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

PD: I like the Hawaiian shirt.
ECLUB: Makes me look like Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now.
PD: Don't be ridiculous, Brian.
ECLUB: Last we spoke, you were in Oklahoma. Pleased to be home?
PD: Sam and I had a terrific time in the US as always. Not much time to cool our heels though. But, yes. Nice to be home.
ECLUB: The new Break Free tour is a blast. For the benefit of the newcomers, what are you focusing on?
PD: We're taking a hard look at choices, and how the media influences us, especially concerning health. A timely message considering the U.S. House of Representatives has just approved funding of a controversial new plan to screen all U.S. citizens for mental illness.
ECLUB: Oh, dear me.
PD: As I've often said, folks, 'If you think you're completely sane, you simply have not had enough tests yet.'
ECLUB: Perhaps now's the time to tell everyone you're not a big fan of psychiatry.
PD: Almost all psychiatric illnesses are complete frauds and do not take the patients' diet and lifestyle into account. Psyches are not trained in nutrition, preferring the drug approach. I can only view this coming US measure with grave misgiving. It paves the way for enormous mischief, through the irresponsible prescribing of dangerous medicines. The entire nation will look like Stepford inside five years. Most don't realise the extent to which we are influenced by psychiatric dogma. I consider psychiatry to be THE most dangerous, destabilising influence in society today. Education, justice, government, asylum, war… psychiatry permeates them all. The resultant woes are covered and referenced in some detail in The Mind Game. In this issue of EClub, I'm also covering The Great Childhood Maddening, excerpted from the book.
ECLUB: What else?
PD: Prince Charles gets a rollicking for some comments he's made supporting alternative approaches to treating cancer. Professor Baum in the British Medical Journal predictably commences his attack: "The power of my authority comes with knowledge built on 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer research. Your power and authority [Your Highness] rest on an accident of birth."
ECLUB: In other words, 'Bog off, Charles. Your brain is not as big as mine.'
PD: I applaud the Prince for the stand he takes on many things. The PC brigade (lobotomised and created in a factory by psychiatry) hates his guts. I have included Walter Last's excellent article on the delusional cancer industry along with the Charles article to vindicate the good Prince. Those considering cancer treatment are advised to go through it carefully and read my book Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth. As Professor Samuel Epstein has remarked: "What you don't know can hurt you."
ECLUB: What else?
PD: The UK's Gulf War Syndrome Inquiry has just begun. Don't hold your breath. The Iraqis will doubtless be blamed for it, along with everything else. There's some new data this month on epilepsy helped by sensible dietary changes…
ECLUB: Surprise, surprise.
PD: Macular degeneration is now being linked to an inappropriate intake of hydrogenated vegetable oils…
ECLUB: Surprise, surprise.
PD: There's an article on Parkinson's linked with bad water supplies. I've also included an excellent mainstream piece from the Irish Independent on the dangers of water fluoridation. Reverse osmosis is the way to go, in my view.
ECLUB: The news continues to spread.
PD: Professor Paul Connett and his Fluoridation Action Network should be supported by everyone. This week's success? Rotorua District Council in New Zealand voted unanimously against fluoridation. For those unfamiliar with the raging debate, please check out Fifty Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation. Sign up for the FAN newsletter too.
ECLUB: More on Steve Ransom's series on vaccination?
PD: As promised. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics is excerpted from the excellent Wake up to Health in the 21st Century. My Book of the Year, by the way.
ECLUB: Ah, at last, one you didn't write.
PD: You're as funny as measles, Brian.
ECLUB: More news, I see, on the weakening of organic standards in America.
PD: Yup. The Biotech boys don't want a bunch of tree-hugging whale-watchers denting their bottom line. The global move towards natural foods free of chemicals has hurt the industry. Certainly enough for George W's Billionaire Club to take the President on a round of golf to get the business sorted.
ECLUB: Before he bombs Iran.
PD: Shades of Big Pharma and their corporate coup d'état of the natural medicines industry.
ECLUB: What news on the EU front?
PD: The European Union is still expected to ban 300 safe nutrients and nutrient sources, along with a roster of herbs, from 1st August 2005. Looks like we'll lose our supplements unless Britain at least withdraws. Availability of the banned foods, if they are permitted at all, will be by prescription. Non-banned items are expected to be sold in health stores only in Recommended Daily Allowance amounts.
ECLUB: Are people waking up to the European Union?
PD: Europeans, even the French aristocrat Philippe de Villiers, are getting fed up with the Politburo-style interference, woeful hikes in taxation, and the clink-eyed, overarching corruption. In Britain, where most of us happily dwell on New Labour's political thorazine drip, it's just starting to penetrate that Tony Blair has signed us into a foreign governance. Now all separating Britain from her provincial future in a new United States of Europe is the tenuous bleat of a national referendum.
ECLUB: You're not hopeful?
PD: Blair's already said that if he loses, he'll go back to Gerhardt and Jacques and re-jig until he gets the darn thing through. One of the great psychological things about referendums is if you keep holding them, people eventually keel over in defeat and acquiesce. There has to be a major civilian effort at rebuttal. And this man needs to be out of power in a hurry.
ECLUB: What can we do?
PD: Dress him in your Hawaiian shirt and send him off with a delegation to Iran. Back to making those Break Free decisions again!
ECLUB: Good luck with the tour. Where's tonight?
PD: Home. Samantha says it's Friday.

