|
CTM
Eclub digest version, March 25th 2003
|
||||
|
Are You Furious and Paddling Yet? A recent Eblast sent out from the Campaign for Truth in Europe shocked many. It asked the reader whether they were aware of key facts about the European Union. The bulletin solicited overwhelming support from around the world, and also a few missiles, not the least of which arrived, laser-guided, in the form of Tory Member of the European Parliament Roger Helmer, who called one detail in my bulletin 'crap'. One lady who works for the EU in Luxembourg wanted to know where I picked up this piece of 'baloney'. Another subscriber wanted to draw my attention to how much more moral the EU is than America. Yet another was delighted that 'pimp' Britain, the 'poodle of America', could possibly leave the European Union. After all, who needs Britain? Oh, don't get me started. In the great Information Age today, do we all have a problem identifying what is fact and what isn't? I am always boggled by the extent to which a human being will canoe down that long river in Egypt called De-Nial, and walk away from the truth. So let's get to specifics. Below in bold are the questions my bulletin asked of the reader followed by the proof. Perhaps after we have buried our political indignations over fact or fiction, we could set about deciding as a continent whether we want to remain individual, self-governing nations, or become part of the unsavoury and highly dangerous EU alternative. I believe in Britain we're at that crossroads now - Peter Hitchens' last unrepeatable moment at which we can halt our extinction as a culture and a nation. There are those who think European integration is a great idea. And you know what? I defend their right to the death to have their own view. In the end, if the British people allow full integration with the EU to occur, folks like myself, who don't like it, always have the option to go and live somewhere else, and we yet might. Joining the euro - the final irrevocable step to integration - if decided by referendum, may just be the last democratic decision this country takes as a nation - even supposing we get the chance to vote, which is somewhat in doubt at the present time. But here's my main beef: and it's good old British beef. If full integration into the EU is such a great idea for Britain, then why all the lies and secrecy? Why is everyone sneaking around in the bushes and not coming clean about the true end-game? Why not just come right out with it, like a few proud Euro-politicians have done, and have Trevor McDonald announce to the nation that the euro means the end of our sovereignty and independence as a country, a rejection of American influence in Europe, and us tossing our marbles into the pot along with all those continental cousins of ours. I don't know what the big deal is - I really don't. Tell us all it'll mean the sharing of all our jobs, the free movement of labour for anyone who wants to come and work in Britain, along with the dividing up of our wealth, and national assets, such as our $500 billion future oil reserves, with our neighbours. Just be honest and tell the truth. But please, use Trevor McDonald to do it. I can take
any kind of bad news from him. Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans Pritchard, reported on 7th February 2003: "Article 3 [of the proposed EU Constitution] gives the EU powers to 'co-ordinate the economic policies of the member states', which covers fiscal policy. Article 4 says 'the Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy'. Virtually all the current activities of the British Government will fall under the 'exclusive' or 'shared competence' of the EU - meaning that Westminster will be prohibited from legislating unless Brussels chooses to waive its primacy. The areas cover public health, social policy, transport, justice, agriculture, fisheries, energy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, internal and external trade, and consumer protection." Tim Kirkhope, a Conservative MEP and justice spokesman, has no problem accusing the EU of flirting with 'dictatorship': "This [constitution] puts our parliamentary democracy under grave threat. It turns the EU on its head by saying that everything is the competence of Brussels unless determined otherwise. It is totally unacceptable to the British people." ….and should be unacceptable to the Irish Republican Army too, who for years blasted, bombed, shot and bludgeoned the hated British over an issue of Irish nationalism and a 'free Ireland', all the while their politicians in Dublin were busy handing the keys of their country over to Brussels. Has anyone told the IRA this yet? Previously Evans-Pritchard had illustrated in the same newspaper that Tony Blair's personal eminence and influence in Europe has only been secured by trading off a staggering amount of EU integration over the past five years: "… the abolition of sterling, in principle; the EU-wide arrest warrants for felonies, including thought crimes such as xenophobia; a proto FBI/CIA rolled into one at Europol; the Social Chapter, which has subtly overturned our trade union laws and forced Britain to adopt a disturbingly large number of Germany's labour-market rigidities; anti-discrimination laws that force employers to prove their innocence in court, contravening a core principle of our common law [that a person is innocent until proven guilty]; the Charter of Fundamental Rights - an insidious misnomer - containing a clause authorising suspension of all civic rights, if necessary, in the 'general interest of the Union'; and now a European constitution, switching our final jurisdiction from the House of Lords to the European Court." Did you know that the European Union has criminalised
the sale of hundreds of perfectly safe vitamin, mineral, food supplement
and herbal products with effect from July 2005? * Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC, formerly 500PC0222:
Passed on 12th March 2002. This directive will lead to the banning of
many popular supplements with effect from July 2005 - items such as boron,
many types of calcium, many times of chromium, copper, mixed tocopherols,
iron, vanadium, zinc, food state vitamins. Depending on interpretation,
it could also severely lower the upper limit of many of the most popular
vitamins, like vitamin C, with exhaustive evidence of safety. Anything
not on the positive list when the directive comes into effect in three
years' time will be banned throughout Europe. Anyone trafficking these
banned substances after July 2005 can legally be prosecuted for committing
a criminal act. For you canoe-paddlers, the text of the directive is at:
Those of you furiously writing to your MP/MEP to protest such an intrusion would do well to heed the voice of Jeffrey Titford, another member of the European Parliament: "Individual MEPs are not essential, nor even an important part [of the EU]. We are interchangeable bit-part actors… participating in a mockery of the parliamentary process…. OUR VOTES CANNOT CHANGE A DIRECTIVE. We are there merely to furnish an illusion of democracy, providing a veneer to conceal what is a fundamentally undemocratic process. The cast may change, but the show always goes on, with the actors collecting their wages at the stage door." An estimated 400 million pieces of protest mail went
into the EU over the previous vote on these directives. Did your outrage
do any good then? What makes you think anyone in the Euro Parliament can
do anything about it now? Bringing Britain out of the European Union will
mean that Britain, like Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Switzerland, won't
be compelled to obey tens of thousands of unnecessary and damaging directives
we don't need and lived quite happily without for years. Britain's main
advantage is that she is the EU's biggest customer. Do you honestly think
withdrawing from the EU is going damage Britain? Just think what we could
do with the £1.25 million an hour we would save for starters…. Here's another FACT: Under Article 12 of Chapter 5 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU, a blanket, lifetime immunity can be extended, if necessary, to all officials and their servants of the institutions, which reads as follows: "In the territory of each member state and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall.... be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words (spoken or written). They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office." In 1999, when the entire EU Commission resigned, having been exposed for fraud, was one individual prosecuted? Nope. Diplomatic immunity. Article 1, Chapter 1, Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU states that "...premises and buildings of the Communities shall be exempt from search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation, and their archives shall be inviolable...." Thus no buildings or offices, filing cabinets, archives or bottom drawers belonging to the EU, wherever they are located, can be snooped at, searched or inspected… ever. These two exemptions alone place the staff and premises of the EU, in their official capacities, completely above the law, again if required, which of course flies in the face of the basic principle of British or any decent democracy that 'no-one is above the law'. In reality, legislation wording from the EU is always open to the widest interpretation. Immunity could be granted to just about anyone the EU deems embarrassing enough to the Union to warrant being kept away from the media. Speaking of which, according also to The Independent, 15th January 1996, employees of the EU have immunity from prosecution for deeds and acts performed by them in the discharge of their duties. Criminal investigations by the Belgium police are apparently severely hampered by EU employees' vows of secrecy and claims of diplomatic immunity. Belgian fraud investigators reported that fraud by EU officials was going unchecked. Article 236 of the Treaty of Amsterdam also effectively gives immunity to employees of the European Commission. "The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in Staff Regulations and Conditions of Employment." (Eurofaq posting, 16th February 1999) * Did anyone tell you this also goes for the new European police force? Article 8 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, signed into law via British Statutory Instrument 2973:1997, concerning Europol officers, declares that: "Such persons shall enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in respect of acts, including words written or spoken, done by them in the exercise of their official functions…" No surprises there, then. (Story also covered by PA News, 14th February 1998) Under the new EU Arrest Warrant, Europol has now been
granted powers to arrest and detain any citizen speaking out against the
EU for up to 9 months without having to provide any evidence. Lindsay Jenkins, who worked as a senior civil servant in the British Ministry of Defence for almost ten years, and spent a further ten working for British and American investment banks in the City, is today widely acclaimed for her forecasting and documenting of political and economic trends. In her book The Last Days of Britain (Orange State Press, ISBN 0-9657812-2-4), she reports: "The 35 articles of Corpus Juris, A Draft Criminal Code and Code of Procedure, define crimes of fraud with penalties of up to seven years in jail; establish new EU institutions; and procedures for investigations, committals, prosecutions, detentions before trial of up to nine months, trials, and executions of sentences." Lindsay Jenkins further reports that, "under Corpus Juris, a suspect can be arrested anywhere in the EU, held in jail without a public hearing [Articles 1-8 and 20.3g] and without any evidence produced against them, for indefinite periods of time, and transported around the EU at will. When eventually the accused is tried, a professional judge, without a jury, would declare him guilty or not guilty (Article 26.I)." Crucially, judges in future no longer have to abide by habeas corpus and consider prima facie evidence against a suspect within 24 hours of detention. Evidence need only be produced at the suspect's trial, which technically can be withheld indefinitely. Are we therefore completely dumbfounded to discover that the Corpus Juris EU manual itself, (Sous la direction de Mireille Delmas-Marty, ISBN 2-7178-3344-7, p40, para 3), informs us that: "[Corpus Juris is] designed to ensure, in a largely unified European legal area, a fairer, simpler and more efficient system of repression." Yes, the very word used, translated accurately of course into all languages of the European Union. Under Corpus Juris, Article 24.Ib, the European Public Prosecutor can order a British judge to issue an EU arrest warrant to Europol, or indeed existing national forces, for the purposes of apprehending and holding a citizen on any one of 32 charges, which include 'racism' or 'xenophobia' (see also Amsterdam Treaty, Article 29, Title VI). Racism and xenophobia, while strangely not defined in the CJ criminal code, are increasingly being interpreted to include speaking out against the EU and its policies, according to the EU's European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, based in Vienna. The House of Lords responds with indignation thus: "… the powers of remand given to the agents of the European Public Prosecutor [who can] request a person's remand in custody without charge or remand on bail for a period of up to six months, renewable for three months… the prospect that an individual may be held in custody, without charge, for up to nine months is totally unacceptable." (Extracts from House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities 9th Report, 'Prosecuting Fraud on the Communities' Finances' - The Corpus Juris) Under Article 191 of the Treaty of Nice, the EU has been granted powers by the signatory states to withdraw funding for any European political party it deems inappropriate or unsuitable for Europe. * Have you been told that if your country is talked
into adopting the euro, all your nation's gold reserves, all silver stocks
and dollar assets will be handed over to the EU's central bank, leaving
your nation independently incapacitated and unable to re-launch its independence?
