Up Close and Personal
With CTM Founder, Phillip Day

Dear All

I hope this bulletin finds you in excellent straits. And even if it doesn't, then that's what CTM's here for, isn't it? The very act of making a decision to do something about a problem is agreeing with yourself that you've suffered enough and want a solution. This month, we continue our series with attitude, dealing with guarding input, so our brain does not obsess with processing negativity we have no control over anyway.

You'd be amazed what a difference two weeks can make if you switch off the idiot box, stop buying newspapers, don't associate with people who are vexatious to the spirit, and spend time with yourself in the company of positive, happy folk. Most of us are too preoccupied with keeping our heads above the water with the sheer weight of day-to-day minutiae to appreciate how obsessed we have become. The warning signs are poor sleep, lack of enjoyment with life, bursts of irrational anger or worry, lack of sex drive, and a general feeling that we're losing the plot.

And yes, I'm bashing on about taking that four-week holiday again. If you have not had a four-week break away from your usual activities (and that means a geographical break from your regular haunts), you are probably already suffering the above effects and compounding stress and debilitation. You are definitely not as motivated as you should be or as nice to be around. If you need an attitude adjustment, grab a copy of The Little Book of Attitude from the Credence bookstore and see for yourself what a difference a few simple changes can make.

In fact, lifestyle changes are the subject of my next UK tour, entitled appropriately enough, Simple Changes - Your 100 Ways to a Happier, Healthier Life. With each ticket pre-sold will come a free copy of my new audio CD, 'There Must Be an Easier Way'. If you buy five tickets, the five free CDs you get should be passed on so we can get the word out to those who need it most. And, as if that isn't enough, pre-bought ticket-holders can present their ticket-stubs at the store table to claim a 5% discount on whatever they buy on the night. The tour commences on 2nd May and tickets will be available for purchase after 15th March.

To more immediate matters, this month's bulletin is a humdinger! Victories, strivings and the usual idiocy, with perhaps one major difference. People are finally waking up in droves. As you'll see from the Mailbag this month, what you say to others is having an effect. Don't stop.

Best wishes,

Phillip

HSE is Bad for Our Health and Wealth

It is tempting to make a joke out of it. "How many health and safety officers does it take to change a lightbulb? None - it's too dangerous."

But this is no laughing matter. Dorothy Parker once said of a particularly dreadful book that it should not be tossed aside but thrown with great force. The same is true of the Health and Safety Executive and its rulings.

The aggrandisement of the government inspector, and the accompanying ascendancy of the compensation culture, are making our businesses less enterprising, our people less responsible and our country less free.

The change has been recent and sharp. We feel it in dozens of ways as we go about our lives.

A drunk is rude to a ticket inspector so, instead of bunging him off at the next station, staff hold the train while police are summoned. A schoolboy gets his head stuck in railings; all he needs is a good yank, but his teachers are too frightened to touch him, and he is left howling while the experts are called. A playground is closed because its surfaces are not soft enough. An under-10 football league can no longer function because of the absurd vetting procedures to which its adult volunteers must submit themselves. And let's not forget the workmen banned, as we report today, from changing lightbulbs with a ladder.

Readers will not be surprised that much of this nonsense comes from Brussels. The EU's Working at Heights Directive specifies an approved way of holding ladders against walls (including the handy advice that they should be "anchored firmly at the base").

But Whitehall needs no foreign encouragement when it comes to bossing us around. In the HSE, ministers have created a powerful, costly and rapacious instrument of state control.

Its inspectors must continually justify their salaries by finding breaches of the rules. At the same time, however, the HSE rejects the notion that it should be liable if the following of its orders causes injury or death.

Let us go back to first principles and ask why we need this body at all.

Our presumption, after all, ought surely to be that employers want healthy staff - partly because they are human beings, partly because it is costly to lose your workforce to injury and partly because they wish to avoid being sued.

English common law, in particular contract and tort law, has always offered redress to an employee who has been injured because of his boss's negligence. The difference is that the HSE does not need to prove injury or, indeed, negligence. Since its powers were bolstered by John Prescott, the HSE has become perhaps the single greatest drag on our competitiveness.

Worse, it has infantilised us, teaching us to blame others rather than take responsibility for ourselves. Yet there is no evidence that it has made anyone healthier or safer. It should be closed down.
The Daily Telegraph, 4th February 2006

Further Resources

The Real Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, video documentary (PAL format only)
Ten Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.

New Phones Danger
by Robbie Collin

Cordless handsets 100 times worse than mobiles, say experts.

Having a cordless phone in your house can be 100 times more of a health risk than using a mobile. The popular phones constantly blast out high levels of radiation - even when they are not in use. Landlines are widely thought a safer option than mobiles. But researchers in Sweden now warn cordless phones are far more likely to cause brain tumours than today's mobiles.

Emissions from a cordless phone's charger can be as high as six volts per metre - twice as strong as those found with a 100 metres of mobile masts. Two metres away from the charger the radiation is still as high as 2.5 volts per metre - that's 50 times what scientists regard as a safe level.

Powerful
At a metre away the danger is multiplied 120 times - and it only drops to a safe 0.05 volts per metre when you are 100 metres away from the phone. Because of the way cordless phones work, the charger constantly emits radiation at full strength even when the phone is not in use - and so does the handset when it is off the charger.

The most common cancers caused by such radiation are leukaemias. But breast cancer, brain tumours, insomnia, headaches and erratic behaviour in kids have also been linked. Those with chargers close to their beds are subjected to radiation while they sleep.

Phone watchdog Powerwatch, using a testing device called the Sensory Perspective Electrosmog Detector, even found electromagnetic fields as strong as three volts per metre in a bedroom above a room holding a cordless phone.

The group's director, Alasdair Philips said: "As ill-health effects have been found at levels of only 0.06 volts per metre, this is very concerning. It's likely everyone in a house with a cordless phone will be constantly exposed to levels higher than this."

The shock Swedish report - by scientists Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlbery and Kjell Hansson Mild - is backed up by many medical experts who believe cordless phones are a health risk.

Harley Street practitioner Dr David Dowson said: "Having a cordless phone is like having a mobile mast in your house. I'd recommend anyone who has one to switch to a plug-in phone."

But BT's health advisor, John Collins, disagreed. He said: "There's no conclusive scientific evidence linking the radiation to any of the symptoms experienced. The evidence is that it doesn't do us any harm. We're a responsible company and abide by all the guidelines set down by recognised experts."
News of the World, 5th February 2006

Dream with Me for a Moment
by Phillip Day

"You live and learn. Well, at any rate, you live." - Douglas Adams

"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean
they aren't out to get you." - Patrick Murray

"And the dictator… will do well to encourage… the freedom
to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the
radio. It will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which
is their fate." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, 1932

The area of psychiatry that really worked for its expansion was in the realm of drug treatment. As we shall see, psychiatry can justifiably be charged with laying the foundations for today's runaway drug culture. How, in later years, the mental health industry would remain firmly unapologetic with regard to its role in popularising the recreational use of drugs, continually failing to bring itself to condemn the habit, while simultaneously fostering drug dependency in its own patients, many of them children. Indeed, as we shall see, psychiatry remains one of the leading drug pushers in the world, hooking millions on its expensive and extremely lucrative medications. With its earning power through the pharmaceutical industry finally appreciated and welcomed by the mainstream chemical industry, psychiatry now has its place in medicine secured, even in the minds of most traditional physicians.

Psychiatry originally started out as a great embarrassment to traditional medicine, which repeatedly refused to bring this renegade practice into the fold. Later, electroshock and lobotomies, coupled with the sheer human rights abuses that were starkly evident to all but psychiatry itself, had kept the whispers susurrating around the corridors of medical officialdom. Psychiatry however was canny enough to recognise it had a public relations problem, even if it could not, incredibly, fully appreciate why it was happening. With the advent of America's National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), inaugurated after World War 2 under Robert Felix, the mental health industry began to employ some well-needed political spin to add some spit and polish to its tarnished public persona.

Nothing helped more to integrate mental health into mainstream medicine, in the public's view, than when psychiatry began prescribing drugs to its patients to control their behaviour. This was 'real' medicine being prescribed after all. Since the inauguration of modern allopathic medicine, instituted so effectively under America's Abraham Flexner and John D Rockefeller in the early years of the 20th century, drug regulation, the training of doctors in institutions funded by the drug industry and the modern drug-dominant health system have enjoyed an unparalleled financial and social success, which the allopathic system jealously guards to this day. Psychiatry remained outside this hallowed realm; viewed along with other alternative health 'charlatans' as unscientific and old-fashioned quackery. Yet World War 2 had demonstrated to the medical and government powers that human thought, behaviour and desire could be controlled using artificial means. Even after the war, as we have seen, the eugenics ideal lived on. Indeed, questions as to the whereabouts of many leading Nazi psychiatrists and doctors following the uncovering of unspeakable horrors in Europe were quietly buried or diverted, hardly earning any mention in the media of a post-World War 2 Europe, keen to put the traumas of the past behind it.

But after the war, psychiatry was truly to enter the drug arena, and thereby assure itself of massive funding and a mainstream social status as a reward for all its efforts. Now, straitjackets could be discarded in favour of a more mobile and profitable restraint - the use of drugs.

THE DRUG LANDSLIDE BEGINS
US President Howard Taft recognised the brutal impact of psychiatric drugs on society, remarking in 1910: "The illicit sale [of cocaine] and the habitual use of it temporarily raises the power of the criminal to a point where in resisting arrest, there is no hesitation to murder. It is more appalling in its effect than any other habit-forming drug used in the United States."

Even as recently as the 1950s, society still traditionally frowned on mind-altering substances, disdaining those who took them as weak and addicts who could not help themselves. Bruce Wiseman comments that "…this view of drugs may seem ancient, but it came from centuries of mankind's experience with them. After enough eyewitness accounts of fathers, sisters and acquaintances decaying, living the fate of the opium smoker, the morphine addict, the cocaine user - few needed further convincing." Interestingly, today there are those who frown upon recreational drug use while addicted themselves to pharmaceutical medication.

Back in the 1800's, bromides had been used to desensitise the central nervous system, assisting in calming the patient. Raw opium was considered too dangerous; its historical, addictive properties were widely known. The pathetic plight of the opium addict caused those familiar with the problem to develop approaches they believed would relieve the sufferer of their addiction. A new substance was brought forward and named 'morphine'. By 1870, physicians were complaining that morphine itself was horrendously addictive and was beginning to cause more problems than the opium addiction it was expected to cure.

In 1898, a solution to the morphine problem was developed and hailed as the non-addictive way forward. The new substance was called 'heroin'. Like laudanum before it, heroin, during the next decade, gained its now-famous notorious reputation for its soft-cushioning, other-worldly, central nervous system and mental effects, while simultaneously locking the patient's mental faculties and dependence into its golden brown embrace. Worse still, heroin, so powerful and thus able to be diluted for greater profit and illicitly distributed to those in need, became the drug of choice for unscrupulous dealers who peddled the narcotic and built their businesses on the misfortune of others.

The dawning of a new and uncontrollable drug problem breeding crime and violence was a new experience for western societies, who found themselves powerless in knowing what to do to combat the scourge. Once discovered, it became almost impossible to extirpate the demand for the insidious new substances, which offered their devotees an alluring escape from the pain and drudgeries of normal life. Psychiatry too was failing to provide an answer, attempting from the outset to pathologise the 'new disease of addiction', trying to cure addicts of their affliction through the use of electroshock and lobotomy procedures.

