don't. "The ones that can't are drugged through a tube," she said. "There's a tube down their throat?" I asked. "No" she answered, matter-of-factly, "they take them in for surgery." "A surgeon puts a hole in them?" " Where?" "In their stomachs," she said. "If a child refuses drugs too many times, they take them away for the operation. I've seen it happen to children who refuse the medication." Incarnation Childrens Center is a foster home administered by the Catholic Home Bureau under the Archdiocese of New York. According to the ICC website, it was established in 1987 "to deal with the boarder baby crisis." Boarder babies are children abandoned at the hospital. In 1992, "an outpatient clinic for HIV-positive children was established" and, with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is a subdivision of the National Institutes for Health (NIH), "the clinic became a subunit of the Columbia University Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Unit." That's when ICC went from being a home for children of impoverished, drug-addicted mothers to a recipient of funds for allowing the NIH to use these HIV-positive orphans as test subjects. The ICC webpage listed dozens of trials with AZT and Nevirapine conducted through the late 90s. The NIH site recently listed "five studies currently recruiting for drug trials," and "27 studies ongoing or recently completed" - all on children at ICC - as well as more than 200 at Columbia Presbyterian, ICC's parent hospital. The studies are sponsored by NIH subdivisions; many are cosponsored by the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the drugs being tested. The studies use the standard AIDS drugs: nucleoside analogues, protease inhibitors and Nevirapine. Nucleoside analogues, like AZT, work by stopping cell division. They stop the formation of new blood in the bone marrow, in some cases causing anemia and bone marrow death. They've caused death in pregnant mothers, spontaneous abortion, birth defects, liver failure, pancreatic failure, muscle wasting, developmental damage and death in children and adults. They also may cause cancer. Protease inhibitors interfere with the body's ability to build new proteins. Since we're made of protein, protease inhibitors have pronounced effects on physical appearance and organ function. The side effects can be bizarre, grotesque and often fatal: wasting in the face, arms and legs, fatty humps on the back and shoulders, distended belly, heart disease, birth defects, organ failure - and death. Almost all of this is found on the warning labels. The first AIDS drug, AZT, was designed in the 60s as a chemotherapy drug for cancer patients, but it was never approved. Critics declared it too toxic even for short-term use, yet in 1987 it was pushed through for lifelong use in HIV-positive people. Although its trials were later revealed to be fraudulent, AZT remains on the market. Finally, there's Nevirapine, which also interferes with normal cell function.. In test trials, Nevirapine has caused severe liver damage and death in dozens of patients. Most die from organ failure due to drug toxicity. Nevirapine can also cause a violent skin disorder called Steven-Johnsons Syndrome? a horrifying condition in which the skin blisters and ruptures or peels off in large swaths, leaving bloody, exposed flesh. Clinical examples of SJS and TEN cases related to Nevirapine (a) Erosions of lips and mouth are characteristics of SJS and TEN. (b) Magnification of cutaneous lesions showing purpuric macules, small blisters and positive Nikolski, i.e. detachment of epidermis on pressure. (c) Skin biopsy showing the detachment of necrotic epidermis. (d) SJS with discrete non-confluent small blisters, involving , <10% of the body surface area. (e) Coexistence of small blisters and detachment of the epidermis on 35-40% of the body surface area in TEN. (f) Detachment of the epidermis is frequent on palms and soles. 2 related scientific papers on Nevirapine toxicity (PDF): 1) Nevirapine and the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome
ortoxic epidermal necrolysis Despite causing so many serious medical issues in the course of treatment, AIDS drugs don't even claim to work. Every AIDS drug label bears a version of this caveat: "This drug will not cure your HIV infection. Patients receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic infections and other complications of HIV disease. Patients should be advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time." So why do people take the drugs? Because they test HIV-positive. But as Christine Maggiore learned, HIV tests are highly inaccurate. Most HIV tests are antibody tests, which means that they can cross-react with normal proteins in human blood. There are nearly 70 commonly occurring conditions - as listed in the medical literature - that are known to make the tests come up positive. These include yeast infections, colds, flus, arthritis, hepatitis, herpes, recent inoculations, drug use and pregnancy. The remaining HIV tests, called viral load tests, can produce dozens of conflicting results, even from the same blood sample. HIV tests are so unreliable that they all bear a disclaimer: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood," or "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR [Viral Load] test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection," or "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, Roche Viral Load Test and Epitope, Inc. Western Blot Test, respectively). And the kicker: Positive test results can occur due to "prior pregnancy, blood transfusions...and other potential nonspecific reactions" (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003). In short: In the 90s, drug companies like Glaxo Wellcome and Abbott Labs began recycling old chemotherapy drugs for the new AIDS drug market. This market consisted of gay men who weren't told that the HIV test was a nonspecific antibody test. They were told, however, that AIDS was an unavoidable outgrowth of testing positive on this test, and that HIV was a fatal condition. If you look in the medical literature, you'll find that neither of these assumptions is true. Mona's son Sean has lived in a virtual coma his entire life. He was put on AZT in infancy. The drug made him so sick that he couldn't swallow solid food and, as a result, he ate through a tube in his nose until he was three. He had no energy. He was constantly ill. He couldn't play or even walk without becoming exhausted. Sean got sicker every time Mona gave him the drugs, so she cut down the doses. His energy level began to improve. She continued to wean him off the drugs and started taking him to a naturopath. "For the first time in his life," she told me, "he became a normal boy. He could play with the other children, he could walk, he could run. He smiled and laughed. He was normal." This would've been good news, except that Sean was born to a mother who once tested HIV-positive. Sean, the recipient of his mother's antibodies, also tested positive. