Up Close and Personal
The Monthly Opinion
by CTM founder, Phillip Day

Hi Folks,

June is here with the interminable World Cup and Wayne Rooney's metatarsal scare. I was blessed with no football genes so, forgive me, but I'm left colder than Le Carré's spy at the sight of our boys going 'into the fray' led by a Swede dating an Italian. A pity Britain's pyhrric patriotism in honour of a pig's bladder does not extend to the nation's real issues, and perhaps that's the real scare. When a nation can sigh easy in its bed, burping up Red Bull, cheering on Becks and Co while the final instruments of its conquest are being dotted and crossed in the far-off corridors of a foreign power.

Let's talk about the English spirit. Eight-year-old Cait Atkins is struck crossing a road in Aylesbury and the driver does a runner - no surprises there (the number of scumbags in Britain today has quintrupled, one must inevitably make allowances). What happened next, or rather didn't, is the real shame. Up to a dozen cars drive around Cait's crumpled form as she lies in agony in the middle of the road. Not one stops to offer assistance. One even waits impatiently for her to crawl out of the way.

Brian and Sarah Neal, the first who did stop, were beside themselves with anger: 'You could see a trail of blood where she had dragged herself most of the way across the road and she was screaming in pain with a bone sticking out of her leg. People were having a good look and driving straight past.'

Another scumbag, Barry Chambers, takes refuge on a Gloucester roof after allegedly stealing a car. He bombards the police with bricks and missiles. So, instead of going up there to fetch him down, Gloucester Police buy him a KFC meal, a bottle of Pepsi (the can was rejected in favour of a two-litre bottle) and a packet of fags so his rights aren't 'infringed'. In the unlikely event the plan was to plug up the fellow's arteries so he rolled off the roof and landed between the paws of a K9 unit, one could at least admire such a unique approach to the problem. Sadly, this wasn't the case.

Which is why no-one has any respect for the police in Britain anymore, least of all the criminals who once feared having their collars felt. With such a bovine, uncaring and self-indulgent population willing to let all this continue, we can expect more of the same until we find us some real national pride, tell the EU and its Human Rights charter to get stuffed, and bring an end to this tragic, liberal experiment with the mores of our civilisation. Patriotism for life, not just for the World Cup.

On the health side, MMR/autism is back on the books - once again the pharma-rodents scurry for cover. Apricot kernels get another bashing but Ad Lib magazine comes to the rescue. Some great testimonies. Oh, and I've decided to change one of the 100 Simple Changes icons. From now on, Start Complaining. Let's have Outraged from Tunbridge Wells, Fed-Up from Fargo and Ticked Off from Toowoomba. Or, like Gloucester Plod, we'll soon discover allowing the loonies free rein of the asylum will cost us all a little more than just Barry's Bargain Bucket and a packet of Winstons.

Happy, fighting-mad June everyone!

Phillip

Give us Back Our Rights

The Afghans who hijacked a civilian airliner are rewarded with a judgment that they are entitled to stay in Britain at the taxpayer's expense. Foreign terrorists who reportedly plot the murder of hundreds of British civilians cannot be deported back to their countries of origin, nor may they be detained here. Murderers and rapists are entitled to have any decision to keep them in prison reviewed by a judicial hearing, at which they must be represented by a lawyer - and as a result, an intimidated Probation Service frees killers who go on to murder fresh victims.

The British public is increasingly worried by judgments whose effect is to rank the "rights" of criminals higher than those of law-abiding citizens. As a result, the whole notion of human rights is becoming discredited. Rather than basic protections against arbitrary power, "human rights" are now seen as legal fictions that prevent the police, the intelligence services and other government agencies from doing what they believe needs to be done in order to safeguard the nation.

David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition, sensing the sea-change in the national mood, said last week that the Conservatives would repeal the Human Rights Act. Such a move, however, will make little difference to the legal landscape in Britain. The Act merely enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law.

While Britain remains fully committed to that Convention, repealing the Human Rights Act will not alter a single judicial decision. When domestic law and the European Convention (and the interpretations of it which have been authorised by the European Court) conflict, British judges are obliged to give precedence to European law. As long as we remain signatories to the European Convention, that obligation will continue.

The only way to remedy judicial decisions that "defy common sense" (to use the Prime Minister's apt phrase) is to opt out of the European Convention altogether: there would be few if any harmful effects. There may be claims that it would set "a bad example" - but Britain is not responsible for the legal systems of other countries.

If the price of re-establishing the connection between the democratically expressed will of the majority and the law of the land is withdrawing from the European Convention, it is a price worth paying.

In his moments of intense frustration with "human rights" decisions from the courts, Tony Blair himself has mooted that step - but it is doubtful that he has either the political courage to take it, or the support within his own party. It would unquestionably trigger howls of outrage, both domestically and internationally, which it would take an iron will to resist. We hope that Mr Cameron proves to have the necessary reserves of courage and commitment. The protection of the public requires no less.
Comment, The Sunday Telegraph, 14th May 2006

Letters to the Editor
This 'Criminal' Charter' Must be Torn Up

In common, I am sure, with the vast majority of people in this country, I am appalled that the nine Afghani hijackers, who forced a plane to fly to Stansted in 2000, have been allowed to remain in this country at taxpayers' expense to protect their human rights. There can be no mitigation for acts of terrorism - for, let's make no bones about it, hijacking is an act of terrorism. However, I am even more disgusted that Tony Blair should have the unmitigated gall to condemn the decision of Mr Justice Sullivan to free these men.

The Prime Minister described the Judge's decision as "an abuse of common sense" - when all he did was to enforce the European Human Rights Act - legislation that Mr Blair himself was responsible for introducing. It is the Act itself that is an abuse of common sense. A more appropriate title for that piece of Eurocratic nonsense would be the "Criminals' Charter".

Britain's record on human rights is second to none and we certainly never needed a bunch of unelected buffoons in Brussels to lecture us on the subject. The European Act is the biggest single stumbling block to tackling terrorism and major crime and we need to withdraw as signatories without delay.
Robert Readman, Bournemouth, Dorset
The Sunday Telegraph, 14th May 2006

Further Resources
Fed up with the EU and political correctness?

Ten Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
The Real Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, video documentary (PAL format only)

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.

Doctor Doesn't Always Know Best
by Dr James LeFanu

Complementary therapies can certainly be pretty half baked, both in theory and practice, or as a group of "prominent doctors" put it earlier this week in refreshingly robust prose: "unproven treatments of no demonstrable benefit". And while they conceded it was important to keep an open mind ("we must remain open to new discoveries"), it should not be so open that our brains fall out.

Fair enough, but the view from the coalface of the doctor's surgery is rather different, where it is not unusual to encounter patients who insist that they have been much helped by homeopathy or acupuncture or whatever.

What is more, most family doctors over the past 20 years have incorporated several principles of alternative medicine into their own practice - the first and most important being that there is not necessarily "a pill for every ill".

The singular virtue of "the alternatives" is that its practitioners are not permitted to prescribe drugs, so must resort to non-pharmacological means of treatment. Thus, whereas the family doctor will hand out the standard regime of painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs for their patients with acute back pain, they would acknowledge that osteopaths and chiropractors can do a lot better: correcting the underlining defect in the vertebral column with a vigorous clunk-click of spinal manipulation.

It is a similar story with gut disorders, such as irritable bowel, long dismissed as psychosomatic by orthodox medicine, whose standard therapies of anti-depressants and a high fibre diet not infrequently compound the symptoms of abdominal discomfort and bowel disturbance.

Now, family doctors hopefully know better, recognising - as naturopaths and others have long maintained - that the cause may well be intolerance to some food or other where a change of diet can bring near instantaneous relief.

The complementary therapies have the further virtue of being a cautionary reminder that Western science does not have all the answers.

How can it be that twiddling an acupuncture needle between the toes can cure a migraine headache - an effect that so clearly defies any physiological or anatomical explanation?

And then, of course, they have the opportunity to practise "old-fashioned" medicine, talking and listening to their patients, rather than staring at the computer screen on their desks.

From all of which, one might reasonably conclude that those "prominent doctors" might usefully take to heart the Biblical admonition about motes and beams.
The Sunday Telegraph, 28th May 2006

Avoid Imagining the Worst
What if it doesn't happen?
by Phillip Day

Some of us imprison ourselves daily with the fear of the unknown, of wretched things that might befall us. Perhaps a situation we've watched develop for some time, its direst outcome now jerking us awake in the small hours, heart thumping, brow bursting forth in a cold sweat.

Few of the techniques described in Simple Changes work as well as the firm belief the universe is generally working for our benefit if only we can get out of the bed in the morning. Most of us own up to a strong sense that life appears to be some sort of learning experience, that there is a point to it all. Clad in our four-dimensional physicality, certainly, we have little choice but to experience it. And regrettably we do live in a fallen world, wherein dire things happen all the time - wars, accidents, financial woes, illness, death. And some of these will show up on our doorstep at some point, unbidden, unwelcome, to be our choice and character in determining how best we will deal with them.

I believe in taking prudent, non-obsessive steps to prepare for the worst. Having thus taken action, what I won't do is perish the death of a thousand cuts, torturing myself over what might happen. Worrying implies the steps I have taken will not be sufficient. So I worry, in spite of the fact that having taken action, matters are now beyond my ability to control them.

What if? What if? What if?