Barbiturates too were already in circulation, able powerfully to sedate the suffering patient, rendering them more amenable to control. Chloroform also had, for half a century, provided the means to 'knock a patient out', thus removing the horror of having to endure operations fully conscious. In the 1920s, it became possible to synthesise barbiturates and provide the burgeoning drugs market with a constant, reliable, regulated supply of the new product. The 1930's saw the advent too of the stimulant amphetamines, with the American Medical Association even stating that with Benzedrine ('bennies') "…no serious reactions had been reported", and that the public could, under strict supervision of their physician of course, take the drug recreationally to create "a sense of increased energy or capacity for work, or a feeling of exhilaration."

Lester Grinspoon MD articulates in a 1977 report how the medical system was keen to promote their new products to the public as 'safe and effective', with no appreciable downsides:

"Of all the myths surrounding the amphetamines, that of their alleged non-addictiveness is the most transparent, although when they were first introduced, they were hailed as having little or no addictive potential. This is not surprising, as the medical establishment originally guaranteed as non-addictive almost every drug known to cause addiction.… Cases of addiction were reported almost immediately, but the drug industry was so successful in reinforcing and sustaining early medical enthusiasm, that as late as 1958, C D Leake could categorically state that 'no clear case of addiction to amphetamines has been reported.'"

'DOLOPHINE'
World War 2 Nazi Germany, with its unrestricted and well-funded drug research, produced dolophine, named after its Führer. In the aftermath of the war, this drug was renamed 'methadone'. Psychiatrist Marie Nyswander was one of many enthusiastically promoting methadone as the non-addictive solution to heroin. However, by 1963, Nyswander and fellow psychiatrist Vincent Dole, of the Rockefeller Institute, were admitting methadone addiction in their patients, but proffered that it could replace heroin addiction for life.

Dr Michael Smith, of the Lincoln Detox Program in New York, explains how the 'cure' soon became the new problem: "Withdrawal from methadone is a long, drawn-out, brutal experience. There is not a two-to-five-day crisis of vomiting and tremors, as with heroin. These and other frightening symptoms occur for weeks and usually months on end."

Not surprisingly, methadone continued to be touted after the war as the permanent replacement to heroin. By the 1970's, methadone maintenance programs were treating more than 75,000 patients across the United States. In 1987, The Columbus Dispatch was reporting that less than 1% of methadone junkies were able to stop using the drug.

MUGGINGS AND MONEY
Clinics themselves became the cause of the problem. By the mid-1970's, Nyswander and Dole were themselves admitting the failure of their methadone program. A 1987 article in the Journal of Psychiatric Drugs declared: "Approximately half of those who were now paying for [methadone] maintenance reported resorting to crime to pay their clinic fees. As one client described the situation: 'The clinic has now become my drug dealer. I am committing crimes to pay for an addictive drug [methadone]. It's really not much different than the street."

Predictably, psychiatry was to pioneer another drug to cure the methadone problem. This time 'ibogaine' became the hope for an end to the addictions, which psychiatry itself had brokered. However ibogaine's notorious reputation gained it a Class 1 regulation (dangerous and of no medical value) and treatment with it was outlawed in the United States. Bruce Wiseman sums up:

"The lessons of heroin and methadone have been poorly learned by our mental health experts. Most drug addicts already feel they are in a netherworld from which there may be no return and, so far, these experts and their experimental cures have only led them deeper into it."

MASSIVE MARKETS = MASSIVE REVENUES
The explosion of pharmaceutical drug use for mental disorders has fuelled a huge expansion in drug sales globally. Billions of dollars are spent annually in North America alone to treat the 'mentally ill'. These medications have become among the most expensive costs of the US mental healthcare system. The elderly especially have struggled with the rising cost of prescription drugs in Canada, prompting both candidates and their parties in the year 2000 elections to address the issue of the elderly being unable to pay for their medications.

IMS Health US reported in their March 2001 annual report that psychotropic medication sales increased by 21% over the previous 12 months. Sales of medications relating to treatment of mental illness were second throughout the global market.

An IMS Canada Report for the province of British Columbia in 1997 indicated a 66% increase from 1992-1996 in the number of psychiatric prescriptions issued. A recent US study showed that the number of 2-4 year olds on psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac soared 50% between 1991-1995.

DRUGS AND CRIME
Given that psychotropic drug use for mental patients began in earnest in the 1960's concurrently with the releasing of psychiatric drugs, such as methadone, heroin, LSD and Thorazine into Crowley's drug-fuelled, sexually 'liberated' society for 'recreational purposes', we can get a clear picture of what psychiatry has really done for the world if we analyse social statistics coming out of the United States during this period.

Between 1960 and 1992, the US violent crime rate known to police went from around 105 violent crimes per 100,000 to around 760/100,000. During the same period, the aggravated assault rate known to police jumped from 80/100,000 to 440/100,000. The forcible rape rate known to police went from 10/100,000 to 43/100,000. Arrests for drug abuse violations among African Americans soared from 220/100,000 to a peak of 2,400/100,000 in 1990. Those for Caucasians rose from 50/100,000 to 400/100,000 in 1992.

A NEW UTOPIA?
Drugs which produce altered mental states of any kind have always instinctively appalled ordinary citizens, symbolising weakness in the person taking the drugs, a loss of control over one's most basic social responsibilities, and the embarking upon a spiral of addiction often leading to death. That drugs producing these effects could simultaneously be viewed by other, more influential groups within society as a major evolutionary step in the consciousness development of mankind seems, at first glance, dismissible and fantastic. But are we truly surprised when research psychopharmacologist Ronald Siegel of the University of California Los Angeles' Department of Behavioral Sciences asks us in 1990 to:

"…dream with me for a moment. What would be wrong if we had perfectly safe drugs? I mean drugs that delivered the same effects as our most popular ones, but never caused dependency, disease, dysfunction, or death? Imagine an alcohol-type drug that never caused addiction, liver disease, hangovers, driving under the influence, or workplace problems. Would you care for a cigarette that is as enjoyable as marijuana or tobacco, but as harmless as clean air? How about a pain-killer as good as morphine but safer than aspirin; a stimulant more appealing than cocaine and less harmful than caffeine; a tranquilizer less addicting than Valium and more enjoyable than a martini; or a user-friendly hallucinogen that is as benign as a movie?"

Siegel argues that for man to be truly happy, he must satiate his four desires: hunger, thirst, lust and, predictably, the need to become intoxicated. However one views the opinions of the influential Siegel (to which he is, of course, entitled), one must decide what is to be made of the 10 million Americans who take tranquillisers each year, and the millions elsewhere in the world who are hooked on benzodiazapines and other 'popular' medications people like Siegel are pushing.

THE GHOST OF ALEISTER CROWLEY
During the researching of this book, it seemed that the influence of the occult was never too distant from psychiatry and the world of institutional and social drug-taking. Traditionalists will point to the enigmatic Book of Revelation which declares that in the 'last days' "…By their sorceries [Greek: pharmakia] did the merchants [big business?] deceive the whole Earth." (Rev 18) Presumably, at the time these verses were written, drug abuse was a problem even in these earlier cultures. The implication biblically is that drug-taking induces altered states and precipitates contact with demons. As we will see in the next chapters, the drug and Luciferian legacy left by arch-wizard Aleister Crowley, dubbed 'the patron saint of rock stars', was to produce testimony after testimony of what appears at first sight to be exactly this type of problem.

Crowley, who advocated constant drug abuse as a means of 'expanding self', could easily have been dismissed as an eccentric 'Hooray Henry', were it not for the fact that, after his death in 1947, holed up in a squalid bedsit in Hastings, England, his ideas and procedures were given a lurid immortality by the pop music culture which posthumously adopted him. Crowley wrote under the influence of his spirit-guide, which he later identifies as Satan: "I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge and Delight and bright glory and stirs the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet and be drunk thereof!"

A UTOPIA OF COTTON WOOL
More recently, psychiatrist Seymour Rosenblatt in 1981 was prepared to visualise the next step in drug-taking evolution:

"Consider some of the possibilities currently being promoted by serious scientists: In the next twenty years [i.e., by the year 2001], it has been conjectured, we will be able to control people's feelings and emotions. Madness will go the way of smallpox, and mental institutions will become as rare as monasteries. Everyone will be able to get a night's sleep. Senility will be arrested by a pill or injection. Our memories will be extended beyond their present capacities, and both drug addiction and alcoholism will become things of the past.

Sex offenders will be controlled by medication. Our system of penology will be in the purview of chemistry. Steel bars will be replaced by pharmacological agents, leaving criminals to roam free but restricted from harming people.

We will have jamais vu [never seen] drugs that create feelings of novelty and déjà vu [already seen] drugs to breed familiarity. Both boredom and anxiety will be alleviated, and our sex lives will be enhanced and intensified.

Blood cells will be harnessed to become the psychiatrist's allies. They will become like beasts of burden, hauling drugs throughout our bodies. There will be no side-effects, no nausea, no liver damage.

Finally we shall emerge into a drug-free society in which genetic engineering precludes mental illness. The substances produced by our biochemists will exactly match those endowed to us by nature."

Well, here we are, Rosenblatt's twenty years on. What's wrong with his picture, with the benefit of hindsight? Can we not see the lie to one beatific view of man's near future? The drug carnage we face today, if one re-reads Rosenblatt's envisioned utopia, is as shocking as it is condemnatory.

THE LIQUID LOBOTOMY
Nazi-occupied Paris saw the development of a new drug to treat allergies. Soon researchers found that the drug "produced a previously unknown type of central nervous system effect." After the war, French scientists found that they could engineer an offshoot of this drug which could produce "maximum behavioural disruption." French psychiatrist C Quarti tried the drug on herself. She later recorded her experiences one hour after taking it: "I began to have the impression that I was becoming weaker. That I was dying. It was very painful and agonising." An hour after that: "I felt incapable of being angry about anything."

The new drug reached America in 1954 and was marketed by Smith, Klein and French. It was known as 'Thorazine'.

Bill Mandel, a San Francisco Examiner columnist, decided to find out what a day's dose (50mg) of Thorazine would do: "Simply put, Thorazine made me stupid. Because Thorazine and related drugs are called 'liquid lobotomy' in the mental health business, I'd expected a great grey cloud to descend over my faculties. There was no great grey cloud, just small, unsettling patches of fog. My mental gears slipped. I had no intellectual traction. It was difficult, for example, to remember simple words. I'd start to describe something and find myself unable to remember such terms as 'screwdriver' and 'volume'."

Significantly, a 1977 California study revealed that 29 patients in four state hospitals were being prescribed in excess of 800mg a day, 16 times the amount experienced by Bill Mandel. One can but imagine the massive debilitating effects the drug would have had on its recipients.

CHEMICAL STRAITJACKETS
More and more, drugs have come to be viewed as chemical straitjackets in institutions, prisons, nurseries, old people's homes and now in open society. Such was psychiatry's growing faith in drugs that in 1963, America saw the implementation of the Community Mental Health Centers Act, which saw psychiatric patients 'deinstitutionalised' and turned onto the streets, drugged up and more than a few homeless. Psychiatrist Dr Thomas Szasz remarks: "The insane person could now be controlled with a chemical, instead of a mechanical straitjacket. The restraint could be put in him, instead of on him."

Within twenty years, the program showed itself to be an unqualified failure. Many discharged patients were unable to cope with the harsh rigours of life on the streets and would turn to crime, violence and street drug addiction. By 1991, the New York Times was calling 'deinstitutionalisation' "…a cruel embarrassment, a reform gone terribly wrong."

Today, many cities around the world, which adopted their own versions of deinstitutionalisation, have been paying the social penalty for this catastrophic wrong turn. Few administrations are willing to shoulder the unpopular and costly responsibility of putting such a difficult problem right. And so the abuse continues. The public sees a deranged person on the street, believing them to be insane, or 'not right in the head', yet how many of these unfortunates are simply doped up with drugs that have been prescribed 'to keep them out of trouble'?