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) came down hard on Mona for not drugging him. She was sent to a new doctor, an AIDS specialist at Beth Israel, who put Sean on a "miracle drug," Nevirapine. Within six months, he was on life support due to organ failure. That's when ACS decided that Sean should be put into ICC. They said he'd be there for four months; he was there for more than a year. Mona had to get a lawyer to get him out. Mona showed me Sean's medical records. They told the same story: AZT, Nevirapine, the ICU. "Now they have Dana on the drugs." Mona introduced me to Sean on a basketball court near their home. He was a cute kid. His jacket was too big for him, and he walked with a little shuffle - and a little wariness. He was small. I have a picture of myself at four years old, oversized denim jacket, swinging my legs a bit as I walked, and I was about the same size as Sean. Except Sean was 13. He weighed 50 pounds and was about four feet tall. An AZT baby. Stunted, his cells damaged from the inside out. Incarnation Childrens Center is housed in a four-story brick building, a converted convent with barred windows. At the entrance, there are glass panes on either side of a large, solid door with a camera above it. The day I went to ICC, there were children pushing up against the glass beside the closed door looking at me. I walked through the door and into a waiting room with a wide steel elevator door at the far end. I signed in as a family friend of Mona's. The nurses eyed me suspiciously but didn't stop me from entering. Beyond the reception area was a large, dark room with stained-glass windows on the far back wall. Children were grouped around folding tables. The kids ranged from a couple years old to almost adult. Except for a few Hispanic kids, they were mostly African-American. A number of the children were in wheelchairs. There was a boom box playing in the background. Somebody had brought in pizza in cardboard boxes. A young woman in sweatpants sat on one of the chairs. She looked at me and seemed embarrassed; it was her 18th birthday party. A few bored, pale teenagers sat around in the corners, watching with detached, vague expressions. They were volunteers, coming to do community service for the AIDS children. The wheelchair-bound kids were being fed or drugged, or both, with a milky-white fluid dispensed through tubes coming out of hanging plastic packs. The tubes disappeared beneath their shirts. Their eyes were vacant, pained, focused at a point in the distance that I couldn't see. I walked down a short hall into another room. There was a boy, maybe 10 years old, who had a bloated, water-logged appearance. He waved and shouted, motioning for me to come play with him. A childcare worker said his name sharply, like a warning, then looked at me sternly. Back in the hallway, another little boy approached me and held out his arms. I picked him up, and he squealed and squirmed playfully. As I tried to get a better grip, my hand hit something hard - plastic. There was a piece of plastic covering a hole in his abdomen. I went cold and put him down carefully. Again, the nurses stared at me. Getting ready to leave, I noticed a girl with a bloated stomach. She was probably 12 or 13 years old. I looked down - there was a clear, hollow plastic tube curling out of her sweatpants. The thick, stale air was overwhelming, and it's then that I realized the windows were not only barred, but shut. "If they were open," Mona would later tell me, "the kids would try to get out." As I left, I again noticed the massive steel elevator door. According to Mona, it led to the clinic. "That's where they give them the drugs. Upstairs. They used to do it down here, but they didn't like the other children seeing them give the drugs." Dr David Rasnick is a visiting researcher at UC Berkeley whom I worked with on a series of articles examining the AIDS debate. When I told him what I'd seen at ICC, he was disturbed - but not entirely surprised. "AIDS doctors always assume their patients are going to die," he said. "Nobody ever asks if an AIDS patient is actually sick from drug toxicity, because they never considered that the person had a chance anyway." Last September, I requested an interview with an ICC official. A nurse told me that no one could come because "the children all have chickenpox." I remembered the live chickenpox vaccine. I showed up anyway. They wouldn't let me in, but they gave me a brochure. It was filled with black and white pictures of patients, exactly like the children I'd seen, drugged, damaged, with tubes hanging out of them. In the middle of the brochure was a two-page photo of a drug tray filled with syringes. The drug schedules read, "8 am, Valium, Lasix, Prednisone, Bactrim, Epivir, Colace, ystatin, Ceftriaxone." There was a caption below the photo: "Medicine, medicine, medicine, medicine. The medicines give you a clue of how complicated HIV disease in childhood is. Ironically, years ago, one of my old professors told me that any patient who's put on more than four drugs should find a new doctor." In the back of the brochure, there was a photo of a man handling a small white coffin, and another of a child's coffin in the front seat of a hearse. In the back seat, an infant sat on a woman's lap. There was no mention of drug