Worrying is a survival response to hone our reactions to danger. Chronic worry corrupts our most precious resource, which is time. Chronic worry is the result of repetitive conditioning, but you'll be pleased to learn the old squashola can be educated back into conforming to a more 'damn-the-torpedoes' attitude to ride out the storms. Let's find out how.

Facing Your Mountains - Worry
Do not dwell on impromptu evil imaginings. You can't stop the birds flying over your head, you can stop them nesting in your hair. The best way over mountains is one rock at a time. The best advice about mountains is to face them. Mountains cause worry. But not if you overcome them. Be an overcomer.

· If something about me needs changing, I need to change it
· I stopped overcoming
· Time for me to overcome

Things You Can Do Something About
Divide a sheet of paper vertically down the middle with a line. On the left, write down all the things that worry you which you CAN do something about. On the right, list all the things that worry you which you CANNOT do anything about.

Rank the left-hand column in descending order of bother, i.e. the most worrisome problem at the top. Do the same with the right-hand column of worries you can do nothing about.

· You are now staring at your mountains
· You have an order of worries to tackle, commencing with the most worrying
· Worry caused by the problems you can do something about will diminish ONCE YOU TAKE ACTION
· Imagine each problem resolved and how you will feel about that
· Imagine the relief/pleasure you will gain by overcoming
· Dwell on the peace of mind gained by overcoming
· Imagine the continued pain/anxiety of not overcoming
· List out the steps required to overcome the problem
· How badly do you want to conquer the problem?
· Now take action, focusing repeatedly on the pleasure/relief you gain at every step
· Be consistent and repetitive.

Things You Cannot Do Anything About
Problems beyond our control can cause unnecessary worry. There can be no action, since the problem is beyond our capacity to influence, so why worry?

· I am going to die one day (perhaps today)
· A super-quake will snap California off into the Pacific
· An asteroid will strike the earth
· The sun will flame out, plunging the earth into darkness
· A tsunami will re-engulf Indonesia
· My family will perish in a freak accident
· I will become a victim of terrorists

Link big pain to unnecessary worrying
Link big pleasure to not worrying
Imagine the relief of not having to burden yourself with matters beyond your control. While you cannot fix the whole world, sometimes you can fix your little corner of it. Is your worry caused by junk input? You can, of course, take action on a smaller scale if you really have to:

· Move out of California
· Don't take your holidays in Jakarta
· Then again, why worry?

Overcoming worry is about confronting the worry itself, examining it dispassionately, then deleting it in a state of positive emotion with a change in focus. How about:

· A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man dies but one
· I can be brave. Why worry?
· Terrorism fails when I fail to be terrorised. Why worry?
· Have I actually experienced terrorism?
· Are my worries disproportionate to what actually happens to me?
· Am I reacting reasonably?
· Am I living, as far as possible, a blameless life?
· Why not clean up my input, which can foster unnecessary worry?
· Why not give my life meaning and context to explain why I am here in the first place?
· If I live my life well, my journey's end will be expected, even welcomed

Remember: Worriers perfect the art of imagining how things will turn out for the worst. Non-worriers take prudent action to expect the worst, then dwell in the expectation that something good will happen.

Common Purpose (CP)
- a Hidden Menace in our Government and Schools

COMMON PURPOSE is the glue than enables fraud to be committed across government departments to reward pro-European politicians. Corrupt deals are enabled that put property or cash into their pockets by embezzling public assets.

Although it has 80,000 trainees in 36 cities, 18,000 "graduate" members and enormous power, Common Purpose is largely unknown to the general public.

It recruits and trains "leaders" to be loyal to the directives of Common Purpose and the EU, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine or subvert, the NHS being an example.

Common Purpose is identifying leaders in all levels of our government to assume power when our nation is replaced by the European Union. Unlike current leaders, CP leaders are taught to rule without democracy, and will bring the EU police state home to every one of us.

It has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, the legal profession, many of Britain's 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, Parliament, and it controls many RDA's (Regional Development Agencies).

Cressida Dick is the Common Purpose senior police officer who authorised the "Shoot to kill" policy without reference to Parliament, the law or the British Constitution. Jean de Menezes was one of the innocents who died as a result. Her shoot to kill policy still stands today.

Common Purpose trained Janet Paraskeva, the Law Society's Chief Executive Officer. Surprising numbers of lawyers are CP members. It is no coincidence that justice is more expensive, more flawed and more corrupt. And no surprise the courts refused to uphold the law, when a challenge was made to the signing of the six EU treaties, which illegally abolish Britain's sovereignty.

Common Purpose is backed by John Prescott's "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" (ODPM), and its notional Chief Executive is Julia Middleton. The Head of the Civil Service Commission is a member

It is close to controlling Plymouth City Council, where is has subverted the democratic process. Local people cannot get CP's corrupt activities published, because the editors of local papers are in CP, and refuse to let journalists publish the articles.

CP started in 1985; in the 1990's, with its members' cross-departmental influence, it was involved with what then became the disastrous New Millennium Dome Company and the squandering of £800 million; it appears £300m of this was diverted into the web of quangos set up by CP. There is a fraud case over this, stalled in the courts thanks to CP's influence in the legal profession.

Over £100 million of our money has been spend on CP courses alone, and its been hidden from the public. No published accounts, and members' names are a guarded secret. It charges substantial figures for its courses. Matrix for example costs £3,950 plus VAT, and courses for the high flying 'leader' can be as much as £9,950 plus VAT. This money is ours, paid by government departments financing senior staff to become agents for CP, instead of loyal to their own jobs.

Common Purpose International (Ltd by guarantee) is registered as a Charity No 1056573 and describes itself as being involved in Adult education. Some charity.

Training Our Future EU Rulers
Potential Common Purpose subjects are 'selected' for training. Are they susceptible to being converted; are they in the right job, with the right colleagues and friends? Do they have power, influence and the control of money? If the candidate has some, or all of these key attributes, then the local Common Purpose Advisory Board decides if they can do the course.

Trained leaders are encouraged to act as a network, enable other members' plans, and have meetings under the so-called Chatham House rules. This effectively means their statements are not attributable to them, nor can attendees reveal information heard at a Common Purpose meeting.

Council Officers are having quasi-secret meetings with, for example, property developer Common Purpose friends. No agendas and no minutes. Common Purpose Graduates from the public quango sectors such as the Regional Development Agencies attend, and have the power to award large sums of public money to projects.

It is the worst national example of cronyism, closed contract bids, fraud and corruption. And unseen to the general public.

Common Purpose undermines traditionally effective and efficient government departments with an overwhelming influx of new language, political correctness and management initiatives. The talk is of empowering communities, vision, worklessness, mainstreaming (sucking EU money into a project to sustain it), community empowerment, working partnership, regeneration and celebrating diversity etc etc. Documents appear about change, and reorganisation. In time confusion rules, and things don't seem to work properly. Management decisions are made that seem stupidly destructive. The organisational performance becomes sluggish. Undermining the NHS is Common Purposes' biggest success so far.

David Cameron, who is pro Europe, uses the language of Common Purpose; he has appointed Ken Clarke, the most committed of the pro Europeans, in charge of his "Democracy Taskforce" - rather like putting the cat in charge of the safety of mice.

Common Purpose specifically targets children from the age of 13, and more recently younger, for special leadership and citizenship training. Yes, it is active in schools, and again the average parent has no idea.

People have contacted us to speak of their experiences with Common Purpose. A common theme is its all sweetness and light, until you fail to follow the direction set by the CP leadership.

Then interesting things happen. Ladies in particular have been bullied at work, some have lost their jobs, some have become paranoid and depressed at the pressure from people ganging up on them.

A typical story is a husband describing the decline in his wife from the time she becomes a Common Purpose graduate. Loss of sparkle, enthusiasm, anxious and 'changed', and she initiated a divorce.

Other Common Purpose people lie when they are challenged as to their involvement.

Common Purpose candidates are given a two-day residential course in which they are 'trained' in a closed residential environment, such as a small hotel. They are encouraged to reveal significant personal information about themselves, such as their likes, dislikes, ambitions and dreams. Discussions are then controlled by the course leaders. Some participants have likened this to Delphi technique or the application of group psychology such as Cognitive Dissonance or brainwashing.

If you suspect Common Purpose is active in your organisation, or see a pattern of incredibly bad decisions, money being wasted, notice bullying, fraud, or threats, note the names of those involved (we've tracked down over a thousand) and please contact us. And publish the truth about Common Purpose as widely as you can.
Brian Gerrish and David Noakes
www.eutruth.co.uk

Cameron Has That European Elephant in His Room
By Christopher Booker

PREPARING LAST WEEK to visit my old school of Shrewsbury for a speaking engagement, I was interested to hear that another recent speaker at the school was Lord Butler of Brockwell, formerly Robin Butler, cabinet secretary under five prime ministers.

Apparently he had not only entertained his audience with some caustic comments on Tony Blair's handling of the Iraq war but startled them by observing that the biggest issue at the 2005 election should have been "Europe", because it is in Brussels that most of our important legislation now originates. It was contemptible, Lord Butler said, that the parties had conspired not to discuss this with the electorate.

Naturally this delighted me since the way in which our politicians conspire to conceal how much of our government is now centred in "Europe" has been a theme of this column for years, and last week provided yet another glaring example. Prior to his sacking, Charles Clarke, while attempting to defend his record on the handling of immigrant criminals, had blithely promised new legislation to create a "presumption for deportation" of any foreigner found guilty of an imprisonable offence. (This was later endorsed by Gordon Brown on the Today programme.)

