Up Close and Personal
The Monthly Interview with
CTM Founder Phillip Day

ECLUB: Top of the mornin' to ya, Phillip. And how was Ireland?
PD: Green, very pleasant, and superbly hospitable folks. Brian, I saw this and immediately thought of you.
ECLUB: A Kermit Frog?
PD: It's green, isn't it?
ECLUB: What's going on this month?
PD: Ah, our restless, fretting planet. Well, let's see. Following on from Celebrity Chef Jamie Oliver's excellent crusade against the rubbish given to schoolkids in the name of victuals, his petition collected over 271,000 signatures which resulted in Blair's Government pledging to cough up more money to feed the kids better (I'm holding my breath and already turning blue). Those reading this in other countries are heartily encouraged to get a similar scheme underway where you live. Check out Jamie's site and if necessary, write to Jamie's campaign personnel to see what they advise you can do to promote his drive for decent school progger in your own country. Many thanks, by the way, for all who took the trouble to participate. More than a few of those signatures came from CTM members all over the world after the eblast we sent out.
ECLUB: And there's another petition our members can sign?
PD: Yup. Banning the nasties out of foods, especially children's foods. Aspartame, saccharin, etc.. Click here to find out more, and please circulate this link to those you know who will be interested. There is a short article in this EClub entitled, appropriately enough, Ban The Nasties.
ECLUB: More also on the drugging of our children?
PD: All parents should read the article in this EClub on the subject. Am I the only one outraged at the idea that schools and care-homes drug up millions each day just to keep them out of trouble? Of course not, but we need to take a united stand against this Orwellian turn our society has been taking. I think, by and large, many parents are unwilling to confront authorities on this issue simply because they don't know enough about it….
ECLUB: By the way, I got around to reading your book The Mind Game the other day. All I can say is blimey…
PD: Hard to imagine a lot of that goes on, isn't it?
ECLUB: I know the press has been covering it a little bit.
PD: That's the problem. It's only a little bit. Everyone's too afraid of upsetting everyone else.
ECLUB: Not you, apparently….
PD: This month we're also summarising the AIDS series we've been running these past months. Remember, folks, many countries such as Australia, The US, UK, New Zealand, are looking to bring in mandatory HIV screening schemes for pregnant mums, and believe me when I say that this is not a path you want to go down.
ECLUB: How can people find out more?
PD: They can take our Internet tour which describes our new book, The Truth About HIV. Other subjects covered this month are: vaccine damage; more on the dangers of phone masts; an excellent rebuttal by the Mercola team on the attack they received over their stance on the dangers of unfermented soy products; a US fluoridation victory and, unfortunately, yet another dangerous drug advisory.
ECLUB: And what about the European Union Food Supplements latest?
PD: Some great news here. An EU judge has ruled the law 'invalid', although the court's official decision on the challenge posed by the excellent Alliance of Natural Health won't be known for a few months. I am uneasy about the timing of this though. The court can still rule in favour of the FSD and the ban go ahead in August. The effect of the judge making his own personal views known at this point is likely to give Tony Blair a smoother ride of it through the election, after which time the ban can then take effect with the minimum of political damage. Remember, Blair is the EU's golden boy, and they want to see him in again.
ECLUB: And yet the EU Constitution, which will underpin the future relationship of the EU's member states, is already in trouble, isn't it?
PD: As previously mentioned, as things currently stand, France looks like voting against it, which will scupper the wretched thing good and proper. I am all in favour of a united Europe, as I have always said, not a corrupt, Soviet-style Europe which plunges us all back into old problems of protectionism and Big Brother. A few have written e-mails frankly alarmed at the stance I am taking on the EU. I AM COMPLETELY UNREPENTANT (is that big enough writing?). There are dangers inherent in the EU project these people freely admit to not knowing which need to be sorted, before we pass the point of no return. 80% of the British look like they will vote the Constitution down and send the Brusselcrats scurrying. Britain is paying £30 million a day to be a member of the disastrous EU project. I can think of a hundred ways this money could be spent better, if it needs to be spent at all. Once again, this is not an issue about xenophobia, racism, or whatever Pavlovian buzzwords the politicos come up with to protect their lucrative scamming. This is a core issue of freedom for all our futures. Other countries are fighting their own programs concerning Codex and the Great Vitamin Snatch. Please, everyone, give them your wholehearted support: New Zealand Health Trust. Alliance for Health Freedom (Australia). Eve Hillary (Australia). Rath Foundation (EU). Alliance for Natural Health (Britain). International Advocates for Health Freedom (USA and Canada).
ECLUB: You have your own unique EU protest about to be launched, do you not?
PD: Aye, lad. I'm fed up with GB on our car number plates with the EU flag above the GB, so I'm having some Union jack stickers made up just the right size. I cannot, of course, recommend officially these be put on car plates (it would make an interesting court case, though I doubt anyone will have the cojones to bring it), but we'll have the flags available for free distribution if anyone sends us a stamped-address reply envelope. What you do with them is up to you.
ECLUB: Thank you, Phillip.
PD: So you don't want the frog then?

Euro-Army Should Fill Us with Fear
by Christopher Booker

Some kind of immortality might be accorded a comment made last week by Austria's finance minister, Karl-Heinz Grasser, that a meeting of EU finance ministers had made considerable progress, but largely "in the wrong direction". Their purpose was to discuss a proposal that France and Germany should be allowed to drive a double-decker bus through the rules of the Growth and Stability Pact, on which the credibility of the euro depends.

As the running of the eurozone sinks into chaos, with its largest economy - Germany - mired in recession, the EU now seems to be making the wrong kind of progress in all directions. A report by the pan-European business organisation Eurochambres predicts that, on current projections, the EU economy will only catch up with the present performance of the American economy by 2056 - and even that is dependent on the improbable condition that the EU's productivity grows at an annual rate 0.5 per cent faster than that of the United States.

Meanwhile Nick Witney, the former senior Ministry of Defence official who now heads the new European Defence Agency, last week wrote to The Telegraph to deny my report that he is playing a key role in building up an "EU defence identity" separate from both NATO and the USA. Mr Witney must hope that we don't read his evidence to a House of Lords committee last year in which he agreed that his agency's purpose is to promote the European Security and Defence Policy, whose objective is a "European defence identity".

It was disingenuous of him to claim in his letter that he is only concerned with co-ordinating defence procurement. Nowadays, as he well knows, it is precisely the nature of the armed forces' electronics and weapons systems that dictates who they can fight alongside. At the centre of EU defence planning is the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) which will create a family of vehicles and weapons systems co-ordinated through the EU's GALILEO satellite programme. If the British Army is reorganised around FRES, as Mr Witney's former ministry wants, it will be equipped to fight alongside other EU forces, but not alongside the Americans.

The real danger Britain now faces, through our breakneck integration with the EU's defence and procurement policy, is that our Armed Forces may soon be as effective as the Growth and Stability Pact. And that will be no joke at all.
The Sunday Telegraph, 13th March 2005

EU Creche Matches Annual Fees for Eton
by David Rennie

European Union civil servants are building a subsidised creche for their children where places will cost more than £20,000 a year - almost as much as fees at Eton.

The 180-place creche is due to open next year, but the costs are already raising eyebrows in Brussels. Even hardened Eurocrats, used to generous living at the expense of EU taxpayers, have been startled. A year's fees at Eton are £22,380.

Fees at private creches in Brussels are no more than £6,000 a year and public creches cost less. But places are hard to come by and waiting lists are long.

The creche is being built by the Council of the European Union, the main decision-making body of the EU, which is made up of ministers from each member state, and run by a rotating presidency, at present held by Luxembourg.

The presidency and ministers and officials attending meetings are supported by a permanent general secretariat, whose workers will be the main beneficiaries.

They will be expected to pay no more than £3,500 a year, thanks to subsidies provided by the EU taxpayer.

Diplomats and officials at other EU institutions will pay the full price.

Vittorio Griffo, the director general of administration, said the fees included £5,000 towards purchasing and converting the premises, spread over the next 27 years.

"The standards are not Hilton Hotel, you won't find any gold taps, we have nothing to hide. We are simply following Belgian national standards."
The Daily Telegraph, 16th March 2005

EU Food Law Judged 'Invalid'
by Elitsa Vucheva

An EU law restricting the sale of food supplements, including vitamins, is violating various guidelines and so is invalid, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice said on Tuesday (5 April).