The use of psychiatric drugs to make the elderly more manageable in care homes is of course commonplace. A 1986 study of 2,000 US pharmacies discovered that 76% of prescriptions written for nursing home residents over 65 were tranquillisers. 60% of these called for heavy tranquillisers such as Thorazine. This is all the more appalling when one learns that 73,000 US elderly die every year from adverse drug reactions, interactions and medication errors.

Seen as more socially acceptable, drugs replaced the need for applying the high-profile and reputation-destroying electroshock and psychosurgical alternatives to control the custodial cases. A global paradigm shift had occurred in society with the advent of new psychotropic substances. Gone now was the centuries-old, moral barrier that prevented society from solving its problems with mind-bending drugs. Now it was OK to prescribe psychotropics to patients with a free conscience. After all, this was cutting-edge medicine. And the patients had been diagnosed 'mentally ill' by professionals.

OVER THE RAINBOW
At the same time Thorazine was being trumpeted to the world as the answer to man's cerebral woes, another substance was being investigated in a laboratory. The compound was first synthesised by Swiss chemist Albert Hoffman of Sandoz Laboratories in 1938, who was studying the hallucinogenic properties of the rye fungus 'ergot'. Hoffman's revolutionary new kaleidoscopic trip was to skew the perceptions of an entire generation to come.

Ergot had been investigated for its role in the medieval mass delusions, referred to as 'St Anthony's Fire', which would periodically blanket unsuspecting villages and towns, and madness would reign for several days. In Salem, Massachusetts, the famous 'bewitching' episodes resulted in the lynchings and deaths of 'witches', who had apparently caused the episodes with their vindictive spells. Was this another example of ergot poisoning?

After some non-conclusive testing, Hoffman shelved his substance, until in 1943, he accidentally absorbed a minute dose through his fingertips:

"Soon [I] felt a remarkable but not unpleasant state of intoxication, characterised by an intense stimulation of the imagination and an altered state of awareness of the world…. As I lay in a dazed condition with eyes closed, there surged up from me a succession of fantastic, rapidly changing imagery of a striking reality and depth, alternating with a vivid, kaleidoscopic play of colours. This condition gradually passed off after about three hours."

Hoffman named the 25th permutation of the series 'lysergic acid diethylamide', or LSD-25.

Werner Stoll, president of Sandoz, was the first to consider the compound for psychiatric use, even the compound was already known to produce 'a transitory psychotic disturbance' in normal subjects. It wasn't long before psychiatrists were obtaining samples of the drug for their own experimentation, combining psychoanalysis with LSD to get their patients to 'open up'. The CIA too began to take an interest in "…psychiatric reports suggesting that LSD could break down familiar behaviour patterns, for this raised the possibility of reprogramming or brainwashing."

Extensive funding was made available by the Agency to these psychiatric researchers to continue their work. One institution involved was the federal Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Under the guidance of Dr Harris Isbell, inmates were offered the choice of reduced custodial sentences or 'recreational' drugs. Most chose Isbell's drugs, expecting to get the usual heroin or morphine. What none realised was that Isbell was also giving them the highly experimental LSD. According to John Marks, author of The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, Isbell kept seven men on LSD trips for 77 days straight. One teenager reported later that he had tried the drug just once and had hallucinated and suffered with nightmarish, demonic visions for 17 hours. Isbell is also reported to have tested other unproven drugs from the CIA and National Institute for Mental Health upon inmates ignorant of the name or probable side-effects of the chemicals. The later head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Robert Felix, had, perhaps coincidentally, served at the Lexington research centre before the war.

Canada's Dr Ewen Cameron, former President of the American Psychiatric Association, was particularly taken with the potential of 'acid', regularly using LSD, in combination with electroshock, in his attempts to 'depattern' his paying patients. Cameron had ironically been one of the psychiatric consultants working for the Nuremberg war tribunal and its much-publicised new Nuremberg Code, which he would later cynically violate with his bizarre and dangerous mind-control experimentations.

The Eli Lilly Company, manufacturer of today's Prozac, allegedly obtained the formula for LSD with the help of the CIA and boasted that the drug would soon be available in tonnage quantities. LSD, according to researcher Beverly Eakman, became something of a lark for CIA staff:

"At one dinner for Agency colleagues, Dr Sidney Gottlieb, head of MK-ULTRA, is said to have announced to the guests that he had slipped something special in the dessert. One of those guests, Dr Frank Olsen, had to be hospitalized and hurled himself from his hospital window. A 1954 memo surfaced from the internal security department quite seriously requesting that Agency staff stop putting LSD in the punch bowl at the office Christmas party."

UCLA psychiatrist Louis Jolyon 'Jolly' West was hired by the CIA as part of MK-ULTRA. West was to become notorious with his own experimentation, earning the infamous reputation of being the only person to kill an elephant with LSD.

But it was in the realm of open society that LSD, along with other psychiatric drugs, would have their most devastating and lasting impact. When Harvard psychologist and pop-culture guru Timothy Leary, a devoted follower of the infamous Crowley, publicised his own use of LSD with drug mystic Aldous Huxley in the early 1960's to expand 'self' and reign as one with the universe, an endlessly curious, 'newly-liberated' society listened with rapt fascination as Leary invited them to "tune in, turn on and drop out." LSD became a favourite in the arts. Pop artists such as Donovan, Paul McCartney, Keith Richards, Eric Clapton and others were introduced to the drug. Key musical events, later popularised around the world, were flooded with LSD. Among the crowds at the 1967 Monterey California Pop Festival and 1969's Woodstock, the pushers went quietly about their work, enthusiastically urging their customers to 'live life to the full' and 'trip out'. Life magazine even ran articles promoting LSD after the magazine's publisher, Henry Luce, experimented with the drug. One March 1963 article had even claimed LSD was "…derived from a natural product."

ALDOUS HUXLEY
Aldous Huxley, who had 'obtained' a professorship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), wrote prolifically of his trip experiences on LSD. Huxley's hallucinogenic experiences with Dr Humphrey Osmond became the basis of the former's book, The Doors of Perception, believed to have been the inspiration behind the name of Jim Morrison's band 'The Doors'. Huxley later tripped with former US Treasury Agent and Mafia confidante Alfred 'Cappy' Hubbard. Their experiences were reported in Huxley's widely acclaimed Heaven and Hell. Hubbard had obtained 6,000 bottles of LSD from Sandoz Laboratories which he handed out to friends and family members. One bottle ended up with Los Angeles psychiatrist Dr Oscar Janiger, who found a great reception for it with the Hollywood set.

The drug experiences Huxley, Crowley, Jung and other 'mystics' had described were popularised in cheap paperback editions of their works which found their way into the countercultures of Berkeley and Stanford Universities and into the hippie communes all over the world. In spite of Huxley perishing while 'tripping' in 1963, the new drug culture had arrived to stay. And psychiatry had been the one to introduce it.

Excerpted with permission from The Mind Game by Phillip Day

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.
Click here if you wish to contact Credence for information on treatment options or resources.

Experts Finally Recognize The Dangers With Soy

The Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association has examined decades' worth of studies on the health benefits of soy, and has found little evidence that soy-based foods and supplements significantly lower cholesterol, as has sometimes been claimed

Potential Labeling Change
These findings could result in the FDA changing rules which currently allow companies which produce soy-based foods to advertise a cholesterol-lowering benefit on the label

No Benefits
While a very large amount of soy protein might lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol by a few percentage points, there were no observed benefits with regard to HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides, lipoprotein, or blood pressure. The benefits of soy supplements to cardiovascular health are therefore likely "minimal at best".
Circulation 17th January 2006
Baking Business.com 23rd January 2006
Yahoo News January 22, 2006

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Considering the growing number of studies regarding the harm you can do to your body by eating non-fermented soy, it's not completely surprising that the conventional medical establishment may finally be getting it ...

In addition to the complete lack of benefits with regard to cholesterol, the AHA review also found that, contrary to some popular myths: Soy isoflavones don't prevent various forms of cancer (prostate, breast or uterine). Neither soy protein nor soy isoflavones are useful in limiting menopause-related symptoms.

The jury remains out on any soy-related benefits in treating osteoporosis.
A telling quote by a noted cardiologist that speaks volumes about soy's true worth: "If [patients] are radically altering their diet, where they're only eating soy in the hopes that this is going to bring their cholesterol down, they're deluding themselves."

In fact, non-fermented soy products contain a number of potentially health-disrupting "anti-nutrients", such as phytic acid. You would be wisest to avoid any such foods, which include:

· Tofu
· Soy milk
· Soy hot dogs and other "meatless" products made with soy or textured vegetable protein (TVP), which is usually soy based
· Soy yogurt and ice cream
· Soy protein

The fermentation process, however, drastically decreases the levels of the dangerous components of soy, and also aids in liberating otherwise difficult-to-digest nutrients in the soybean, making them more available for absorption.

Fermented soy products (such as miso, soy sauce, natto, and tempeh) are therefore safe to eat. However, don't expect "miracle cures" for your cholesterol even from safe soy foods and can certainly be part of a healthy diet.

If you really want to lower your cholesterol levels, there are two primary strategies that work well over 99 percent of the time if properly implemented. They are:

· Daily cardiovascular exercise
· Low grain diet

A healthy food plan with little to no grains and sugars will effectively lower insulin levels, as elevated insulin levels are one of the primary drivers for raising cholesterol.

And just as important is exercising regularly. The key to exercising effectively is to keep in mind three important variables: length of time, frequency and intensity. I encourage my patients to gradually increase the amount of time they are exercising to 60 to 90 minutes a day. Initially the frequency is daily.

This is a treatment dose until you normalize their weight or insulin levels. Once normalized, you will only need to exercise three to four times a week.

Also, you should exercise hard enough so that it is difficult to talk to someone next to you. When you are exercising that hard your cardiovascular system is under such a significant amount of stress that the mere act of talking makes you unable to provide your body with enough oxygen. However, if you cannot carry on a conversation AT ALL, then you have gone too far and need to decrease the intensity.
www.mercola.com

The Fluoride Action Network

FAN Bulletin #476: Letters to Beattie.

11th February 2006
Dear All,

It's heart warming to see the letters pouring into Premier Beattie of Queensland. Below is a sample of those already sent. If you haven't sent in your letter yet please consider doing so (see Bulletin 474 for details). We also print below the letter that Dr. William Hirzy has sent to the Ryans who are leading the battle against fluoridation in Brisbane.

Please send to the Premier at thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au and copy (cc) the Minister of Health Stephen Richardson at Health@ministerial.qld.gov.au>
and blind copy (BCC) <jryan@ecn.net.au>,
boydens@mrbean.net.au>,<paul@fluoridealert.org>.
PaulConnett

Dr William Hirzy's letter to the Ryans whirzy@american.edu

Dear Dr. Ryan and Mrs. Ryan:

Our labor union, representing the professional employees at the headquarters location of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has opposed water fluoridation since learning in 1984 of the shoddy science supporting the practice and the insidious impact of the US national fluoridation program on the quality of the science used in setting EPA's drinking water standards for fluoride.

I attach for your use copies of three statements. One of these is my statement on behalf of and authorized by our headquarters union, Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, before the New Jersey State Health Council in 2004 in opposition to a proposal to mandate fluoridation in that state.

The other two statements are letters signed by presidents of eleven EPA unions from across America; one is to EPA Administrator Steven Johnson and the other to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (the same letter was also sent to other key Members of Congress). The letter to Administrator Johnson asked him to acknowledge the link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma by proposing a health-based drinking water standard of zero for fluoride. The letters to Congress asked for legislation imposing a moratorium on fluoridation in the U.S. pending a full hearing on the propriety of continuing the practice in the face of all the adverse information about it developed since the last such hearing in 1977.

The fact that representatives of 7,000 professionals working for the United States government feel that continuing fluoridation is not a good idea should weigh heavily on the mind of officials in Australia contemplating an extension of this dangerous and ineffective practice in your country.