[We must consider] the most important question of all: By what right does the EU claim our national assets? And by what right does the UK government claim to be able to dispose of them?" Gordon Brown used the proceeds from the gold sale to purchase euros, adroitly sidestepping the need for a distressing, physical transfer of the metals to the European Central Bank. Even this support however didn't stop the euro from sliding further. As for the notion that Britain may try to regain her independence and leave the EU one day, the Daily Telegraph, 20th September 2002, records in its editorial: "Imagine the scene. The newly elected Prime Minister rises in the Commons and announces that, in accordance with his or her party manifesto, Britain will secede from the European Union. He gets back to Number 10 and takes a call from the EU President. "You can't secede," says the President "At least you can't unless you get the agreement of three quarters of the votes in the Council of Ministers, a two-thirds majority in the European Parliament and ratification by every single country in the EU. In other words, forget it." "But we had an election," says the Prime Minister. "This was the main issue. We have a democratic mandate and we are determined to leave." "Let me pass you to Field Marshal Robespierre
of the European Army who will explain how you will be stopped."
Silent Majority reports: The EU wasted nearly £3bn through fraud, bungling and lax controls in 1996. The EU Court of Auditors found that 5.4 % of the £55bn budget had been paid in error. (Daily Telegraph 18/11/97). The EU Parliamentary Committee on Budgetary Control has accused the EU of giving misleading information and stalling inquiries into fraud among its officials involving millions of pounds, dating back to 1989. The Committee is threatening to refuse to approve the EC annual accounts [again]. There are an estimated 700 enquiries being conducted by UCLAF. (Daily Telegraph 5th February 1998). The Court of Auditors says measures to combat fraud are still complex, cumbersome and fraught with delays and communication problems. 50% of UCLAF's anti-fraud staff are temporary. Not all databases are operational and management of information is poor. Efforts to fight fraud are hampered by privileges and immunities enjoyed by EU staff. There is an exaggerated hesitation to lift the immunity of suspects. (Financial Times, 25th July 1998). Fingers in the till Paul van Buitenen did. He was the EU-appointed auditor who brought down Jacques Santer's European Commission on fraud charges by highlighting the worst financial scandal in Euroland's history. Van Buitenen was able to show that billions of euros had been 'misappropriated' by members of the EU élite, such as the ludicrous French commissioner, Edith Cresson, whose live-in dentist became an unlikely beneficiary. Because of vB's revelations, the EU swung ponderously but predictably into action. Van Buitenen was, of course, suspended without pay by the EU Commission, the very target of his corruption investigations, for doing his job, while the officials he had accused of serious crimes were themselves suspended on full pay. Van Buitenen was later vindicated when a further panel upheld his accusations, resulting in the resignation of Santer's entire EU Commission in 1999. Yet, such is the extent of the corruption, mediocrity and incompetence going on within the EU that the fraud has continued without check under Mr Prodi's successive regime. Later, van Buitenen published his best-seller, Blowing the Whistle, which did just that, but Europe's citizens remained, as always, apathetic and careless at the revelations. Hounded but not silent Mr Neil Kinnock (remember him?), in his role as the officially appointed EU sleaze-buster, offered any whistleblowers protection from 'adverse consequences' if they came clean, then promptly reneged on his offer of 'protection' in the case of Ms Andreasen, and even stood by and approved her sacking by the Commission, which again was the very target of Ms Andreasen's corruption concerns. Mr Kinnock was thus able to give the public another opportunity to see for themselves how much his word is really worth. Mr Kinnock also deliberately lied when he tried to defend his reprehensible actions against Andreasen: "Commission accounts have been endorsed annually by the Court of Auditors." But Neil Kinnock, the EU's supposed Fighter-of-Lies, knows better. This, by the way, was the very same man who was himself busted for sleaze as a Brussels commissioner when the Santer Commission was forced to resign. Ironically, Mr Kinnock was not only reinstated after his resignation, but was given the task of cleaning up fraud within the EU. Which is akin to the wolf telling us someone's been in the hen-house. Mr Kinnock knows full well that gross financial irregularities in the EU's accounts (that includes the money we've paid to the EU, in case you haven't cottoned on) have prevented accountants at the Court of Auditors from signing them off for EIGHT YEARS in a row. In fact, in a report issued a few weeks prior to Andreasen's professional execution, the Court warned of massive failings in a system, which could not even record how many billions of pounds were being wasted through fraud each year! Even Britain's own National Audit Office found 'persistent weaknesses' in fraud checks by EU states earlier in 2002. Shadow Deputy Prime Minister David Davis is outraged: "Is there or isn't there a double-entry accounting system? Because if there isn't, then it is unlike any other accounting system in the world that anyone respects." How Harsh the Medicine? Well, we've heard these visions from Mao, Pol Pot, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, etc. before them - the idea that you can save your people by repressing and controlling them with a million rules and regulations and no accountability. Is it so unreasonable to suppose this current flirtation with dictatorship will NOT end in tears and violence the way its predecessors' did? Look, there are good and honest people working in the EU, to be sure. But if they believe, however misguidedly, that this Union in any way represents firstly the people of Europe, and secondly a freedom and liberty greater than those enjoyed in Britain today, they are greatly mistaken. But what about the British people themselves, who, like the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Austrians and Italians across the water, are always the first to suffer at the hands of their politicians? Like imperial Rome in the twilight of her years, could the rot be so ingrained, the hour so late, that the British as a people are unable to make a stand against their own annihilation as a nation? Do the British need to suffer on their own cross and die in order to be reborn? Could the wars of disassociation that may follow any armed civilian insurrection against the European Union a few years from now be the sacrifice required to shock the British to their senses? From some interviews I have attended, these agonies are described by politicians in muted tones. They recognise there are thousands in Britain who will not stand by and silently watch the destruction of their country. Too much blood has been invested; too many loved ones never came home from the poppy fields of Flanders, the jungles of Burma or the deserts of North Africa. Some never even made it home from the office. But if the British fail to act in time, then they simply get the future they deserve, and the European play moves to the final scene by default - total political and economic integration. Coerced into breaking down the last of her political character by traitors within and a devious enemy without, Britain will be compelled by the power of treaty to embrace the dark and unfamiliar future she has chosen for herself. Short of war, this final move will be irreversible and final. Then again, who wants to save a Britain that doesn't want to be saved? Maybe this is the way it has to be. With the causes and horrors of two world wars forgotten or never known or taught to many today, maybe the British have to re-learn the lessons of the past. Maybe, in the midst of all the turmoil, bloodshed and misery that may follow the dawning of the truth of our predicament, we might discover that we needed to be put into this position of such utter, dire peril once more, so we could find forgiveness for all the selfishness and indifference, and in the forgiving, perhaps a kind of redemption. * * * * * "There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified." - British Prime Minister, Edward Heath, televised broadcast, January 1973 "Above all, the EEC takes away Britain's freedom to follow the economic policies we need. We will negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed our jobs." Tony Blair, 1982 "Britain turning its back on Europe would be an error of vast proportions. Be under no doubt: if the economic tests are met, Britain should join the single currency. For Britain to be marginalised in Europe when soon the EU will have 25 members stretching from Portugal to Poland and the largest commercial market in the world, would not just be economically unwise, it would betray a total misunderstanding of the concept of national interest in the 21st century." Tony Blair 2002 Resources: EU 'Bid to Brainwash UK Voters' EU chiefs want to brainwash Brits into giving up their nationality, the PM's envoy to Brussels warned yesterday. Gisela Stuart said Brussels bigwigs were plotting to create an EU of 450 million "true Europeans." The MP said their aim was to "strip out Britishness" to turn us into European citizens. But she warned: "This is opening a Pandora's Box." Ms Stuart is Labour's parliamentary appointee to a convention on Europe's future - headed by ex-French president Valery Giscard D'Estaing. She is the only Brit on its 13-strong inner circle, which is drawing up a new Euro constitution. But Ms Stuart warned the other members against a headlong rush to build a superstate, saying it would alienate millions of voters. She also said it would give a huge boost to extremist parties such as France's National Front, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen. Ms Stuart said: "We cannot draw up something so remote from reality in the hope that the world will move in that way. That is when you get the Le Pens and the Far Right." Bavarian-born Ms Stuart - a British citizen - was handed her convention job after being axed as health minister. She dismissed claims that Britain is the winning the battle to limit Brussels' powers. She said "real proposals" to halt the drive towards a United States of Europe were blocked. Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram said: "We'll
make sure people aren't brainwashed."