If the Tories were honest, they should immediately have pointed out that the UK Government no longer has the power to do any such thing. It is simply not permissible, thanks to a combination of the European Convention on Human Rights and various EU directives, not least that which came into force only last week, 2004/38, which, for the first time, explicitly lays down, as one of the "fundamental objectives of the Union", that EU citizens and their families should now have an absolute right to take up permanent residence in whichever EU state they wish (and to enjoy all its social benefits).

Whether Lord Butler was right to deplore a "conspiracy" between all the major parties to keep "Europe" out of view in 2005, the silence of the Tories under Mr Cameron has become deafening (above all, as I have noted before, in his bizarre failure to recognise that we long ago ceded to Brussels the power to make laws on that very subject in which he takes such an obsessive interest, the "environment").

Another revealing instance, so far unreported, is the way in which Mr Cameron has quietly dumped what for eight years was arguably the Tories' most distinctive single policy on Europe - the pledge, endorsed by all his three predecessors as party leader, that a future Tory government would extricate Britain from the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy and reclaim national control of Britain's fishing waters.

Last year Michael Howard's fisheries spokesman, Owen Paterson MP, even fleshed out this policy with an exhaustively researched Green Paper, showing how Europe's fish stocks could be saved by adopting the fisheries management methods which are now proving dramatically successful all around the North Atlantic, from the US to the Faroes. All these countries have secured rising fish stocks and prosperous fishing industries through strategies quite contrary to the ludicrous system by which Brussels is devastating our "European fishing waters".

But Mr Cameron has handed over the task of devising a new policy to John Selwyn Gummer, the most unpopular fisheries minister we have ever had. This was precisely because, as a fervent Europhile, Mr Gummer meekly accepted whatever Brussels proposed, however damaging to both fish stocks and British interests. The likelihood is that Mr Gummer will now sign up the Tories to accepting more of the same.

It is unfortunately a measure of Mr Cameron's leadership that he should not have had the courage to admit openly to Britain's surviving fishermen that he has scrapped the only policy in which they could see a glimmer of hope or common sense. How wonderfully logical, too, that he should wish to see his party once again endorsing a policy that has created one of the major environmental catastrophes of our time.

The wider moral is that, by collectively conspiring to hide from us the extent to which our governance is no longer in our own hands, Britain's politicians betray not only our country but themselves. If Lord Butler himself sees this as contemptible, who are we to disagree?
The Sunday Telegraph, 7th May 2006

The Price of a Pound of Spuds Will be £5,000
By Christopher Booker

IT IS NOT OFTEN that I line up alongside the likes of Jools Holland and Jilly Cooper, Sir Tim Rice, Sir Patrick Moore and Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the celebrity chef Antony Worrall Thompson, the architect Quinlan Terry and the historian Prof Richard Holmes. However, as honorary members of the British Weights and Measures Association (along with Ian Botham and J K Rowling), we were among the 21 signatories of a letter to The Times calling for the repeal of two statutory instruments, 55/2001 and 85/2001.

Astonishingly, the purpose of these edicts is to make it a criminal offence from January 1, 2010 for shopkeepers or stallholders to make any reference at all to pounds and ounces, feet and inches. As we all know, in line with EC directives it is already an offence to sell any item in Britain unless it is measured and labelled in metric. But it is still legal to refer to pounds, feet and inches by way of what is known as a "supplementary indicator", to help those millions of customers (still, oddly enough, the vast majority) who prefer to shop in non-metric quantities.

In four years' time, however, even that concession will be ended. A marketeer who dares explain to his customers that his spuds are selling at so much a pound - even though the price ticket gives this in kilograms and the goods are weighed out on metric scales - will risk a fine of up to £5,000. The point of our letter was to suggest that shopkeepers should still enjoy the freedom to give non-metric equivalents as a "supplementary indicator", should they wish.

Interestingly the various pro-metric zealots who have written to The Times to protest at our letter completely avoided this point. Although eager to heap their usual contempt on our traditional system, not one of them had the courage to defend the proscription, as a criminal act, of the very mention of pounds or inches - something which, as a succession of polls have shown, is opposed by more than 90 per cent of the British people.

Curiously, these new regulations provided the only occasion in 40 years when laws to enforce the exclusive use of metrication were voted on in Parliament. When, in 2002, the Government whipped its supporters into pushing them through the House of Lords, I was surprised to see that one of the majority was Lord Bragg of Wigton.

When I next saw Melvyn Bragg, as I have reported here before, I asked him how he could have brought himself to support such a grotesque curb on our liberties. He claimed to have had no idea he had voted for such a thing, and when I explained to him he was clearly shocked.
The Sunday Telegraph, 7th May 2006

Further Resources
Fed up with the EU and political correctness?

Ten Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
The Real Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, video documentary (PAL format only)

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.

Depressed or Stressed
By Claire Coleman

Judging by the statistics, you could be forgiven for thinking that we're a nation of depressives. According to a recent Mintel survey commissioned by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, two-thirds of British adults say they suffer from the condition.

In 1993, 10.8 million courses of anti-depressants were dispensed in the UK. Ten years later, this number had almost trebled, with more than 27 million prescriptions for similar drugs being doled out.

Such staggering figures raise serious questions. Is it true, as some experts predict, that by 2020 depression will be second only to heart disease as the most disabling condition in the world?

Do the people who take these drugs genuinely suffer from depression? And with the admission earlier this month from a pharmaceutical firm that Britain's best-selling anti-depressant, Seroxat, can make some adults suicidal, are anti-depressants the right treatment for them?

One of the main obstacles to explaining the rise in the number of depression cases is that diagnosis of the condition is hugely subjective.

While it is generally agreed that depression can manifest itself in a number of ways - including disturbed sleep patterns, disturbed eating patterns, tearfulness and lack of motivation - genuine depression is most often characterised by prolonged (lasting two weeks or more) feelings of such unhappiness that a person is incapable of coping with their normal social and professional life.

Although there are no medical tests that can assist with the diagnosis of depression, analysis of the concentrations of certain chemicals found in the brain has shown that those who suffer from depression tend to have elevated levels of the hormones cortisol and noradrenaline.

Both these are activated to help us deal with stressful situations: noradrenaline prompts an increased heart rate, and the dilation of pupils and of airways in the lungs, and cortisol prompts a short-term burst of increased immunity and lower sensitivity to pain in preparation for the need of a 'fight or flight' response. But, obviously, an imbalance of these two hormones can create problems.

For years, scientists were unable to agree whether this chemical imbalance in sufferers was the cause of the depression or the result of it. But last month, researchers at Harvard Medical School in the US published a study that may prove some symptoms of so-called depression are a direct result of stress.

In the Harvard experiment, mice which had been fed drinking water laced with the rodent equivalent of cortisol displayed signs of anxiety - which, in humans, would be the first sign of depression.

This breakthrough could well help to explain the apparent increase in the numbers of people being diagnosed as depressed.

It is widely acknowledged that, for various reasons, modern life is stressful, and it's plausible that what we're labelling as depression is simply a stress-related condition. Phillip Hodson, a psychotherapist, certainly believes the rise of people claiming to be suffering from depression can be partly by the strains of modern life.

"It's no surprise that we see a rise in depression in an affluent, peacetime society," he says. "During hard times such as wars, life has meaning because it's about struggling for survival. But because our lives aren't about survival any more, many people genuinely struggle to find a meaning to their lives."

And as our lives have got easier, so our expectations of success have grown - success that is not always achievable or realistic.

'We expect too much'
Psychologist Dorothy Rowe, who has written extensively on the subject, explains: "In past generations people accepted that they would spend a lot of time being unhappy because life was terrible. Life is now infinitely better than it used to be, but we expect too much. People think they must have wonderful clothes, an interesting job and magnificent sex to be happy.

"There is huge pressure to be cheerful and successful, so people can become deeply disappointed with their lives. They are waiting to become famous or expect a marriage to make them happy, and it doesn't always happen. But these people are unhappy, not depressed."

Not only do we now perceive ourselves as having more problems (whether that perception is true or not), but we Britons in a society that makes it increasingly hard for us to deal with these problems as we once would.

We work longer hours than any of our European neighbours and we've lost the extended families that we used to have as relatives no longer necessarily settle down long-term in the areas where they grew up.

People are unwilling to confide in friends about their misery, and, without family to fall back on, turn to their doctor.

As Dorothy Rowe says: "It's not cool or respectable to say you are unhappy, so people say they're depressed and go to their GP."

The role doctors play may also be crucial. Although the average GP consultation lasts just over 13 minutes, patients want a name for their problem and a solution to it. Diagnosing depression and prescribing antidepressants fulfils both needs.

Doling out anti-depressants isn't just about giving doctors and their patients a solution, it also has huge financial implications.

This is something about which Dr James Maddux, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at George Mason University in Virginia, US, is keenly aware.

"The notion of what is psychologically normal and not normal is not a scientific construct but easily influenced by cultural and social forces," he explains.

"There's always a suspicion of a silent collusion to expand the boundaries of what a mental disorder is because the drug companies can then sell more of their pills, psychiatrists and healthcare professionals can offer quicker fixes with their prescriptions and people can take that quick fix to solve their problems."