French Referendum: Blair Can't Lose
by Toby Helm

France's decision to hold a referendum on the European Union constitution was greeted as "great news" by Tony Blair's supporters. Whichever way the vote goes it could help Mr Blair to avoid referendum defeat, they said.

If there is a No vote, they said, the EU would be thrown into such a crisis that the constitution would have to be renegotiated, slimmed down or shelved. This might mean a referendum would never be held in Britain. If the vote is won, it would give momentum to the Yes campaign in Britain and reinforce the argument about this country being 'isolated' if it rejects the document.

Mr Chirac's announcement followed complaints from the French Left that the constitution does not promote "social Europe" and workers' rights.

Downing Street said a British referendum would go ahead whatever happens in France or in any of the other seven nations where votes will be held.
The Daily Telegraph, 15th July 2004

CTM COMMENT: Spread the word to friends with The Real Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, a video documentary (PAL format only) which lays out the serious problems with the European Union and what you can do about it. Also, don't miss the two following incisive commentaries on the dangers of Britain's involvement with the EU:

Mission Impossible?
The Aristocrat Trying to get France to Reject Europe
by Kim Willsher

The aristocratic Philippe de Villiers is a man on a seemingly impossible mission: to persuade the French to turn their backs on the European Union, the institution they helped to found and have been at the heart of for more than half a century.

Last week, his dream became closer to reality when President Jacques Chirac finally announced he would hold a national referendum on the proposed constitution before the end of next year.

"I have my work cut out but in the next 18 months I will not stop. I will travel the length and breadth of France until I am exhausted on my feet to persuade people to vote no," Mr de Villiers, a French MP and former government minister, told The Sunday Telegraph. "The Europe of Brussels has no future. It is finished."

On his country-wide crusade, Mr de Villiers, 55, a staunch Catholic, royalist and Anglophile, will bear the words of one leading British Eurosceptic very much in mind.

"I had the very good fortune to meet Mrs Thatcher once in London," he revealed. "We talked about Europe and I remember very clearly what she told me. It was after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and she said, 'We have not escaped the totalitarianism of commissioners from the east to fall under the totalitarianism of commissioners from the west".

"It is true. The Europe of today is rigid, centralized, uniform and authoritarian."

The first step on Mr de Villiers's long road to convince the French to say "non" comes tomorrow when he will meet British Eurosceptics, including members of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Anti-Europe campaigners from Poland, the Czech Republic and Denmark are also expected to attend the meeting in Strasbourg. It aims to co-ordinate individual national "no" campaigns and to establish a Europe-wide anti-constitution bloc….

…."Everyone has the impression that the French are very Europhile, when in fact there is a very deep vein of anti-Europe feeling," he said. "The problem is that because France doesn't have a Eurosceptic media, unlike in the UK, there is no debate and people have no way of expressing this dissatisfaction."

For France's Eurosceptics, this is the first chance to rally anti-European sentiment since the national referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. It was only narrowly approved, with fewer than 51 per cent of voters in favour.

Since then, there has been a sense of growing disillusionment with the EU. France's failure to keep its economy within the Europe-wide Stability and Growth Pact has led to unpopular public spending cuts. The introduction of the euro has not led to the promised growth and increased employment and has, many believe, pushed up prices. In the recent European elections, Mr Chirac's ruling pro-Europe UMP party suffered a humiliating defeat, gaining just 17 per cent of the vote.

The constitution is also dividing political parties. Publicly the UMP party favours ratification but privately, backing for the constitution is far from unanimous. France's Socialist Party has yet to announce whether it will call for a "yes" vote, while some members have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the document.

Jean-Marie Le Pen's Right Wing Front National is opposed to it, while at the other extreme of the political spectrum, the Communist Party is also calling for a "no" vote.

Mark Croucher, of the UKIP, said that his party would work with the French "no" campaign but admitted he was not optimistic Mr de Villiers would succeed. "We will give them as much help and advice as they ask for, but it's for the French people to decide and not us."

"Undoubtedly what will happen in France is that there will be huge funds thrown into an official campaign pointing out the benefits of European membership, while the "No" campaign struggles on doing what it can without a great many resources. As a result, France is the country where we are least likely to see a fair referendum."