toxicities. When these children die, they just call it AIDS. Rasnick had told me about a nurse, Jacqueline Hoerger, who'd worked at ICC in the early 90s and had an experience similar to Mona's. Hoerger had tried to adopt two little girls from ICC to raise and care for with her husband. She administered the drugs "by the book" for about a year, and watched as the girls got sicker. She started researching the AIDS drugs. After much consultation with an open-minded MD, she decided to give the girls a permanent "drug holiday." To her relief and amazement, the girls improved remarkably. She documented their improvement with her doctor. When it was revealed to the adoption agency that she wasn't drugging the girls, New York Administration for Children's Services took them away and returned them to foster care. It didn't matter that they were better. It only mattered that they took the drugs. In October 2003, I contacted ICC's executive director, Caroline Castro. She told me to write out my questions and send them in an email, which I did. Where do the kids come from? What's the current protocol for treating HIV-positive children? I read on your website that you're participating in clinical trials. What kind of trials? What kind of funding do you get for participating? Castro replied: "ICC appreciates your interest in our services but regretfully declines to participate in your project." I called her anyway and asked her about the clinical trials. She said that ICC wasn't participating in clinical trials. When I noted that the NIH website lists ICC as a participant, she yelled at me. "Why do you have to write about ICC?" she asked. "Don't write about us. You should write about somebody else." Then she hung up. I called ICC's medical director, Dr. Katherine Painter. I got lucky, she agreed to speak with me. Evidently, she and Castro weren't sharing emails that day. I interviewed Dr. Painter for about an hour. Painter responded to my questions in extremely cautious, academic language. When I mentioned the toxicity of AZT, she agreed that there had been some problems. But, she assured me, the new drugs had solved them. According to Painter, the "biggest problem facing families with HIV-positive children is adherence." Adherence is a code word for people who don't want to take the pills. It doesn't mean illness; it means obedience to a drug regimen. I asked her if ICC participated in clinical trials. "Many of the clinics that refer to us are participating in clinical drug trials. Children participating in a drug trial undergo monitoring, testing and supply of an experimental drug through their outpatient clinic and we maintain that treatment here." Had Castro lied to me? Clearly, the Incarnation Children's
Center was participating in clinical trials. The kids may be enrolled
at various area hospitals, but they're housed and drugged at ICC - which
sounds an awful lot like participation. "There are loads and loads of trials going on in children," she replied. As for adherence among the young patients, Painter noted that the drugs have a "significant, lingering, bitter taste." So they mix the pills or powders in chocolate or strawberry syrup. But "for some cases," she said, "it's better administered through a g-tube." That's the stomach tube. I asked her how they put in a g-tube. She said a surgeon cuts through the child's abdomen, "through the abdominal wall musculature, and then through the stomach. It creates a very small hole, about a quarter inch. It takes several weeks to heal well, so it's a bit tender. A small tube is placed through the stoma or opening. From the outside you can connect a syringe or feeding tube." I asked why ICC insisted on drugging children in this manner when there are thousands of HIV-positive individuals who aren't sick, or who are pursuing naturopathic regimens with great success. Painter admitted that she knew about these people - she used the industry term, LTNP (long-term non-progressors). This is a title used by AIDS academics to dodge the fact that even the Center for Disease Control & Prevention agrees the majority of people with HIV aren't sick. Most AIDS patients are given the diagnosis because of a T-cell count rather than an actual illness. The LTNPs I know are involved in health-supportive regimens, they avoid immune-damaging practices, foods and substances - including the AIDS drugs. "In treating AIDS," I asked, "why aren't we looking at supporting the immune system? Why are we giving people who are already sick drugs that kill the lining of the intestines and cause liver failure? Look at the adverse effects of any of these drugs?" She interrupted. "Yes, of course, drugs have adverse reactions. But the risk/benefit of any medication must be weighed." She was becoming irritated. "May I remind you that untreated HIV infection is a terminal diagnosis. And there it was, exactly as Dr. Rasnick had said: "AIDS doctors always assume that their patients are going to die." But Painter had already agreed that wasn't true. There were the LTNPs. If they weren't dying and they tested positive, then her statement was incorrect. She began to lecture me about the progression of the disease. First positivity, then, ten years later, sickness, then inevitably, death. "Fine," I said, "let's say that someone who tests positive is indeed ill. The kids in ICC, besides being drugged all the time, are children of chronic drug-abusers. Isn't that a good reason to be sick?" "No," she said. "But HIV tests cross-react with antibodies produced from drug abuse." "No," she protested. "Yes, they do," I said. "Drug abuse, hepatitis, there are about 70 recorded conditions that make the test come up positive." In reporting on the AIDS debate, I'd never met an HIV researcher or doctor who told me that HIV tests were even close to 100 percent accurate. Even the lab technicians I've met accept that the tests can be inaccurate and unreliable. I ask again: "Why are we treating AIDS patients with drugs that kill their immune systems? Shouldn't we be helping them build immunity? Shouldn't we be saying anything that works in the treatment of AIDS is valid?" Painter said that there was room for "supplementary