It's a solution not without risks: recent research suggests SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors), such as Prozac and Seroxat, can be addictive and may lead to suicidal tendencies.

While there are genuinely depressed people who need treatment, it seems probable that many of those describing themselves as depressed simply suffer from a combination of stress, unhappiness and dissatisfaction. "Most of us will experience elements of depression at some point in our lives," says Mr Hodson.

"These episodes will often coincide with a loss of some description and it's a very normal and natural stage of grief.In fact, in many cases depression isn't necessarily a bad thing. If something awful has happened, like a bereavement, depression shuts the body down, gives you the chance to spend three days hiding under the duvet, and allows you to recover. In other cases, your depression is your body trying to tell you something, trying to pinpoint an aspect of your life that you're not happy with."

Put simply, anti-depressants may convince us that we feel fine, but they are only short-term fixes. Unfortunately, access to counsellors is not ideal - waiting times can be up to two years despite the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommending last year that counselling, known as cognitive behavioural therapy, should be the first treatment for mild depression.

Small change, big difference
But making small changes to our lives could have a huge impact on the way we feel without the need to pop pills. According to Mr Hodson, exercise and diet are key factors. "If a patient tells me they are depressed, I will ask them about their sleeping habits or their eating habits and try to make suggestions about getting these things in balance," he says.

"If we break these fundamental laws of life, then we do open the doors to depression. What we do impacts on how we feel about ourselves."
Daily Mail, 30th May 2006

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Great article. Hits it on the head.

FURTHER RESOURCES:
The Mind Game by Phillip Day

Action Over Epilepsy Drug 'Could Rival Thalidomide'
by Celia Hall, Medical Editor

Around 140 families who claim that their children were damaged by an epilepsy drug taken in pregnancy have begun a court action that they say could be "as big as thalidomide".

They say that 37,500 British children have "foetal anti-convulsant syndrome", a range of neural, behavioural and physical disorders, which they claim may have been caused by their mothers taking anti-convulsant drugs while pregnant.

Disorders include cleft palate and spina bifida, learning difficulties, behavioural problems and abnormalities in movement, speech, vision and hearing.

The court action applies specifically to the drug sodium valproate, which is only one of several anti-convulsant medicines. A trial date has been set for October 2008.

Many of the mothers were prescribed the brand-named product Epilim, made by Sanofi-Synthelabo. The drug was also available in unbranded generic forms. To date Sanofi is the only company involved in the action.

In order to gauge the scale of the litigation, the High Court has issued a cut-off date for families to apply to be put on the register of claimants.

David Body, of Irwin Mitchell, the solicitor handling the case, said it had 140 families registered but expected "some numbers" more.

The cut-off date for registration has been set for March next year but families need to contact lawyers by Oct 1 this year. Advertisements alerting families to the October date will be placed shortly.

Janet Williams, who has two affected sons, founded the Organisation for Anti-Convulsant Syndrome (OACS).

"The British Epilepsy Association says there are 456,000 people in Britain with epilepsy. We calculated that there are 37,500 children with foetal anti-convulsant syndrome. We want to hear from any family with a child with problems whose mother took any anti-epileptic drug in pregnancy," Mrs Williams said.

"Many of these children have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)."

A spokesman for Sanofi-Synthelabo said: "All antiepileptic drugs are crucial to the health of those prescribed them and have passed stringent medical tests. Health authorities routinely and continually review the safety of all licensed medications. Sanofi-Synthelabo has regularly reviewed and made changes to its core safety information in the light of emerging data that could have an impact on the safety profile of valproate. At all relevant times the product information supplied to doctors by Sanofi-Synthelabo in relation to sodium valproate provided warnings in respect of possible effects in children born to mothers who take the product during pregnancy. This information was approved by the regulatory authorities as consistent with current scientific knowledge."

The company warned against anyone stopping anti-epileptic drugs suddenly without talking to their doctor.

The claimants are using European Product Liability law which has a 10-year limit from the supply of the product. Sodium valproate has been used since the 1970s. Lawyers are working on a separate claim to vary this time limit.

o Thalidomide, a drug given to treat nausea in pregnancy, was found to cause severe limb abnormalities. Around 10,000 babies were affected worldwide in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In Britain nearly 500 survived.
The Daily Telegraph, 22nd May 2006

A Kernel of Hope

Like cancer, scurvy was believed to be incurable, then in 1747 it was discovered that it was simply caused by a lack of fresh food. Today, many people believe that eating apricot kernels, a food source rich in a vitamin called Vitamin B17, can protect against, and maybe even help to cure, cancer. 'Add Lib' investigates the controversial claims behind B17 and asks, is it possible that it may be to cancer what vitamin C was to scurvy?

Being diagnosed with cancer is one of our biggest fears - and with good reason. The statistics of getting cancer and dying from it show that the problem is getting worse, much worse. Every day in the UK, 740 people are diagnosed. One in three of us will get it at some point in our lives. One in four of us who get it will die and precious few of us will go through life without being affected by it in some way. Despite this, the thought of cancer and its promise of suffering strikes such fear in our hearts that many of us prefer not to think about it. We just go on hoping that it won't happen to us. But since so few cancers can be completely cured by treatments offered by conventional medicine (despite the billions being spent on drug development), wouldn't finding a way to prevent cancer be just as wonderful as a cure? Advocates of a vitamin called B17, aka amygdalin, believe that it is the answer.

Cancer is a chronic metabolic disease, and in history, these - scurvy, rickets, pellagra, beriberi - have only ever been conquered by a change in nutrition. "We work on the premise that the human body becomes the sum total of what it absorbs," says one former NHS doctor who declines to be named, who now runs a clinic specializing in a nutritional approach to the treatment of metabolic disease. "Many of today's serious disorders are caused primarily as a result of dysfunctional diet and the way the body processes what we put into it." B17 therapy plays a key role in cancer treatment at the clinic. Patients are intravenously given laetrile, the concentrated form of amygdalin extracted from apricot kernels. Metabolic Therapy can also work alongside chemotherapy and according to the doctor, is "known to reduce the toxicity and debilitating side effects often experienced with this kind of treatment."

Apricot kernels are the richest natural source of B17, but it is also found in many other foods including bitter almonds, apple pips, grape seeds, millet and broad beans. The kernels have a bitter, marzipan taste, which some people enjoy but many simply tolerate, in the belief they are safeguarding themselves against cancer. However B17 does contain a poison - one of its constituents is cyanide. "Hearing this, people tend to panic," says Sue Cannon, founder of www.anticancer.co.uk a website that provides information on B17. "But the cyanide is held so that it is inert. Think of sodium chloride, the compound more commonly known as salt. It is essential to our bodies but it too has a poison locked inside - chlorine. If you ate too much salt you'd be ill. The same is true for amygdalin although it is less toxic than both salt and sugar."

Cancer is the name given to any illness resulting from one of our body's own cells growing out of control. Normally, the immune system can deal with this but at times of stress or in a particularly weak part of the body, or under extreme or regular exposure to carcinogens, the multiplication can become too great to handle and cells can turn cancerous. "When B17 comes into contact with a cancer cell, an enzyme in the cancer cell breaks it down and releases cyanide, which destroys the cancer cell," says Cannon. "Normal, healthy cells have a different enzyme, which breaks down B17 in a different way, releasing food for the cells." Apricot kernels are said to be highly nutritious, rich in fibre and effective in lowering blood pressure. However, B17 is the subject of much controversy.

'B17 can't be patented as the
active ingredient is a natural substance'
"B17 has been shown to halt the growth of, and kill, cancer cells," says Phillip Day, author of a number of books on B17 including 'Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth'. So why doesn't everyone know about it? "Cancer drugs are a multi-billion-dollar industry," he explains, "but B17 cannot be patented because the active ingredient is a natural substance." For this reason, he says there has been no funding to back research. Day is not alone in this opinion. After using it to treat his own lymphatic cancer, the late David Horrobin, a prolific scientific researcher who founded the drug company Scotia, wrote about B17 in 2004's Lancet. He said that the absence of trials on B17 and other natural therapies "has nothing to do with the scientific rationale behind their use. It is simply that they cannot be patented, and without patent protection there is no financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to test such remedies."

But Cancer Research insists that this is not the case. "It is not in the interests of drug companies - or the drug development division of Cancer Research UK - to ignore potential new treatments," says Dr Lesley Walker, Director of Cancer Information at Cancer Research UK. "If laetrile or amygdalin had any therapeutic benefit, drug companies would have developed it into a potential treatment long ago."

'Cancer could become a rare anomaly like scurvy'
Without the weight of science behind them, success stories for B17 as a cure for cancer remain anecdotal. However, according to Cannon, supporters are keen to get the message across that Vitamin B17's most vital role is in prevention. "If we could just raise awareness so that people started eating the kernels, cancer could become a rare anomaly like scurvy," she says. Isolated tribes around the world are used to support this theory. The Abkhazians, the Hopi and Navajo Indians, the Eskimos and Krakorum are all known for their exceptional health and marked absence of degenerative disease. And all eat a diet rich in vitamin B17 from various food sources including cassava, caribou and salmon berries. But for the ultimate testimony to B17's preventative powers, supporters refer to the remote Himalayan tribe of Hunza. Here, a man's wealth is measured by the number of apricot trees he owns. Apricot kernels are eaten abundantly with the kernels also pressed for cooking oil and fuel. The traditional Hunza diet also includes buckwheat, alfalfa, broad beans and sprouting pulses, all of which contain B17. This diet provides an average of 50 - 75mg of B17 a day, which is more than the average Westerner ingests during a year. Hunzas commonly live to beyond 100 and, up until very recently when new roads allowed a glut of novelties such as sugar and junk food to reach its people for the first time, Hunza had never had a single case of cancer in its 900 - year existence. It remains virtually unheard of.