Common Cold has $40 Billion Annual Price Tag The common cold costs the U.S. economy $40 billion a year - an amount that's substantially higher than what is spent on other conditions such as asthma, heart failure and emphysema. Missed days from school and work, visits to the doctor and over-the-counter and prescription medications account for the majority of costs. To investigate the impact of the cold, researchers conducted a nationwide telephone survey of over 4,000 households to find out how many people had colds as well as what methods people used to treat them. Close to three-quarters of people surveyed said they had had a cold within the last year, and the average respondent had two to three colds per year. According to researchers, the cold is the most commonly occurring illness in humans, with about 500 million occurring each year in the United States alone. Although antibiotics have no effect on the viruses that cause colds, the study found that about 41 million antibiotic prescriptions are written for cold sufferers each year at a cost of $1.1 billion. Further, Americans spend $2.9 billion on over-the-counter drugs and $400 million on prescription drugs for relief of symptoms. Researchers found that there are more than 100 million doctors visits for colds each year, at an estimated cost of $7.7 billion annually, and another 6 million visits to the emergency room. More than one-third of patients who visited a doctor for a cold received a prescription, a pattern that is likely contributing to the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance in America. Data also indicated that about 189 million school days are missed because of colds each year, which causes parents to miss 126 million workdays in order to take care of their children at home. This, in addition to the number of workdays missed by adult cold-sufferers, adds up to more than $20 billion in cold-related work loss each year. Much of the costs for colds are due to misconceptions about causes, treatments and prevention of colds. According to a separate survey of 261 families with at least one young child in out-of-home childcare, nearly all of the 197 families who responded knew that viruses cause colds. However, more than half thought antibiotics are needed to treat them. Also, close to two-thirds of respondents said they'd take their child to a doctor for a cold, and close to one-quarter said they'd take their child to the emergency room, despite the fact that common colds will get better without a doctor's visit. There is currently no cure for the common cold, but
researchers note that an effective treatment or preventative measure for
the cold would have great economical impact. You can be proactive and not only prevent the most common infection in the United States, the common cold, but also save yourself real money if you happen to come down with one. On the average, every person in the United States has about two colds a year; that's right, half a billion colds occur every year in the United States and cost many of us our hard-earned income and time while we reap the consequences of not following an optimal health program. First of all, it is important to understand the causes of colds. Most people believe that colds are caused by bacteria, but this, of course, is not correct. Colds are triggered by viruses, and using antibiotics to treat a viral infection is an exercise in futility as it will never work. Viruses are much smaller than bacteria and have entirely different structures that make them impervious to antibiotics. Occasionally antibiotics are required if there is a secondary bacterial sinus infection or bronchitis/pneumonia, but this is the rare exception. However, it is important to recognize that although the virus actually triggers the cold symptoms, it is in no way, shape or form the "cause" of the cold. Believing that a virus "causes" a cold is a very dangerous perspective to take for once you allow external forces to "control" your health, you lose the ability to improve it. Taking responsibility for your own health is vitally important here. So what is the real cause of colds? The simple and short answer is an impairment in your immune system. There are many ways this can result, but the more common contributing factors are: 1. Eating too much sugar and too many grains The first approach to avoiding colds is to be careful and avoid food choices that will sabotage your health. You simply cannot eat sugar if you are sick as this is asking for a health disaster. If you are stressed please consider EFT, which is an amazingly effective tool to address the foundational core reasons as to how the stress is impairing your immune system. If, for whatever reason, you have come down with a cold, my personal recommendation is to use the safe and inexpensive hydrogen peroxide ear flush described below. I am constantly amazed at how effective this treatment is. It is one of the first things we tell our patients to do when they call our office with cold symptoms. You can also use zinc lozenges. I have been using
zinc in my practice for over 15 years, far before it was popular. When
using zinc lozenges it is important to recognize that they need to be
sucked on, NOT swallowed, and smaller doses taken more frequently seem
to work better. I usually advise patients to suck on a quarter lozenge
every 30 minutes. If started early, this approach seems to work well for
the majority of patients.
Dates Coming Up Got your tickets for Phillip Day's 'Let's Fix Britain'
tour yet? Forthcoming venue locations over the next few weeks include
Croydon, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone, Southampton, Bournemouth, St Ives,
Torquay, Petworth, Basingstoke, Dorking, Bristol, Newport, Solihull and
Stoke on Trent. Click here to examine schedule or purchase a ticket. Medicare Stops Funding "Multiple Electroshock"
CMS Investigation reveals patients at "greater risk"
LOS ANGELES: As of April 1, 2003, Medicare will cease all national coverage of "multiple seizure" electroshock treatments, after an investigation revealed the practice is unworkable and places patients at risk. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) conducted the investigation after a December 2001 report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found multiple seizure electroshock had "none of the claimed benefits and many risks," including "profound confusional states." The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), a psychiatric watchdog that has exposed the brain-damaging and lethal effects of electroshock, hailed the decision as a victory for patients' rights.
Also known as multiple monitored ECT (MMECT), Medicare has been paying out $500,000 a year for its use. On February 24 this year, CMS said that Medicare would no longer cover this practice, stating, "The clinical effectiveness of multiple-seizure electroconvulsive therapy [ECT] has not been verified by scientifically controlled studies…studies have demonstrated an increased risk of adverse effect…."
CMS also found that in the elderly population, the risk may be "several fold higher" than for "younger patients for severe confusion, falls, and cardiorespiratory complications." The elderly are a key market for ECT. In Texas, one of the few states that keeps track of shock statistics, 65-year-olds get 360 percent more ECT than 64-year-olds because Medicare coverage takes effect at sixty-five.
Ms. Jan Eastgate, the international president of CCHR, says that electroshock treatment involves "searing the brain with more volts of electricity than you'll find in your home. Between 180 to 460 volts of electricity sends a current pulsing through the brain creating a 'grand mal' seizure, which is identical to an epileptic fit. The administering psychiatrist usually looks for a curling up or twitching of the toes to determine if the shock has 'worked.' Without this sign, multiple electric shocks have been given until the desired effect is achieved. Today, MMECT can induce up to eight seizures in one treatment."
Electroshock has always been controversial, considering its origins arose out of Italian slaughterhouses. In 1938, Dr. Ugo Cerletti, head of the psychiatry department at the University of Rome, observed how pigs were prepared for slaughter using electroshock, which eased the job of slitting their throats. He was inspired, and began experimenting with electroshock on humans. Broken bones and fractured vertebrae that resulted from the convulsions appeared to be of little concern.