The so-called Food Supplements Directive, drawn by EU governments in 2002, tightens controls on products such as vitamin supplements and mineral plant extracts. Only vitamins and minerals on an approved list should be used in supplements, according to the Directive. It also imposes restrictions on vitamin doses.

Furthermore, health food manufacturers have until 12 July this year to submit detailed and complete dossiers to prove that their ingredients are safe. The costs of doing this, however, would be too big for many small firms, associations argued.

Food industries also said that 5,000 products would be threatened by this legislation, including more than 200 nutrients and some vitamin C products.

The British Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA), the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) and the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), brought the case ahead of implementation of the law, due in August.

The Advocate General, Leendert Geelhoed, came down on their side in his statement.

The Directive "infringes the principle of proportionality, because basic principles of Community law, such as the requirements of legal protection, of legal certainty and of sound administration have not been properly taken into account. The Directive is, therefore, invalid," he stated in his conclusion.

However, he did not say he was opposed to the legislation in principle, leaving a door open for EU officials to redraw it.

The legal action was initially launched in the UK courts, and was handed over to the European Court of Justice last year. One third of UK women and a quarter of men take health food supplements.

Reactions
The Associations have welcomed Mr Geelhoed's recommendations.

"It is commendable that the EU Advocate General has seen through the flawed science and law of the Food Supplements Directive and reached his recommendations today", said Dr. Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH).

"This is a great day for the tens of millions of people who believe passionately in the benefits of natural, preventative healthcare", he added. A positive reaction also came from the European Parliament, as MEP John Bowis, a health spokesman for the Conservative group said:

"Conservative MEPs warned at the time that this Directive was several steps too far in the realm of the nanny state and I am delighted that at least at the first stage of the judicial conclusion, common sense and consumer choice is being endorsed."

The European Commission, on the other hand, declined to comment on the Advocate General's conclusions, saying it would prefer to wait until the final judgement of the Court.

The opinion of the Advocate General is not legally binding, as the European Judges are the ones to give the final ruling. However, in most cases, the judges follow the recommendations of the Advocate General.

The final ruling is expected before August, as this is the deadline for the law to come into force.
EU Observer, 5th April 2005

UK Challenges Subsidy for Élite Euro-schools
by David Rennie

The Government is preparing for a showdown with its European Union partners over the more than £14 million that Britain spends every year subsidising a network of elite schools for the children of EU bureaucrats.

Few taxpayers have even heard of the "European Schools", established 50 years ago to provide a free, highly academic education for the children of EU officials and accredited diplomats. Britain spends proportionally more than any other nation on funding the 13 schools, whose overall budget this year is £160 million.

Under a treaty that governs the schools, the Government pays the salaries of British teachers seconded to the schools. About 240 of the 1,400 full-time staff at the schools are British, thanks to a growing demand for native English-speaking instructors. Teachers are paid up to £62,000 a year.

In 2004-5, the Government spent just under £9 million on direct subsidies to the European Schools. Through British contributions to the EU's overall budget, an additional £5 million of UK taxpayers' money was channelled to the schools by the European Commission.

The funding of European Schools is to come up for debate next month at a meeting of their board of governors. A briefing note on the British negotiating position, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, speaks of the "high costs" of running the schools. It adds: "The UK is required to make a disproportionately large contribution to the European Schools budget."

There are some 2,000 British pupils at European Schools, out of a total enrolment of 20,000.

The Government briefing note points out that several nations do well out of the status quo, notably Greece, Italy, Spain and France, and will be "difficult to persuade".

The EC, under pressure from Britain, has thrown its weight behind reform. But it defended the schools' basic existence in a recent report, arguing that the availability of high-quality, multi-lingual free schooling "has made it easier for [EU] institutions to recruit experienced, highly qualified staff."

That argument was challenged by Chris Heaton-Harris, a British Conservative MEP and campaigner against EU waste, who has used a string of parliamentary written questions to unravel the European Schools' finances.

He said: "Eurocrats have the best pay and conditions of any bureaucrats in the Western world. They pay the equivalent of 16 per cent tax, they have huge salaries and allowances. How can the European elite justify giving themselves tax-payers' money for still more perks and -benefits?"

The European Schools spend £8,000 a head on pupils annually, said Mr Heaton-Harris, an MEP for the East Midlands - nearly twice the amount spent on British state school pupils.

The European schools teach a special curriculum with a strong emphasis on foreign languages, as well as the culture and values of the EU, leading to a unique "European Baccalaureate" qualification.

The schools' mission statement says pupils "shall become Europeans in spirit, while preserving their love and pride for their own countries, and shall be well prepared to complete and consolidate the work undertaken by their fathers, towards the creation of a united and prosperous Europe."

Most of the schools are sited near major EU institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Frankfurt. A European School in Culham, near Oxford, opened to serve scientists working at the Joint European Taurus, a nuclear fusion research centre.

In a formal report to national governments, the Commission conceded last year that the current system of "effectively open-ended EU funding" for the European Schools "has not provided adequate incentives for better resource management" - code for an embarrassment that cannot be defended.

The report added that cost savings could be made "without reducing the quality of service provided."
The Daily Telegraph, 1st April 2005

French Poll a Blow to Hopes for European Constitution
by David Rennie in Brussels

Europe's political establishment was sent reeling yesterday by the first opinion poll to suggest that French voters will reject the draft European constitution and deal the treaty a fatal blow.

According to the CSA institute poll, 51 per cent of the French would vote against the constitution and 49 per cent for. The poll marked a 14-point slump for the Yes camp since the last survey three weeks ago.

A rejection from France would plunge the European Union into a political crisis whose outcome is impossible to predict.

In theory, all 25 EU members must ratify the constitution, or the document is doomed. In practice, a Czech or Polish No vote could probably be fudged.

But the consensus in Brussels is that a No vote from France would be a death sentence for the treaty. The crisis is already leading to poisonous mutual finger-pointing between Paris and the European Commission in Brussels over who is to blame for the decline in French enthusiasm for the European project.

The commission's president, Jose Manuel Barroso, has denounced the charged atmosphere in France as "giving excuses to europhobes and eurosceptics". Other European governments with their own referenda to fight over the next two years have watched, with dismay, Mr Chirac's sudden willingness to pick fights over Europe and confront Brussels.

One British politician who follows French politics closely expressed irritation at Mr Chirac's "cynicism" over Europe, as well as his failure to develop a strategy for winning the referendum on May 29. He expressed equal gloom at the federalist rhetoric of other leaders in the Yes camp, notably the ex-president Giscard d'Estaing, touring the country assuring voters that the treaty is the founding political charter of a new Europe.

"The French haven't got their act together yet," the British observer complained. "They have seemed more concerned with getting the 2012 Olympics than getting a Yes vote in this referendum. Between Giscard's romanticised overselling of the constitution treaty, and Chirac's continual cynicism and underperformance, there is a very serious danger that France could pull this whole thing down."

The Yes campaign - led by a fractious coalition of Centre Left and Right leaders - has been dogged by infighting, with some leaders spending as much time warring with rivals in their parties as campaigning for the constitution. The No camp has benefited, above all, from a fresh wave of insecurity and protectionism sweeping France provoked by an EU directive designed to reduce red tape for professionals moving around the EU. Tens of thousands have taken to the French streets to denounce the directive.

To British eyes, the "Bolkestein directive", named after a Dutch former commissioner, is uncontroversial. Its main sticking point, for the French, is a clause that allows professionals, such as Polish architects or British ski-instructors, to move on a temporary contract to another EU country and, initially at least, follow their home country's regulations and labour laws.

But to many French workers, the prospect of thousands of low-paid, low-taxed and lightly regulated Czechs and Poles setting up in competition is proof that the EU has been hijacked by "Anglo-Saxon" free-marketeers and their acolytes from Eastern Europe. The No camp has watched its support surge as it attacked the directive.

The Yes camp reacted with near-panic. Mr Chirac even called the commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, to tell him that the directive was "unacceptable" and demand that it should be "started again from scratch."
The Daily Telegraph, 19th March 2005

Europe's Bogus Benefits
Roger Helmer MEP (Con) Lutterworth, Leics

SIR - The benefits of EU membership claimed by Roger Liddle (report, Mar 5), of freedom, security and economic strength, cannot sustain a moment's critical analysis.

Under the EU arrest warrant, British citizens can now be arrested on the whim of a foreign magistrate in Greece or Slovenia. The Government's Draconian and illiberal house- arrest proposals are a direct consequence of the European Convention on Human Rights. That's freedom? Security?