Best wishes for success in your fight to maintain your health and pure water supplies in Brisbane. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely,

J. William Hirzy
Chemist in Residence and Adjunct Professor, American University, and Vice-President, NTEU Chapter 280
Phone: 202-885-1780

1) Dan Stockin, Tennessee, dan@thelilliecenter.com

Dear Sir:

As a Public Health professional of 17 years with a real-world experience in hazardous materials management and toxics assessment, I wish to convey to you that the idea of deliberately adding fluoride to drinking water violates every toxicologic principle I have ever worked with. The inherent variables in individual health status, individual health response, individual dose received, purity of product, and synergistic chemical reactions with other chemical exposures and dietary components make the concept of fluoridation being "safe" more than untenable. Please resist pressure to add this known cumulative poison to Brisbane water.

I speak from experience when I say that my public health colleagues promoting fluoridation may mean well, but sadly their ability to evaluate the safety of fluoridation in an unbiased fashion has been deteriorated by a number of forces, chief of which are ignorance and ego. In public health, as in other professions, the realities of the sheer magnitude of a problem can cause us to fall prey to the idea of a quick, easy fix. But fluoridation is not a "silver bullet" that will fix cavities. In addition to not treating the root cause (lack of oral hygiene and access to dental care and reduced sugars in the diet), fluoridation even misses the mark of treating the symptoms safely and effectively. I respectfully suggest addressing the cause, rather than harmfully flailing only at the effects.

Daniel G. Stockin, MPH
Senior Operations Officer
The Lillie Center, Inc.
Ph: 615-370-5788 Fax: 615-370-2151
Brentwood, Tennessee, USA

2) Bill Wilson, North Shore City, New Zealand bill.wilson@xtra.co.nz

Dear Sir,

I will not go over the many reasons, strong though they are, why Brisbane should not be fluoridated. I will only appeal to your ethical sense. Do you really believe that it is right to force people to ingest a cumulative toxic substance against their will? It is a spurious argument to claim that they are not forced to drink tap water - I will only suggest that you tell that to the poorer people who cannot afford filters or to purchase bottled water.

Best Wishes,

Bill Wilson
118 Forrest Hill Rd,
North Shore City,
New Zealand.

3) Gladys Mitchell, Michigan, <gmitchell10@verizon.net>.

Dear Sir:

I sincerely hope that you will take into consideration all the negatives involved in water fluoridation before you take any action to implement it. There is good reason why 7,000 environmental scientists here in the USA are calling for a moratorium on this practice. I don't want to bore you with a long list but just for one: fluoride accumulates in the body like lead and arsenic, inflicting damage over long periods of time and fluoride is more toxic than lead. Why would you want to force your citizens to ingest this poison?

Sincerely, Gladys Mitchell, Secretary
Mount Pleasant Citizens For Safe Drinking Water
PO Box 382,
Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48804
An excellent website is: www.fluorideaction.org

4) Bob Brigg, Hawaii Rgbriggs2@aol.com

Dear Sir,

Much of the controversy regarding the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation is not understood by the general public. However -

I do not have a bunch of letters after my name, nor does a person need them to recognize the ridiculousness of medicating via the public water systems. To do so, is mass medication without consent and with absolutely no dose control.

Also, it makes no sense, economically, to fluoridate all of the water that comes from the water taps, when less than one percent reaches the intended targets, the teeth. This alone is most likely why none of the other widespread diseases are being treated via public water systems.

When major USA cities like New York, Boston, Cincinnati and Washington DC, that have been fluoridated for many years, have dental decay rates much higher than the USA average, the validity of the benefit claims must be questioned.

I respectfully suggest that money spend on fluoridation could be put to much better use, and I also suggest that you, with an open mind, further investigate the issue.

Respectfully,

Robert Briggs
Retired Engineer
720 Kanaha st
Kailua, Hawaii 96734

5) Lorna Rosenstein, Utah, lorna@xmission.com>.

Dear Sir,

In 2000, our county voted to add 'fluoride' to the water. Nearly everything we were told turned out to be factually incorrect.

The cost was represented by the proponents to be $1.38 per person per year or about $348,000. To date, the cost to our county has been close to 5 million dollars. We didn't add fluoride.

We didn't add a fluorine substance from the mineral apatite, as proponents represented, we added hydro(hexa)fluosilicic acid (H2SiF6), a waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It will be the same substance you will likely use. Some of the contaminants reported present in H2SiF6 include arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, silica, fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, iron, iodine, lead, lead 210, mercury, phosphorus, polonium 210, radon 222, selenium, silica, silver, oil based defoamers, dioxins, polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, chlorides, sulfides and synspar. It off-gasses hydrogen fluoride. In less than two years, our infrastructure evidenced serious corrosion. I've included a picture of the corrosion. Instead of the infrastructure lasting from 20-50 years, it will need to be replaced within 7-10 years.

The vote was presented before all the facts were known. Anyone who questioned the fiscal or environmental impact or the myriad risks to the known subsets was labeled "anti-fluoridationists" and their concerns trivialized. The proponents hid behind poor children with dental decay, vehement in their unwillingness to allow true public debate. Now the response is, "We've invested all this money, we can't stop now."

Please do your homework. Look at the reason the majority of unions representing scientists and researchers of the EPA are calling for a moratorium on artificial fluoridation substances. Less that 1% of all the water you will fluoridate will be ingested. Which entity assumes the liabilities? The risks far outweigh any purported benefits.

Many individuals and groups oppose fluoridation. In our State, there is the Safe Drinking Water Association, which opposes the practice as well as my organization, Waterwatch of Utah, which opposes the practice not only because of the ineffectiveness against tooth decay, but also because of the damage it does to water systems and the surrounding environment. Nationally, there are more groups than I can list. Internationally, there are scores of professionals, scientists and toxicologists who also oppose the practice.

I can assure you, the water professionals in our State wish they never had to deal with this substance. It is dangerous, costly and a tremendous waste of money. They all agree it would have been cheaper to hire a dentist.

Respectfully,
Lorna Rosenstein
www.waterwatchofutah.com

1421 East 300 North
Layton, Ut 84040

6) David McRae, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, <djmcrae@ncable.net.au>.

Dear Premier Beattie,

I believe you have an open mind and a desire to improve the lot of Queenslanders - and for that reason I draw your attention to some grave errors being propagated by your health minister, Stephen Robertson, regarding the alleged safety and benefits of water fluoridation.

As you have already been advised in submissions from numerous health experts and citizens, fluoridation may have serious, undesirable health effects on consumers, as well as violating the fundamental right of your citizens to free choice in medicinal intake.

I have been shown a letter that Mr Robertson MP wrote to Mrs J Beauchamp, on 3rd February 2006. He defends and supports water fluoridation for Queensland, but unfortunately a number of his statements are clear, factual errors. I fear greatly that both you and he have been getting biased, poor advice from advisors with professional / vested interests in propping up the outdated idea of pumping fluoride into people's bodies via the water supply.

THE ERRORS
For brevity I comment here on only two of the serious errors in the letter.

Error #1 - NHMRC
In his third paragraph Mr Robertson writes: "The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) supports the use of water fluoridation to improve oral health".
Not correct. Because so many of the fluoridation promoters have been making this claim over the last few years I wrote to the NHMRC myself to ask if the claim is correct. On 21st December 2005 Professor Adele Green, Chair of the Health Advisory Committee at the NHMRC replied to me:

"[NHMRC] neither supports nor criticises fluoridation of drinking water supplies." She further wrote that "supporting fluoridation" is a matter for the states and territories and not for the NHMRC. The rest of the letter described how NHMRC commenced a review of fluoridation in 1998, supposed to last some years, to identify how much fluoride Australians are exposed to, adverse health effects and other matters. Professor Green stated that the review was aborted in 2002 due to "lack of sufficient resources" to properly carry out the work.

Thus NHMRC has no up-to-date knowledge of the advisability or otherwise of fluoridation for Brisbane, nor anywhere else.

NHMRC has clearly withdrawn its "support" of fluoridation, but for obvious reasons ('egg on the face', etc.) has neglected to inform other agencies.

I respectfully suggest that you contact NHMRC to confirm the above, and then instruct your minister to withdraw this misleading claim from his fluoridation promotion activities.

Error #2 - tooth decay in Brisbane

Mr Robertson writes of Brisbane 5 and 6 year olds having 50% more decay than kids in fluoridated cities. But these claims are repeated, parrot-like, by fluoridation promoters right across Australia. Every new city that is targeted for fluoridation is subject to the claim that it has 50% (sometimes 40% or 60%) more decay than the fluoridated cities. It is part of the standard package of promotional materials these people are given.

The claims are utterly meaningless unless the claimant can point to a properly conducted scientific study that assesses tooth decay by the same criteria in a controlled manner, and also corrects for the confounding influences such as socio-economic differences. This kind of 50% difference does not show up anywhere else in the world, and is almost certainly "spin" used around Australia.

In the case of Brisbane it should be noted that the readily accessible data for tooth decay over the last 5 decades show that Brisbane 12 year olds had an average of 8 teeth affected by decay back in 1960. Most other capital cities had an average of 6.0 to 6.5. In other words, in the pre-fluoridation era Brisbane kids had the worst teeth of Australian capital cities. Since then, without fluoridation, the Brisbane figure has reduced to about 1 to 1.4, depending on which year is measured. The other capital cities, mostly fluoridated, have reduced to the same figure, 1 to 1.4.

Reductions in tooth decay, DMFT, over last 5 decades:

Brisbane: 8 DMFT > approx. 1 DMFT (no fluoridation)
Other capitals: 6 DMFT > approx. 1 DMFT (with fluoridation)

Brisbane has experienced the greatest reduction in decay of any capital city over the fluoridation era. But Brisbane never fluoridated!

It is possible Brisbane kids have slightly higher tooth decay that some other capital cities, in certain survey years, but certainly nothing like 50%. And it is the permanent teeth that are the best indicator of whether the program is working. Measurements of 5-6 year olds can show all sorts of variations due to statistical anomalies.

You must measure dental disease in the permanent teeth, particularly into teenage years and into the twenties to see if fluoridation is having a GENUINE effect. Amongst teenagers and adults Brisbane people can be shown to have ZERO difference in decay to the other cities. Melbourne, fluoridated for 30 years, is now generally accepted as being the worst in Australia.

I trust that these comments are of assistance to you in evaluating fluoridation.

Yours sincerely
David J McRae
Coordinator, Victorian Fluoride Information Network

7) Mrs Patricia Wheeldon, Kempsey, NSW, Australia, tonegunman@tsn.cc>.

Dear Premier Beattie,

Please send a copy of this submission to your Q'ld health minister. If you forward the relevant email details to myself, I will ensure that this is followed up but unfortunately, I do not have his email listing. I need your help . . . we all need your help in ensuring that the unsafe practice of fluoridation is finished, as it is long overdue.

I'm originally from Queensland and lived for years in Brisbane, having been born in Nambour.

Please know my disgust at fluoridationist tactics in NSW, where it is being forced on an unwilling population. Councillors from Hastings, Kempsey, Coffs Harbour and Bellingen have all written, expressing their disgust at the way NSW Health has pursued this issue.

Know that, along with the attached information I have submitted to various groups in this Valley, the peak medical body of Australia (the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia has 'backed off' from supporting fluoridation). See the following excerpt from email and note that they no longer support fluoridation . . . the CWA, Diabetes Aust and Cancer Council of Aust. 'have no policy' on fluoridation, despite lies printed by NSW Health Dept claiming 'endorsements' by these groups.

The ADA and AMA are private medical bodies, do no research and have admitted such. (The ADA refuses to admit any problems with amalgams despite the fact that the WHO and the NHMRC listed concerns about these - the WHO states amalgams are responsible for the body of mercury in our systems while NHMRC states one should not have amalgams if one is pregnant, kidney impaired or a child).