In the 1960s, psychiatrists added muscle relaxants to modify the assault on the body. Today, the administration of ECT is a $3 billion a year industry in the United States with more than 100,000 Americans undergoing it, many involuntarily. Yet, a 2001 Colombia University study found ECT is so ineffective at ridding patients of their depression that nearly all of those who receive it relapse within six months of stopping treatment.
Eastgate says, "The fact that Medicare will no longer cover multiple seizure shock treatment is a step in the right direction. But it should apply to all ECT procedures. It will take government intervention because psychiatrists will never admit their cashcow practice harms. It's only because of groups like CCHR that it can no longer be given at psychiatric whim." With over 130 chapters around the world, CCHR has been able to secure the right for patients to be fully informed about the risks of ECT, and in the U.S., states have banned its use in children.
CTM COMMENT: It is certainly a breakthrough, and thanks to the effort of organisations such as CCHR, that the barbaric practice of electroshock is gradually being outlawed. For more information on the natural, non-toxic and invasive alternatives for mental illnesses, as well as a devastating exposé on the quackery of psychiatry, obtain a copy of Phillip Day’s The Mind Game. www.credence.org Environmental Toxicity Seeping Through In a recent study led by Mount Sinai School of Medicine
in New York, in collaboration with the Environmental Working Group, researchers
at two major laboratories found an average of 91 industrial compounds,
pollutants, and other chemicals in the blood and urine of nine volunteers,
with a total of 167 chemicals found in the group. Like most of us, the
people tested do not work with chemicals on the job and do not live near
an industrial facility. Scientists refer to this contamination as a person's
'body burden'. Of the 167 chemicals found, 76 cause cancer in humans or
animals, 94 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 79 cause birth
defects or abnormal development. The dangers of exposure to these chemicals
in combination has never been studied. What environmental contaminants
are inside you or around you every day? For the full report, go to Pioneering Clinic will Bring In February 2003, the first clinic in Britain to tackle
juvenile delinquency by studying what children eat, then treating them
with nutritional medicine and psychotherapy, opened its doors. Its consultant
is Peter Bennett, a former officer with West Yorkshire police. The Cactus
Clinic, at Teesside University in Middlesbrough, sprang from the work
of the late Professor Steve Baldwin, who died in the Selby rail disaster,
and Janice Hill, who runs the Overload Network, an Edinburgh-based charity
for children with behavioural disorders. Disturbed by a lack of alternatives
to the throw-away-the-key approach to delinquency and the over-prescription
of psychiatric drugs for children, they forged ahead with their maverick
idea. The nutritional approach was based on a wealth of global research
into the effects of vitamins, minerals and other compounds such as amino
acids on brain chemistry. Full story at http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,901199,00.html
The NZ Ministry of Ignorance Dear All, I have just received a copy of a letter the NZ Minister of Health sent to Sylvia Cole, the citizen who led the successful effort to overturn the decision by Waoroa District to fluoridate their water (see IFIN 733). The letter pre-dates Sylvia's victory. We have grown accustomed to editorials in local newspapers which simply parrot the propaganda of the pro-fluoridation zealots, but it comes as a bit of a shock to see these same falsehoods coming out of the mouth of a Minister of Health. Please read the letter from the Hon. Annette King below and my detailed reply which follows. Quite frankly I am sick of this nonsense. These people are paid very large salaries to do their level best to protect the health of the people they serve. They are supposed to be working for the taxpayers not against them! I hope very much that International Fluoridation Information Network (IFIN) readers share my anger on this and that you will use this as an opportunity to shake the NZ pro-fluoridation establishment to its rotten core. You can help do this by sending your very best letter to the Minister at this e-mail address Aking@ministers.govt.nz and also send a copy to me at ggvideo@northnet.org. I plan to send all these letters to Bill Wilson the chairperson of the newly formed NZ chapter of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN-NZ), and ask him to do two things: a) send all the letters on to every news outlet in NZ for which he can find an e-mail address, b) consider selecting the very best letters and making them up into a booklet which can be used by anti-fluoridation campaigners in New Zealand. It is time that these people were heavily embarrassed. Let us help Bill let this Minister know that citizens and scientists from all over the world are watching her and are disgusted with her irresponsibility at best, or her dishonesty, at worst. Paul Connett (Professor) Copy letter from the Minister of Health 18 Feb 2003 Ms Silvia Cole Dear Ms Cole Thank you for your letter of 6 December 2002 regarding your concerns about the fluoridation of the Wairoa water supply. I apologise for the long delay in responding. I am not in a position to comment on the process followed by your Council on deciding to fluoridate Wairoa's water supply. However, I am pleased with this decision as I support the fluoridation of drinking water supplies. I note your comments that sodium fluoride or hydrofluorosilicic acid 'do nothing but harm'. However, there is a large body of scientific material that shows overwhelming evidence for the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation. For example, a New Zealand report, by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd, concluded that there was no persuasive evidence of harmful effects from optimal water fluoridation (between 0.7 and 1.0 ppm), and the evidence has strengthened the fact that there are no serious health risks associated with water fluoridation. The only effect that has been associated with water fluoridation (apart from improved oral health status) is very mild dental fluorosis in a small number of children. Dental fluorosis is a defect of the tooth enamel caused by the ingestion of fluoride during the development of tooth enamel. Clinically, dental fluorosis is characterised by opaque white areas in the enamel. In its mild forms these opacities may be unrecognisable to other than a dental professional or have no more than cosmetic significance. The level of fluoride recommended in the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards 2000 of 0.7 to 1.0 mg/litre is specifically designed to minimise the risk of dental fluorosis. You suggest very few countries have fluoridated water and that the number of countries is declining. On the contrary, when last reviewed, approximately 40 countries fluoridated their water supplies within the recommended levels of 0.7 to 1.0 parts per million and a further 48 countries had water supplies with natural fluoride concentrations of 0.7 ppm or higher. This includes counties in Asia, Europe (including Scandinavia), the United Kingdom, North America and Australasia. The trend in the United States has been for referenda to vote in support of water fluoridation. The state of California has made water fluoridation mandatory for communities of 100,000 or greater and there is a significant demand for fluoridated bottled water in the United States bottled water market. Elsewhere, the Israeli Knesset has voted to make water fluoridation mandatory for communities of 5,000 or more, the South African government has legislated for water fluoridation, and the United Kingdom is considering legislation. I am aware of the views of Professor Connett and am also aware that his views are not supported by the scientific evidence available in the reputable scientific literature. Reports of independent experts, in relevant fields of medicine, epidemiology, oral health and water engineering, are unanimous that the benefits of water fluoridation outweigh the very small potential risks. There are no significant health risks associated with water fluoridation at optimal levels. I must also caution that the websites and pseudo-scientific magazines purporting to provide information on the health risks of fluoridation contain information that is less likely to have undergone rigorous peer review than the articles in leading scientific journals. Most of the Internet articles and research that raise fears about water fluoridation lack substance or repeat previous statements already shown to be without scientific validity. You suggest that water fluoridation provides no benefits. The role of fluoride in the prevention of dental decay is well documented in both international studies and from New Zealand data. While it is unquestionable that decay rates have fallen in unfluoridated communities, this is not to the same extent as communities with fluoridated water. A number of studies of the benefits of fluoridation to the primary and permanent teeth of children have demonstrated significant reductions in decay rates (ranging from 20 to 80 percent). Water fluoridation is effective throughout the lifespan, preventing root caries in adults and older people, so that fluoride can be seen to be of benefit to anyone with their natural teeth, not just children. A New Zealand report on Preventative Dental Strategies for Older Populations, noted that 'fluoride [is] the most important preventive measure available against decay at both the individual and population levels'. The lifetime benefit of exposure to water fluoridation is estimated to be the prevention of a total of 2.4 to 12.0 decayed, missing or filled teeth for the average individual. Fluoridation of water supplies remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries-preventive effects of fluoride. Fluoridation of water supplies at levels between 0.7 and 1.0 mg/litre is safe and effective in promoting oral health. The Government will therefore continue to support the fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Thank you for writing. I trust this information is useful. Yours sincerely Dear Minister, I have just read a copy of a letter (Feb 19, 2003, copy below) you sent to Mrs Sylvia Cole on the subject of water fluoridation. Your letter goes a long way to explain why it is that New Zealand, so progressive and free-thinking in many other areas, is so backward on the issue of water fluoridation. One of the sentences that stood out in your letter was your attack on my credibility. You wrote: "I am aware of the views of Professor Connett and am also aware that his views are not supported by the scientific evidence available in the reputable scientific literature." This is an extraordinary statement considering that I have put nearly 7 years of "independent" research into this issue (with no axe to grind in the matter) and most of my views are based upon articles in the "reputable scientific literature". To state a few: 1) On declining tooth decay in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas: Leverett (1982); Diesendorf (1986); Colquhoun (1984, 1994); Gray (1987); Brunelle and Carlos (1990); Petersson & Bratthall (1996); Spencer et al (1996); de Liefde (1998) and WHO figures for 12-year olds available online. 2) On increasing rates of dental fluorosis in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas: Spencer (1996); Heller (1997); McDonagh (2000); and Griffin (2002). 3) On the benefits of fluoride being largely topical, not systemic: Fejerskov (1981); Carlos (1983); Featherstone (1987, 1999, 2000); Burt (1994); Locker (1999); Limeback (1999); and CDC (1999, 2001). 4) On the increase in bone (particularly hip) fractures in clinical trials using fluoride to treat patients with osteoporosis: Inkovaara (1975); Gerster (1983); Dambacher (1986); Hedlund and Gallagher (1989); Bayley (1990); Gutteridge (1990, 2002); Orcel (1990); Riggs (1990); Schnitzler (1990), and Haguenauer (2000). 5) On investigations of possible relationship between