Mr de Villiers refuses to be beaten before he has even started. "I am campaigning to explain to the French that we already have a constitution - that of the Fifth Republic," he said. "There are plenty of other problems to sort out rather than replacing that constitution with new European rules which will establish a bureaucratic superstate."
The Sunday Telegraph, 18th July 2004

Brussels Wants to Scrap Rebate for Booming Britain
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Defying warnings from London of a veto, the European Commission yesterday proposed scrapping Britain's 20-year-old budget rebate and charging British taxpayers the biggest share of the bill for the European Union's mushrooming £660 billion budget.

Michaele Schreyer, the German budget commissioner, said Britain would have to pay most towards the EU's eastward expansion after vaulting up the wealth league with a "wonderful, magnificent, economic development" since the 1980s.

"We're reasserting the principle of solidarity," she said, although the main effect of her plan would be to switch the burden from Germany to Britain, which is now the richest of the big EU states with a per capita income of 111 per cent of the EU average in 2003.

The complex proposal would double Britain's total payments to Brussels by 2013 and drive up net contributions from around £3.5 billion to nearer 6 billion a year, according to Treasury estimates.

A Government spokesman dismissed the proposals as "ludicrous", saying they had no chance of surviving over the next 18 months of arduous negotiations.

"This proposal is a crude smokescreen by the Commissioner to divert attention from their bloated budget proposals," he said, referring to the commission's attempt yesterday to slip through a £35 billion increase in the EU's budget.

Even with the rebate, Britain is the second biggest net contributor overall. The new scheme would make matters far worse.

Chris Pattern, the external affairs commissioner, attacked the plan as "manifestly unfair" in a stormy meeting of the full commission yesterday. "I am deeply disappointed and concerned that the proposals will set back our ability to argue a positive European case in the UK," he said.

Instead of tackling the root causes of Europe's warped spending structure - chiefly the Common Agricultural Policy, which goes mostly to French and Spanish farmers -
the Schreyer proposals merely divide the rebate among other big contributors: Germany, Holland and Sweden.

The rebate was secured by Margaret Thatcher at the Fontainebleu summit in 1984 after a legendary bout of handbagging, capped by her words: "I want my money back".

At the time, Britain was paying twice as much as it got in return, though the British were then much poorer than the French and Germans. The picture has changed dramatically since then.

EU diplomats say Mrs Schreyer has been under heavy pressure from Berlin to axe the British rebate, which has acquired an almost mythical status in the German press.
The Daily Telegraph, 15th July 2004

Middle Class Face Council Tax Bombshell
by Patrick Hennessy

Council tax bills for well-off householders will almost treble following a shake-up of the controversial system to be announced by the Government this week.

A leaked draft copy of the long-awaited Balance of Funding Review, expected to be published on Tuesday, suggests that the eight council tax bands should be revamped in 2007, when a nationwide property revaluation takes place.

The Sunday Telegraph understands that ministers are keen to bring in two or possibly three new bands - one at the bottom of the current scale and the others at the top. If implemented, council tax bills for people living in the highest value homes would rise from their present level of about £2,300 to £6,200 in three years' time.

The aim is to see poorer households pay less tax, with the shortfall made up by bigger charges for those in higher-value homes.

A new system of rebates will also be brought in for house-holders who are either elderly or on benefit and entitled to discounts on their bills….

….The current system values homes according to 1991 property prices. The average band D property, valued at between £68,001 and £88,000 under the 1991 system, has seen its actual worth rise to between £155,127 and £200,750, according to data supplied by Halifax, the mortgage lender.

Under a similar revaluation, and using the 10-band model, supplied to the government review group by the NPI, the average council tax bill for a band D home would remain at its present current level of £1,167. Band D homes would be classed as those worth between £130,000 and £170,00. Those with homes valued at less would see their bills fall while those with homes valued at more than £170,000, would see them proportionally rise.

For the highest value homes, worth more than £620,000 at current prices, the average council tax bill would go up from £2,334 to £6,224. Those in homes between £310,000 and £440,000 would see bills rise from £1,949 to £2,982.

The new charges are expected to bite hardest in London and the South-East where property prices have boomed in the past few years. Such a move would prove difficult politically, however. Many householders, particularly pensioners have led protests against the rise in council tax.

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, whose department will publish the review, has come under fire for presiding over a regime that channels resources away from local authorities in the South East and towards "deprived" areas in the North West.

Caroline Spelman, the shadow local government minister, said: "Across the country, Council tax has soared by an average of 70 per cent since Labour came to power across all types of home. But worse is to come."

"The Government is clearly planning to use the 'Balance of Funding Review' and the revaluation to increase council tax further by stealth. This will punish pensioners and hard-working families who have lived in their homes a long time, the value of whose homes has risen but who are on modest incomes and cannot afford even larger tax bills."