Regards,
Patricia Wheeldon (Mrs)
Summer Island Rd
via Kempsey NSW 2440

THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FAN Bulletin #475: VICTORY in New Zealand.

Feb 11, 2006.
Dear All,

It is unofficial at the moment but our sources indicate that the opponents of fluoridation won the referendum in Wanganui by about 2 to 1 (approximately 12,000 to 4,000). We will send you more information when this is announced officially. You can see more on the battle for Wanganui at the web site of the local group at <http://www.saynotofluoridation.org.nz>.

Meanwhile, opponents of fluoridation in Hamilton, NZ, (council is going to vote on the issue March 7) received a big boost to their campaign when they gained some important support from a professor at the local university (see the article below from today's Waikato Times).

Paul Connett
From: paul@fluoridealert.org

Stop Fluoride, Says Academic
by Geoff Taylor

New Zealand health authorities have locked themselves into a position and are ignoring the scientific evidence about the dangers of fluoride, according to a Waikato University academic.
Ted Ninnes, who co-ordinates the university's social sciences programme, said at least 800 peer-reviewed, published scientific studies now existed showing links between fluoride and health problems. Yet fluoridation of water was now an integral part of the Health Ministry's policy and named in its publications as one of its 13 health strategies.

Some Health Ministry and Waikato District Health Board employees had the role of promoting fluoride included in their employment contracts. "It makes it very hard for them to look at any evidence which is critical of fluoride," he said. Dr Ninnes said his research had led him to support a referendum on the issue which Hamilton City Council is to debate on February 20. He wanted to see fluoridation stopped as a precautionary measure. "Water fluoridation should be stopped until such time as it has been proven that it is ethically justified, proven safe and is effective in improving oral health."

But Waikato Medical Officer of Health, Felicity Dumble, rejected his assertions, saying authorities were simply committed to maintaining the health of the population.

She said the Health Ministry weighed up all the evidence available. "We are always looking out for something new. Obviously the Ministry of Health and Waikato District Health Board would alter our stance if there was anything to suggest fluoride was unsafe or didn't work," she said.
Dr Ninnes, who delivered a paper on fluoride at a national sociology conference last year, said corrupted science was responsible for many studies supporting fluoride.
Dr Ninnes said the history of fluoridation in the US had seen science become "the handmaiden of industrial giants" such as the Sugar Research Foundation of America and Superphosphate companies which produced fluoride as a toxic by-product.

Scientists who came up with contrary findings were often discredited and only one side of the fluoride story had been presented to the public.
Dr Dumble said there were no other influences involved in the Health Ministry's decision-making on fluoride.
"It's purely a health decision. I have to live with myself. Also I live in Hamilton and I don't want my children to be drinking fluoridated water if its going to harm them."

Dr Ninnes likened the fluoride debate to that around dioxin, which he said for years was backed by health authorities until the evidence was too powerful to ignore.

"Governments in New Zealand and the United States refused to accept scientific evidence of the toxicity of dioxin to humans for 30 years, even though the scientific evidence of its toxicity was overwhelming. You seem to have to wait until its overwhelming before they do anything."
11 February 2006
Fan_bulletins@lists.fluoridealert.org
http://lists.fluoridealert.org/listinfo/fan_bulletins

Former Science Chief: 'MMR Fears Coming True'
by Sue Corrigan

The Government is considering flu jabs for under-twos - not to protect the children, but adults they may infect. A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR triple vaccine for children.

Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history." He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.
He said he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
But he added: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."

His warning follows reports that the Government is this week planning to announce the addition of a jab against pneumococcal meningitis for babies, probably from next April. It is also considering flu jabs for under-twos - not to protect the children, but adults they may infect. In the late Seventies, Dr Fletcher served as Chief Scientific Officer at the DoH and Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines, meaning he was responsible for deciding if new vaccines were safe. He first expressed concerns about MMR in 2001, saying safety trials before the vaccine's introduction in Britain were inadequate. Now he says the theoretical fears he raised appear to be becoming reality. He said the rising tide of autism cases and growing scientific understanding of autism-related bowel disease have convinced him the MMR vaccine may be to blame.

"Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children," he said. "There's no one conclusive piece of scientific evidence, no 'smoking gun', because there very rarely is when adverse drug reactions are first suspected. When vaccine damage in very young children is involved, it is harder to prove the links. But it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There's far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so." Why isn't the Government taking this massive public health problem more seriously?"

Dr Fletcher said he found "this official complacency utterly inexplicable" in the light of an explosive worldwide increase in regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease in children, which was first linked to the live measles virus in the MMR jab by clinical researcher Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998.

"When scientists first raised fears of a possible link between mad cow disease and an apparently new, variant form of CJD they had detected in just 20 or 30 patients, everybody panicked and millions of cows were slaughtered," said Dr Fletcher. "Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR's introduction, and an extremely worrying increase in childhood inflammatory bowel diseases and immune disorders such as diabetes, and no one in authority will even admit it's happening, let alone try to investigate the causes." He said there was "no way" the tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition and definitional changes, as claimed by health authorities. "It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccine-related problem." he said. "But whatever it is, why isn't the Government taking this massive public health problem more seriously?"

His outspokenness will infuriate health authorities, who have spent millions of pounds shoring up confidence in MMR since Dr Wakefield's 1998 statement. But Dr Fletcher said the Government is undermining public confidence in vaccine safety by refusing to do in-depth clinical research to rule out fears of MMR damage to children. He added that the risks of brain and gut damage from MMR injections seem to be much higher in children where a brother or sister has diabetes, an immune disorder.

"That is a very strong clinical signal that some children are immunologically at risk from MMR," he said. "Why is the Government not investigating it further - diverting some of the millions of pounds spent on advertising and PR campaigns to promote MMR uptake into detailed clinical research instead?" Now retired after a distinguished 40-year career in science and medicine in Britain, Europe and the US, Dr Fletcher said that without such research, health authorities could not possibly rule out fears about MMR.

He said: "It is entirely possible that the immune systems of a small minority simply cannot cope with the challenge of the three live viruses in the MMR jab, and the ever-increasing vaccine load in general." He said he had decided to speak out because of his deep concern at the lack of treatment for autistic children with bowel disease, as revealed in The Mail on Sunday two weeks ago. He called the sudden termination of legal aid to parents of allegedly vaccine-damaged children in late 2003 "a monstrous injustice".

After agreeing to be a witness for the parents, he received thousands of documents relating to the case. "Now, it seems, unless the parents force the Government to restore legal aid, much of this revealing evidence may never come out," he said. The Department of Health said: "MMR remains the best protection against measles, mumps and rubella. It is recognised by the World Health Organisation as having an outstanding safety record and there is a wealth of evidence showing children who receive the MMR vaccine are no more at risk of autism than those who don't."
Mail on Sunday, 5th February 2006

My Son Has Had MMR jab, Says Brown (in dig at Blair)
by Nic Fleming, Medical Correspondent

Gordon Brown yesterday made it clear that his two-year-old son John had been given the MMR jab after the publication of a report showing that, in some parts of the country, as few as one in nine children were being given the triple vaccination. The Chancellor said parents had obligations to the rest of society to protect children from disease. Some may interpret his comments as a dig at Tony Blair, who has repeatedly refused to say whether his five-year-old son Leo has had the vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella on the grounds that it would be an infringement of his privacy.

Mr Brown said that in some areas of public health, such as obesity and child vaccination, personal responsibility should play an important part. During a discussion about public rights and responsibilities he said it was incumbent on parents to take into account the interests of others in society by making sure their children did not spread disease. Referring to the importance of children being given the jab, he said: "It's not just an optional extra." Sources close to Mr Brown insisted that the comments were not intended as a criticism of the Prime Minister.

While Mr Blair has refused to answer the question directly on many occasions, four years ago he told Jimmy Young on his BBC radio programme: "We certainly would not ask anybody to say or advise people to have this vaccine if we thought it was the wrong thing for our child."

Vaccination rates fell dramatically following prominent media coverage of a study eight years ago suggesting that the MMR jab was linked to autism. Since then the paper has been widely discredited, and Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, the journal that published the work, has said the research, by Dr Andrew Wakefield, was "entirely flawed" and should never have been published.

A report by the Chartered Society of Physiotheraphy published yesterday showed uptake of the MMR jab varied widely across the country, with rates in some parts of the country still worryingly low. Figures from the Department of Health for 2004-05 showed that in Westminster, London, just 11.7 per cent of children were immunised by their fifth birthday. This compared with a high of 91.1 per cent in Chelmsford in Essex, while the average across England was 73.3 per cent.

Vaccination relies on high uptake rates to be effective and parents who say they have had their children protected with single jabs sometimes fail to complete the course of injections. Doctors are concerned that those not giving their children the MMR jab are putting other children and pregnant women at risk. Physiotherapists are worried because the long-term effects of catching measles, mumps or rubella include arthritis, encephalitis - inflammation of the brain - and arthralgia, which is pain in a joint caused by inflammation.

London is lagging behind the rest of the country, with 57.2 per cent of children having the jab before they are five. The region with the highest uptake was the North East, with 80.4 per cent of children vaccinated. Sarah Bazin, of the CSP, said: "Measles, mumps and rubella are highly contagious diseases and can have devastating long-term consequences. This study demonstrates the absolute necessity of getting health care messages correct. "While the research that sparked controversy over the MMR jab has been discredited, uptake remains patchy across the country, showing that, when panic and confusion reign, public health can be seriously compromised."
The Daily Telegraph, 7th February 2006

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Wondering whether to vaccinate your child? Steve Ransom lays out the devastating case against inoculation in his book, Wake up to Health in the 21st Century. This book also exposes the myriad bogus health scares and cons propagated by the medical industry and media for profit and political prestige. Get the facts, make up your own mind and save yourself and your children a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.
Click here if you wish to contact Credence for information on treatment options or resources.

Guarding Input
by Phillip Day
How to pitch the odds in your favour

It's a jungle out there.

What we focus on becomes our reality.

What's going on in Equador?

Who cares? I'm not focused on Equador.

What am I focused on?

And what is it doing to me?

'One study involving more than 700 families found that 14-year-old boys who watched relatively more television were more likely to have assaulted or committed a serious act of aggression against someone by the time they were 22 years old. A similar pattern was found among females, but the relationship was much weaker.

Another study found that violence in the media can have a profound effect on the behaviour of children and teens and that TV violence is associated with aggression among children as young as 4 years.

Preschoolers who watch television violence and play violent video games are more likely to show high levels of aggression and antisocial behaviour than those not exposed, according to another study.'

Yet another example of neuro-associative conditioning. TV can work for good. Mostly it works for our undoing.

Input
… is everything we allow to enter us.
What we consume
What we see
What we hear
What we experience
What we touch
What we smell

Output
…is our reaction to the above: our deeds, thoughts, patterning and emotions.

The more positive the input (placebo), the more positive the output, the more positive the patterns, the more positive the performance. And, of course, the reverse is true (nocebo).

The Danger of Media
Media includes advertising, news and entertainment. Media is input and changes the way we interpret the world. Media chooses what we see. Constant repetitions override and re-write opinions and patterning. Media is neuro-associative conditioning on steroids. It can be a force for good. Then again, through selective reporting, all Roman Catholic priests can become paedophiles. All dark-featured, moustachioed Middle-Easterners can become terrorists. All felons in Los Angeles are 5' 10", 160 lb black males in their early twenties not wearing a shirt. You get the picture.

Televised imagery affects real-world behaviour, the ad industry depends on it. The brain on a sub-conscious level cannot distinguish between what it experiences and what it is shown. Bad news brings pain. Good news brings pleasure. The Six O'Clock News is almost all bad news, which means The Six O'Clock News = pain/nocebo. Most of what is covered is none of our business and does not affect us directly, yet we subconsciously take on the pain.