fluoridated water and increased bone (particularly hip) fractures: Cooper
(1990, 1991); Jacobsen (1990, 1992); Keller (1991); Sowers (1991); Danielson
(1992); May and Wilson (1992); Jacobsen (1993); Suarez-Almazor (1993);
Cauley (1995); Jacqmin-Gadda (1995, 1998); Karagas (1996); Feskanich (1998);
Lehmann (1998); Kurttio (1999); Hegmann (2000); Hillier (2000); Phipps
(2000); Alarcon-Herrera (2001); and Li (2001). 6) On the levels of fluoride in human bone: Glock (1941); Smith (1953); Zipkin (1958); Jackson (1958); Parkins (1974); Kuo (1974); Charen (1979); Alhava (1980); Stein (1980); Wix (1980); Hefti (1981); Arnala (1985); Boivin (1988); Eble (1992); Sogaard (1994); and Richards (1994). 7) On the levels of fluoride causing bone weakening in animals: Chan (1973), Moskilde (1987), Turner (1992, 1993), LeFage (1995); Sogaard (1995). 8) On a possible association between fluoride and reduced fertility: Freni (1994). 9) On the accumulation of fluoride in the human pineal gland: Luke (2001). 10) On fluoride's interference with hydrogen bonding: Emsley (1981). 11) On fluoride's mutagenicity: Mohamed (1982); Tsutsui (1984); Caspary (1987); Scott (1987); Kishi (1993); Sheth (1994); Meng (1995, 1997); Wu (1995); Mihashi 1996; Joseph (2000). 12) On fluoride's facilitation of increased uptake of aluminum into the brain (and other parts of the body): Varner et al (1998); see also Allain (1996). 13) On the association between the use of silicofluorides as water fluoridating agents and the increased uptake of lead into children's blood: Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000). 14) On the ability of fluoride in the presence of a trace amount of aluminum to switch on G-proteins, which are involved in carrying messages across membranes: Strunecka and Patocka (1999, 2002). Which of these citations do you believe are taken from non-reputable sources? I also take exception to your very generalized attack on resource material made available on the Internet, when you say in paragraph 7, "Most of the Internet articles and research that raise fears about water fluoridation lack substance". Two of the sites with which members of my family have been involved, http://www.fluoridealert.org and http://www.SLweb.org/bibliography.html, have been scrupulous in citing scientific references for all the arguments made. Instead of dismissing all this evidence with a broad, and highly prejudiced, brush, you would do well to examine some of this scientific evidence. While, I believe that the scientific evidence I have examined clearly illustrates that the benefits of fluoridation have been wildly exaggerated and the risks downplayed, still the strongest argument against fluoridation remains the ethical one. It is simply wrong to force medication on people who don't want it. It violates one of the cornerstones of medical ethics, the right of the patient to "informed consent" to medication. I am surprised as a Miniser of health you are insensitive to this ethical imperative. The practice of fluoridation becomes even more preposterous when one discovers that the level of fluoride in mothers' milk is remarkably low ( 0.01 ppm, IOM, 1997). Those who believe that fluoride is needed for healthy teeth have to explain why it is that fluoride is naturally so low in the baby's first meal. Did evolution screw up on this? Also your Ministry should be pondering what it means to the new born infant to be bottle fed with formula made up with fluoridated tap water. Such a baby - and there are many - will be receiving 100 times more fluoride than nature intended. Does your Ministry advise local authorities to advise parents to use non-fluoridated water for this purpose? Here are some of the other false or misleading claims in your letter: Paragraph 3: If your paid consultants found "no persuasive evidence of harmful effects from optimal water fluoridation (between 0.7 and 1.0 ppm)" it is probably because they chose to: a) ignore the impacts on people who are particularly
vulnerable to fluoride, especially those with kidney disorders; Paragraph 4: You claim that, "The only effect that has been associated with water fluoridation (apart from improved oral health status) is very mild dental fluorosis in a small number of children." You offer no statistics to support this claim. It is a highly dubious claim considering that the late Dr. John Colguhoun was reporting a rate of 25% in Auckland in the early 1980's and some of that was in the moderate to severe range. Indeed, it was serious enough for him to take the children before the TV cameras. We also know from studies in the US (Heller et al, 1997), Australia (Spencer et al, 1996) and the UK (McDonagh et al, 2000) that in optimally fluoridated areas dental fluorosis impacts from 29.9% to 56% of children, with a worldwide average estimated at 48%, with 12.5% in the category which is not considered mild, and may require expensive treatment (McDonagh et al, 2000). It should be remembered that those who launched fluoridation thought they could hold dental fluorosis down to 10% of the children in its mildest form. Thus this goal has been a marked failure, but unfortunately you fail to recognize this. Paragraph 5: You claim that, "when last reviewed, approximately 40 countries fluoridated their water supplies". You would be hard pressed to verify this claim. Many of the countries listed by NZ authorities have either stopped fluoridation, or only fluoridate one city. Only seven countries have a majority of their citizens drinking artificially fluoridated water: Australia; Canada; Israel; Ireland; New Zealand; Singapore and the US. Most of western Europe does not fluoridate its water, yet according to WHO figures available online their dental health is as good if not better than those countries that do. Your further claim that "a further 48 countries had water supplies with natural fluoride concentrations of 0.7 ppm or higher" is highly misleading if it is meant to imply that the average fluoride content of their water was over 0.7 ppm as opposed to some areas having a fluoride content above 0.7 ppm. Paragraph 6: Your claim that, "Reports of independent experts, in relevant fields of medicine, epidemiology, oral health and water engineering, are unanimous that the benefits of water fluoridation outweigh the very small potential risks" ignores the fact that most of the panels that have reviewed this issue have been selected by governments which are practicing fluoridation and which usually appoint panels to prove that what they are doing is "safe and effective". Very seldom, if ever, do these panels include anyone who is opposed to fluoridation, but frequently they contain panelists who have either made a living promoting the practice or are beholden to government agencies for their research grants. A classic example of this occured recently in Ireland with the Fluoridation Forum, whose report issued in 2002 was a travesty. If New Zealand had the courage to appoint a genuinely independent panel of experts, who were beholden to no one, you would get a shock when they examined the literature with an open mind. Paragraph 7: I have already commented on the broadbrush attack on the internet. Intelligent people know that when they read scientific material, whether it is on the internet, or in the public library, they have to judge it on the quality of the data that is mobilized. If you in fact included the sites http://www.fluoridealert.org or http://www.SLweb,org in your dismissal, I would be most anxious to hear what scientific papers cited there do not meet your "standards". Or is it simply your position that any study cited which demonstrates a problem with fluoridation is immediately classified as "rubbish"? Paragraph 8: You claim that, "A number of studies of the benefits of fluoridation to the primary and permanent teeth of children have demonstrated significant reductions in decay rates (ranging from 20 to 80 percent)." However, such percentages are highly misleading when considering the low level of tooth decay now occurring in industrialized countries. For example, the largest survey ever conducted in the US, which examined 39,000 children in 84 communities found that the average difference for children (aged 5-17 ) in decay of the permanent teeth, for those who had lived all their lives in fluoridated as opposed to non-fluoridated communities was 18%. However, when you examine this 18% difference it actually amounted to just 0.6 of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. The absolute saving is less than 0.5% of the child's tooth surfaces. The 18% figure may sound impressive but it represents the mathematical vagaries of comparing two small numbers. The absolute difference in Australia is even less, 0.12 - 0.3 of a tooth surface , which is less than 0.25% of the tooth surfaces (Spencer et al, 1997). It is absurd to claim this as a great achievement when the result is neither clinically nor statistically significant. This is especially so when it goes hand in hand with dental fluorosis rates ranging from 30-56%! Moreover, when Betty de Liefde (1998) compared dental decay in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New Zealand she recorded the fact that the difference had little clinical significance. As far as tooth decay in the elderly is concerned, you have offered no reason why the same protection could not be offered via fluoridated toothpaste. Paragraph 9: I think your claim of a lifelong saving of 2.4 to 12 DMFT is an exaggeration and cannot be supported with the most recent research. However, since it is now generally accepted that