Devotees do not claim that B17 alone is enough. It is not touted as a magic formula to cancel out the cancer risk that comes with an unhealthy lifestyle. Smoking is inadvisable, a diet rich in fruit and vegetables is essential and restriction of processed foods, red meat and dairy is recommended. However, for those already leading a relatively healthy lifestyle, B17 is said to be the single most important thing one can do to protect oneself against cancer. Dr Ernst T. Krebs Jr., the biochemist who first 'discovered' B17, said that if a normal healthy adult were to eat ten to twelve apricot kernels a day for life, they would be unlikely to get cancer. The Foods Standard Agency, however, has recently issued a warning about the possible risks of excess consumption of apricot kernels due to their cyanide content and is currently recommending a minimum dose of two kernels per day. "They could be potentially lethal in high doses," says an FSA spokesperson. B17 has been banned in both the USA and in Australia, ostensibly for this reason.

But according to Cannon, many people are regularly eating the kernels without any adverse side effects. "I know countless people who have been eating ten to twelve kernels per day for years without any problems," she says. "In fact many people have noticed a marked improvement in their general health and wellbeing." In the second edition of his book 'World Without Cancer', author G. Edward Griffin says that in the 20 years since the first edition, he has met two people who claimed to have contracted cancer after regularly eating kernels. However, he says it is unknown how many kernels they ate, whether they smoked or were exposed to other carcinogens - but in one case the diet was known to be "atrocious". Griffin admits it is not 100 per cent perfect but asks, "Would you accept 99 per cent?"

'B17 helped me to survive bladder cancer'
76-year-old John Holmes is a retired engineer who lives in Chatham, Kent. He was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2000 but refused conventional treatment in favour of vitamin B17 therapy. This is his story.

In 2000, somebody anonymously sent me an audiotape by Phillip Day from his book, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth. It arrived in a handwritten envelope with no note or return address. Intrigued, I listened to it. It seemed to make a lot of sense.

A couple of weeks later, I went to my GP who referred me to a senior urologist at a nearby hospital. After many scans and tests, I was diagnosed with bladder cancer. The tumour had not yet spread but the doctor advised the immediate removal of my bladder and also one of my kidneys and part of my prostate as a precautionary measure. For the rest of my life I would need a bag to collect my urine. As an active individual, the thought was unbearable. Without hesitation, I refused the operations and told the doctor I was going to pursue alternative therapy. His response was, "I believe that would work for you."

I contacted Phillip Day who referred me to a clinic which specializes in Metabolic Therapy. For three weeks I travelled there every day and was intravenously given B17 along with other vitamins and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which helps the B17 to penetrate the cells. For some reason it made me smell terribly of beetroot! I was also put on a strict detox diet. I had to eat mostly green stuff, which was a bit stringent. But this was the route I had chosen so I had to put my faith in it.

After a few weeks I returned to the hospital with my wife, as I had been told it was standard practice to speak to a family member of a cancer patient. This time another doctor was sitting in with the one I'd seen before. When we sat down, my doctor proceeded to read me the Riot Act. He said that choosing alternative therapy was suicide, that it was all mumbo jumbo and that the cancer would spread through my body and kill me. The only conclusion I could come to was that as another doctor was present, he wasn't allowed to condone alternative treatment as it wasn't 'the done thing'.

Following my treatment at the clinic I continued with B17 tablets and the detox regime. After 6 weeks I had lost 2 stone and reached my ideal weight. I then decided I wanted a scan. But I was refused one on the grounds that I'd be wasting hospital time, as I was not following their recommended treatment. So I went private, which cost £500. The scan showed that the tumour had shrunk a fair bit. From then on I continued under the clinic's guidance and had scans at six-month intervals. Two years afterwards, I was declared clear.

I continue to eat apricot kernels every day. I also follow a diet free from dairy and red meat. I often think that if it hadn't been for that tape, I would have undergone those operations. I simply didn't know any different. To this day I still don't know who sent it, but whoever it was, I'd love to meet them so that I could thank them for saving my life.
Add Libb magazine, Spring 2006
*Wishes to remain anonymous

If We Really Want to Escape the Grip of Human Rights Law We Must Quit the EU
by Melanie Phillips

ONCE AGAIN, the Prime Minister is trying to surf a wave of popular outrage by announcing he will take action - which on closer examination proves to be mere froth - not least because his own policy lies at the very heart of the problem.

Thus Tony Blair has spoken out against 'an abuse of common sense' in the way human rights law has been used to allow nine Afghan hijackers to remain in Britain, or free a rapist from prison only for him to commit murder.

But it is his own human rights law which has quite simply altered the entire legal and moral culture of this country, and taken an axe to common sense.

The judge in last week's Afghan ruling has been roundly pilloried. But common sense in this case was trounced in 2004, when an immigration tribunal ruled on human rights grounds that it was too dangerous to send the hijackers back to Afghanistan - even though the Taliban, from whom they had fled, had been replaced by a Western-backed government.

The root of the problem here is not the wretched judge, but the Government itself, which dragged its feet over this case for years. This was because it was paralysed by the fact that human rights law - described only last week by the AttorneyGeneral, Lord Goldsmith, as the Government's 'greatest achievement' - has created a culture of legalised lunacy.

Disruptive
Detectives across the country are refusing to issue ' wanted' posters for missing foreign criminals because they say they do not want to breach their right to privacy, and risk lawsuits by releasing their names and photographs.

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency routinely shreds the driving records of speeding and drunken drivers because bureaucrats are afraid of human rights laws. That means thousands of drivers with a bad history escape with lighter punishments because courts cannot learn the full truth about their past.

It is no use saying that such judgments misread human rights law since, because such law consists of a balancing act between competing 'rights' requiring the courts to arbitrate between them, no one can be sure how any such disruptive cases will end up.

The fact is that ruling after human rights ruling has turned right and wrong on their heads and radically undermined the covenant of responsibility between the individual and the state. To take an egregious example, human rights law has destroyed this country's ability to control its own borders.

The courts have used the 'human right' to family life to reward illegal immigration. Their absurdly generalised interpretation of the prohibition against torture - which wrenched this principle out of all recognition - has made it all but impossible to deport those foreigners who threaten this country's security.

The Law Lords' perverse reading of 'discrimination' last year has meant that such suspects can't even be locked up pending removal from this country.

What kind of 'human rights' are these, which actually force a country to destroy its own security along with its principles of citizenship, fairness and obligation?

At the weekend, Mr Blair said he was considering fresh legislation to prevent future court rulings from 'overruling the Government'. Here lie the first clues to the fact that these are likely to be empty words.

First, he's only considering any change. Second, human rights law doesn't give the courts the power to overrule the Government. All they can do is declare legislation incompatible with human rights law, thus putting pressure on ministers. So Mr Blair has given us a straw man which he promises he will knock down.

Then look at the way in which the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has been twisting and turning. There might need to be legislation, he said, to ensure that human rights law would have no effect on public safety issues.

Paralysed
But the whole point of human rights law is that it is supposed to be an overarching set of principles. So it can't be chopped and changed. And in any case, what kind of overarching principles are these which, in the Lord Chancellor's opinion, actually imperil public safety?

Lord Falconer appears to be saying that it's not human rights law that's at fault, but certain officials who are misunderstanding it. This is completely and lamentably to miss the point.

It's not merely that this law has paralysed public bodies such as the police and the intelligence service, which say they can barely move for fear of falling foul of it. More fundamentally still, human rights law has driven justice, morality and social order off the rails altogether.

It has acted as a grievance charter fuelling the 'victim culture' in which all minorities are seen as incapable of being held responsible for their actions. As such, it has become a principal weapon against the culture and identity of the nation - and, by transferring power to the judges, has delivered a powerful blow against our democracy.

Abolishing the Human Rights Act would certainly help to put a brake on that process. But the problem would remain that Britain is signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which would still have supremacy over our laws.

Look, for example, at the Chahal judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, the key ruling preventing Britain from deporting foreign undesirables. This held that, if a person faced torture or inhuman treatment abroad, the risk to that individual from deporting him could not even be balanced against the risk he might pose to the country which allowed him to stay.

In other words, this ruling was a specific attack on the right of a country to decide what was in its citizens' own best interests. Well, it's quite clear that it is now in this country's best interests either to derogate from bits of this Convention - as every other signatory but Britain has in fact done - or leave it altogether.

Undemocratic
Yesterday, Lord Falconer gave the game away when he acknowledged that - although the Human Rights Convention has separate origins from the European Union - no country can be a member of the EU unless it is also a Convention signatory.

To some of us, of course, that is precisely why we should leave the EU, in order to restore our powers of self-government and democracy. But the fact that we are the human rights prisoner of the EU is why this Government will never address the deformities of human rights law.

The usual suspects scream that it would be unthinkable to abolish ' human rights'. How absurd. Real human rights are very different. Indeed, before ' human rights' law took hold we were rather more free, not less. Instead, we would be abolishing the arbitrary and undemocratic power of judges to impose upon us a particular agenda that is far from universal.