A member of the Government review group said: "Many people have been enriched by the boom in house prices over the past few years. It is only fair that they should put something back into the system through higher charges."

Bringing in such a huge rise would represent a big political gamble for Labour, even if ministers could claim that less well-off households would have their bills cut under the plans.

This year the average council tax rise for a typical band D property was 5.9 per cent nationwide, and a record 12.9 percent last year.
The Sunday Telegraph, 18th July 2004

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Whoever is in favour of Britain's participation in the EU cannot any longer be unmindful of the fact that Britain is now simply being raided to fund the modernization of poorer Europe as well as ex-Soviet states.

At present, the EU is costing Britain around a staggering £1.3 million AN HOUR for no identifiable benefit to us not changing your money out when you go to Alicante. Oh, and Labour and Conservative's "We must be at the centre of Europe" mantra. Switzerland is at the centre of Europe geographically and this country has said a round 'Nein!' to the new EU Soviet, and for good reason. Switzerland is extremely solvent and wishes to keep things that way. The poorer nations, such as Greece, Portugal and Ireland are among the EU's staunchest supporters because they're having everything paid for (unfortunately by us). Now Britain's rebate is to be clawed back, look for that £1.3 million AN HOUR to double. To the British taxpayer, this will mean more taxes, more VAT on everything, further local council tax increases (local councils are now administered directly from Brussels), oh, and around 300 less vitamins and nutrient sources with effect from 1st August 2005 when the EU Federal Vitamin Polizei take over.

Fed up and want to know what you can do about it?

Spread the word to friends with The Real Face of the European Union, a video documentary (PAL format) which lays out the serious problems with the European Union and what Britons can do about it. Also, don't miss these two incisive commentaries on the dangers of Britain's involvement with the EU:

Ten Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
Vigilance by Ashley Mote

New US Mental Health Initiative Forwards
Psychiatry's Brave New World

EXTREMELY URGENT! ACTION ALERT!!!
The U.S. House of Representatives', Appropriations Committee, approved funding of the President's 'New Freedom Commission Initiative' that includes plan to screen all U.S. citizens for mental illness!

On July 14th, the House Appropriations Committee approved $20 million in new federal dollars to begin implementation of the plans set forth by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFC) to get every man, woman and child in America 'screened' for 'mental illness.'

This campaign for national mental health 'screening' will result in millions more Americans being diagnosed with fraudulent and unscientific mental 'disorders', and prescribed dangerous and deadly psychiatric drugs. Nationwide implementation of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health's plan is the beginning of a Big Brother, 'Brave New World' should the U.S. Senate agree with House to fund this.

More details about the plan and its dangerous consequences are at bottom of this report, but here is what all of us need to do: We, you, all of us, must tell Congress and the White House:

NO MENTAL SCREENINGS FOR AMERICANS AND NO FUNDING FOR THIS PLAN!

WHO TO CALL AND WHAT TO DO:
1) Call the White House: 202-456-1111
2) Call Speaker of the House, Rep. Hastert: 202-225-2976
3) Call the Senate Leader, Senator Frist: 202-224-3344
4) Call the House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner at 202-225-6205
5) Call the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Judd Gregg at 202-224-3324

Tell them you oppose any federal, state, or local plans for universal mental health screening. Tell them to STOP funding this New Freedom Commission on Mental Health plan in the Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

These calls are fast and brief. The aide who answers will take your message and forward it on. It's important that there are large numbers of calls, so please do this and get other to do so as well.

Additional actions to take:
1) Call your own Members of Congress (go to www.congress.org)
2) Alert your state legislators and oppose any school board initiatives to add psychiatric screening programs.
3) Support the Child Medication Act (S. 1390) currently stalled in the Senate by Senator Edward Kennedy - This legislation prohibits schools from coercing parents to place their children on psychiatric medications that are on the controlled substances list. Senator Kennedy, with large support from pharmaceutical companies, has not let this very modest proposal even receive a hearing, saying that it needs more study. Senator Kennedy (202-224-4543) as well as Senator Gregg (202-224-3324) the Committee chairman, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (202-224-3344) need to hear from the public.
4) Check to see if your state has a provision in state special education law that prohibits a school district from overriding parental refusal to submit their child to a special education or mental health evaluation. If yes, alert other parents, and if not, work for one.
Thank you for yout help on this urgent matter.
Peter Dockx
Government Affairs
CCHR International

MORE DETAILS:
The Commission based its entire findings on the definition of mental illness as defined by psychiatry's billing bible, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The methods of mental health 'screening' recommended by the New Freedom Commission are lists of arbitrary questions based on this DSM. If this 'sweeping mental health initiative' is implemented, millions more American's will certainly be diagnosed and drugged given the subjective diagnoses.