therapy, including nutritional support" but, she reiterated, "anti-retroviral therapy has been the leading intervention that has significantly reduced morbidity and mortality in HIV infection." I looked at my pile of papers: dozens of drug studies in which patients had died, in the researcher's own estimation, specifically because of the drugs. I looked at the warning labels: heart attack, organ failure, wasting, bone loss, anemia, birth defects, skin loss, bloody rashes, deformation and death. Painter was in charge of at least 20 kids at a time, many of them orphans taken from their homes for the purpose of having a drug regimen enforced. She knew or was willing to admit less about HIV tests and HIV drug toxicity than almost any medical professional I'd ever spoken with. I thanked her for her time, and hung up. Inside Incarnation Childrens Center, the children in wheelchairs stared ahead, unable to focus. I wanted to take them all outside into the fresh air. It was a bright sunny day, and they were locked up in this room, a girl's 18th birthday party under stained glass. I approached one of the children in a wheelchair, a boy about 12. There was something strange in his face - his head was oddly shaped. It was a bit squashed, with the eyes spaced widely. His limbs and torso were slightly warped, shortened and weak-looking. This is what happens to AZT babies. I looked at the other children. Same arms, same legs, same faces. One boy on half-crutches trying to dance to the music. His legs dangled beneath him, his feet at odd angles to the ground. I knelt by the boy in the wheelchair. He made a slight sound, like a panic deep inside trying to get out. I didn't want to alarm him, so I got up. I met a boy named Amir who was sitting at one of the tables. He was about six years old. Amir had a stomach tube. He had also undergone multiple plastic surgeries to remove "buffalo humps" - that's what the AIDS doctors call the large, fatty growths from the necks and backs of people who take protease inhibitors. I walked over to him, and he smiled broadly. His head was in that same squashed shape, and his back and shoulders were oddly rounded. He grabbed onto my shirt. I knelt down and he put his arms around my neck for a hug. There were large round discolorations on his neck where the lumps had been removed. After a couple minutes, I tried to get up, but he held on. I took his hands gently in mine, held them for a moment, then carefully let go. Five months later, Mona saw Amir in the hospital. "My stomach is swollen; it got big," he told her. "They cut me, they cut me." He pointed to an incision on his side. "I think it's the tube," Mona told me. "I think it's infected." When I asked Dr. Painter how they decide that the stomach tube should be used, she told me, "When other interventions to help a child take the medication by mouth have failed." Something certainly failed with Amir. Two weeks after
Mona saw him in the hospital, he was dead. CTM COMMENT: For those not fully conversant with the complete fraud that is the AIDS industry today, and how this disease is NOT being caused by any 'HIV', we recommend taking the AIDS tour for a brief review. The above paper deserves credit for its courage. The NY Press has a large and active letters page and will, no doubt, receive their share of fan mail from the mainstream for publishing this. It is very important that each CTM subscriber does his bit in letting them know their decision to publish this is appreciated, and important to the health and welfare of people everywhere who are fighting medical tyranny. Drop 'em a line. And Liam too for his hard work. Letters - editorial@nypress.com Letter page - http://nypress.com/17/28/mail/TheMail.cfm Danger: Jam Sponge Think of cakes and you probably think of the Women's Institute. They go together like, well, jam and sponge. With elderly patients at a hospital in Essex, the freshly baked Victoria sandwiches, tarts and fruit cakes brought in by the WI once a month certainly went down well. But the tea-time treat has been banned by officials at Saffron Waldron Community Hospital - who have branded the cakes as a potential health hazard. They claim they breach guidelines because the kitchens of the WI members have not been inspected. Not surprisingly, at a time when hospital superbugs are claiming up to 20,000 lives a year, angry members of the WI are boiling like a pan of jam. "Whoever died from eating a jam tart or a Victoria sandwich?" said 62-year-old retired teacher Sue Bright, who specializes in jam sponges. "The poor patients will probably have to eat biscuits now instead." Glynis Straker, a mother of three, said it was an insult to suggest her chocolate sponges could put the patients at risk. "This is just another example of the silly bureaucracy brought in at the expense of common sense," said the 49-year-old dental practice manager. "It really is getting out of hand. "The WI are well known for their baking skills and home-made jam so we know what we are doing and our kitchens are certainly not a health hazard. In fact, they are probably a sight cleaner than some hospitals these days. I know they're worried about the MRSA bug, but it certainly isn't going to come from my kitchen. What are they providing for the patients now instead of our cakes? "We've been making cakes for years now without any problems. We used to make them for Saffron Waldron Hospice until it closed a year ago and then we were asked to bake them for the elderly patients at the hospital. There are 12 WI groups in the area and each month the members of one of the groups would make ten cakes. The patients loved them and always looked forward to our deliveries. It seems a shame they are now being denied this small pleasure." The WI's cakes were banned after a routine inspection by the Uttlesford Primary Care Trust. The Trust claims the decision was made after advice was sought from environmental health officers and the Department of Health. A spokesman said: "We are not in any way suggesting the cakes the WI has kindly provided us are unsafe. However, the Trust has to adhere to strict hygiene criteria and without inspecting the kitchens of the WI members who prepare the cakes, we cannot eliminate all potential risks. The hospital treats very vulnerable elderly patients, many of whom have special dietary requirements. Patient safety is our top priority. "The problem is that we have no authority to go in and inspect a private individual's kitchen. The WI is not a commercial business with whom we have a contract. We appreciate that some members will be upset, but we very much hope that we can continue to work with the WI in other ways." A spokesman for Uttlesford District Council's environmental health department, said: "Everyone has to have a hazard assessment done when making and selling cakes to old people. These are established guidelines." The Department of Health said it was up to individual