Brussels's proposals for independent defence structures outside Nato, its adversarial approach to America, its Galileo GPS (with China as a partner), are undermining the transatlantic relationship on which our security has depended for decades, and continues to depend.

But Liddle's most preposterous claim is "economic strength". The Bundesbank has said "it can find no benefit for German industry" in the single market.

Commentators from Peter Mandelson to the European Commission itself have highlighted the costs of EU regulation. The hubristic "Lisbon process" promising "the most competitive knowledge based economy in the world" by 2010, lies in ruins.

The French and German economies are edging from failure to disaster, with the euro a key contributory factor. German unemployment is at levels not seen since Weimar. That's economic strength?

Liddle perfectly illustrates the folly of EU propaganda, flying in the face of reality and common sense.
Letters to the Editor, The Daily Telegraph, 10th March 2005

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: For those unfamiliar with the main infringements of freedom the EU espouses, please take the brief tour on our book Ten Minutes to Midnight. Credence also has a PAL video documentary on the subject, entitled The Real Face of the European Union.
Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.

Ban the 'Dirty Dozen' - the Campaign Needs You
by Jemma Morriss

I was horrified to read that many additives that are commonplace in foods in this country are completely banned in other countries.

The children's food campaigner, Lizzie Vann, has identified what she calls 'the 12 most common artificial additives that carry serious health concerns'. The list includes six colours, all of which are suspected carcinogens: Quinoline Yellow; Brilliant Blue; Sunset Yellow; Carmoisine; Ponceau 4R; Indigo Carmine.

Then there are artificial sweeteners, aspartame, saccharine (which is banned in several European countries) and acesulfame K. All of the 'dirty dozen' are banned in baby food and all bar one have been linked to hyperactivity. Ms Vann is campaigning for all these dangerous additives to be banned from any food likely to be eaten by children under 8. If you'd like to add your name to the petition and find out how else you can support the campaign, go to the Ban The Inedibles page. You can also print off a list of the nasties with their E numbers to help you spot them on food labels. And remember to eat organic, where these nasties will not appear.
Goodness Direct, 27th March 2005
www.GoodnessDirect.co.uk

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: The public is finally beginning to stir itself concerning the dangers inherent in the chemicals palmed off on the public as foodstuffs. A number of high-profile articles have appeared in the international press recently so I heartily recommend all get involved in this petition. Sustained pressure on governments and the chemical industry is all it takes to change attitudes. It's not a quick process, but it does work. Look back to the 1970's and you'll see we have come a long way in chemical awareness. A great book to look up on Amazon:

The Politics of Food by Geoffrey Cannon

Also, my own book Health Wars discusses aspartame, saccharin, chemicals in food and personal care products, and what you can do about them. My recipe guide, Food for Thought, will assist in putting new ideas into action in the most tasty way possible.

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.

Mass Drugging of Schoolchildren Remains
Dark Secret of Public Education, Psychiatry

Believe it or not, until recently, it has been perfectly legal for schools to force schoolchildren to be put on psychoactive mind-altering drugs as a condition of attending that school. That is, the school administrator or counselor could insist that a certain child be dosed with mind-altering drugs. It sounds bizarre, but it was absolutely true until just recently.

Finally, Congress has passed legislation that bans schools from forcing parents to drug their children for behavioral problems. This law was even signed by President Bush, believe it or not.

Now you may think that, gee, this wasn't a problem, I never heard about this. But in fact it was a huge problem. There have been many cases where children were denied an education because their parents refused to put them on narcotic stimulants, antidepressants and other drugs that we now know cause violent behavior and increased risk of suicide. There were schools actually forcing parents to put their children on drugs that would cause aggressive behavior and suicidal thoughts. And, in extreme cases, these drugs actually caused or contributed to the kind of mass murders like we saw in Columbine where the two high school students picked up assault rifles, went to school, and blew away teachers and classmates. These two kids were on antidepressant drugs -- it's still one of the most censored stories of the last decade.

Think about it: these kids were taking antidepressants when they blew away their classmates and teachers. And yet the school districts are insisting that more children be put on these drugs!

Now, I knew there were problems with the public school system, I knew that a lot of public education was a complete waste of time and that many public schools are nothing more than taxpayer funded daycare. But even I was horrified to learn that our public schools are turning into mental institutions and forcing children to be dosed on psychoactive drugs just to be there. What happened to the right of children to have an honest education these days? What happened to the right of parents to protect their children from the abusive behavior of drug companies and psychiatrists who irresponsibly over-prescribe these drugs even though they're increasingly aware of the toxic, dangerous side effects of these drugs?

(By the way, three years ago, anybody who said that antidepressant drugs cause violent behavior was called a nut case. Now it's a commonly recognized scientific truth, published in peer-reviewed journals and widely acknowledged by the scientific community. It just goes to show you how unpopular it is when you're a few years ahead of the public perception on these things.)

This law has been needed for quite some time. And who was against this law? Of course, it was the psychiatrists! The community of psychiatrists did not want to let go of this power, because when you have the power to force children to take drugs and to force parents to put children on those drugs, you have consolidated power over entire communities. That's what the psychiatrists have done -- when psychiatrists were given the right to prescribe drugs, they were given power, and they don't want to let go of that power. So they fought bitterly against this bill and they aren't happy with its passage.

But of course, they're continuing to just invent new fictitious diseases by diagnosing children with so-called mental disorders that have no verifiable scientific basis whatsoever. These diseases are completely fictional (like "social anxiety disorder" and "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder"). The hallucinations, it seems, are in the minds of the psychiatrists, not in the minds of the children. And when it comes to behavioral disorders, if you want to calm down the children and help them pay attention and learn more effectively, you've got to look at nutrition, not drugs. You have to get the sugar out of their diets, you have to take the food additives and the hydrogenated oils and the high-fructose corn syrup out of their diets. When you do that, 80% of these children that have been diagnosed with ADHD become non-ADHD children in two weeks or less. 80%. All you've got to do is take these food additives out of their diet, and all of a sudden they're normal, wonderful children who can learn and focus. They don't need drugs.

The threshold for drugging children is far too low in this country -- we have far too many people interested in the power, the profits and the control of drugging children. And it is laws like this that we need passed in this country. We need people to know (especially parents) that they don't have to agree to having their children dosed on toxic drugs. They have the right to say no! They have the right to protect their children from the ambitions of psychiatrists, the megalomania of an industry that wants to drug entire populations, and the profit-seeking ambitions of the pharmaceutical industry.

What's interesting is that one of the main proponents of this bill was the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). Other groups that supported this law include the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Foundation of Women Legislators (NFWL), and Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education.

You may wonder why the NAACP, in particular, backed legislation like this. The answer is because it was predominantly black children who were being labeled as problem children and dosed with these drugs. The black community in America is watching an entire generation be dosed up with mind-altering drugs. That's as sad as anything I've ever seen in this country. Instead of helping these young black children get an honest education and get the skills that they need to succeed in life, we had psychiatrists and drug companies just putting them on drugs that basically numb their brains to the point where, sure, they're no longer a behavioral problem, but they're not learning anything either. How does that help society? It doesn't. All it does is create another high school dropout who can't function because they didn't get an honest education.

I'm going to be called a racist for saying this (like I care), but here goes: there are a lot of white psychiatrists drugging the heck out of low-income black children and calling it "medicine." That's not medicine, that's a chemical assault on the children of America. And frankly, African Americans have every right to be outraged about it.

So let's stop drugging our children and let's start teaching them for a change. Let's get the psychiatrists out of our schools and get the drug companies away from our children. Why is it that we teach our children to "just say no to drugs," and then we turn around and dose them up on powerful narcotics anyway? What kind of message does that send to our nation's youth?

While we're at it, let's start paying teachers honest salaries so that we can attract and retain high-quality people into the teaching industry. Let's start funding our schools with the money they need to actually provide quality education and let's have some serious school reform so that we can eliminate the old bureaucracy that currently runs our public schools all across the country.

We have a system of education here that's 200 years old; nothing much has changed! We still have chalkboards, erasers and stodgy lecture formats for conveying information to students. We need something new in our schools, and there are a lot of hard-working teachers and administrators who have great ideas but are shut down by the bureaucracy and psychiatrists who insist on drugging the students. Let these people have a chance to get some work done, to do the teaching they want to do, to put new ideas into action and see what works in terms of educating our children. I believe that teachers are teachers for the right reason -- they want to work with children; they want to help children learn. We need to give them the tools and the funds that they need to be better teachers, and that means making sure our kids are off of drugs so they have the state of mind necessary for learning.