FACTS:
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health's report states that 'mental illnesses are shockingly common,' but neglects to address or even mention the fact that there is no medical or scientific means by which to diagnose mental 'illnesses.' Psychiatrists and mental health proponents promote psychiatric 'disorders' as a disease, or an illness that can be diagnosed in the same manner as real physical illness. This is a fraud. There are no blood tests, brain scans or chemical imbalance tests to validate any mental disorder as an illness or 'disease.' With no scientific/medical criteria to substantiate these claims, anyone could be diagnosed as mentally ill based solely on a checklist of behaviors.

The DSM contains hundreds of psychiatric mental 'disorders' which are a list of behavioral symptoms that are literally voted into existence and inserted into the DSM. Such diagnoses include 'Caffeine-Related Disorder,' 'Mathematics Disorder,' 'Disorder of Written Expression,' and the all-encompassing 'Phase of Life Problem.' These 'disorders' are simply a classification of symptoms that are drastically different from, and foreign to, anything in medicine.

The New Freedom Commission is blatantly promoting the coercive and manipulative tactics that have led to millions of children being falsely labeled with mental disorders in our public schools. Schools have become mental health clinics where children are diagnosed based on subjective questionnaires, instead of given proven educational solutions. This fact was substantiated by a report from the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, which found that 2.4 million children had been diagnosed with mental 'disorders' and placed in Special Education, when in fact these children had simply not been taught to read.

The issue of coerced child drugging in public schools has become so prevalent that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Child Medication Safety Act in May 2003, to prevent schools from forcing a parent to drug their child as a condition of attending school.

Due to psychiatric influence, parents have been reported to Child Protective Services and charged with medical neglect for refusing to give their child a psychiatric drug, such as those currently under investigation for causing suicidal reactions. Parents have been charged with 'medical neglect' for refusing psychiatric treatment - despite the fact that there is no scientific proof that there is anything medically wrong with the child.

In a recent report by Allen Jones, a former investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General (OIG), Bureau of Special Investigations, condemning the New Freedom Commission (NFC), he states, "Despite a nearly 500% increase in American children being prescribed mental health drugs during the past 6 years, the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health found that not enough adolescents are benefiting from mental health treatment. The NFC recommendations prominently call for mandatory mental health screening for all high school students, with follow-up 'treatment' as required - this means more kids on mind-altering and potentially lethal psychiatric drugs."

COMMENTARY
According to the British Medical Journal, a sweeping U.S. mental health initiative will be unveiled in July which proposes to screen every man, woman and child in America for mental 'illness.' The initiative was prompted by a March 2004 progress report put out by The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, a commission appointed by President George W. Bush and directed to advise the President on methods of improving the U.S. mental health system.

The progress report, entitled the New Freedom Initiative, makes it apparent that the Commission failed in its duty, and failed to advise the President on the real crisis in mental health - the psychiatric drugging of millions of Americans for spurious mental disorders, which have no scientific or medical validity. Amidst broad public concern that many of the antidepressants being prescribed to Americans are under federal investigation for causing suicidal reactions, the Commission's campaign for national mental health 'screening' - which will result in millions more Americans being prescribed these psychiatric drugs-is highly alarming and merits close inspection as to motives.

Here are the facts:

• The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health's report states that "mental illnesses are shockingly common," but neglects to address or even mention the fact that there is no medical or scientific means by which to diagnose mental 'illnesses.' Psychiatrists and mental health proponents promote psychiatric 'disorders' as a disease, or an illness that can be diagnosed in the same manner as real physical illness. This is a fraud. There are no blood tests, brain scans or chemical imbalance tests to validate any mental disorder as an illness or 'disease.' With no scientific/medical criteria to substantiate these claims, anyone could be diagnosed as mentally ill based solely on a checklist of behaviors.
• The Commission based its entire findings on the definition of mental illness as defined by psychiatry's billing bible, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM contains hundreds of psychiatric mental 'disorders' which are a list of behavioral symptoms that are literally voted into existence and inserted into the DSM. Such diagnoses include "Caffeine-Related Disorder, Mathematics Disorder, Disorder of Written Expression," and the all-encompassing "Phase of Life Problem." These 'disorders' are simply a classification of symptoms that are drastically different from, and foreign to, anything in medicine.
• To give an example of this so-called science, consider the following mental 'disorder' taken directly out of the DSM:

Billing Code Number 313.9
"Disorder of Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescents, Not Otherwise Specified"
(The entire diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM for this category is as follows)
"This category is a residual category for disorders with onset in infancy, childhood, or adolescents that do not meet criteria for any specific disorder in the Classification."