hospitals to decide food policies as long as they met safety legislation. CTM COMMENT: Could not resist this classic example of the blind leading the blind and they both fall in a ditch. The big-hearted cake-making divas of the WI are of course understandably incensed at the rejection of their culinary talents, but for the right reasons? Apparently, it is not because of what all that sugar will do to people's cancer, fungi, yeast overgrowths, etc., but because patients may contract the MRSA super-bug! Guess they'll have to make do with the sugar-laden biscuits instead. Goodness, we're never going to be out of a job at CTM. Ever. The Deadly Hazards of Cancer-Cure An investigation is being urged of online sites that offer treatments with no scientific backing. Thousands of cancer patients are risking their health by following the advice of alternative therapy websites that promote bogus cures, a leading expert in complimentary medicine said yesterday. Edzard Ernst, Britain's only professor of complementary medicine, who is based at the University of Exeter, called for Government guidance to steer patients away from treatments promoted on the internet that were not supported by a "shred of evidence". He said that in some cases patients were hastening their own deaths by rejecting conventional treatment. In a study of 32 of the most popular alternative and complimentary therapy websites, which attract tens of thousands of visitors every day, researchers found dozens of so-called remedies that are promoted as curing or preventing cancer, including shark cartilage, coffee enemas, mistletoe and apricot extracts. But none of the treatments and approaches promoted online had been shown definitively to cure or prevent the disease, Prof Ernst said. He and Katja Schmidt, the co-author of the study report, found that in 3 per cent of cases the websites actively discouraged patients from using conventional cancer treatments, and 16 per cent did the same indirectly through information they provided. One British-based website was judged to be offering advice where definite harm was conceivable, while two American sites were also categorized as potentially harmful. Another six of the sites were considered to be of some conceivable harm to cancer patients. "This was, to us, quite an eye-opener and pretty scary stuff," Professor Ernst said. "We found that between these 30-odd sites, 118 different cancer 'cures' were recommended, complementary treatment that claimed to be able to cure cancer. Not everything that is natural is risk-free. People should use their common sense and think twice about the motives of these websites. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. You cannot believe ridiculous promises and claims." He said that a further 59 preventive treatments were recommended, but again there was no evidence that any of them worked. Two prime examples were shark cartilage and laetrile, which is made from apricot stones. In the first case, the demand for ground up shark fins has brought two species of shark close to extinction, Professor Ernst said. Yet there was no evidence that it helped to cure patients. An estimated 40,000 complimentary therapists, registered and unregistered, are thought to be practising in the UK, and about a quarter of the British population is believed to use a complimentary treatment in any given year. In the US, the figure is 60 per cent and in Germany, as high as 75 per cent. "If you take patient populations, these figures can be very close to 100 per cent," Professor Ernst said. A recent survey showed that one in five patients took herbal remedies without their GP's knowledge. Ten per cent of patients were found to be taking both warfarin, a prescription medication for thinning the blood, and a herbal therapy known to react dangerously with that drug. Professor Ernst said that many doctors were woefully ignorant about the potential risks of complementary treatments, especially with regard to their interaction with conventional medicines. He said pharmacists also need better training. The Professor, who has run the Complementary Medicine Peninsular Medical School for ten years, said that in that time a handful of complementary therapies had been shown scientifically to be beneficial. Examples include ginko biloba, which delayed the progression of senile dementia; hawthorn, which could help patients with congestive heart failure; garlic, which lowered cholesterol levels; feverfew, which helped to prevent migraine attacks; and peppermint, which reduced symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Last night, George Georgiou, a herbal therapist from St Albans, rejected Professor Ernst's claims. He said that his website, which has more than 40,000 visits a month, had never received any serious complaints from users. "Why are we not shouting about the side-effects of some conventional medications which can be huge killers?" he said. "Why would all these people be buying these products if they were not working? The fact is, we are living in a democracy, and people have the right to choose." The Department of Health said that the regulation of complementary medicine and advice on good practice remained a continuing concern. Proposals for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine
and acupuncture practitioners were published in March, and results from