Because right now, we're not raising a generation of smart, well-educated children. We're producing a wave of over-diagnosed, over-drugged, over-labeled children who are increasingly incapable of functioning as productive citizens in society.
NewsTarget.com, 24th March 2005
Source: http://www.newstarget.com/005629.html

Let's Stop Drugging Our Kids
by Keith Hoeller

Another teenager has shot and murdered schoolchildren, and those who believe that "mental illness" is the cause of all our social problems have offered the standard explanation and usual solution: This child suffered from a mental illness, and if only someone had seen the symptoms and notified mental-health authorities, he would have received an accurate diagnosis and the proper medication, and the tragedy could have been prevented. If only Red Lake High School student Jeff Weise had been placed on antidepressant medications, psychiatrists say, then this murder/suicide would never have happened. The story is usually followed by calls for more mental-health screening and treatment of our nation's schoolchildren.

In most of the recent cases of school shootings, however, the signs were noticed: The child was reported to mental-health authorities, received a psychiatric diagnosis, was put on medications and was taking them when he pulled the trigger. It was true with Eric Harris of Columbine and Kip Kinkel in Oregon, as well as 10 other youths. This may be the tip of the iceberg, because this information is often kept confidential and out of the papers, even when a murder occurs.

Now news reports indicate Weise, who murdered nine in Red Lake, Minn., before turning the gun on himself, had been suicidal and was committed to a mental hospital. He began taking an antidepressant last summer, and his dosage had been increased a week before the shootings, according to the New York Times.

In 2003 Britain banned antidepressants for use in children and adolescents, and last year Health Canada issued a stern warning about these drugs, noting "clinical trial and post-marketing reports (of) ... severe agitation-type adverse events coupled with self-harm or harm to others."

This year, the Food and Drug Administration has mandated a black-box label on antidepressants warning of the potential for increased suicidal thoughts and behavior with children and adolescents. Yet, as Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, has said: "Journalists continue to be beguiled by speculative scientific hypotheticals which psychiatrists discuss as though they have been proved. Misinformation is transmitted to the public about unproven 'chemical imbalances' in the brain of depressed people - - when, in fact, no evidence exists demonstrating any chemical or structural brain abnormality in people diagnosed with a mental illness."

Indeed, the papers are full of quotes of psychiatrists claiming that depression is a serious medical disease caused by a serotonin imbalance in the brain. But no conclusive scientific evidence exists to support this theory. In "Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health" (Free Press, 1998), neuroscientist Eliot Valenstein says, "Although it is often stated with great confidence that depressed people have a serotonin or norepinephrine deficiency, the actual evidence contradicts these claims. It is not now possible to measure norepinephrine and serotonin in the brains of patients."

Not surprisingly, psychiatrists have never developed any physical test to detect depression or any mental illness, and all diagnosis is done based solely on symptoms. In other words, antidepressants and all other psychiatric medications are not in fact being prescribed to treat bona fide diseases.

Yet, whenever anyone criticizes the drugs, psychiatrists shout about the increased risk of suicide if patients stop taking their antidepressants, despite the fact that no antidepressant has ever been tested on suicidal patients and therefore never approved by the FDA as safe and effective in preventing suicide.

President Bush included an unprecedented call for mandatory mental-health screening of schoolchildren in his recent budget. Violating the rights of parents to just say "no" to psychiatric diagnosis and treatment of their children, this idea originated in the president's New Freedom Commission.

According to a study last year in the Lancet, U.S. psychiatrists, pediatricians and family practitioners wrote 11 million prescriptions for antidepressants for children in 2002. All the signs indicate this method of dealing with our children is not working. It is high time for both parents and schools to find a different method of dealing with troubled children. To paraphrase Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," the fault is not in our children's brains or genes, but in ourselves. It is to our own treatment of children that we must look to find an answer to their problems -- and ours.
San Francisco Chronicle, 30th March 2005

CHR International (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) has been working to expose the link between violence/suicide and psychiatric drugs since 1991 when it first testified before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
www.cchr.org

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: I applaud the drive to expose this criminal drugging up of our children, not forgetting the routine treatments given to the elderly in care homes. Psychiatry has grown bloated with profit over the misery of those who trusted it to help them with their problems. For a full, damning indictment of psychiatry and the 'mental health' industry, please obtain a copy of my award-winning book, The Mind Game, which goes into detail about the myth of 'mental disease' and what you can do about it.

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.

The Fluoride Action Network

VICTORY!

Dear All,

Mandatory Bill Fails in Arkansas
In hopefully what will be a good omen for other states confronted with mandatory fluoridation (NJ, Nebraska, Oregon and Massachusetts) the bid to introduce mandatory fluoridation in Arkansas failed. While a stealth move succeeded to get this passed in the House, today it was rejected by a Senate Public Health committee.

Congratulations to all our fabulous fluoridation fighters Arkansas and thanks to the newspapers - particularly the Texarkana Gazette - who expressed outrage at this undemocratic effort.
Paul Connett, 30th March 2005
http://www.fluoridealert.org or http://www.fluorideACTION.net

Fluoride Bill Fails in Committee

Little Rock, AR (AP) - The buck stopped Wednesday for efforts to mandate water fluoridation in larger Arkansas communities. Supporters fell short of a majority in the Senate Public Health Committee for the bill that would require communities of 5,000 or more to put fluoride in their water systems.

Supporters say fluoride is safe, economical, and effective in fighting tooth decay and other oral problems, especially in children. But opponents questioned the effectiveness of fluoride and said residents in the communities should have the right to choose what they have added to their water. The bill failed on a voice vote and sponsoring Representative Tommy Roebuck says he will NOT bring the bill up again.
The Democrat from Arkadelphia is a dentist.
FAN CAMPAIGN Bulletin #195:
http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0305/217087.html

Yet Another Reason Why MS Drugs Harm Your Health

Multiple sclerosis (MS), an auto-immune disorder that causes blurred vision, weakness and memory loss, affects more than 1 million people worldwide. And just like other MS "wonder drugs," Biogen Idec's Avonex has been linked to critical, potentially fatal, side-effects. Together with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Biogen has issued a warning that Avonex could cause severe liver damage to MS patients.

A statement posted on the FDA's web-site further stated that the drug has, in some cases, been found to cause liver damage in the presence of other drugs linked with hepatic (liver) injury.

But this isn't the first time Biogen has experienced product pitfalls: Two cases of an unusual, but deadly, infection of the central nervous system occurred in patients taking Avonex in juxtaposition with Tysabri - already pulled from the market - for over two years. To say the least, Biogen's stock continues to crash and burn.

Beta-Interferon Drugs Responsible for Liver Problems
Avonex is an injectable medicine known as a beta-interferon drug, which blocks the immune system's white cells from attacking the protective coating that surrounds nerve fibers. Other beta-interferon drugs rivaling Avonex include:

Pfizer's Rebif
Schering's Betaseron

In defense, a Biogen spokeswoman explained that liver trouble has been found to be a side effect among all drugs in the beta-interferon class, and that the warnings pertaining to Avonex are not a product-specific case. Both Rebif's and Betaseron's labels contain warnings pertaining to potential liver problems. Avonex's label is schedule to reflect revisions soon.
ABC News March 16, 2005

DR JOSEPH MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Yet another crystal clear example of how detrimental drugs can be to your health. Drug solutions are rarely ever the best bet for disease but that is especially true for MS. Additionally with MS, most drugs are quite expensive and typically cost well over $1,000 per month.

And as noted in the above article, Avonex, like other MS drugs, is an interferon. Interferon drugs have the power to damage brain functions and are among the conventional medications that may harm or even kill their users. If you are not familiar with the danger of interferon drugs please read Dr. Russell Blaylock's excellent article titled, The Harmful Brain Effects of Interferons.

I have rarely found interferons to be effective in treating MS and have never prescribed it. Even though it has the appeal of a "natural" therapy, it really isn't because it is forcing the body to some unnatural level of interferon, which is unlikely to be anything but randomly associated with the optimal level.

Additionally, your body has a dynamic intricate feedback loop that constantly modulates and adjusts important biochemistry like interferon. Once you remove the feedback loop out of the circuit you are simply asking for trouble. Generally a prescription for interferon is a prescription for potential disaster. Depression is a common side effect of interferons and is the last thing someone with MS needs.