• The methods of mental health 'screening' recommended by the New Freedom Commission are lists of arbitrary questions based on this DSM. If this "sweeping mental health initiative" is implemented, millions more American's will certainly be diagnosed and drugged given the subjective diagnoses.
• Antidepressants are currently under federal investigation for causing suicidal reactions in patients. Between 1995 and 1999, the use of antidepressants for 7-to 12-year-olds increased 151% and 580% for children under six, with some as young as five committing suicide.
• The New Freedom Commission is blatantly promoting the coercive and manipulative tactics that have led to millions of children being falsely labeled with mental disorders in our public schools. Schools have become mental health clinics where children are diagnosed based on subjective questionnaires, instead of given proven educational solutions. This fact was substantiated by a report from the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, which found that 2.4 million children had been diagnosed with mental 'disorders' and placed in Special Education, when in fact these children had simply not been taught to read.
• The issue of coerced child drugging in public schools has become so prevalent that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Child Medication Safety Act in May 2003, to prevent schools from forcing a parent to drug their child as a condition of attending school.
• Due to psychiatric influence, parents have been reported to Child Protective Services and charged with medical neglect for refusing to give their child a psychiatric drug, such as those currently under investigation for causing suicidal reactions. Parents have been charged with 'medical neglect' for refusing psychiatric treatment - despite the fact that there is no scientific proof that there is anything medically wrong with the child.
• In a recent report by Allen Jones, a former investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General (OIG), Bureau of Special Investigations, condemning the New Freedom Commission (NFC), he states, "Despite a nearly 500% increase in American children being prescribed mental health drugs during the past 6 years, the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health found that not enough adolescents are benefiting from mental health treatment. The NFC recommendations prominently call for mandatory mental health screening for all high school students, with follow-up 'treatment' as required - this means more kids on mind-altering and potentially lethal psychiatric drugs."

The proposed model for a psychiatric 'treatment' plan recommended by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to be implemented on a nationwide basis is the "Texas Medical Algorithm Project" (TMAP).

In an extensive report (http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf)
Allen Jones reports that TMAP was funded by many of the manufacturers of the same antidepressant drugs that are currently under federal investigation. Coincidentally, these drugs are also the recommended 'treatment.' Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same pharmaceutical companies, while other members have direct ties to TMAP.

In describing TMAP, Jones states, "The industry needed to create an aura of legitimacy and a body of favorable data to advance its marketing aims."

"TMAP arose during a period of decreased Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight and vastly increased sophistication in pharmaceutical industry marketing practices. These practices aggressively pursued favorable public and professional 'opinion' through media promotion, and biased reporting of drug trial results."

Jones estimates that if TMAP were implemented nationwide, the annual costs to the Medicaid programs would be approximately 3.7 billion dollars per year to treat one psychiatric disorder alone. That is over ten million dollars per day just in Medicaid expenditures.

The vested interests of the President's New Freedom Commission in forwarding the mental health industry agenda is apparent, it increases the psychiatric industry's reach into society, and supports a multi billion dollar mental health industry. Of the 22 members of the Commission, 13 are either on or have been on mental health boards or associations which set mental health policy at the state or federal level, 11 were associated in some way with the implementation of the Texas Medical Algorithm Program (TMAP) in their states, four are psychiatrists and three are psychologists.

The U.S. Government must not support mandatory mental health screenings, or the increase of subjective psychiatric diagnosis of Americans requiring dangerous psychiatric drugs and other harmful treatments. In the 1950's, on the heels of the McCarthy era, psychiatric vested interests introduced a federal bill (H.R. 6376) which called for psychiatric facilities to be built in Alaska, and would have empowered any peace officer to involuntarily commit any individual to psychiatric care - without recourse. The person would then be shipped off to Alaska for mandatory confinement and 'treatment.'

The bill had already passed the House of Representatives before the grassroots efforts of thousands of alarmed citizens helped to defeat the bill in the Senate.

Now Americans must again act to protect their rights. Before it's too late. If this "sweeping mental health initiative" occurs, it will be the first step towards A Brave New World, where ultimate control would belong to the mental health industry. Anyone could be diagnosed as 'mentally ill.' Given the fact that there is no medical or scientific proof needed to make a diagnosis, how will anyone be able to prove that they aren't 'mentally ill' and don't need or want to be drugged?

The first step towards this Brave New World is mandatory mental health screenings. Once all Americans are 'screened' it won't be long before psychiatry demands mandatory drugging for all their new 'patients.' And finally, if people refuse the recommended 'treatment'…, there's always Alaska.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Further Resources
To discover the truth about the so-called 'mental health' industry and the damage it daily wreaks in our society:
The Mind Game by Phillip Day

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

Dietary Hope for Epilepsy Sufferers
by Marcella MacEvoy

Health experts have found that a special diet treatment has dramatic benefits for epileptic children, ITV1's Tonight with Trevor McDonald programme reveals this evening [Monday] at 8pm. Preliminary results from researchers at Great Ormond Street Hospital [GOSH] have shown 42 percent of epileptic children who were following a Ketogenic diet for three months to have a greater than 50 percent reduction in seizure frequency with 19 percent reporting a reduction in seizures of 75 percent or more.