consultations are still being assessed. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Well, folks, here he is again, Edzard Ernst, Britain's only 'Professor of Complementary Medicine', who spends most of his days rubbishing complementary medicine on behalf of his string-pullers. The only way the drug industry can end the threat to its profits is by casting doubt and accusation against unpatented medicine, predictably resorting to a 'complementary medicine professor' who unbelievably declares that all alternative remedies are quackery, for by definition, if they worked, they would be used in orthodox medicine. But, you all know the script. Edzard Ernst is rightly declared a menace to public health, but he is getting the column inches. The UK Times, which published the above, would like to hear from everyone about this issue. What do you think about Edzard Ernst? Should medicine be left to the health professionals? Drop 'em a line. If you are not sure about the controversy surrounding medicine's failure to combat cancer with radiation and drugs (and many other diseases for that matter), pick up a book from our book-store and have a browse through the previous EClub articles we have published on the subject. Further Resources: Cancer:
Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day Click
here to purchase or review any of the above. Previous Articles: CANCER: WHO CAN WE TRUST? Is the medical establishment 'winning the war on cancer?' How safe are alternative treatments compared to chemo and radiation? Can we trust the information about cancer we are given in the media? THE CANCER CHARITIES: Steven Ransom presents an in-depth look inside the cancer charities and big drug companies and unravels a littany of vested interests and manipulation of information. CHEMO(TOXICO)THERAPY: A candid view of this commonly prescribed treatment and the harsh fact of expert and subtle manipulation behind the oft-quoted 'success' statistics. CANCER: An excerpt from Phillip Day's ABC's of Disease. MAMMOGRAPHY - MORE PROBLEMS: The false positive rate of mammograms, those patients without cancer but with a positive finding on testing, turns out to be another problem. Only one biopsy in six was found to be positive for cancer when done on the basis of a positive mammogram or breast examination. THE NITRILOSIDES IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS: Ernst T Krebs Jr. discusses the active, anti-cancer role of the Vitamin B17 nitrilosides in the plant and animal kingdoms. DEATH BY MEDICINE: A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking. The result is a paper entitled "Death by Medicine" that presents compelling evidence that today's (medical) system frequently causes more harm than good. IS LAETRILE (B17) USELESS? A collection of documented case studies showing results of cancer treatment using B17 in response to recent claims in the media that it is useless. MORE PROBLEMS WITH CHEMO AND RADIOTHERAPY: An excerpt from B17 Metabolic Therapy detailing the common perceptions of cancer and conventional treatments vs the reality of the situation. CANCER THE NEW APPROACH: A look at some of the doctors who took a different view of the probable causes of cancer and their experiences using B17 metabolic therapy to treat their patients. BREAST CANCER DRUG THAT RAISES SURVIVAL RATES BY A THIRD: Once again a bright and rosy picture is painted and a new drug hailed a success. However, perhaps we should read the 'fine print' before opening the bubbly. THE REAL HEALTH SCARE: Recently the UK's Daily Telegraph published an Opinion entitled 'The Real Health Scare', wherein alternative approaches to disease were given the usual panning. Here, one CTM member certainly felt the newspaper had simply gone a pill too far. CANCER BOY'S PARENTS WIN 'AMPUTATION' FIGHT: A couple who lost custody of their young son to social services after insisting that his bone cancer was treated using alternative medicine last week won a lengthy legal battle to get him back. MEDICINE OR CHEMICAL WARFARE? Author Steve Ransom discusses the horrors of gas weapons used in the two world wars and the alarming parallels to modern chemotherapy. OUR HEREDITARY SUBMISSIVE ATTITUDE? A discussion into the mental state of the newly diagnosed cancer patient, the rush to conventional treatment, and the phenomenon of our unquestioning submission. THE MERCHANTS:
In this excerpt from Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century,
Steve Ransom unveils the ties between the pharmaceutical industry and
governing bodies as well as the industry's stranglehold on medical academia. Sweeping Changes to Baby Vaccines Babies will no longer be given vaccine that contains the neurotoxin mercury when they are eight weeks old. The move follows pressure from parents and fears of a link between the metal and the development of autism. Doctors across the country are being sent letters telling them of changes to the infant vaccine programme, which introduce a new five-in-one jab at two months of age. They are also being told to switch from live polio vaccine, given by mouth, to an injection of a "killed" vaccine which avoids the rare cases of polio contamination. Campaigners welcomed the removal of mercury from children's vaccines but were worried about giving babies five vaccines at once. Jacquie Fletcher, founder of the parent support group Jabs (Justice, Awareness and Basic Support), said yesterday: "Giving five vaccines increases the risk of an adverse event as well as making it more difficult to find out which element is the cause if something goes wrong. I would also like to know why they have now decided to take mercury out of the vaccine. We have major concerns about mercury. We need to be assured that the new vaccine is safe. I want to know what safety and efficacy trials they have run which are large enough to show up what may be rare events." The changes are expected to take place next month when sufficient stocks of the new five-in-one vaccine have been amassed. The new injection, the first a baby is given, will inoculate against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hib and polio. The whooping cough element is the part of the vaccine that has, until now, contained mercury in a form called thiomersal. Thiomersal is used in a range of household products and medicines as an anti-fungal and antibacterial agent. Much concern has been raised about the triple jab for measles, mumps and rubella, and its links with autism, which have been strenuously denied. There is a separate concern over links between mercury in vaccines and autism. The Department of Health has always said that there is no evidence of such a link. Dr Peter English, consultant in communicable diseases at the Health Protection Agency, says in the circular letter to GPs that there are three reasons for the change. "The primary objectives are: to do away with whole cell pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine; to do away with live, oral polio vaccine and to do away with thiomersal vaccines." Dr English asks doctors and other health professionals