the benefits of fluoride are topical and not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001), it makes more sense to apply fluoride (if you want it and I don't want any) in the form of toothpaste than it does to put it in the drinking water. Paragraph 10: When you state that, "Fluoridation of water supplies remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries-preventive effects of fluoride" I believe you are following a belief system rather than stating a conclusion based upon defendable science. Moreover, contrary to your assertion, I do not believe this policy is socially equitable for two important reasons: a) the poor, unlike those with middle incomes, cannot afford to avoid fluoride if they chose to do so, because of the costs of reverse osmosis equipment or the purchase costs of bottled water, and b) the poor are more likely to be vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects because they are more likely to have poor nutrition. When citizens see just how many false claims you have made in such a short letter, they will quite understand why it is that no one from your Ministry will defend this archaic practice in open public debate. Would you have felt free, I wonder, to have said the things you have written in your letter if I had been in the room? Citizens might also be disturbed by the arrogant way your Ministry refused to send anyone to the XXVth conference of the International Society of Fluoride Research which was held in Dunedin (a short plane ride from Wellington) a few weeks ago. An independent observer would find it difficult to imagine any excuse which permitted your Ministry to fail to take advantage of the fluoride experts who gathered there from many different countries. Especially, now that your government has announced a renewed effort to step up the promotion of fluoridation in New Zealand. One has to wonder about an education campaign, financed by the tax-payer, that steadfastly ignores one side of such a controversial issue. If the false and misleading claims in your letter have resulted from poor information and research from your subordinates, then perhaps a few resignations are in order. If on the other hand, you have passed on these claims knowing them to be misleading, inflated or false then perhaps you should consider your own resignation. I believe the taxpayers in any country deserve a Minister of Health who puts the protection of the public health as her number one goal, not the protection of a discredited policy. Sincerely, Looking For A Counsellor? Fifty years ago, psychotherapy was dealt a major blow with the first scientific paper to question seriously whether it worked, and whether therapy might sometimes do more harm than good. The study triggered a debate that has raged for half a century and which some say has failed to generate an adequate response from practitioners. It started when a young German psychologist, Hans Eysenck, analysed the first proper clinical trials of therapy at the Maudsley Hospital, London. Eysenck, who went to become the mot famous psychologist in the world, compared the improvement rate of thousands of people under going psychotherapy with a control group who had similar psychological problems who merely remained on the waiting list. While an encouraging 64 per cent of patients receiving psychotherapy improved after two years from their breakdown, 72 per cent of the control group made a similar recovery with no psychotherapeutic assistance. Of those having the most rigours and intensive therapy of all, full blown Freudian psychoanalysis, only 44 per cent recovered. When Allen Bergin, a psychologist at Brigham Young University, looked closely at this kind of research, he found the data were hiding an even more peculiar story. The 'scatter' of measured change plotted on graphs for patients having therapy was much greater than the scatter for those receiving no treatment. In other words, those that had psychotherapy either did fairly well, or often actually pretty badly. They tended to lie in extremes of the distribution, compared with those who had no therapy, who all improved by more or less the same amount. Bergin had uncovered a result that has dogged the field since. Therapy could not only do good, but also harm. Further analysis found the greatest potential for harm was when therapists stuck rigidly to particular schools of training, rather than adapting to the patient. Therapy has splintered into so many differing and often opposing schools - Freudians, Jungians, transactional analysis and a host of others - that it resembles the plethora of small Left-wing political groupings of the seventies, often more united by a hatred for each other than the natural enemy, which, in the case of therapy, is science. Contrary to the research evidence that sticking rigidly to a particular therapeutic orientation is bad for patients, these schools tend to emphasis vigorously why they are better than all the others, in order to survive. But, unlike factionalised Left-wing politics, therapy proved enormously successful and is growing at an incredible rate. The British Association of Counselling had just a few hundred members by the mid seventies but has now grown more than twelve fold to 16,000 members. The Department for Employment estimates that 2.5 million workers in Britain today deliver some form of counselling as part of their jobs. This dramatic growth has occurred despite the fact that scientific research continues to question the assumptions on which much therapy is based. A key scientific blow to the therapy empire came in 1975 when Lester Luborsky, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, published a landmark paper with the title 'Everyone has won and all must have prizes', known famously as the Dodo bird verdict, which comes from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The title is an ironic twist to Eysenck's early habit of titling chapters in his books from Lewis Carroll quotes. He found that it didn't seem to matter what particular
psychotherapy you had - everyone benefits more or less to exactly the
same extent. PHILLIP DAY: Once again, we see the mainstream media finally catching up to what has been known for decades. That psychotherapy a) more often than not doesn't produce the results desired and b) can actually be harmful to the patient. In an age where every quirk of life is put down to a neurosis that has to be treated, are we really suffering a 'mental illness' or are we just trying to cope with life's trials that are common to millions? In an interview with mental health watchdog, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), psychiatrist Walter Afield confides: "I think what's happened is we have a tendency to identify more illness or define illness which never used to be defined as illness." Dr Afield remembers a recent conference where "…Russian psychiatrists were talking about [how] in America you talk about treating marital maladjustment reactions and in Russia we just call that bad luck." For all readers of EClub and Health Review who either have been diagnosed with some form of psychiatric complaint, or else suffer from depression, suicidal tendencies and other conditions, take heart! There are often straightforward explanations and answers that can be applied immediately. Don't be diagnosed into oblivion and a constant diet of drugs. Resolve to take control of the situation and do a little reading. The answer, and relief from whatever is troubling you, can often be much closer than you think! Resources: The Mind Game (www.credence.org) Rheumatoid Arthritis Drugs Linked to Lymphoma Studies of a class of rheumatoid arthritis drugs on the market revealed cases of lymphoma, a blood cancer, in treated patients. Now, as part of a safety review, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants an advisory panel's advice on how to best study the issue and express a warning on the drugs' labels. The drugs, which are used to treat advanced cases of the disease, include Abbott Laboratories' Humira, Johnson & Johnson's Remicade and Amgen's Enbrel. The medicines are injected and bioengineered to block a protein called tumor necrosis factor, or TNF, which is linked to the inflammation that causes painful, inflamed joints in people with rheumatoid arthritis. However, although the TNF molecule causes discomfort in people with rheumatoid arthritis, it also helps fight infection and possibly cancer. Along with lymphoma risk, the medications have already been linked to other serious side effects, such as higher risks of infection and tuberculosis. According to the panel, of 8,000 patients treated with the drugs, 24 developed lymphoma as compared with none of the patients taking the placebo. However, previous studies have also found an increased risk of lymphoma among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which makes it difficult to determine whether the drugs or the disease are related to the occurrences of lymphoma. Humira's label states that in clinical trials 10 lymphoma cases were observed. It also says the role of this class of drugs in the development of malignancies is unknown. Remicade's label also includes clinical trial data regarding malignancies and says that the data is insufficient to determine whether the drug plays a role. Analysts expect the FDA panel to recommend further studies and possibly enhance safety precautions for this class of drugs. The FDA is not required to accept the panel's advice, though it typically does. Analysts did not think the warnings would alter the drugs' combined 2003 sales, which they estimated would reach over $3 billion. Meanwhile, the panel is also reassessing the safety of another rheumatoid arthritis drug, Arava, because of increasing reports of liver failure among treated patients. Rheumatoid arthritis affects mostly women, often starting
between the ages of 25 and 50 years. The disease upsets the immune system,
causing it to attack the body's cartilage and resulting in pain and swelling
and eventually destroying joints. I warned about the dangers of Remicade when it was first introduced about three years ago. The drug costs over $10,000 a year, while Enbrel can cost up to twice as much. And we wonder why America is having a health care crisis where 40 percent of the population can't afford health care. Let's get real; our country can only support the drug companies for so long before this support collapses the entire economy. Corporate America simply cannot afford this insanity much longer without surrendering its lead to foreign countries that aren't handicapped with these ridiculous drug premiums that they have to subsidize through their insurance policies. This abuse is particularly tragic in the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There are a number of very effective therapies that I have used to help thousands of patients with RA go into remission - without expensive drugs like Remicade.