How does a constant tide of bad news affect the way you view the world?

Constantly misrepresenting the scale of a threat keeps the populace in a state of mental siege. Relentless coverage throws the spooks into everyone. Consider:

"To get the nation healthier we must have more vaccinations, more hospitals, more doctors and nurses, more drugs, more donations for more research, and higher taxes. If we don't, continued disease poses a survival threat."

A lie repeated loud enough, long enough and often enough is still a lie. Professor Chris Bulstrode, US orthopaedic surgeon turned medical lecturer, is not the only member of his profession to make the case for less doctors for better health, not more:

"More doctors just means more illness. If we want a healthier and happier country, we should get rid of a lot of doctors. I cannot have been the only person who was absolutely incensed to discover that when the Berlin Wall came down, the military strength of the Eastern Block was an order of magnitude less than we had been led to believe. I want to try all the Western generals for lying to the public about how strong the Russians were. These generals have done three things over the last thirty years. They have frightened the hell out of the Russians, they have frightened the hell out of us, and they have stolen a huge amount of money from the budget that could have been used elsewhere. As I was thinking about this, I realized that this is exactly what we as doctors do in healthcare."

Heavy on Our Heart
TV has a strong 'conforming' effect on us, even if we think it doesn't. One in five under-fifteens in Britain is obese. Obesity in America causes 300,000 deaths a year with the total healthcare costs for overweight amounting to a hefty $100 billion. 7.3% of Americans officially have diabetes, amounting to more than 10% of the population if the undiagnosed cases are considered. If one totals the number of American citizens weighing between 10 - 30lbs over their average weight for height, 65% of the population falls into that category.

So, what do we see advertised on American TV every night? Junk food, slurpies, pizza, chocolate - constant repetition installs the pattern to choose the food we're told will bring the greatest pleasure.

Consider by the time a child is 16, he will have seen 300,000 acts of gratuitous violence, torture, mutilation, suicide and murder on television, at the cinema, and now on his PC. The Comedy Channel has us laughing at euthanasia, adultery, religion and death in a way that makes it all funnier than hell. Hollywood taught us how to enjoy the 'buzz' of sin without the aggravation of accountability in much the same way Ray Kroc showed us the Big Mac without the aggravation of the abattoir.

What a Turn-On
Media distorts our world-view with excessive focus on events we have never personally experienced. Newspapers gather up all the bad news around the world and dump it on our breakfast table. Terrorism. Disasters. Live sex acts occur in Mediterranean nightclubs, young female holidaymakers taking part while their admiring mothers look on. Drunken brawls in city streets. News of abuses of the young. The killing of little children by other little children. A British father rapes his own daughter then murders her. What was once unthinkable has now become commonplace. Or has it?

Dysfunctional input can help society fulfil the prophecy it constantly witnesses on TV. In 1976, the number of reported child abuse cases in America was 670,000. By the early 90s, this figure had risen to nearly 3 million. Movies, soaps, teen magazines and social-climber periodicals across the world deify sex, promiscuity, adultery and drunkenness. Drug abuse is now so widespread in the world's conurbations that when London's Metropolitan Police randomly searched a large cross-section of club-goers in the King's Cross area in 1998, 100% of them were found to be carrying, or under the influence of 'controlled' drugs.

Upwards of 25% of the videos rented in the US each year are pornographic. One Pentagon telephone audit showed $300,000 of taxpayers' money had been spent on 1(900) sex lines. At the last count, within a few blocks of the Department of Justice in Washington DC, there were 37 'adult' bookstores, 8 X-rated theatres and 15 topless bars. No pain, apparently, in the world's superpower capital.

The Double Mind
British TV today is a smorgasbord of Big Brother ogling, Celebrity Love Island shenanigans, the hate-filled faces of soap opera, Sex and the City, an autopsy performed live for a Kentucky-Fried-Chicken-munching public. We desire pleasure no matter the consequences, happily divorcing cause from effect, what everything is doing to us.

Thus arises the double mind, a society able to moralise in the newspapers about rape, murder and sex abuse, while having no problem accommodating the latest Kill Bill movie advertised on the very next page. England wept like babies during the serial run of the program Hearts of Gold, seeing ordinary folk doing good deeds for one another, dissolving the nation into sentimental goo. But the following day it was 'Hearts of Lead' as we cussed out the kids, gobbled down the porridge and carved up the grannies on our mad dash into work.

There's one thing at which we [Britain] DO lead the world. And we should hang our heads in shame: Britain has the highest rate of unmarried teenage mothers - nine times worse than Japan. Why is Britain so different? Not because we don't teach children about contraception. Just the opposite - we teach them too much and in the wrong way.

The more sexually aware our children become at too early an age, the more they are tempted. Tragically, it has become unfashionable to drum into children the word 'No'. We are paying the price in wrecked lives.

This from The Sun, page 8. Turn five pages back and drool at the daily half-page photograph of a teenage girl stripped to the saddle in provocative pose, earning some pin-money as she breaks onto the 'modelling' scene. Is The Sun doing its bit to prevent our youth from being sexually 'tempted'? Hardly. But such hypocritical rubbish passes us by with nary a blink.

"I want to be famous!" the school children chorus.
"Famous for what?' asks the teacher.
"Just famous!'

The double mind: "A mind profoundly at war with itself and ignorant even of that fact."

The Twenty-Third Channel
The TV is my shepherd,
I shall not want,
It makes me lie down on the sofa,
It leads me away from the fridge,
It destroys my soul,
It leads me in the path of sex and violence
For the sponsor's sake.
Yea, though I walk
In the shadow of social responsibilities,
There will be no interruption,
For the TV is with me,
Its cable and remote,
They comfort me.
It prepares a commercial for me
In the presence of all my worldliness.
It anoints my head with consumerism,
My coveting runneth over.
Surely laziness and ignorance
Shall follow me
All the days of my life.
And I shall dwell in the house
Watching TV forever.

Learn More About Yourself
What sort of input am I willingly subscribing to?
What effect can I see this having on me?
Is the double mind in evidence in my life?
How do I reconcile my hypocrisies?
Does this bother me?
Has media usurped my right to make up my mind based on my own experience, or am I given my opinions?
Do I think media is a force for good?
Do I think media is a force for ill?
And the question they'll take you out and shoot you for asking:

DO I REALLY NEED MEDIA AT ALL?

Based on your answers, try switching off the TV for fourteen days. If you break out in a sweat and can't, at least total up the time you spend in front of the box, reading newspapers, listening to the radio, etc., and consider what you could have done with the time instead:

· Played some sport and made myself healthier
· Got a university degree
· Started a business
· Written a good book
· Read a good book
· Organised worthwhile activities for my children
· Saved the £40-a-month cable fee and put it towards a college education for my child instead
· Created something
· Served someone

Moral of the story?

Pain in, pain out.

Pleasure in, pleasure out.

Guard your input like a pit-bull.

Practise good thoughts (I'm not sure pit-bulls do this).

Copyright © 2005 Phillip Day
Extracted from The Little Book of Attitude
www.credence.org

Malnutrition 'Costs UK Billions'

Malnutrition costs the UK more than £7.3bn a year - more than double the bill for obesity, a report has found.

However, the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition said malnutrition was given a much lower priority by the government. The report estimates around 30% of patients in hospitals and nursing homes are clinically malnourished. In total, more than three million people are thought to be malnourished at any one time.

Effects of malnutrition
Impaired immune responses
Reduced muscle strength and fatigue
Increased difficulties in breathing
Impaired thermo-regulation
Impaired wound healing
Apathy, depression and self-neglect
Poor libido

This includes 10% of people over the age of 65 living in the community.

A report published by the Malnutrition Advisory Group in 2003 warned that many people with malnutrition go undiagnosed. Malnourished people stay in hospital longer, succumb to infection more often, and visit their GP more frequently. They also require longer-term care, and more extensive nursing care.

Screening needed
The BAPEN report found it costs £3.8 billion a year to treat malnourished people in hospital, and £2.6 billion to treat them in long-term care facilities.

"It came as a complete surprise to me that I was suffering from malnutrition because I do always eat quite well - it is rare that I eat junk food, and I don't like chocolate. I thought I had a fairly balanced diet". - Gloria Barrow, malnourished hospital patient

GP and outpatient visits add another £750 million to the bill.

Professor Marinos Elia, BAPEN chairman, called for effective screening to detect malnutrition, so that appropriate nutritional treatment can be provided. The association has developed a simple-to-use screening tool to identify those already suffering or at risk of malnutrition.

Professor Elia said: "It is surprising that in England it has not been made mandatory for all patients to be screened for malnutrition on admission to hospital as it has in Scotland. It takes a period of time for an individual to become clinically malnourished, often starting in the community, but if at least it is picked up in hospital a great deal of suffering of patients and their families can be avoided. Resources must be made available for the training of health and care staff in all settings so that malnourished patients and residents are identified and appropriate treatment and support provided."

A Department of Health spokesperson said measures, backed by new investment, had been put in place to tackle the health inequalities that can lead to poor diet and ill health.

The Better Hospital Food programme had improved quality, access and availability of food to hospital patients. Minimum standards for meals in care homes had also been introduced.
BBC News

Roadkill Fan Penning Recipe Book

A man from north Cornwall who regularly eats animals killed on the roads is set to share his unusual taste with others.

Arthur Boyt, who is 66 and from Davidstow, is writing a recipe book about his gastronomic enthusiasm for roadkill.

Mr Boyt, a retired civil servant, insists the creatures are no threat to health if they are well cooked. He has been picking up the bodies of a wide variety of creatures and cooking them for 30 years.

'Good meat'
Mr Boyt, who has a degree in biology, cooks the meat at a high temperature for a long time, ensuring it is safe to eat. "It's good meat for free and I know nobody has been messing with it and feeding it with hormones and growth accelerants and so on. It's just natural, fully organic meat."

Some of his more unusual meals have included a greater horseshoe bat and otter. He regularly eats badger, rabbit, deer, weasel, hedgehog, squirrel and fox. "I've lived off roadkill for the last 30 years or so. It adds to the pleasure of a meal to know I haven't paid for it," said Mr Boyt, whose wife Su is a vegetarian.

Mr Boyt says that as well as writing his book he has been approached by Gordon Ramsay's cookery programme the F-Word, to cook one of his roadkill dishes later this year.
BBC News, 29th January 2006

Having a Good Sense of Humor Really Is Attractive

Two recent studies have confirmed that women like men who are funny, whereas men like women who laugh at their jokes.

Women Find Humor Important
In one study, some 200 college students ranked the attractiveness of men and women based on pictures featuring captions ranging from the bland to hilarious. Men weren't influenced by the captions, but women were; photos of men accompanied with funnier captions were considered more attractive and better potential partners to women.

Wit or Appreciation?
In the second study, researchers asked more than 125 students about the kind of person of the opposite sex with whom they preferred to be in a relationship: A joker or someone who appreciated a partner's sense of humor. Generally, men preferred women, they believed, who appreciated their sense of humor, while women liked funny guys.

The Genetics of Humor
According to one theory, these tendencies could be rooted in evolution; women may prefer funny men because wit demonstrates creativity and intelligence, and therefore a good set of genes.
Nature.com, 23rd January 2006

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: You know how laughing can do so many wonderful things for your health:

A sunnier disposition can lengthen your life, regardless of age, weight or smoking habits.

Positive emotions can help you see life's bigger picture.

Laughter can even help type 2 diabetics process sugar better.

And a good sense of humor -- generating all that laughter -- could also be a difference-maker when it comes to finding and keeping your right life partner. If attraction to a good sense of humor is really, as the article suggests, attraction to a healthy, active brain, then it's important to keep yourself mentally sharp.