to treat the information "sensitively and keep it within the circle
of health professionals" until the formal announcement, which
will be made by the chief medical officer, Prof Sir Liam Donaldson, on
Monday. Prof John Oxford, professor of virology at Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, commenting on the decision, said that if there was "any doubt whatsoever" about the safety of mercury in vaccines then it should be removed. He said there were no grounds for concern in giving
five vaccines at once: "I don't think anyone has shown a shred
of evidence that multiple vaccines can overwhelm the immune system. Every
day our immune systems are exposed to much more than that." Politicians and Doctors Should Do the Right Thing for Vaccine Victims SIR - I read with emotional interest the news report on mercury and the whooping cough vaccination. Last September, our granddaughter had her first set of vaccinations at the age of eight weeks; that afternoon she had her first seizure. Her condition has been an uncontrollable nightmare ever since and her development has been severely delayed. We were told that either this was a bizarre coincidence
or a predisposed problem was triggered. Our suggestion that there was
a link to the vaccinations was rejected. The sooner that the medical pundits
accept that one solution does not fix all and that reactions to a sudden
infusion of a combination of foreign chemicals into small babies are a
possibility, the more respect I will have for their opinions. Further Resources Click
here to purchase or review any of the above. The Fluoride Action Network Dear All, This story gives hope to all those communities who have recently been fluoridated - it can come out as quickly as it goes in! The beauty of this issue is that once the political will is there fluoridation can be ended as simply as turning off a tap. That is what has happened in Sumner, Washington State this week. It was put in because the arms of local officials were twisted by the Tacoma-Pierce County health board. Now the State Supreme Court has ruled that the health board went beyond its authority, the untwisted arms have reached out and are about to switch off the tap. Note especially this statement: "If there are one or two people in Sumner who have negative health effects because of fluoride, that's not fair," said Councilman Curt Brown. "They have no choice, and we have seen that there are other ways to get fluoride." One or two people. At last, the rights of the INDIVIDUAL
are being recognized. Sumner to Stop Putting Fluoride
The City Council voted 7-1 Monday to stop putting fluoride in its drinking water, terminating the city's contract with the Tacoma-Pierce County health board. The decision means the city will lose the $122,000 it has spent to install the system, including $58,000 that would have been covered by a grant from the county Health Department. But stopping fluoridation also will save Sumner about $20,000 per year - the approximate cost of maintaining the system. The decision also should end, or at least curtail, the sometimes bitter local debate about fluoride's health effects. "If there are one or two people in Sumner who have negative health effects because of fluoride, that's not fair," said Councilman Curt Brown. "They have no choice, and we have seen that there are other ways to get fluoride." Mark Evers was the only councilman to vote against the motion. "I think we have to listen to the experts on this issue," he said. "If we're talking about choice, the 5-year-old kids who are coming to the dentist with cavities don't have a choice, either." Councilman Mike Connor attempted to amend the motion to include a provision to bring the issue to a public vote. His amendment failed, 4-3. About 10 members of the public also spoke before the council vote. Though fluoridation will end immediately, the equipment will be left in place, said Bill Shoemaker, Sumner public works director. He said that about half of the money was used for design and engineering, so the city can't recoup its losses by selling the equipment it purchased. Monday's vote followed an emotionally charged public hearing July 19 at which about 20 residents expressed opposition to fluoridation and about 10, including four dentists and two physicians, spoke in favor of it. Sumner began fluoridation March 31 under orders from the health board. There were few public complaints at that time. But the state Supreme Court overturned the order on May 13, after which a majority of the City Council came out in opposition to fluoridation. The council members said they would wait until after the public hearing to decide whether to fulfill the contract. In 2002, the county health board ordered fluoridation for 14 local drinking water suppliers, each serving more than 5,000 consumers. Sumner and others complied, but another group of cities, including Bonney Lake and Lakewood, appealed. When the Supreme Court overruled the order, health department officials said that Sumner, Milton and two other water suppliers had signed contracts to receive grants and thus were obligated to fluoridate. Health board officials say that fluoride helps promote oral hygiene. Some city leaders, including Mayor Barbara Skinner, have come out in favor of fluoridation, citing national evidence that it fights cavities, especially among poor children who might not get regular dental care. Opponents say that fluoride has negative effects as well. Putting it in the city's water, they say, will amount to forced medication. About 300,000 people in Pierce County already have