In the remarkable words last year of the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, human rights law existed to protect vulnerable minorities - who were sometimes disliked, resented or despised - against the howls of 'majority opinion'.

It would seem to follow that - for the judiciary - Afghan hijackers, murderers and other criminals are ' vulnerable minorities', while the majority who are their potential victims have no human rights at all.

Extricating our nation from this mess would undoubtedly be complicated and difficult. But unless we do so, we are unlikely much longer to have a nation worthy of the name.
Daily Mail, 15th May 2006

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Rarely do I single out a journalist for his or her unequivocal commitment to the truth. I do heartily commend Melanie Phillips for her consistent stand for this country and common sense in general. If you concur, why not take the trouble to e-mail Melanie and give her a well-done?

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.

MEASLES! MUMPS! RUBELLA!
by Steve Ransom

"Something curious has happened to the 'official' perception of the childhood diseases which are the subject of the MMR vaccine (Measles, Mumps, Rubella). They have all officially become more serious since vaccines were introduced." Richard Barr

With the recent news that a High Court judge has ordered that two children be given the MMR injection against their mothers' wishes, one must ask whether the defence was acquainted with the following information. The 31st May 2001 edition of Private Eye, an independent UK publication, contained the following report on the GlaxoSmithKline Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine.

"A landmark ruling in the French appeal courts against UK vaccine manufacturer GSK passed almost unnoticed by the British media. The courts reached a decision that vaccine damage had taken place, based on serious, precise presumptions and similar evidence.... This has huge importance for the 3,000 UK families now seeking to sue SmithKline and another company over damage they say was caused to their children by the MMR jab."

THE 'M' WORD!
As more and more children are being harmed by these unnecessary vaccines, and as the mainstream media continues to avoid more detailed reporting on these matters, older parents are thinking back to their own childhoods and starting to ask, "Whatever happened to those good old-fashioned measles parties?" Do our children need the MMR at all? Mothers would herd their children together into someone's front room in order to mix with another mum's spotty, measles-ridden child, in the hope of them all catching measles.

Lesley Dove is co-ordinator of the London branch of Contact Network, an organisation that believes in the old-fashioned theory of measles parties. Says Ms Dove, "I think our children's immune systems are being compromised [by vaccination]. Measles was a natural part of growing up when I was a child."

However, as we will see in later chapters on germ theory and the nature of disease, the measles party is not the way forward. In a subsequent telephone call to Lesley Dove, I asked her about the success rate at these measles parties. She admitted that it was negligible. Not even Lesley's children caught anything from the parties they attended. The measles party concept does demonstrate, however, that unlike the young parents of today, parents from only a generation ago did not perceive measles as a dread disease. They knew that if a child did come down with measles, then that child would soon recover. But such has been the recent pharmaceutical campaigns with regard to 'THE DANGERS OF MEASLES!' that today's younger parents shudder when they hear the 'm' word. The corporate brainwashing runs very deep, as this Daily Telegraph article demonstrates:

LOUISE HAD MEASLES - NEEDLESSLY - Louise Bate is gazing listlessly from her mother's arms, showing little interest in her toys or her three-year-old brother, William, playing on the floor. Aged nine months, she is just recovering from a dose of measles that has left her drained of energy. Louise's mother Josie is indignant that Louise has fallen ill. "I feel very frustrated and sad that she got an illness that could have been avoided. Louise went from being a totally contented, happy, sleeping, well-feeding baby to the most miserable, distressed, sick child - and I know from my GP that she didn't have it badly. Measles can cause complications, such as brain damage and hearing loss."

Miserable, distressed and sick? Have we become so 'pharmaceutically shaped and educated' that we are indignant if our child becomes ill for a few days? Is it the general expectation that there should be a pill for every ill? An injection for each and every disease under the sun? With measles, what is ostensibly a relatively mild, non life-threatening condition has now been re-jigged by Big Pharma into a monster requiring highly profitable, mass immunisation. Josie's reference to brain damage and hearing loss merely indicates that she has fallen under the spell of those master weavers. Mum should count her blessings. What of the thousands of parents who now face a lifetime of heartache supporting their MMR vaccine-damaged children. They would give anything on earth to have their precious child listless and disinterested for only a couple of days, as opposed to listless and disinterested for the rest of their lives. The Telegraph article predictably carried no interviews with parents of vaccine-damaged children. Instead, the writer minimised the threat of MMR vaccine damage, quoting of all things, a UK government Department of Health investigation that unsurprisingly vindicated the vaccine, and warned readers that a low uptake of the vaccine could spark a measles epidemic. Of course, there was no such epidemic.

BUT DON'T CHILDREN DIE OF MEASLES?
Whenever there is a child death attributed to measles, the vaccine establishment always hits overdrive, as far as national headlines are concerned. The dismally uneventful 1984 Australia New Zealand measles 'epidemic' was a case in point. When two children were reported to have died of measles, no readers were informed that both children had a terminal illness and, more to the point, one of the children had been 'fully immunised' against measles beforehand. To repeat that timeless piece of advice from Geoff Watts: "Another trap for the unwary lies in the failure to distinguish between association and causation." Serious cases of measles are invariably an indication of an impoverished immune system. And how might the measles vaccine have impoverished the child's immune system in the first place?

Readers are reminded of the fact that the MMR vaccine contains neomycin, sorbitol and gelatin, the concoction cultivated in a medium of human diploid cells 'harvested' from aborted human foetal tissue. The tuberculosis vaccine mentioned earlier uses a medium composed of glycerin, asparagine, citric acid, potassium phosphate, magnesium sulphate, and iron ammonium citrate. This mixture helps grow what is then injected directly into the human system. Tetanus vaccine is produced using aluminium phosphate, formaldehyde, ammonium sulphate, washed sheep red blood cells, glycerol, sodium chloride, thimerosal medium (49% mercury) and pig pancreas derivatives.

FAKE MEASLES EPIDEMICS
Writing for JABS, an independent organisation advising parents on the potential dangers of vaccination, Janine Roberts introduces us to the fraudulent measles epidemic of 1995:

"Questions are being raised about a most urgent warning sent out to doctors and the parents of 8 million children by the UK Department of Health, saying that there would definitely be a measles epidemic in 1995 that would infect between 100,000 and 200,000 children and that "around 50 children, mostly of secondary school age, would die," - that is, if children of between 5 and 15 were not revaccinated. New research indicates that there might have been a very different story behind this campaign: Doctor Richard Nicholson, the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, stated that after studying all government reports, there was no proof that such a major measles epidemic was about to start. He alleged the government's estimate of up to 50 deaths was based on improper use of statistics - that effectively the government was scare-mongering.

Similarly, the quarterly magazine What Doctors Don't Tell You filed the following report on the same incident:

1994 MEASLES JAB NOT NEEDED - Dr Nicholson described the campaign as 'a gift horse' for the two drug companies, which still had vaccines in stock intended for use with the combined MMR jab.… The stocks of the vaccine were still current, but had to be used by autumn 1994, just when the campaign took place. "The campaign provided a very lucky break for the two vaccine suppliers." said Dr Nicholson (Bulletin of Medical Ethics, August 1995).

Here are just a few of the tragic results of this lucky break for the vaccine suppliers.

'Tony Gregory's 9-year-old daughter Amy immediately reacted. "She collapsed within an hour. Next day she was vomiting constantly, had diarrhoea and was covered in a nettle rash. Many local children were affected. There were children still fainting in school a fortnight later. We wondered if the batch of vaccines was faulty. I will fight tooth and nail to find out why this happened to Amy."

GOVERNMENT MUST BE FORCED TO HELP FORGOTTEN CHILDREN - "Since our formation, the Hope Project has been inundated by requests for help…. Every day new parents are ringing us. They all have the same tragic story. Healthy baby, child, teenager, usually a boy, given the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) or DT (diphtheria and tetanus), MMR or MMR booster. This was then followed by a sudden fall or slow but steady decline into autism or other spectrum disorders. Initially, we were being contacted by a new parent a week. By 1998, we were trying to help on average three new sufferers a week. Such is the increase in contacts this year, that now we could give up everything else we do and just talk to parents all day. There is an epidemic out there and authorities are refusing to acknowledge it."

For the first time in this study on vaccination, the word epidemic has been used correctly. It is describing a real disaster unfolding - a man-made, profit-driven, vaccine-damage epidemic. Janine Roberts again:

"One of those most angry about last year's MMR vaccination campaign is Karen, mother of 12-year-old son Sam. "He was ridiculously healthy, He never had anything wrong with him, apart from some mild asthma, was doing well at school and loved football. He was an avid Spurs fan. Four weeks after vaccination, coming down the stairs, his knees suddenly gave way and he tumbled down. He kept on falling. Sometimes when I was talking to him he would suddenly go blank. One doctor said to me: "Has he been exposed to measles?" I said, "No, he has never had measles." The doctor replied, "No, I meant, has he had a recent measles injection?" Then it clicked. All this had started after the vaccination. Sam is now in a wheelchair and has lost the power of speech."

With MMR, DPT, meningitis, smallpox, rabies, tetanus and the flu 'shot' all billed as safe by the UK government, what should we make of the UK Prime Minister's refusal to say whether his baby son has received the infamous MMR triple jab? Blair's reticence in this matter displays a strangely unsupportive role over a vaccine that spearheads his own government's child immunisation programme.