Two Million Americans Plagued by
Studies conducted in the 1960s reported that 30 percent of medical patients experienced at least one adverse reaction to drugs during their hospital stay, and three percent of hospitalizations were a direct result of such reactions. During this time, adverse effects of drugs were viewed as an inevitable part of medical care. Current studies of adverse drug events (ADEs) reveal that ADEs occur in 6.5 percent to more than 20 percent of hospitalized patients, and, unlike in the past, it is now believed that many ADEs are avoidable. According to one study of Medicare patients, the classes of drugs most frequently associated with ADEs were cardiovascular agents, antibiotics, diuretics, nonopioid analgesics and anticoagulants. It has been estimated that as many as 1.9 million ADEs occur each year, and up to 180,000 of them could be life threatening or fatal. In terms of preventability, studies have found a wide range of data indicating that from 13 percent to 70 percent of ADEs may be preventable. Assessing preventability is challenging because studies use different definitions and criteria. For instance, one study considered rashes and diarrhea from antibiotic use not preventable, but if overuse of antibiotics were addressed, these reactions could likely be prevented. Addressing issues such as errors in prescribing medications, inappropriate, or lack of, monitoring of drug therapies, lack of patient adherence, medication overuse, and underuse of beneficial drug therapies could improve the overall safety of drug use. Researchers note that medications pose a significant
risk to patients and intervention strategies should be implemented to
reduce the number of ADEs. Meal Super Sizing Explodes in U.S.
One study found that, since the late 1970s, portion sizes in the home and restaurants have increased. The serving size of an average soft drink, for instance, increased in that time from 13 ounces and 144 calories to nearly 20 fluid ounces and 193 calories.
The average cheeseburger also grew from 5.8 ounces to 7.3 ounces, swelling from 397 to 533 calories, and salty snacks grew from 1 ounce to 1.6 ounces, climbing from 132 calories to 225 calories.
Another study found that most products are now larger than they were when first released into the market.
For instance, a can of Coca Cola is now bigger than it was when it was introduced in 1916, and a regular sized soda served in Burger King in 1954 is equal to a child-sized drink in today’s stores.
Moreover, sizes of pre-packaged, ready-to-eat foods have also increased substantially since they were first released.
Researchers note that while bigger portions for less money may seem like a good deal, unhealthy portion sizes are contributing to the increasing obesity epidemic.
In the study, researchers compared current portions of various foods, including pizza slices, hamburgers, soda, french fries and pasta, to portion sizes when they first appeared on the market.
In terms of fast food, in 1954 Burger King’s hamburgers were two ounces smaller than today’s Whopper Junior, and in both McDonald’s and Burger King, regular-sized fries were originally more than four ounces smaller than the largest sizes today.
It is likely that manufacturers have increased portions over time because the United States already produces too much food. Additionally, they can charge more for the product and consumers don’t mind paying a little extra for a lot more product.
Researchers suggested that experts work with the food industry to make changes that could combat the growing obesity epidemic, rather than promote it. They also note that consumers, especially those watching their weight, should be aware of how much they are eating. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2003;103:231-234
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
I recently reviewed a popular new book, Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World. The book provides some interesting data that helps explain why over two-thirds of Americans are obese or overweight. Unfortunately, the author, like most traditional scientists from whom he takes his information, does not realize the distinction between grains and vegetables in the cause of this problem.
The author is also highly misinformed on the issue of saturated fat, calling it a great evil in one paragraph and in the next stating that it has been shown to lower insulin resistance. The author just hasn’t done his homework.
If you are looking for some current reasons why the United States is facing an obesity epidemic, consider the book Fast Food Nation, which was a New York Times bestseller and provides a compelling history of McDonald's.
Some Interesting facts from Fast Food Nation:
In 1970 Americans spent about $6 billion on fast food while in 2000 they spent more than $110 billion.
Americans now spend more money on fast food than on higher education, personal computers, computer software or new cars.
In 1968 McDonald's had 1,000 restaurants while today it has about 30,000 and opens 2,000 new ones each year. In fact, McDonald's is the largest owner of retail property in the world. The company earns most of its profit from collecting rent, not from selling food.
McDonald's is the nation's largest purchaser of beef, pork and potatoes. It is also the second-largest purchaser of chicken.
The golden arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross.
Every month 90 percent of American children between the ages of 3 and 9 years visit a McDonald's, where they receive massive doses of soda.
McDonald's sells more Coca-Cola than anyone else in the world.
The typical American now consumes approximately three hamburgers and four orders of french fries every week.
What we eat has changed more in the last 40 years than in the last 40,000.
As I said last year:
Don’t fall for the savings gambit of super sizing. Yes, the food may cost you less in the short run, but it will cost you far, far more in the long run. The money you save pales in comparison to the amount you would spend trying to get healthy again.
The United States has nearly 200,000 fast-food restaurants and over 3 million soft-drink vending machines. We also have an extremely wide variety of processed foods available in our grocery and convenient stores.
Some 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food goes toward processed foods.
How can you possibly be healthy with that much processed food in your diet? Our goal should be to reverse that ratio and strive for 90 percent non-processed food and only 10 percent from other sources. By doing this, not only will you enjoy health benefits, but the satisfaction of preparing meals and controlling the ingredients is a great feeling.
The proportion of restaurant/fast food establishments, and the desire for convenience, has increased considerably since the late 1970s. Among 19- to 39-year-olds, away-from-home food consumption just about doubled between 1977 and 1996.
Further, 28 percent of young Americans said they had eaten out on any given day in 1996, compared to just 14 percent two decades earlier.
Yes, it takes more time and energy to follow the nutrition plan, but doing so could:
v Add years to your lifespan v Give you more energy than you know what to do with v Help you avoid: v Cancer v Heat Disease v Diabetes v Arthritis
So, stay away from processed and fast foods and either hire someone to prepare your non-processed food meals or prepare them yourself.
As is the case with many people, I have very little free time. But, I prepare over 95 percent of my meals myself to preserve my health. It is a commitment, but it can be done.
Through A Glass Darkly George W. Mead and his wife Tory are the parents of
two children, Eleanor and William, who was born in May 1998. George is
an attorney who at one time practised medical malpractice defence (defending
doctors and hospitals). Tory is a writer and an advocate for children
with special needs. They live in Portland, Oregon. There is a Starbucks in our neighborhood that we sometimes
visit to take our minds off our son's medical condition. On our last visit,
there was a plastic donation box for children stricken with autism, and
a little plaque that read, 'Autism strikes one child in every 5,000.'
I ordered my double latte and thought for a minute. Then I pulled out
a red pen and deliberately defaced the sign, writing: 'In Oregon, autism
strikes one child in 150!' Two years ago, shortly before his second birthday,
our son William went to his doctor's office and received a standard set
of 'catch-up' shots, several of which contained a mercury-based preservative,
thimerosal, which is 49% ethyl-mercury by weight. Since that day, our
lives have been profoundly changed in a way that none of us could have
anticipated. During the following summer William suffered from constant
diarrhoea, unexplained bumps and welts, reduced speech, bloating, binge
eating, bloody lesions, 'croup attacks', and lost interaction and eye
contact. These conditions progressed into rocking, teeth grinding, eye
squinting, spinning, hand flapping, gross motor problems, and a total
loss of language. Twenty weeks after his shots,
William, then two years old, was diagnosed with 'regressive autism', perhaps
the most devastating disorder a toddler can suffer. Toxic Load Our toxic world is often discounted by the majority as being irrelevant to their health. Yet science has repeatedly shown that dangers lurk in items as innocuous as personal care and household products we use daily without a thought. Below are just a few of the sites which report on such issues. The solution? Purchase products that do not have contaminants and harmful ingredients in them. Click here: FDA/CFSAN Cosmetics - Diethanolamine in
Cosmetic Products Click here: Environmental Working Group || BodyBurden
Click here: Media Advisory for Thursday, February 20,
2003 Click here: CDC's Second National Report on Human Exposure
to Environmental Chemicals Click here: From The Desk Of Senator Edward Kennedy
Click here: NOT TOO PRETTY Click here: Marketplace - Canada's Investigative Consumer
Program Click here: Health Care Without Harm >> Home
Click here: EWG Top Issues: Toxics Click here: NIOSH Carcinogen List / NIOSH Click here: Results for ' Click here: Home Page Click here: Toxic chemicals common in body
Simple Vitamins could Hold Key to Alzheimer’s By Lorraine Fraser – Medical Correspondent
Researchers have uncovered compelling evidence of a possible cause of Alzheimer’s disease, the degenerative brain condition that affect 500,000 people in Britain alone.