Paediatric neurologist Dr Helen Cross of GOSH in London led the research. She tells Tonight: "Following these results, we hope the Ketogenic diet will be recognised as an established alternative treatment for any child with challenging and resistant epilepsy. If the diet was introduced more widely across the UK it could have huge benefits in the future by reducing the need for medications in children with difficult epilepsy. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of departments in the UK who have the expertise and resources to deliver it."

The groundbreaking two-year medical investigation reveals that doctors were able to reduce the anti-epileptic medication in 42 percent of the children after three months on the diet and parents reported improvements in alertness, awareness and responsiveness in 75 percent of the children studied. Tonight explains the results in full and closely follows the amazing stories of three children with epilepsy who - with the help of their families - are following the diet in an effort to overcome their symptoms.

The study also involves the Institute of Child Health [ICH], The National Centre for Young People with Epilepsy [NCYPE] and the Central Middlesex Hospital. All centres are involved in the treatment of drug resistant epilepsy. The Ketogenic diet is a high-fat, low carbohydrate dietary alternative to drugs which can dramatically reduce or end seizures in children with severe epilepsy. There are two different diet types - Classical and Medium Chain Triglyceride [MCT] - experts do not know which is more effective.

Each family taking part is given a diary for recording their child's seizures. They also complete regular questionnaires on the child's mood, alertness and overall behaviour. They are monitored regularly by a dietitian and paediatrician who check growth, overall health, epilepsy symptoms and decide if there is any need for change in dietary prescription and epilepsy medication.

Sarah Laslett had her first seizure in October last year and within weeks she was having up to 70 seizures a day. Sarah's seizures were so violent that she had to wear a special helmet with a visor to protect her from serious injury. Sarah's mum Alex tells Tonight: "It was completely horrendous and I think I had got to the point where I was going to need some kind of anti-depressant….I can hardly bear to think about it… I would have flown to the moon to find her a cure."

GOSH decided to take Sarah on and almost immediately the seizures reduced.
Says Alex: "For Sarah it's been a complete miracle. She's gone from suffering everyday, numerous injuries to leading the most wonderful, happy normal life. All she wants to do is make up for lost time and play. Sometimes I can't keep up with her, she's racing around everywhere."

Six year-old Francesca Winful, from London, has also had great success on the diet. She had her first seizure when she was a two year-old toddler in October 1999. Over the following year her seizures increased and she was given medication. The drugs were ineffective and her seizures increased to between 60 and 70 a week, varying in type and severity.

Her mother Wendy tells Tonight: "It got to the point where she [Francesca] had a seizure at the top of the stairs and came tumbling down; it was a 999 job and those situations you can't deal with." Francesca began the Classical diet in September last year. Cameras follow her adapting to the new food and being monitored closely by medical experts. After two months the diet begins to work and Wendy talks to reporter Linda Duberley.

"She is so much more alert, much more responsive," says Wendy. "Last week she had six seizures - she used to have twice that in a day - but it [the diet] is quite hard work…much harder than I imagined. Francesca will now answer much more quickly, she told a joke the other day and that was fantastic. She's never done that before. She is generally aware of what she sees around her, she's seeing things that six months ago she wouldn't have seen."

Francesca is now totally drug free and has no major fits at all. She has been a real success story for GOSH although they accept the diet does not work for every child. Six year-old Matthew Williamson, from Devon, has struggled with the diet. Like Francesca he was diagnosed with epilepsy when he was two and prescribed drugs. His mother Nicola says the medication had a terrible effect.

"Matthew used to say that he saw a mouse in the corner of his room all the time… spiders crawling up his arms and flies. It's quite hard between three and four [years-old] to see that a child is hallucinating until you talk to other parents and realise their children are going through the same thing."

At five, Matthew was referred to GOSH and embarked last September on the MCT Ketogenic diet. After three months Nicola tells Tonight the difficulties she has experienced on the specialised diet. "Early on in the diet Matthew was irritable, very grumpy, he'd be tired and was screaming. He was having tantrum after tantrum. The other low point was the school sending him home because he was too naughty. But I am optimistic, I am his mum. I have to be sure that we keep going. I don't know whether Matthew will be seizure free but I am still hoping."

Although Matthew still has seizures, he is now totally drug free. "Matthew knows all his colours now like a normal child," Nicola says. "He's learning his letters and beginning to read short words. He is still very far behind but he's a teachable child. Health wise, he rarely complains of headaches, his eyes are bright, he is bouncy, happy and chatty - much more like a normal boy. He's making friends…before he was just a strange little boy in the playground but now he has friends and that's what anyone wants for their child."