Treat MS With Safe Alternatives Instead
I used to cringe when a new MS patient would come to my office, as the tools I had 10 years ago were not sufficient to significantly alter the course of the disease. However, since then I have learned that there are a number of very effective natural treatment options for improving MS and, in many cases, eliminating it entirely. With these new tools I welcome MS patients in the practice, as I am confident that the vast majority can be improved:

It is imperative to have your vitamin D blood levels checked. I would check the level every month or two until the level was between 45 and 55. Believe me, it is worth the hassle, time and expense to get this one right as vitamin D clearly is vital in the treatment of MS.

MS patients must receive adequate amounts of vitamin D, as it keeps your cell growth and activity in check. Although sunshine is still your best natural source of vitamin D you can consume a high-quality cod liver oil.

Fish oil and cod liver oil are also loaded with beneficial omega-3 fats like DHA and EPA. These are also critical in the treatment of MS. You may not need any supplemental vitamin D in the form of cod liver oil, but virtually every single MS patient needs a high-quality fish oil once their vitamin D levels have stabilized with sun exposure.

In my experience with MS patients, there is nearly always a precipitating traumatic emotional event that causes the immune system to crash. Issues related to this event need to be addressed by using an effective energy psychology tool like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), but only with the help of an experienced practitioner.

Removal of heavy metal toxins like mercury.

Like most diseases, the earlier in the course of the illness you start treatment, the higher the likelihood of success will be. Thus, start utilizing the resources above and experience the benefits for yourself!
Healthy News You Can Use, 2nd April 2005
issue #625 www.mercola.com

Related Articles:
Amazing Recovery From Multiple Sclerosis
MS Drugs 'a Waste of Money'
Doctors Finally Recognize They Need to Hold Off on MS Drugs

Letter from Dominic Grieve MP
Shadow Attorney General
17th March, 2001

Dear Mrs G-F,

Thank you for your email of 14 March concerning mobile phone masts and the Private Members Bill that has been brought forward by Andrew Stunnell MP.

I am extremely concerned about telecommunications masts and the planning system. A far greater number of masts have been constructed than was originally anticipated. These masts pose a far more serious threat to the environment now than when planning policy concerning telecommunications was first drafted to kick start the industry twenty years ago. The Government is not doing nearly enough to deal with genuine environmental and health concerns, despite the recommendation of caution from an independent panel of scientists, nor to allow local authorities to deal with the concerns of local people. Furthermore, the government is not reacting quickly enough to the mast erecting fever of some of the mobile communications companies.

My Conservative colleagues and I have been campaigning for a long time on the issue of mobile phone masts. We have sought to represent interests of local residents and address the feelings of powerlessness and frustration experienced living under the threat of badly sited masts. The Conservative Party has put forward a clear Action Plan, setting out how we would deal with these problems. We believe that planning guidance should be substantially altered to provide a better balance between the environment and commercial concerns, and to take greater account of the opinions of local people. Under our Action Plan, all mobile phone mast developments would require full planning permission under a single process for all types of masts, health concerns would be taken into account, and new mast developments would not result in unacceptable damage to the landscape.

Several Conservative Members of Parliament, such as Richard Spring, David Amess and Eric Pickles, have brought forward Private Members Bills on this issue in recent years. Each time, however, the Government has blocked the passage of these sensible and popular pieces of legislation by not allocating enough Parliamentary time. I fear that this will be the fate of Andrew Stunnell's Bill.

If action is to be taken on protecting local communities from poorly-sited mobile phone masts, therefore, there will need to be a change of government, as it is clear that Labour will not change the planning law.

Unfortunately I will not be present in the House this Friday as I have constituency engagements and my weekly surgery. There is in any event no prospect of Andrew Stunnell's Bill becoming Law. However, I can assure you that the next Conservative Government will take forward our action plan on mobile masts and offer the protection that people so badly want and need.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,
Dominic Grieve MP

Rebuttal to Seriously Confused Soy Enthusiast

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

This below inflammatory letter has been circulating the Internet attempting to discredit the research on the harmful effects of soy completed by Dr. Russell Blaylock and myself.

In his book, 'Prescription for Nutritional Healing," Dr. James Balch says this about glutamic acid, one of 28 amino acids:

"L-glutamic acid (or glutamate) increases firing of neurons in the nervous system. It metabolizes sugars and fats, and detoxifies ammonia when used with L-glutamine. This amino acid also helps correct personality disorders. Besides glucose, glutamic acid is the only compound used for brain fuel. The brain converts glutamic acid to a compound that regulates brain cell activity."

Some misinformants claim that soy is dangerous because it contains glutamic acid. The doctor putting out the greatest amount of disinformation on that subject is Russell Blaylock, author of "Excitotoxins." Dr. Blaylock is right on about his criticism of Aspartame, the artificial sweetener. Aspartame (Nutrapoison) has three components: Phenylalanine, Methanol, and Aspartic Acid. Blaylock (and other poorly informed physicians like him, including Mercola) believe that aspartic acid is poison. What ignorance.

Both Mercola and Blaylock are meat-eating dairy-consuming ignoramuses. That is their choice, of course, but their obligation, having taken the Hippocratic oath, is to disseminate truth, not lies. To eat chicken and not tofu because of the glutamic acid "threat" is to consume nearly six times the amount of glutamic acid. To Dr. Blaylock: Knock, knock. Wake up and climb upon the bandwagon of truth.

Having done research to determine the level of glutamic acid in various portions of food, let me share the facts with you.

One portion (100 grams) of human breast milk contains 0.17 grams of glutamic acid. Just for the record, a 100-gram portion of soymilk contains almost four times the amount of glutamic acid as does breast milk, 0.64 grams.

Both Blaylock and Mercola label soymilk as being dangerous because of that relatively high amount of glutamic acid. Take note that a 100-gram portion of tofu (Mori-nu silken soft) contains 0.80 grams of glutamic acid.

Both Blaylock and Mercola are cheeseheads, and continue to eat large amounts of fish and chicken. If their claim that soymilk is bad because it contains four times the amount of glutamic acid as does human breast milk, conclude what you will about their advice after reading the amounts of glutamic acid in hundred-gram portions of animal products:

human milk = 0.17 grams
soy milk = 0.64 grams (3.8 times that of human milk)
soft tofu = 0.80 grams (4.7 times human milk)
broiled salmon = 3.23 grams (19 times)
broiled steak = 3.35 grams (19.7 times)
broiled chicken (white meat) = 4.63 grams (27.2 times)
cheddar cheese = 6.09 grams (35.8 times)

One might assume that the brains of men like Dr. Blaylock and Dr. Mercola not have been compromised by internal secretions of aspartic acid. Instead, it is clear that these two poorly informed physicians have neurons and synapses ovedosed by copious amounts of assanine acid.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Below is the response Dr. Blaylock formulated addressed to the misinformed newsletter editor who made these false claims and accusations.

I must say your slanderous rantings are that of a 3-year old having a temper tantrum, not a reasoned discussion of the issues involved. You portray yourself as a "scientist," but I fail to see your credentials posted. I am a board-certified neurosurgeon, retired clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery, visiting professor of biology at Belhaven College and have written over 30 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I serve on the editorial board of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Journal of the American Nutriceutical Association.

My recent papers on the connection between excitotoxicity and fluoride neurotoxiocity, and autism and the Gulf War Syndrome have received praise from leading authorities in each of these areas of research. I am the co-developer of one of the most commonly used methods for removal of intraventricular meningiomas, for which I am given credit in all major neurosurgical texts, along with my mentor Ludwig G, Kempe, one of the most famous names in neurosurgery.

I have written three chapters in three medical textbooks as well as three nutrition books for the lay public, one of which you quoted, citing me as an expert in the field. I also do extensive study in the field of excitotoxicity.

Since you are now in the business of selling soy products and a soy-milk making machine, I can understand your concern for your financial future. That has nothing to do with science. If your reading public wants an excellent review of the dangers of soy I suggest they read Dr. Kaayla Daniel's newly released book- The Whole Soy Story.

Your rambling defense of soy safety falls far short of science for a number of reasons. Aspartic acid, which is a naturally occurring amino acid, that, despite your statement that it is an essential amino acid, is not. It can be synthesized from oxaloacetate and glutamate via transamination. What you and many of the defenders of excitatory amino acid safety cannot seem to understand, or refuse to understand, is that free amino acids act differently than those occurring in whole foods.