Scientists in America have shown a link between high levels of homocysteine, a molecule in the blood, with shrinkage of the brain in middle age, which can later lead to Alzheimer’s.
The discovery raised the possibility that a simple course of vitamins might be all that is needed to prevent millions of people succumbing to the illness. There is already strong evidence lining homocysteine with heart disease, deep-vein thrombosis and stroke. The discovery that it might also play a role in dementia is causing wide-spread interest among specialists because an individual can lower his or her homocysteine level by taking folic acid supplements.
David Smith, a leading British authority on Alzheimer’s disease, said yesterday that a study was now needed to establish whether a course of vitamins could safely combat the condition.
Prof Smith, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University and the director of the Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Ageing, said that as many as 15 per cent of all dementia cases might be due to homocysteine: reducing high levels in the blood could therefore prevent hundreds of thousands of cases.
“That is of major significance not only because they and their families benefit but also because enormous sums could be saved,” he said.
The latest research will be announced at a meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in Hawaii next month. It suggests that homocysteine is having an effect on the brain decades before people develop obvious signs of dementia.
Philip Wolf, a professor of neurology at the Boston University School of Medicine, explained that findings were based on MRI scans performed on more than 1,000 apparently healthy individuals aged between 50 and 70.
“It turned out that those who had the higher homocysteine levels six or eight years ago had the smaller brain volumes and performed less well in tests,” he said.
The results add to previous findings suggesting that homocysteine may play an important part in mental as well as physical ageing.
“Either the homocysteine produces changes in the arteries and so affects the brain, or there is a toxic effect. It is not clear which mechanism is working here,” Prof Wolf said.
Alzheimer’s disease currently affects some half a million people in Britain and this figure is expected to rise to 750,000 within 20 years, largely because the population is living longer. Martin Knapp, a professor at the London School of Economics, calculates that the cost to the nation will double from £4.6 billion a year in 1998 to £11 billion annually.
Homocysteine levels can be easily monitored – tests cost as little as £4 a time and are widely used in the US and Europe, although not the UK. If folic acid is taken to reduce homocysteine levels, the vitamins B12 and B6 must be taken along with it, because of the way the molecules interact.
A review in the British Medical Journal recently calculated that 0.8mg of folic acid a day would lower homocysteine levels sufficiently to cut a person’s risk of a heart attack by 16 per cent, stroke by 24 per cent and deep-vein thrombosis by 25 per cent. In America, the government has ordered food to be fortified with the vitamin in the hope of reducing cardio-vascular problems in the general population. Prof Smith, whose team first suggested that homocysteine and Alzheimer’s might be linked, has plans for a study involving 6,000 people with early signs of memory loss, half to be given the vitamin and half a placebo. However, he and his colleagues are struggling to find the £6 million to pay for it. The amount for the five year study is equal to almost the entire annual budget for Alzheimer’s research in Britain.
Prof Smith said he could not at this stage recommend widespread prescribing of vitamins to reduce Alzheimer’s disease rates. He cautioned that cancer cells are also known to need folic acid and said it was not known what the effect of high levels of folate on people with or at risk of cancer would be.
He added, however: “There is a molecule in the blood that seems to be associated with damage to the brain: that has to be important. What we do need - urgently – is a proper randomised trial.” Sunday Telegraph, 9th March 2003
Another WHO Scam in the Pipeline Health authorities around the world are struggling
to contain a lethal form of pneumonia as air travellers spread it across
three continents. A British man returning from Hong Kong has been admitted
to hospital with a 'probable case' - the UK's first. Thus spake the BBC
on the 16th March 2003. And now, from the BBC two days later, the 'stricken'
man is reported as 'getting better'. But, say experts, he needs to be
kept in for observation. On the strength of a few very unextraordinary
deaths related to breathing difficulties and wheezing problems, WHO has
issued a world-wide warning. These stories form part of the standard scare-tactics
used by big business to sell us more medicines. Is this latest scare story
just another wheeze from the Suit O'Pharmical industries? For the full
and 'truly terrifying' report, please go to the BBC url at For the book that helps interpret these lies, readers
are encouraged to obtain a copy of Plague, Pestilence and The Pursuit
of Power, available at www.credence.org
Break free from the fear! Wonder Drugs Misused Feb. 25 - A growing number of young people are snorting Ritalin - a much-lauded drug for hyperactive children - to lose weight, study for exams and in some cases, just to get high, according to some drug experts. Teens and 20-somethings are the key abusers, and some even go to their doctors and fake symptoms in order to get prescriptions for Ritalin that they subsequently misuse themselves, and even sell to their friends, experts said. "I'd take six, seven, eight pills at a time," said Jacob Stone, a high school student at Sobriety High, a drug treatment school in Minneapolis, who used to abuse Ritalin. "I'd snort them. Along the way, I knew a couple who would melt them down and shoot them up." There has been a six-fold increase in emergency room visits associated to Ritalin abuse over the past decade, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, which tracks drug abuse data for federal health authorities. There were 271 Ritalin-related emergency room visits in 1990 and 1,478 visits in 2001. "All the kids know about Ritalin abuse," said Dr. Robert Millman, a psychiatry professor at Cornell University-Weill Medical College in New York. "They know about other kids sharing their pills, and they know about kids snorting it." Stone began misusing Ritalin after being diagnosed with ADHD as a sixth-grader, and later sold the prescription drug to fellow high school students, charging $5 for three blue 10-milligram pills or one orange 30-milligram pill. "And the people who were most interested in it were the younger kids who weren't trying to do real drugs," Stone said. "They wanted something that seemed like it was okay to do and that still would give them a good buzz." Parents Clueless About Misuse For children with Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, medications like Ritalin and another stimulant called Adderall, can be miracle drugs. These stimulants help an estimated 4 million children remain focused on learning, and allows them to get ahead in school. Abusers of the drug say the high it creates is similar to what can be achieved with cocaine, and that parents are clueless about Ritalin's misuse. "I know people that stay up for days off Adderall or Ritalin, and it does the same thing as coke," said Abby Neff, another Sobriety High student who abused Ritalin. The makers of Ritalin, the Novartis Corporation - argue that its product effectively helps millions of children cope with ADHD, and that the medication should only be used as prescribed. The Shire Pharmaceuticals Group which manufactures Adderall, also defends its product when used properly as prescribed. Both companies say their products do not lead to the abuse of illicit drugs. Many parents have no idea about Ritalin's potential for misuse, said Lynda S. Madison, an associate professor in pediatrics and psychiatry at Creighton University Medical School in Omaha, Neb. "I have known parents who said they took the Ritalin prescribed for their child themselves, or gave it to their other children, 'just to see if it helps,' " Madison said. Unfortunately, as useful as the medication is for children who truly have ADHD, it often is seen as completely benign and readily accessible." A high-school student and former abuser agreed that her mom was in the dark about the drug. "My mom never had an inkling that I was using Ritalin to get high," Wyeth Gibson, a Sobriety High student said. Fast Rush For Kids in the Know Statistics show that Gibson is not alone. A survey conducted of high school students in Winston-Salem, N.C., found that 4 percent of boys and 1 percent of girls had used no-prescription Ritalin during the previous 30 days, said Robert H. DuRant, a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. More than 2,000 students were involved in his survey. The results of Ritalin abuse can be serious. Last September, 10 students at Antelope Valley High School near Los Angeles were hospitalized for overdosing on Ritalin during school hours. Police arrested a 14-year-old female student who was accused of supplying them. "I think in some kids, they use Ritalin when they are younger or they chop it up, they snort it," Millman said. "But cocaine would be the grownup's drug. It's more expensive, it's more difficult to get. And in a way the highs are similar. The idea of a drug is you want to get a fast rush. Change the way you feel fairly rapidly." Watch Prescription Patients Millman says few doctors are aware of the serious scope of Ritalin abuse on the high school and college level. Children who receive prescriptions should be monitored, however. "Many of the kids who are diagnosed as ADD are subject to drug abuse patterns," Millman said. "And they have to be watched carefully." Bernadette Melnyk, an associate dean at the University of Rochester School of Nursing, agreed. "Ritalin abuse is not only affecting college students, but also children as young as in grade school," Melnyk said. "I predict this problem is going to continue to grow as the incidence of mental health problems continues to climb. " Worrisome side effects are increased heart rate, hypertension and psychosis, she said. Ritalin can also have ill effects when mixed with decongestants, cocaine and amphetamines, and it may also inhibit | ||||