Secret Report Reveals 18 Child Deaths Following Vaccinations
Beezy Marsh, Health Correspondent

Eighteen babies and toddlers have died following childhood vaccinations in just four years, a secret Government report reveals.

Four deaths have been linked to suspected adverse reactions to the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) triple jab, according to documents prepared for the Government's expert advisers on immunisation.

The controversial jab has been beset by fears of a link to autism and bowel disease, although since its introduction in 1998, yearly deaths from measles have fallen from 16 to zero, while the jab against meningitis C is thought to save 50 lives a year.

The report, covering the period between 2001 and 2004, details how one baby suffered a cot death following MMR vaccination in 2003. Two more infants were reported to have died after having the MMR jab in 2001, but the cause of death in both cases was unknown.

After the death of a child who developed meningitis and swelling of the brain three weeks after an MMR jab in 2004, a claim for compensation was made by the child's parents. It is not known if this was successful.

Six fatalities followed meningitis C vaccinations between 2001 and 2003. The deaths of seven other babies were linked to combined vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough and reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). They include a baby who died from a heart attack. Another died after a polio jab.

Almost 800 other reports of suspected complications of childhood vaccination - including convulsions and hyptonia, in which the baby becomes floppy like a "rag doll" - were also made, including 160 for MMR.

Medics raised the alarm under the MHRA "yellow card" warning system, set up to monitor suspected adverse drug reactions. Although making such a report does not prove that vaccination caused death or injury, it means that doctors fear it may have played a part. Their reports were considered by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which concluded that no significant safety issues were identified.

Details of the document, which emerged after a request under the Freedom of Information Act, come amid fears of "vaccine overload" due to a rise in the number of jabs given to infants.

The Department of Health last week announced the introduction of a new jab against the pneumococcal bug, which causes a deadly strain of meningitis, in addition to a booster for Hib disease, which can cause meningitis. This means that by the time a child is two he will have had 25 vaccinations, although some will be given in five-in-one or three-in-one combinations.

Dr Richard Halvorsen, a general practitioner who runs a private single jabs clinic at Holborn Medical Centre in London, said: "We know vaccines have potential side effects, but this does not mean that children died as a result of MMR or other jabs. However, it is not insignificant because these are reports from health professionals who suspect an adverse vaccination reaction."

Experts last night said that the true figures for suspected fatalities and serious side effects could be much greater. Dr John Griffin, the former editor of the medical journal Adverse Drug Reactions, said: "For fatalities, it is probably only one in two which gets reported and for other side effects one in 10."

This means that almost 40 baby deaths could have occurred following jabs between 2001 and 2004, and 8,000 serious adverse reactions.

Prof Peter Openshaw, a leading immunologist from Imperial College London, said parents should not be alarmed by the report's findings. "A lot of vaccine reactions are just inexplicable," he said. "It may be that someone had an infection before they got a jab, it may be something in their genetic make-up or sometimes there are allergic reactions. But vaccines are extraordinarily safe compared to the diseases they prevent."

Overall, thousands of lives have been saved by childhood immunisation. Smallpox and polio have been eradicated. A spokesman from the Department of Health said: "Immunisation programmes are regularly reviewed to ensure that all children have the best possible protection."
The Sunday Telegraph, 12th February 2006

'Black Box' Warning Over Effects of Ritalin
by Matt Barnwell

A drug widely prescribed to calm hyperactive children in Britain should carry the most serious type of warning label, a panel of experts in the United States said yesterday.

Ritalin and other stimulants used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder should carry the "black box" warning to inform doctors, patients and parents of the risk they may pose to the cardiovascular system.

The American advice suggested a link between the drugs and an increased risk of "sudden deaths" and serious cardiovascular problems, including heart attacks.

There are 25 reported deaths of people treated with the medicines between 1999 and 2003 in the US, 19 of them children. A further 54 suffered serious cardiovascular problems including heart attack, stroke, hypertension, palpitation an arrhythmia, said the FDA.

More than 200,00 children were prescribed methylphenidate drugs in 2001, said the Department of Health Figures. The Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency said methylphenidates carried warnings that doctors and pharmacists would consider before dispensing for children.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp, the makers of Ritalin, said last night that the drug was both safe and effective.
The Daily Telegraph, 11th February 2006

What Happened to Real Food?
by Graham Harvey

My quest for real food started with a bunch of organic bananas. I bought them in a wholefood shop. They hadn't looked particularly promising - a sort of washed-out, grey colour - but I felt sure that they would ripen up once I got them home.

A week later, they were starting to go soft and the skin had turned more grey. I peeled one and took a bite. It wasn't that it tasted bad. Quite the opposite. There was no discernible taste of any kind. I might as well have been eating cardboard.

This came as a shock. If it had been the usual chemically-grown stuff, I'd have understood - but we're talking organic here. These bananas had been grown without any chemical sprays and nourished with barrow-l0ads of good old-fashioned compost - or so I imagined. They ought to have been full of flavour.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't have been that surprised. I'd experienced tasteless organic produce before - the carrots that hardly registered on the taste-buds; apples with all the sweetness and flavour of household soap.

The sad truth is that most fresh foods - organic or otherwise - no longer taste of much at all. Many are deliberately harvested whilst under-ripe to extend their shelf life. More significantly, they've been robbed of many of the healthy trace elements they once contained.

A revolution in the way they're grown has taken away the very nutrients that once promoted good eating and good health. Our staple foods have been 'dumbed down' As a result, Britain, like other industrial countries, is suffering a tidal wave of sickness.

It's cruelly ironic. Today's farmers feed twice as many people as they did before World War II. Never in our nation's history has so much wheat poured into the grain silos; never have so many milk tankers lumbered up and down the motorways. Yet amid all this plenty, the British people are ailing. The conditions that afflict us are not the great diseases of old - cholera, typhoid, diphtheria and TB. Instead, we are succumbing to what health authorities term 'the diseases of civilisation'. In other words diseases that result not from invasion by pathogenic organisms but from a collapse in our bodies' support systems.

The names of today's illnesses are frighteningly familiar: coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's and depression. Hardly anyone in Western society remains untouched.

In Britain - as in the United States - one in three of us will develop cancer. Half the population is likely to suffer from heart disease during their lifetime, and one third of the population will develop an allergy. Despite this grim litany, health statistics show we are continuing to live longer. What the figures don't reveal is the massive increase in medical intervention it takes to keep us going.

Could food really be responsible for the health catastrophe that has overtaken the Western world? It seems scarcely credible. Yet the fact is that Britain is 50 years into a mass experiment in human nutrition. We are all eating foods that have been stripped of the antioxidants, trace elements and fatty acids that once promoted good health. Is it any wonder that our body maintenance systems are breaking down?

The causes of this catastrophe lie in the soil. Whenever I take the train north, I pass a series of intensive vegetable fields strung out along side the railway. The sight of this invariably fills me with gloom. In the summer months it's mostly planted with salads or vegetables - laser straight lines of cabbages, carrots or iceberg lettuce. From the train you can see the tramlines, the spaced tractor - wheel marks that show the pesticide sprayer is frequently taken through the crop.

In the winter the ground is bare. There's not a weed to be seen. When the weather's wet, pools of water lie on the surface, unable to drain. Even from the train you can see this land is sick. It is so drenched in chemical sprays and fertilizers that its normal function has virtually broken down.

The soil's robust crumb structure, which allows water and air to pass through its top layers, has disappeared. Beneficial creatures such as earthworms have been suffocated. The only way plants can be induces to grow here is with constant spraying of pesticides.

Who will buy these vegetables I wonder, washed and packed for a supermarket somewhere? Perhaps it will be some harassed young mother, cajoling her youngsters into trying a carrot or a floret or two of broccoli with their chicken dinosaurs. It'll do them good, she'll promise.

But she'll be wrong. There'll be precious little in those vegetables to help her kids grow up to be strong and healthy. Judging from the abused and miserable soil that grew them, it's hard to imagine they'll produce any sort of nourishment. And the tragedy is that with a season or two of care and attention, those fields beside the railway tracks could grow the sort of food that would make her children as strong as lions.

It's sometimes hard to comprehend the pace and scale of the revolution that has overtaken the countryside.

Anyone born before 1960 will have been raised largely on natural foods, grown by traditional methods. Most people born after that time will have grown up on fake food: unwitting victims of a mass dietary con-trick.

The world I was born into at the tail end of World War 11 was largely organic……our milk was local…..our butter - from the Co-op grocers at the end of the road - was a deep yellow colour, showing that it, too, had come from cows eating little but fresh grass. The chances are that it was richly endowed with fat-soluble vitamins and essential fatty acids. ……..

Almost everything else we ate travelled no distance at all. My grandfather, Tom, grew it in the back garden. It was in that little garden that I learned 'the law of return', the guiding principle observed by growers down through the ages.

Every so often, my grandfather would spread the ground with 'muck' - manure from the chicken run, crumbly compost from the bin behind the tool shed, or farmyard manure scrounged from heaven knows where. In return for these gifts the ground would pay us back handsomely. Most days there'd be something to take back to the kitchen: a milky white cauliflower; a bunch of carrots, feathery tops still attached; or a bowl of bright red tomatoes.

Today, food is different…….Oh yes, most of it looks attractive enough - especially the fruit and vegetables. Supermarkets like to make a big show out of fresh produce. It makes them appear caring and responsible.

The moment you push your trolley through the automatic doors, you're confronted with a colourful display of plump, unblemished apples, leafy salads and king sized carrots and potatoes. But it's all a sham.

One way to measure the nutrient content of fresh foods is to taste them. Foods that seem bland and tasteless are almost certain to be low in essential minerals. In fact good food often tastes sweet.

We've come to associate sweetness with unhealthy junk food and confectionary. But in nature, sweetness has long been associated with strength and vitality. It is often linked to rich sources of essential trace elements such as zinc, magnesium, copper and boron.

Sugar content in fruit and vegetables also correlates with a range of valuable materials such as amino acids, proteins and phytonutrients. For early man - the hunter-gatherer - there was an evolutionary advantage in developing a sweet tooth. It was a means of selecting the ripest foods which would be at their most nutritious. Today, fresh food no longer tastes sweet and it's a sign that something is very wrong.

……Organic food crops are produced without pesticide sprays or chemical fertilizers, but that doesn't mean the soil they're grown in will contain the right balance of minerals and trace elements to grow healthy produce. Indeed, as the organic market expands, more crops are being grown on land 'converted' after decades of chemical farming. A change to organic methods doesn't automatically revive these devastated soils.

Of course, it's not just human who suffer through poor quality crops - farm animals are affected too, which then stores up more problems for us when we eat them. Take the degradation of beef. For the past 30 years or so, farmers have sown most grass fields with a single species: perennial ryegrass. They've been persuaded by the Government advisers and the chemical industry that by growing a monoculture and plastering it with large amounts of nitrogen fertiliser, they'll get more grass to the acre…….. It's a kind of ruminant 'fast food' unbalanced in its mineral content. Until the arrival of cheap modern fertilizers, no self-respecting livestock farmer would have dreamed of sowing a new pasture without including at least half a dozen new species.

Now the grasses fed to cattle have all the mineral content of over-boiled cabbage. As a result, consumers are supplied with sub-standard meat, lacking the full complement of vitamins and minerals it used to contain.

Meanwhile, industrial farming has mounted a second attack on the health giving properties of British beef: feeding cattle on cereal grains. While small amounts of grains do little harm, large quantities make ruminants such as cattle ill. On too rich a diet, the animal will die. But before that happens, it's likely to put on flesh at a rapid state - which is what appeals to farmers.

Most American beef is fattened on grains in huge meat production factories called feedlots. Feedlots on such a scale are rare in Britain, but a country which was once famed for its beef still manages to produce its own unhealthy, cereal fed variety.