Digestion breaks most proteins into amino acids only at a very slow rate. I quote Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, page 794, "As a result the normal rate of absorption... (amino acid absorption is determined) by the rate at which they can be released from the proteins during digestion. For these reasons, essentially no free amino acids can be found in the intestine during digestion."

How Soy is Broken Down in the Body
When soybeans are processed, the excitotoxic amino acids (glutamate and aspartate) are not only released, they are concentrated. This is especially so in soy protein isolates and soy protein concentrates, which are used in soy milk. This means that your figures on the glutamic and aspartic acid contents are much lower than in fact exist in your product.

Olney and others have shown that human blood levels of glutamate increase as much as 20 times on glutamate-loading with concentrations found in such hydrolyzed proteins. These high blood levels are transferred into the human brain, especially under certain circumstances. Even in the completely normal brain, glutamate, asparate and other excitotoxins can enter the brain via the circumventricular organs, which includes the hypothalamus. As you certainly know, or should know, one of the most sensitive structures in the brain is the arcuate nucleus. It is easily destroyed by levels of glutamate found in hydrolyzed proteins and this has been proven in laboratory studies.

It is also known that the blood-brain barrier contains glutamate receptors and that free glutamate at these concentrations can open the barrier, allowing these high levels of glutamate freely to enter the brain.

It is also known that a multitude of conditions open the barrier, including strokes (both gross and silent), brain injury, brain tumors, certain pesticides, mercury, lead, autoimmune disorders (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc), radiofrequency radiation (cell phones), seizures, multiple sclerosis and infections. Anyone with these conditions should avoid products that contain high levels of excitotoxins, such as hydrolyzed soy products. This constitutes a large percentage of the population.

Soy Cautions for Pregnant Women and
Brain Development of Small Children
In addition, pregnant women should avoid such excitotoxin-containing products, since the placenta concentrates the glutamate, exposing the baby to much higher levels of glutamate than the mother. This has been proven. It has also been proven, that the baby's brain is 5 times more sensitive to excitotoxin exposure than is the adult brain and that humans are 4 times more sensitive than the next most sensitive animal species. And this is under the best of conditions.

It has been shown that inflammation dramatically increases the toxicity of excitotoxins on the brain, especially in small children. This means that any inflammatory condition, virus, bacterial infection or immune disorder, will increase a person's and especially a baby's risk of injury. Since the human baby's brain undergoes its most rapid growth and development from the last trimester of pregnancy through the first two years of life, it is most at risk from food-based excitotoxins, such as hydrolyzed soy.

A number of recent studies have shown that excess glutamate exposure during this period of "brain growth spurt" can alter the development of the child's brain, especially neuroendocrine, cognitive, behavioral and language functions.

Soy and its Link to the Growing Obesity Epidemic
I am sure many of your readers are not aware that one of the earliest findings during glutamate research was that newborn animals fed glutamate developed gross obesity. This has been repeated numerous times and is used in obesity studies. An international panel of neuroscientists cited this as a possible reason for the obesity epidemic in the developed world. With the dramatic increase in glutamate food additives and consumption of soy products, especially soy-based formula and soy milk by babies and small children, it is no wonder we are seeing this epidemic of childhood gross obesity and diabetes. Experimentally, glutamate exposure in these same doses can induce diabetes in animals.

Experiments have also shown that early exposure to glutamate can alter-permanently-the baby's vascular reactivity. This would have major implications in cardiovascular disease. Likewise, early exposure to higher levels of glutamate, equal to that of food-based excitotoxins, results in behavioral problems, endocrine disruption, increased susceptibility to seizures early in life and alterations in lipid profiles that increase the likelihood of cardiovascular disease later in life. In fact, newer studies have shown that elevated blood glutamate significantly increases free radical generation in the endothelial lining of blood vessels-the very mechanism that causes atherosclerosis.

Recent research has also shown that many tissues and organs in the body contain glutamate receptors and that overstimulation of these receptors can cause a number of clinical problems. For example, glutamate receptor stimulation of pulmonary tissues can result in bronchiospasm (as in asthma) and worsening of pulmonary function in those with lung diseases. The heart muscle and heart conduction system (AV and SA nodes) also contain numerous glutamate receptors. As I pointed out, the pancreas (ilets of Langerhans) also contains abundant glutamate receptors, and explains the resulting diabetes.

Other Reasons to Avoid Soy - The Soy/Chronic Disease Connection
Even more frightening is the recent discovery that glutamate greatly enhances the growth of a number of cancers, especially brain cancers such as the glioblastoma and malignant astrocytoma. Breast, lung and ovarian cancers have also been shown to spread and metastasize faster when glutamate levels are elevated. This has been proven and is beyond dispute.

We know that under certain conditions, glutamate toxicity is greatly increased, which includes low magnesium levels, deficient mitochondrial energy production such as hypoglycemia, mitochondrial disease, during aging, with all of the neurodegenerative disease (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ALS and most chronic diseases), during inflammation and when associated with other toxins-including mercury, lead, cadmium, aluminum, pesticides, fluoride and industrial chemicals. This would include tens of millions of Americans, who should be avoiding soy products.

While there is a lot more concerning excitotoxins, which can be found in my two books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills and Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, unfortunately, there is a lot more involved than just excitotoxins. Soybeans and especially their hydrolyzed and processed products, contain high levels of manganese, aluminum and fluoride, all of which are powerful cell toxins, especially for brain cells.

Recent studies have shown that when aluminum is combined with fluoride, which occurs very easily, brain levels of aluminum are doubled. Extensive research connects aluminum in the brain with most of the neurodegenerative diseases. When hydrolyzed as in soy milk, the fluoride and aluminum easily bind, forming neurotoxic fluoroaluminum compounds. The concentration at which this occurs in 0.5 ppm, a very small concentration. Fluoroaluminum compounds interact with G-proteins, which are common cell communication systems, especially in the brain and operate most of the glutamanergic receptors in the brain (glutamate receptors).

A Critical Study of Soy and its Effects on Brain Development
I would call attention to a most important study reported in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition in the year 2000. It describes a 25-year study of middle-aged individuals consuming a diet containing tofu, which found a strong association with brain atrophy and cognitive impairment and the consumption of this soy product. Brain atrophy was determined by MRI scans. In fact, low brain weight was seen in 12 percent of men consuming the lowest amount of tofu and 40 percent consuming the highest amount. This indicates a dose-response effect, making a stronger case of neurotoxicity.

I can go on forever with research and studies showing a significant danger of consuming large amounts of soy products, especially soy milk, but I have other things to do, like research processed food toxicology.

I would hope that this misinformed editor would in the future refrain from his temper tantrums and childish, slanderous name-calling. Neither I nor Dr. Mercola are idiots, morons or suffering from delusions. What we are not doing is making money selling soy products. I expect this response to appear on your web-site.
Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
Healthy News You Can Use 2nd April, 2005 Issue #626
www.mercola.com

Related Articles:
Soy: Is it Healthy or is it Harmful?
Soy No Help to Women With Heart Disease Prevention
Soy Formula May Stunt the Intestinal Growth in Your Baby
Soy Sales Slow for First Time Since 2001

Severe Doctor Shortage by 2020
May Increase US Lifespan

Finding convenient, quality healthcare may soon be a frequent problem among American citizens, as a severe shortage of available physicians in the United States has been predicted. Several new studies explain that with 79 million baby boomers reaching retirement age and demanding more medical care, the shortage will worsen save the nation starts producing more doctors.

In fact, unless action is taken soon, the nation will experience a projected shortage of 85,000-200,000 doctors come 2020.

According to the studies, the country needs to train 3,000-10,000 more physicians a year, which is up from the current 25,000, to meet the growing medical needs of the nation. However, seeing as though it takes 10 years to train a doctor, officials worry that is not enough time to prevent a drought. Particularly scarce are old-fashioned doctors, including:

General surgeons
Radiologists
Anesthesiologists

Major Contrast From 1994 Overabundance Prediction
The shortage is an extreme turn around from earlier predictions: In 1994 the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted an excess of 165,000 doctors by 2000, which is a far cry from current statistics. America has about 800,000 active physicians, which is up from 500,000 20 years ago; however, unless more medical students begin their 10-year training soon, the supply will begin to diminish within a decade, when doctors from the baby boomer generation retire in massive quantities.