Perhaps privately, the Blairs have looked up the more accurate information on MMR, as opposed to relying on the dangerous nonsense pumped out to the masses. And having looked up the real goods on this vaccine, who in their right mind would wish the MMR vaccine on anyone, let alone their own child? The Blairs might also have been influenced in their decision by 'insider' vaccine information, some of which appeared in the UK Sunday Observer, dated 27th August 2000, revealing that the UK government had attempted to cover up the deaths of a number of children as a result of receiving the meningitis vaccine. Documentation also revealed that more than 16,000 adverse reactions to the meningitis jab had been reported by GPs, since the nationwide campaign began in 2000. With the UK Department of Health admitting that only between 10 and 15 percent of adverse reactions are reported, the actual number of children damaged as a result of this vaccine is probably far higher. Actually, it would be naïve in the extreme to think that Tony and Cherie are anything but fully conversant with the dangers of vaccination.

A PRESIDENT'S PRECEDENT
But the Blairs need not feel alone in their dilemma. Even a president has set a precedent over the issue of vaccine refusal. On a visit to the Middle East, former US president Bill Clinton refused the mandatory US army anthrax shot, the vaccine now believed to be at the root of the strange and debilitating illnesses rendering many Gulf War veterans virtually immobile. Interestingly, The UK Mail on Sunday, dated 22nd December 2002, reported the high number of armed forces personnel who were refusing the anthrax 'jab' because of their fears of experiencing side-effects, which have left many ex-servicemen and women with permanent disability.

GERMAN MEASLES (RUBELLA)
Falsely dubbed German measles, rubella is germane (similar/relevant) to measles. But yet again, we are being cynically manipulated by certain vested interests, into believing that this illness is highly dangerous, when it is not. Twenty years ago, the reporting on rubella was very low-key. The 1982 MacMillan Guide to Family Health stated:

"This is a very mild infectious disease - in the majority of children who catch it, it causes no more inconvenience that a common cold. The incubation period is 14-21 days and the first symptoms are a slightly raised temperature, swollen glands behind the ears and a rash appearing on the first or second day first on the face and then spreading to the rest of the body. By the fourth or fifth day, all symptoms have faded away."

BUT ISN'T RUBELLA
A DANGER TO EXPECTANT MUMS?
Before the triple whammy of MMR, thousands of young girls were being injected with the rubella vaccine, in the belief that this vaccine would provide the girls with future immunity against German measles because of its possible negative effects upon the foetus. In actual fact, it was the vaccine itself that was the danger to these young girls, now known to have given rise to early arthritis, arthralgia, various skin conditions, respiratory trouble and swollen glands. As far as rubella being a danger to expectant mums is concerned, a study carried out by doctors on the effects of rubella on foetuses of women who had contracted German measles was published in The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. In their study of 34 pregnant women thought to have rubella, eight mothers were told that their unborn babies had rubella infection. Six of those mothers chose to have abortions. Only three of the aborted babies were determined to be rubella 'positive'. The other two supposedly 'infected' babies were carried to term and were born with no defects. Twenty-four of the remaining twenty-six babies were born in good health. The other two died from other causes.

Translated, out of the thirty-four babies in the report, none was born with any defects, two babies died of other causes and six women were scared into aborting their babies needlessly, with life-lasting emotional consequences for the parents concerned. Another one of those wretched snapshots, clearly depicting the unforeseen consequences that can beset those who fall under the mesmeric spell of perceived conventional medical wisdom and do everything they're instructed to do by their doctor. On the rubella vaccine itself, vaccine critic, Dr Robert Mendelson stated:

"Being a sceptical soul, I have always believed that the most reliable way to determine what people really believe is to observe what they do, not what they say. If the greatest threat of rubella is not to children, but to the foetus yet unborn, pregnant women should be protected against rubella by making certain that their obstetricians won't give them the disease. Yet, in a California survey reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, more than 90 percent of the obstetrician-gynaecologists refused to be vaccinated. If doctors themselves are afraid of the vaccine, why on earth should the law require that you and other parents allow them to administer it to your kids?"

CHICKEN POX
Consider the following explanation of chicken pox, from the 1967 Pears Medical Encyclopaedia, before the introduction of the vaccine:

"Generally the rash is the first, and sometimes only symptom, but the child may be irritable, headachy, and have a slight temperature. No specific treatment exists (although if the child is irritable, Aspirin may be given and calamine lotion applied to the sores); there are no complications in the vast majority of cases. Quarantine period is three weeks from the beginning of the rash, but doctors are increasingly of the opinion that there is no reason why other members of the family should not be exposed to a harmless infection which confers immunity for life - other people's children are, of course, another matter."

And now, since the introduction of the chicken pox vaccine, look at this condensed explanation of chicken pox, found in the year 2000 edition of the Merck Manual:

"Chicken pox, which is extremely contagious, is believed to be spread by infected droplets and is most communicable during the short prodrome and early stages of the eruption.… A live attenuated varicella vaccine is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for universal vaccination of all healthy children who lack a reliable history of chicken pox."

Who do you believe?

PROFIT BEFORE HEALTH
The recent spate of stories concerning certain patients being 'struck off' by their doctors for the sake of profit, highlights the commercialism surrounding the MMR jab. The Canbury Medical Centre in Kingston, Surrey, in the UK, is not meeting the government target of immunising 90% of the children on its list. If this continues, the doctors will each lose a 'vaccination bonus' of £2,865. Because of the fears surrounding the MMR vaccine, those parents who have elected not to have their child vaccinated are being sent letters stating that their child will be treated as a 'temporary resident'. This politicking reduces the overall numbers and brings the percentages back up to within target levels. The surgery's policy came to light when one mother received a letter from the medical centre saying that her daughter Abigail, who has not had MMR, would be de-registered because she had not had all the recommended vaccinations.

"I was absolutely livid and also quite shocked," said Abigail's mother. "I feel so strongly about this. Not giving Abigail MMR is my choice; it is my free choice. It is an educated decision I have made through research, deliberation and discussion - and now my child's right to a GP is being denied her. This goes straight to the fundamentals of why parents don't trust the doctors on MMR. How can you trust the advice of somebody who is being paid to do something?"

THE RISE IN AUTISM
And in the US, Dr Mercola invites us to consider the link between the great rise in the number of autistic children and a vaccination policy which currently oversees babies being given their first vaccine against hepatitis B in the first two days of life, and another two doses before they are 18 months old. These children also have five doses of diphtheria and tetanus, two doses of MMR, four of the Hib, one of chicken pox, four of the polio vaccine and now four doses of a vaccine supposedly to prevent ear infections before they go to school.

"It should be pointed out that today's children receive 22 or more vaccines before school age, whereas today's senior citizens received only one vaccine in their youth, the smallpox vaccine."

VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTING SYSTEM
To date, the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program or NVICP, established in 1986, has paid out in excess of $1 billion in injury awards to western vaccine-recipients. There are quite literally thousands of cases pending. This despite the fact that the Health and Human Services narrowed the definition of vaccine damage to such an extent that only immediate and severe reactions now qualify. Seizures, disorders, brain damage, ataxia, paralysis, learning difficulties and deaths that occur many days or weeks following these vaccinations do not qualify. Added to this, doctors have little incentive to report themselves to the government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS, prompting former director of the FDA David Kessler to confess that "…only 10% of vaccine injuries are ever reported." Lisa Jillani, of People Advocating Vaccine Education, has observed the growing number of children now suffering from 20th century behavioural disorders, and reports:
"So the injuries can even conservatively amount to tens of thousands of children, while doctors continue to diagnose and treat mysterious new illnesses and maintain the 'one in a million' adverse reaction myth taught in medical schools."

A front-page article appeared in the UK's Sunday Observer, dated 27th August 2000. The Observer obtained documents revealing that the UK government had attempted to cover up 11 deaths of children as a result of receiving the meningitis vaccine. The document also revealed that more than 16,000 adverse reactions to the meningitis jab had been reported by GP's since the nationwide campaign began last year. With the UK Department of Health admitting that only between 10 and 15 percent of adverse reactions are reported, the actual number of children damaged as a result of this vaccine is probably far higher.

Similarly, on 13th December 2000, Independent Newspapers ran the following:

FALSE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC - Doctors are fabricating research results to win grants and advance their careers, but the medical establishment is failing to protect the public from the menace of these scientific frauds, a committee of medical editors said yesterday. Eighty cases of fraudulent research have been detected in the past four years, and 30 have been investigated in the past year. In some cases, institutions have covered up wrongdoing to protect reputations...

Is it really any wonder that so many behavioural, nervous and mental disorders are presenting themselves at doctors' surgeries, when we consider the high number of vaccines being administered? The next chapter looks at the legal steps parents and individuals can take to avoid such vaccinations.

Excerpted with permission from:

Wake up to Health in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.

US Scientists Back Autism Link to MMR
By Beezy Marsh and Sally Beck

The measles virus has been found in the guts of children with a form of autism, renewing fears over the safety of the MMR jab.

American researchers have revealed that 85 per cent of samples taken from autistic children with bowel disorders contain the virus. The strain is the same as the one used in the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine.

The findings will spark fresh concern about MMR, because they back theories of a causal link between the jab, autism and painful gut disorders suffered by a number of autistic children.