fluoride in their drinking water, including residents of Tacoma, University
Place, Fircrest and military bases. http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/5379245p-5317500c.html MoD 'Gag' on Details of Gulf War Illness The "manipulations and manoeuvres" of the Ministry of Defence were condemned yesterday after it approached scientists researching "Gulf War Syndrome" and asked them to limit their co-operation with an independent inquiry into veterans' illnesses. The criticism came on the second day of the open hearings to Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former Lord Justice of Appeal. The inquiry had been taking testimony from former servicemen who blame the 1991 conflict for a range of subsequent medical problems. The Ministry of Defence last week announced it would be "inappropriate" to allow ministers, civil servants and serving members of the armed forces to appear, but pledged it was "committed to openness" and promised to provide "appropriate documents". However, Malcolm Lingwood, the director of the MoD's veterans policy unit, sent a letter on Wednesday to more than 40 scientists and advisors that had been paid by the Government to research Gulf War-related illnesses. It asked them not to reveal any continuing findings until they could be published in the completed official report to preserve their "confidentiality". Prof Malcolm Hooper, a Government advisor on Gulf War
illnesses, said he saw it as a Government attempt to limit the inquiry's
ability to explore the extent of the problem. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Here, of course, is another
example of Big Brother frantically attempting some damage control over
the catastrophic matter of aspartame and depleted uranium poisoning, and
anthrax inoculations for our boys in the Gulf. Welcome to the 21st century,
where everyone has rights but seemingly no responsibilities. An Interview with Martin J. Walker
Many people believe there is presently a worldwide move through Codex Alimentarius to outlaw natural therapies and remedies. The first phase of these has been implemented through the EU Food Supplements Directive, with the Herbal and Medicines Directives to follow. In your book Dirty Medicine you outlined some of the strategies used by the pharmaceutical industry to discredit alternative medicine. What do you think is going on at the moment? When I was writing Dirty Medicine from 1988 to1993, I don't think I realised the importance of the attack on vitamins and mineral supplements. It's only recently that I've understood that the people attached to the Campaign Against Health Fraud (CAHF - now called Health Watch) in the UK, the American National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and Quackbusters in America were only the first wave of a more organised, powerful and centralised attempt to destroy vitamin and mineral supplements. I tended at that time to view the people I was writing about as rather quirky individuals who were in favour of professional medicine, biased towards scientific medicine and the pharmaceutical companies, but not as people supported by multinational agencies involved in a continuous conflict over supplements and holistic health therapies. Of course now that the plan has been unveiled, I can see that the organisation of CAHF and NCAHF was the first stage in the battle. The techniques they were using - the character assassination of alternative practitioners and researchers, the commissioning and planting of press stories, the linking up with more formal agencies like the FDA and the MCA, raiding premises, striking people off professional registers, bringing people before disciplinary board hearings, conducting bogus scientific trials, the undeclared work with large corporations. All these things were linked to a kind of regulatory ground-clearing exercise. Now, a legislative battle is taking place on a different level and involving whole groupings of countries. The pharmaceutical cartel are losing money worldwide to natural health care. They don't really want people to get better by themselves when they could be taking pharmaceutical medicine. The chemical and pharmaceutical companies would like to retain hegemony over the social structure of health and medicine. It isn't that they want to do away with vitamins and food supplements, it's that they want to control production and distribution of these things to maximise profit. The fact that they are campaigning to end self-administration of vitamins, minerals and food supplements would not stop them from putting them in food, for instance. They want to control pre-packaged distribution of vitamins and if they could put them in foods, shirts, lipsticks or patches or whatever, they will do that. They also want to end the confusion that has arisen between nutrition and medicine and they want to end any evident connection between nutrition and health so that in the public perception, health is dependent upon professional medicine and pharmaceutical products. Tell me more about the other books Slingshot has published or is going to publish? When I published Dirty Medicine in 1993 I set up Slingshot Publications and it was my intention to publish my own books. Dirty Medicine went out of print in 1998 after selling 7, 000 copies mainly by mail order. In 1998 I published a small booklet about Loic Le Ribault, an important French forensic scientist, mercilessly denigrated by the French State and by medical interests because he discovered the use of organic silica as a medicine for arthritis. I wrote a short booklet about him and he has since published his own series of books about his struggles, culminating in the recent publication of The Cost of A Discovery (available from LLR-G5 Ltd., C/o Ross Post Office, Castlebar, County Mayo, Republic of Ireland). Around 1999 or so, I thought that I would actually like to publish other people's work as well. In December 2002 Slin | |||||||