What's more, even the American Medical Association (AMA)--the influential lobbying group for physicians--has deserted its long-standing position that an "over-supply exists or is immediately expected." Because of this earlier predicted glut of doctors, the United States stopped opening medical schools in the 1980s; it seems such predictions were made in error and are resulting in a negative effect on the country.

The Real Problem? Poor Distribution, Not Scarcity
Some medical policy specialists explain that the shortage scare of doctors in the United States is not an issue concerning too few doctors, but simply poor distribution of them. In fact, one critic claimed the problem stems from:
· More and more physicians taking care of fewer and fewer patients
· Doctors gravitating to high-paying practices, such as sports medicine and total body scans, that only serve the wealthy and well insured at the expense of Medicare patients and others
USA Today, 2nd March 2005

DR MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Last year I wrote an article on Why Death Rates Decrease When Doctors Go on Strike. It might be hard to believe, but the facts speak quite strongly.

Moreover, five years ago the Israel Medical Association went on strike for two months to protest against their treasury's imposition of a new four-year wage contract for physicians, which devastated Israel's funeral industry, as there was a dramatic fall in the death rate. This unplanned study is an amazing testimony as to the power of conventional medicine to accelerate the death rate.

The majority of conventional medicine is focused on using drugs and surgical band-aids rather than addressing the foundational causes of disease. This focus has actually caused the conventional medical paradigm to be the leading cause of death in the US. Wouldn't it be amazing if we could combine the best of conventional medicine, which is clearly the acute care emergency trauma medicine skills, with natural medicine?
www.mercola.com

A Dragon By The Tail
by Lisa Reagan. Thanks to Lujene G. Clark

On the eve of an historic, billion-dollar world vaccination campaign, a leaked transcript ignites questions of vaccine safety and research corruption.

Meanwhile, US senators fast-track a bill to protect vaccine manufacturers from litigation. With millions of lives at stake, and billions of dollars to lose, will a merger of philanthropy, big business and compromised science win an epic race between corporate agendas and medical ethics?

In this world exclusive report, byronchild Magazine exposes how the most powerful medical research bodies in the United States compromise their vaccine safety research for vested interests, as they assist in a global vaccine policy, while a bill looms in the background to protect it all.

On January 24, 2005 -- the same day the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) announced the receipt of $750 million for its historic world vaccination campaign -- seven US Senators introduced Senate Bill 3. The bill is an unprecedented act giving comprehensive liability protections to vaccine manufacturers, restricting Freedom of Information Act applications on drug/vaccine safety, and pre-empting states' rights to ban mercury from children's vaccines, all under the bill's official title: "Protecting America in the War on Terror Act of 2005".

Meanwhile in Texas, after receiving an internal transcript that allegedly proves the Institutes of Medicine's report denying a link between childhood vaccines and autism last year was "predetermined", a US District Court judge has ordered the world's "big five" vaccine manufacturers to "produce any and all documents relating to payments made to, or stock ownership" by the seventeen members of the IOM's Immunization and Safety Review Committee.

A court document submitting the IOM's leaked transcript as an exhibit in the first civil juried lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturers states the transcript proves the IOM committee "predetermined the necessity of not finding causality between vaccines and autism and/or neurological injury" in its official reports on the issue.

Judge T. John Ward also ordered the vaccine manufacturers to produce all communications with "members of the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Institute of Medicine, the Brighton Collaboration, or the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization relating to the issue whether the thimerosal contained in pediatric vaccines causes autism or other neurological disorders."

When the defendant's legal counsel balked at the amount of expense involved in producing such extensive documentation for the court, Judge Ward reassured the defense of their use for both defendants and plaintiffs alike of the more than 300 pending lawsuits "involving claims related to the use of thimerosal in pediatric vaccines" waiting to be tried in the US.

Vaccine manufacturers Aventis Pasteur, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth and Eli Lilly and Co. are cited as defendants in the lawsuit brought by the parents of a child who developed autism after receiving mandatory routine childhood immunizations.

The same IOM reports denying a link between vaccines and the country's autism epidemic have been used:

· to endorse standardized case definitions for Adverse Events Following Immunizations for "global dissemination";
· as justification for Senate Bill 3's sweeping provisions and protections;
as a cause for no further federal monies to be spent on research of the potential vaccine/autism link;
· as a reason to silence media inquiries into vaccine safety issues;
· and as a defense for dismissing over 4,500 petitions for vaccine injuries in a federal court.

Is it possible that a closed meeting transcript alleged as proof of a ploy to ignore vaccine risks, a near billion-dollar grant for a global vaccination campaign, emerging lawsuits for vaccine injuries, and a sweeping federal bill to protect vaccine manufacturers are unrelated? Is it possible that in spite of US Congressional hearings and reports citing widespread conflicts of interest between federal policy makers and the vaccine industry that Senate Bill 3 will defy the US Constitution's provisions for state and civil rights in order to shield vaccine manufacturers from liability?

And finally, how will a world vaccine policy influenced by allegedly "predetermined" safety reports implemented through a global alliance of international governments and vaccine manufacturers with a fund of billions headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, support or protect the health and human rights of targeted Third-World country peoples? History of the IOM's immunization and Safety Review Committee Insight to these questions may lie in the pivotal year of 1999, a year preceded by a decade of declining vaccine sales, major breakups within the manufacturing industry, increased requirements for routine childhood vaccines, a growing autism epidemic, and researchers and media reports questioning the safety of vaccines and their possible link to autism.

In 1999, as a US Congressional Government Reform Committee initiated an investigation into the rampant conflicts of interest between federal vaccine policy makers and manufacturers, a global rescue effort of the sinking vaccine industry began with the formation of GAVI.

Originally funded by Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates through his Seattle-based Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI's partnership of international governments and vaccine manufacturers salvaged lagging sales through an overhauled world vaccination campaign that placed GAVI, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, at the center of the reorganized alliance.

Also formed in 1999 were the international Brighton Collaboration and the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety.

Brighton's sole purpose was to create standardized case definitions for Adverse Events Following Immunizations for "global dissemination".

Brighton's steering committee members currently hail from the US FDA, CDC, and Aventis Pasteur, a vaccine manufacturer and federal lawsuit defendant.

Brighton's website does not include autism among its listed adverse events.

The WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has "concluded that there is currently no evidence of mercury toxicity in infants, children, or adults exposed to thimerosal in vaccines" and "that current WHO immunization policy with respect to thimerosal containing vaccines should not be changed."

The Brighton Collaboration has been cited as being "fraught with pitfalls and merges regulators and the regulated into an indistinguishable group."

"I am very concerned about the development of the Brighton Collaboration," stated US Congressional Representative Dave Weldon, MD, (R-FL) at an Autism One Conference in May 2004. "Particularly troubling is the fact that serving on the panels defining what constitutes an adverse reaction to a vaccine, are vaccine manufacturers. What is even worse is the fact that some of these committees are chaired by vaccine manufacturers. It is totally inappropriate for a manufacturer of vaccines to be put in the position of determining what is and is not an adverse reaction to their product. Do we allow GM, Ford and Chrysler to define the safety of their automobiles?"

In 1999, with GAVI's international partnership and Bill Gates' billions on the way to rescue the industry, the CDC hired the IOM's Immunizations and Safety Review Committee to examine multiple "vaccine safety challenges".

In its public report, the CDC specifically sited a 1998 British Lancet study recommending more research into a potential link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, negative press, public information vaccine conferences, the Rotavirus vaccine recall and seven congressional hearings questioning vaccine safety as impetus to employ the IOM.

However, the CDC's ability to objectively and fairly evaluate vaccine risks has been denounced by a three-year US Congressional investigation: "To date, studies conducted or funded by the CDC that purportedly dispute any correlation between autism and vaccine injury have been of poor design, under-powered, and fatally flawed. The CDC's rush to support and promote such research is reflective of a philosophical conflict in looking fairly at emerging theories and clinical data related to adverse reactions from vaccinations. The CDC in general and the National Immunization Program in particular are conflicted in their duties to monitor the safety of vaccines, while also charged with the responsibility of purchasing vaccines for resale as well as promoting increased immunization rates," states the Congressional report.

"They serve as their own watchdog, neither common nor desirable when seeking unbiased research," Weldon has stated in describing the CDC. "An association between vaccines and autism would force CDC officials to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who among us would easily accept such a conclusion about ourselves? Yet, this is what the CDC is asked to do," Weldon said.

When byronchild asked CDC spokesperson Curtis Allen for a copy of the contract that would detail the agreement between the IOM and the CDC, Allen stated that the contract would be available only in a heavily "redacted" or blacked-out format.