The study replicates findings made by the gastroenterologist Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998 and Prof John O'Leary, a pathologist, in 2002.

Parents say their children were developing normally until they had the MMR jab, given when a child is between 12- and 18-months-old. The children now suffer from regressive autism.

One theory is that the virus passes through the gut, causing damage, and into the bloodstream, from where it is able to attack the brain.

More than 2,000 families claim that their children have suffered damage but the Department of Health reiterated last night that MMR is safe, a stance supported by the British Medical Association and all the Royal Colleges. Last year Government scientists failed to reproduce research results by Dr Wakefield.

Research to be presented this week in Montreal, Canada, provides fresh evidence that the measles virus is present in the guts of autistic children. Dr Stephen Walker, of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, North Carolina, studied children with regressive autism and bowel disease. "Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain," he said.
The Sunday Telegraph, 28th May 2006

Further Resources:

Wake up to Health in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom

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.

Dear Phillip,

As mentioned, I am writing to let you know of my story. In 1999 I had a heart attack followed in 2000 by cancer of the bladder. A leaflet, re-Credence, was passed on to me by a friend and we began to read your info which was mind-blowing.

My doctor, after the heart attack, prescribed beta-blockers and after taking those for two or three days I became aggressive, which is not in character, so I refused to take any more. He also said I should take aspirin daily which I don't do either.

After the cancer was discovered with a systoscopy I had an operation to remove the growths in the bladder. Having read your book, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, we began changing our diets. We met your colleague Steve Ransom who stayed overnight with us after a Bristol meeting. He gave some sound advice about what we should throw out and cease to use in the home. We began to drink more water, have fruit for breakfast and, having contacted Credence, went on to apricot kernels and vitamin C.

Five years later we are continuing in good health and I have had around five systoscopy tests on the bladder and all have proved clear.

I forgot to say that after the operation I went for 7 BCG treatments, when BCG vaccine mixed with saline solution was inserted into the bladder and one had to lie in four different positions for a period of one hour. One treatment; after 6 misses they gave up as they couldn't get the catheter in! I wouldn't recommend that to anyone.

I live with a clear bladder and at my last check my cholesterol was 3½, kidney five, liver great and blood pressure normal!

We take Neways Maximol daily plus apricot kernels and vitamin C. We also use Neways' shampoo, toothpaste and deodorant and have changed to a steamer for cooking vegetables.

Anne, my wife, went to a doctor you recommended who was extremely helpful and prescribed Gudan cream, selenium and fish oil, which have been very beneficial. We have also given up drinking coffee and replaced it with filtered water, which we filter through a Brita jug. What we save on coffee pays for the water filters.

Many friends have come to your meetings. Some have taken you advice seriously, others haven't, but we press on spreading the good news.

A thousand of your booklets would be usefully distributed. We could use some more of your tapes too. We would like to help with a breakthrough against the evils of the trade in drugs, chemo and radiation, which are killing millions every year.

We do thank God for your work and pray for a real breakthrough in saving lives. One or two have been to your doctor and the two ladies who came to your meeting last week are interested in reading more.

We took your tape, Health Wars, and booklet into our next-door neighbour who has cancer, but she refused point blank even to listen to your tape or consider change and said she will continue with chemo, etc.!

We do not give up. You're doing a great job. Keep going, the best is yet to come.

Thank you again,

Yours very sincerely

Freddie and Anne Gallichan

Dear Phillip,

I am writing to say thank you.

I've suffered from epilepsy since the age of 11. It used to be quite bad, sometimes one maybe two seizures a day. Doctors tried everything from sodium valproate (epilim) to carbamazipine (tegratol retard). The list was countless and nothing seemed to work. I just got worse, that was until my exams.

I had so much stress on my plate I stopped taking the medication the doctors gave me and to my surprise I stopped having as many seizures. At that point I started considering alternative means of controlling my epilepsy.

I found that not eating properly and lack of sleep to be a main trigger of seizures. Quite surprising really as I found out more in three weeks than doctors could in five years. I then started to eat properly which led to even less seizures but still didn't stop the problem.

A few years passed and I was still having seizures, not as many but the problem was still there.

Then I met you at one of your conventions and spoke of the problem. You suggested a course of vitamins and minerals from Neways. I was sceptical at first. My mother had told me of these products before and I just didn't believe her.

I started the minerals and vitamins. To my surprise the seizures have nearly stopped completely. I now even get warnings, which never happened before.

I am 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, so much so I hardly ever suffer from colds and flu at 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 Mead

PS: Neways products used

Maximol
Revenol
Omega3
Taken at twice the recommended daily dosage.

From the Mailbag
Comments from our new susbscribers

"I appreciate 100% your precious delivery of 'living'." - Antun Z, NSW, Australia

"I could not believe the things I've heard…. Mind blowing. I cannot wait to try them out for a new life!! Thank you Phil." - Carole S, Buckinghamshire, UK

"I am very interested in becoming as involved as I possibly can in the organisation. I have had chronic health problems over the last few years that I am only just getting sorted out and the problems have all been due to antibiotics. I believe that it is vitally important for people to have more information about what they are taking other than what their doctor tells them." - Taryn B, WA, Australia

"Very informative - to the point - dynamic speaker. Glad to have come and enjoyed the evening with Phillip Day." - Ursula B, WA, Australia

"A book came to me through the library saying I'd ordered it. I am a happy supporter!" - Lily K, Somerset, UK

"I borrowed "Health Wars" from the library - and glad I did! I believe that, while all members of the public are denied the truth, healthy food and high dose vitamins, the people most denied are the poor. There seems to be a lot of effort by the Australian government (and no doubt all 'developed countries' ' governments) to keep the poor not only uneducated and in their place, but to keep them in a poor state of health and deny them proper healthcare. I'm just trying to get my head around this - it's a gut feeling. Look forward to my first newsletter." - Lynda H, VIC, Australia

"Credence is doing an excellent job!" - Judy D, Kent, UK

"This sounds chilling. I must know more about how I can help." - Robert F, Maine, USA

"Have been to two Phillip Day meetings, last one in Taunton. Stimulating, witty, good stuff!" - David P, Devon, UK

"I just wish there were more means of getting your message across to the 'hoi polloi' worldwide. Unfortunately, most of us, even when faced with the 'truth'/unpalatable facts, choose to ignore it still. I believe eventually all the pockets of information will, like the drops of water in forming a puddle, come together and be a very powerful force for change. Not for evil but for good." - Inga B, CA, USA

"Found it fascinating and great to know I was already doing a lot of the things you are talking about!!" - Louise J, Dorset, UK

"Always inspiring!" - Rosemary B, Dorset, UK

"Look forward to receiving bulletins. Thanks for all your advice." - Mary C, Dublin, Ireland

"Very enjoyable, entertaining and educational. Will be coming again." - Terry H, Cardiff, UK

"Thanks for all the research and hard work." - Corinne H, Devon, UK

"Great stuff! I haven't found anything I can disagree with yet! The plans of psychiatry are the most disturbing and seem to underpin the rest of the bizarre activities of the energy and pharma cartels with the government as their mere facilitators. Thank you for being there." - Peter D, VIC, Australia

"Very interesting and re-enforcing evening. Thank you!" - Alison R, Norfolk, UK

"Very excited that there are people out there taking up the cause of accessible, natural good health." - Eulela R, London, UK

"It was my first time and I felt sorry I missed the others. I am happy there will be more coming. Absolutely fantastic and interesting!" - Rouhiya D, Essex, UK

"I am very much interested in the Campaign - got cancer - went alternative. People need to know more about what's going on." - Nick R, Essex, UK

"It looks like my kind of health information. I am into the truth and wisdom of health not dogma." - Greg M, QLD, Australia

"Relieved to see someone has a comprehensive view of what is going on in Britain - it's something I'm very aware of but find hard to encapsulate. I need to feel that it is not too late to do anything, what can you offer as re-assurance?" - D W, Hertfordshire, UK

"Read Phillip Day's book re cancer and now heard him talk. As a hospital employee I am extremely impressed and it is heartening to see a lot of us are going down alternative therapy routes - even doctors! There is hope!" - Collette C, West Midlands, UK

"Inspirational! Lots to think about and change!!" - Sally B, Dorset, UK

"First time listening - very interesting indeed." - Pam H, Buckinghamshire, UK

"I teach yoga so it is beneficial for me to relay the latest information to my students. Forewarned is forearmed! Thank you for passing on all this vital knowledge." - Tanya C, Gloucestershire, UK

"Really enjoyed info! Keep it up!" - Julianna M, VIC, Australia

"Let's heal the world!" - Paula H, VIC, Australia

"Thank you for a very enlightening evening." - Mary M, Kent, UK

"Excellent presentation. Look forward to reading the book and seeing the DVD. Will re-committ to curing cancer! Thank you, Phillip!" - Noelle T, WA, Australia

"Wonderful information - uplifting. Thank you for coming to Western Australia, Phillip and colleagues." - David & Margaret O, WA, Australia

"Very interested in all avenues. We are food manufacturers - organic barley/wheat/ alfalfa powder grown on our own organic farm and fully processed by us - all in Swan Hill. Also interested as a primary school teacher - effects of food on children I teach eg. ADHD." - Elaine M, VIC, Australia

"Please come back - fantastic presentation and most informative in all areas. Thank you! - Glennie M, VIC, Australia