……..What farmers don't realise is that taking beef cattle off pasture and feeding them on cereal rich rations, has had dire consequences for the nation's health. It has exacerbated a crisis that according to Professor Michael Crawford of North London University, is more serious than obesity. It's the sickness caused by an imbalance of essential fats in the national diet.

To remain healthy, human beings need a variety of essential fats including two types of polyunsaturated fats - omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids It's the proportion of these two fats that's crucial. In a healthy diet, that ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 should be no higher than four to one, and preferably lower. In the diets of our stone-age ancestors, it is believed to have been equally balanced In most modern Western diets, the ratio can be as high as 20 to one. One of the main reasons is that the polyunsaturates in cereal-fed beef contain too high a proportion of omega-6 fats, which have been linked to a range of inflammatory diseases including asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.

Feeding dairy cattle on cereals is just as damaging. Milk from grass fed cows contains high levels of essential fatty acids, particularly something called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which has strong anti-cancer properties. But when cows are fed on small amounts of grain the CLA level in milk falls dramatically.

The content of our milk has also been changed by today's emphasis on high yields. In the 1960s, the average yield of a British dairy cow was a 3,500 litres a year. Today, the average is double this, with some herds notching up 10,000 litres or more. However each animal is able to transfer only a fixed amount of vitamins to her milk. The greater the milk volume the more dilute its vitamin content.

And what of wheat a food as old as civilization itself? Whole grains such as wheat, barley and oats, are an important part of the human diet, and in my local supermarket there seem to be plenty on offer - whole wheat bread and pasta, or whole grain breakfast cereals. What the packaging doesn't tell you is that the grain is likely to be depleted in minerals and carrying the residue of pesticides applied to the growing crop.

Some grains come from soils so damaged by chemicals and fertilizers that their nutrient content is dramatically reduced. Some of the biggest villains in this story are nitrogen fertilizers. These artificial compounds - the products of a worldwide chemical industry - are the powerhouse of modern farming. And it's these small white pellets that have degraded our everyday foods most of all, and led to the upsurge in ill-health.

Drive around the countryside in spring and you'll see, stacked up in almost every farm yard you pass, squat 'dumpy' bags of the kind that builders' merchants deliver small amounts of gravel in. Inside are nitrogen fertilizers waiting to be spread on our fields. The trouble is that while they appear to be a magic wand to boost crop yields, these fertilisers actually weaken plants by stimulating excess growth of sappy tissue with thin cell walls. The crops that are grown this way are more prone to disease, which is why they need constant spraying with chemicals to keep them standing. Instead of solving problems, nitrogen fertilisers actually create them.

The pity of it is that there was once a time when the British were rather good at farming. As far back as Roman times, these islands off the north-west coast of Europe were exporting wheat to the rest of the Continent. We had been blessed with deep, fertile soils and a mild climate.

Somehow, we have contrived to squander those advantages. I will look at what can be done to win them back.
Daily Mail, 15th February 2006
Extract from 'We Want Real Food' by Graham Harvey. Published by Constable Robinson, 2006

What to Do if Your Finger is Cut Off

Accidents do happen, and in the tragic event that one or more of your fingers is severed, knowing what to do can make the difference between saving or losing your digit. You usually have between six and 12 hours to have the finger reattached, so acting fast is essential. As soon as an accident occurs, you should:

· Gather all parts of the severed finger, no matter how small. The surgeon may need them.
· Put the finger and any parts on ice and wrap it in plastic wrap.
· Place the finger in a jar or cup with lid.
· Do not put it in water, as this will cause it to shrivel.
· Call an ambulance and/or get to the emergency room as quickly as possible.

"Replanting" surgeries can be very successful if these steps are followed (as long as there is not extensive damage to the muscles). In fact, a 62-year-old woman recently had six of her fingers sliced off in a work accident. Surgeons were able to reattach all of her fingers after a 17-hour operation -- this was the first time so many fingers have been reattached in one procedure.
BBC News January 27, 2006

DR MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Acute traumas are one of the few valid applications of conventional medicine, and restoring severed digits and even limbs, is an amazing example of how far modern surgery has advanced.

The problem, of course, occurs when conventional medicine seeks to use these techniques for 99 percent of the chronic degenerative diseases that affect nearly each and every one of us -- and then it is a miserable failure. Home accidents are responsible for more unintentional fatal injuries than any other cause except motor vehicle accidents.

As the article indicates, quick thinking and appropriate steps can reduce the damage a serious accident causes. But accidents are often caused by human error, and they typically could be prevented in the first place.

Here are a few other tips to help you avoid some of the most common household tragedies:

Falls -- Exercise gives you balance and strength, increasing your survival reflexes.
Poisonings -- Common household products often are toxic chemicals. Keep them out of reach of children and away from food stuffs. Keep activated charcoal within reach, just in case
Fire -- Make sure your smoke alarms are functioning and check the house for fire hazards.
Suffocation/Choking -- Watch infants and small children around common items -- pillows, balloons, plastic bags and telephone cords
Drowning -- Pay attention. Most drowning incidents occurred while one or both parents were supervising the child. In 69 percent of all cases, the parents didn't expect the children to be near the pool, yet the child was found in the water.
www.mercola.com

From the Mailbag

"Dear Phillip, I'm writing to say thank you. I've suffered from epilepsy since the age of 11. It used to be quite bad, sometimes, 1 maybe 2 seizures a day. Doctors tried everything from sodium valproate (epilim) to carbamazipine (tegratol retard). The list was endless and nothing seemed to work, I just got worse.

Then my exams came and I had so much stress I stopped taking the medication and, to my surprise, stopped having as many seizures. At that point, I began considering alternative approaches to controlling my epilepsy. I found not eating properly and lack of sleep to be the main trigger of my seizures, quite surprising really as I found out more in three weeks on the Internet than doctors could in five years. I started to eat properly, which led to even less seizures, but still did not stop the problem. A few years passed and I was still having seizures, not as many, but there was still a problem.

Then I met you at one of your conventions and you suggested a course of vitamins and minerals. I was sceptical at first, my mother had told me of such products and I didn't believe her. Anyway, I started the supplementation and to my surprise the seizures have now all but stopped. I now even get warnings, which never happened before. I'm now 22 and have had 2 seizures in the last year, not bad considering I was having 1 - 2 A DAY. Also my general health has improved tenfold, I hardly even suffer from colds and flu and all my hay fever has gone as well. So much for modern medicine.

I am sure if this approach worked for me, we can make it work for other people. Thank you again for all your help". - Lance M, Suffolk, UK
"PS: The supplements I used were from a company called Neways: Maximol, Revenol, Omega 3, taken at twice the recommended daily dosage".

"Found the tour absolutely motivating and informative. Looking for info on varicose veins and surplus veins." - Michelle B, QLD, Australia

"I have followed Phillip Day for years and always go to his seminars when he is in town. I think the work he does is invaluable and gives me hope every day!" - Kristy M, WA, Australia

"Love the work you're doing!" - Sarah A, Avon, UK

"I have just been given a copy of one of Phillip Day's books and went straight to www.credence.org for more information. I shall pass on the details to my dearest friend whose husband has recently found out he has lung cancer. Thank you. Power to the people!" - Sheila F, Kent, UK

"I am astonished at your findings. It is criminal that this has been allowed to continue. Please continue your good work." - Dr Raine B, Devon, UK

"I totally agree with everything that is written in this report. I believe that we should never have gone into the common market in the first place and the sooner we get out of it the better!" -John J, Swansea, UK

"Please, please, please come back to Bendigo, Vic, Aust.!" - Joy T, VIC, Australia

"Pleased to finally find someone who exposes the governments and big industries for what they truly are: cheats and liars. Very enlightening and helpful info." - Karen L, VIC, Australia

"Loved the event! Fanatstic! Phillip is a man after my own heart!" - Lisa M, VIC, Australia

"Keep up the wonderful work, Phillip." - Andreas C, VIC, Australia

" Love your shows and books. Please, next time when in Perth, pop up on stage as us wee ones can't see you unless you are. Trying to see you between the gap is not the best exercise for your neck, especially when you bang heads with the person next to you!!!" - Dolores F, WA, Australia

"My son was recently diagnosed with a malignant brain tumour. The doctors have given him a poor prognosis. However, I now truly believe it is possible to help him survive through nutrition and supplements and B17 which I will be starting ASAP. That doctors do not tell us this is absolutely appalling and I thank God for the internet that led me to one of your books and your site!" - Julie S, Staffordshire, UK

"I didn't know that it was this big! and I can tell you that most of the people in Europe aren't aware of the things going on. Last summer, we had to vote about a 'central europa' and I'm glad that my country didn't want it. It was turned down by great numbers. If there is anything I can do to help please do ask ….and please keep me updated about the information you're collating. I want to thank you all for clearing this up. Good luck!" - R. V, North Holland, Netherlands

"I am British, but have lived in France for over 14 years. I work in IT audit in banking/finance in the country where the EU is an industry - Luxembourg. In the last 2 years I performed a 180 degree turn in respect of the EU - I now think it is institutionally Anti-Christ. I worked as a contractor for 3 months at the EU Commission. I followed the French referendum on the Constitution blow by blow. I was heartened by the result because the French were pilloried for 3 months by the establishment and media and were told that the sky would fall on their heads if they voted NO!" - Adrian H, La Meuse, France

"Dear Phillip, Driving home last night after hearing you speak, I felt compelled to write to you today just to say thank you for opening my eyes to a new way of thinking, and for showing me how to look at life from different angles, rather than just accepting everything that we are fed from the media and health authorities. I think what you are trying to achieve is commendable and I personally found your speech informative, well researched, inspiring and in parts, life-changing. How often do you get that from a night out?

You give so much information and ideas that it is almost impossible to know where to begin. I will certainly be purchasing some of your books, subscribing to CTM and will not miss the opportunity to see you speak when you are next in town.

I gave myself a couple of pleasure things to do today, as you suggested, just to make the day worthwhile, and this e-mail is one of them!

Thanks again and keep up the great work. Kindest regards."- Martin P, UK

"My brother has just been diagnosed with cancer and I desperately want to help him as much as I can. Hopefully he will be open to your research and not go down the route of conventional medicine." - Emma Y, QLD, Australia

"Very grateful for what you are doing …want to know more!" - Maxine F, Surrey, UK

"Fascinated by info about B17 - feel angry that this information is not freely available - as a Health Care Assistant working on a colorectal and urology ward I am constantly dismayed at the absence of awareness of importance of diet among staff and patients and depressed by apparent, dismal prognosis for many people undergoing conventional treatments for cancer. I am very glad a forum for change such as this exists!" - Sarah P, London, UK

"I too am concerned with pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs onto humans through doctors, who, in my opinion, don't care any more. Greed and big money seem to be the motivation." - Kay B, NSW, Australia

I strongly believe in the Campaign for Truth in Medicine. The whole thrust of Western Medicine seems to completely ignore 'prevention' and this must change." - Ian E, Kent, UK

"I received my books, audios and video in the mail today. "Cancer the Winnable War" audio is fabulous, full of empowering information. "Healthy at 100" is equally informative as well as entertaining. A sense of humour goes a long way, Phillip. I look forward to diving into "Cancer, Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth." Bless you all". - Dee, BC, Canada

"Very honest with the ' true and open'. I am delighted to hear the facts about the state of the health services worldwide and due to the CTE - great work! - people can get an insight into what is really happening. Thank you! " - Donal R, Co. Cork, Ireland

"I passionately agree with everything you have said on your site. I would like very much to hear more." - Sally S, Cumbria, UK

"I have already been much stimulated by the subjects you cover on medical and health matters. I feel the need to constantly pursue the subjects with considerable intensity." - Robert G, Surrey, UK

"A brilliant company - I recommend it to all my friends and family. Thank you for being there." - Brian T, Dorset UK