The IOM stated "no comment" to byronchild about the leaked transcript or its use in the pending civil court case.

On 11th January 2001, the IOM's Immunization and Safety Review committee gathered for its first organizational meeting in Washington, DC. It is this meeting's transcript that has been submitted as an exhibit by Waters and Kraus, a Dallas, Texas law firm.

Do Something About Autism Now!
Subscribe!
I would like to obtain full report

'I Am an Orthorexic'
by David McCandless

An obsession with healthy eating could be dangerous, doctors have warned. So what's it like suffering from orthorexia?

My family have accused me of having it. My friends suspect me too. After a brief resistance and some research, I'm ready to concede: "My name is David and I am mildly orthorexic."

Orthorexia nervosa is an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating. Unlike the related anorexia, sufferers are concerned not with quantity but with quality. It's not about feeling fat, but about feeling pure. Orthorexics exhibit an over-enthusiasm for eating pure and healthy food. In moderation, of course, this can be beneficial. In extremis, however, malnutrition, extreme weight loss and even death can result.

I'm not dying, but do I have it?

I mean who else can identify the nutritional value of a product at 20 paces? Who else keeps a log book of the calorific breakdown of all their meals?

Who else painstakingly coasts the shelves for produce that is organic, no added sugar, low in saturated fats, high in essential fatty acids, locally produced, packaged in biodegradable cellulose, with a big fat fair-trade cherry on top?

Me.

Orthorexia is a modern condition, as yet unrecognised by the medical profession. Studies are underway to see if it should be acknowledged. Dr Steven Bratman MD coined the term from the Greek "ortho" meaning accurate and has tracked a cluster of giveaway symptoms.

"Do you care more about the virtue of what you eat than the pleasure you receive from eating it?" he asks on his website. "Does your diet socially isolate you?"

Sunlight Diet
Excessive planning of menus in advance is also a symptom. So is experiencing guilt and self-loathing should the smallest particle of chocolate ever pass your lips.

So too is escalation. Orthorexics start small. Giving up caffeine here, a bit of tofu there. Before you know it, they've got a picture of the nutritionist, Dr Gillian McKeith, in their wallet and they're up a mountain, living off sunlight.

I'm not at this end of the spectrum yet - although the sunlight diet is tempting, if only for budgetary reasons. But I do have some of these symptoms. And one in particular: self-righteousness.

"Because it requires considerable willpower to adopt a diet that differs radically from the food habits of childhood and the surrounding culture," says Dr Bratman, "few accomplish the change gracefully. Most must resort to an iron self-discipline bolstered by a hefty dose of superiority over those who eat junk food."

Recently I was smugly able to ignore the Sudan 1 scare as I smugly don't eat processed food. I also, perhaps a little proudly, don't eat meat, nor non-organic produce.

Dr Bratman admits that after a year of his own extreme dieting he "regarded the wretched, debauched souls downing their chocolate chip cookies and French fries as mere animals reduced to satisfying gustatory lusts".

So why do I do this? Aside from puritanism, I obsess about my diet mostly because I enjoy it.

Better taste
There's something quintessentially hunter-gatherer about sourcing the best ingredients and foraging for healthy morsels among jungles of junk.

Searching for good food locally has proved time-consuming, but you do have friendly chats with grocers who take pride in their work, rather than clipped questions about reward cards with the teenage automatons who staff the supermarkets.

My Skin Has Never Looked Better
And as you start to become more inquisitive about what you eat, you make a startling discovery: good food tastes better.

My friends say my obsession is unhealthy, but how can it be? This anal, obsessive, over-researched, ultra-intellectualised honing of my diet will, I hope, allow me to live to 140 years of age, in perpetual youth and vigour, corpus mentis until multiple organ failure or an unnoticed bus does me in.

It's also about control. Headlines such as "Obesity epidemic", "Food scare" and "cancer-causing" show that in a seemingly out-of-control world, food has become yet another thing to bookmark under "fear". I can't control my life, but I can control what I eat.

Besides, orthorexia only becomes dangerous when it's taken to extremes and you become seriously underweight.

The test for any diet is of course its efficacy and I can happily report my skin has never looked better.

Broadcasting Beliefs
My energy levels have pleasantly plateaued, I'm shedding weight and - without going into too much detail - my visits to the bathroom are machine-like in their swiftness and efficiency.

Problem is, I've done so much simultaneously that I can't tell what's working and what's not.

I've cut out sugar. I've dumped dairy. I've stopped caffeine, which is a natural pesticide. Plants produce it to kill predator insects. The whole Western world is powered by insecticide.

Sorry, self-righteousness rising again.

Yes, while anorexics and bulimics shamefully hide their habits, orthorexics can barely restrain from broadcasting theirs. Thinking, talking and evangelizing about your diet for more than an hour a day to glassy-eyed friends is a sure sign of an unhealthy health food obsession. As is, perhaps, writing this article.
BBC News, 29th March 2005

From the Mailbag
Some comments from our new subscribers

"Health is a great way to learn about power and world order etc.. Brilliant! Really educational!" - Miss Aimee M-P, QLD, Australia

"Have attended some of Phillip Day's talks. Find them most interesting. Know many people who need to be converted to the Credence way of thinking. Thank you." - David McH, Buckinghamshire, UK

"Very well put together News Letter for a very worthy cause." - Michael & Vivienne F, Auckland, New Zealand

"The information given by CTM helps us as Living Food chefs and instructors to educate people about their inherent potential for vibrant health, so they can make conscious choices towards a healthier lifestyle. The CTM mission is totally in line with ours!" - Lydia M & Rene A, Bay of Islands, New Zealand

"Let's have a REAL community, not some sly, underhand push for domination!" - R S, Bedforshire, UK

"Most enlightening and worthwhile!" - Michael K, QLD, Australia

"Thank you so much. Third time I've heard you. So inspiring and life confirming - Please come back to us again soon!" - Fran V, QLD, Australia

"Was first of all introduced to this campaign by reading, World Without AIDS - very impressed." - Brenda G, Yorkshire, UK

"Excellent work! Keep it up." - Caitlin W, Yorkshire, UK

"Frank and I fully support your efforts both on the medical and the political fronts. Without the help of Jane Jones and yourself, I doubt Frank would still be alive today. We really appreciate your help and spread the word as much as possible. The video you gave each of us this week about the EU is even more challenging than the previous tape and we are showing it to as many people as possible." - Jackie B, West Midlands, UK

"I heard you speak in Oklahoma City. You were wonderful! Are you coming back to the States any time soon?" -Brenda K, Kansas, USA

"I was at your lecture on the 8th March at Dundee and was very impressed by it. Keep up the good work." - Margaret M, Angus, UK

"Thank you for the great work you are doing!" - Shona M, Falkirk, UK
"Gobsmacked! So amazed… utterly amazed. Lost my husband to cancer. Wish I had known about your books!" - Mrs Margaret R, Clydebank, UK

"I found the seminar very interesting. I have had many problems with my digestive system and suggested to my GP that changing my diet may help but was told it would make it worse! Thanks for opening my eyes." - Samantha McC, Lanarkshire, UK

"The truth will out! Thanks." - Denis D, Midlothian, UK

"I would love to be part of your CTM and learn about all the updates. I have asked friends who have been touched by cancer to join also…. Thank you for a most wonderful book, Phillip Day, I missed you when you were in Townsville last, thank you for giving hope to those who believe in themselves and not mainstream medicos." - Sharon P, QLD, Australia

"The world needs people like you more than ever. The fact is that, when money and power are concerned, we are all expendable. We need to make our voices heard. For the sake of lives, we need to take a stand now!" - Jo W, VIC, Australia

"A very necessary and important exercise - and particularly now that CAM (complementary alternative medicine) is entering the regulatory process where the public and medical profession need to be confident about our work. It's high time CAM practitioners and our work are taken seriously." - Edith M, Kent, UK

"Enjoyed Phillip Day's talk. Most interesting with humour brought into serious facts on food." - Jacinta D, Kildare, Ireland

"I am excited to receive more facts and info about health concerns and how to better look out for our families and personal being." - Theresa R, IN, USA

"Fantastic campaign - it's about time the truth is exposed!" - Karen L, NSW, Australia

"Wonderful presentation by Phillip Day! Well done on making it fun and enjoyable to learn and for having the passion for the truth." - Talia S, NSW, Australia