Dr Cross adds: "The findings of our study demonstrate that the diet does actually work - often with dramatic effect - to reduce seizures. The main question now is to find out if there is any difference between the diets."

A typical breakfast on the Classical diet might include double cream, egg, butter and a small portion of fruit or vegetables, whereas - on the MCT diet - more starchy carbohydrate is allowed, for example a small serving of cereal or bread. On the MCT diet a supplement is needed which can be mixed into milk or food. This is a concentrated source of MCT fat and is available only on prescription.

Lunch and dinner might include a protein source, such as meat, fish or cheese, a serving of fruit or vegetable and fat in the form of butter, double cream, oil or mayonnaise, plus the MCT supplement if on the MCT diet. Snacks are allowed if they suit the child's eating pattern although they do tend to look smaller than normal, as fat provides more calories per gram than carbohydrate or protein. These may be a ketogenic diet 'cake', or a drink made up of milk and cream or milk and the MCT supplement.

In the GOSH study, the children have been randomised to receive either the classical or MCT Ketogenic diet. They were also randomised to either start the diet immediately [after 4 weeks of baseline seizure recording] or to wait an extra three month 'control' period before starting.
Recruitment for the study is ongoing, aiming for a total of 120 children. To date 79 children have been enrolled, of whom 73 have started the diet and 50 have been on the diet for three months or longer. The results were taken from a preliminary analysis of 31 children who had been on the diet for at least three months.

The diet is not effective for every child and although it has been used over a long period of time, the exact way it works is not known. The ongoing study is working to establish further the basis of its anti-epileptic effect. GOSH stress that the diet can only be carried out under medical and dietetic supervision. The diet is only suitable for children with drug-resistant epilepsy. All parents wanting their children to go on the diet will need a referral letter from their local paediatrician, who will assess whether the child is a suitable candidate.
Press Release from The Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children
www.gosh.nhs.uk

The Great Childhood Maddening
by Phillip Day

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, towards our elected officials, towards his parents, towards a belief in a supernatural being, and towards the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well - by creating the international child of the future." - Psychiatrist Chester M Pierce, Harvard University, addressing teachers at a 1973 Childhood International Education Seminar

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson

"If you tolerate this, then your children will be next."
- The Manic Street Preachers

The sleepy September day in Greenwood, South Carolina, meanders peacefully as James Wilson loads the small .22 calibre shells into his rifle and works the bolt, driving the first tiny bullet into the breach. Minutes later the 19-year-old walks into the elementary school cafeteria and begins shooting screaming children and a teacher, before working his way through the school, systematically selecting his targets. He kicks open the door to a girls' restroom, where he shoots another teacher, moving next to a third-grade classroom, where he shoots more children. Two children die and seven are wounded in the killing spree.

James' senseless and chillingly unemotional act shocked the world. How could someone do such a thing? Schoolyard shootings, increasingly bizarre and horrifying street murders and drug violence had been increasing since the 1970's in America, and people were at a loss to know why. Wasn't there something other-worldly, frankly demonic, about such a scene of carnage, set in the heart of one of the safest zones in society - our schools?

THE CIRCUS SPECTACLE
Violence in society is of course nothing new. Back in Nero's day, the popular sport was setting light to Christians or watching them torn apart by wild animals in the arenas. Hangings, impalings, crucifixions and various executions down through the ages drew large crowds. The French Revolution was extremely popular for those women who used to knit in front of the guillotine, making their garments all the while experiencing the bloody executions of unfortunates right before them. Yet, although violence perpetrated by rulers in the past was ubiquitous, it is interesting to note that private citizens were generally not taking each others' lives the way we are seeing today, even though the weapons to do so were widely available. In America during the '40's and '50's, for example, guns were still commonly owned, even as they are today, yet school shootings and road rage incidents were unknown. The concept of right and wrong prevented explosions of personal violence in the main, and punishment was swift and harsh for those who disobeyed the law.

But today, four decades after 'progressive education' was introduced into classrooms aimed at eroding this same concept of right and wrong, everything has changed. When examining shooting incidents like James Wilson's, we can note some common denominators:

· Often the shooter has given warning signals of impending violence
· The shooter has previously displayed evidence of a blurred understanding of right and wrong
· The shooter often commits suicide after the event
· The shooter has a history of psychiatric drug treatment
· The incidents occur in societies where psychiatric drugs are commonly prescribed
· These psychiatric drugs themselves have an extremely well documented history of altering perceptions, inciting hostility and violence, and dissipating inhibitions

James had been taking psychiatric drugs for years, prescribed to him by Greenwood psychiatrist Willie Moseley. These included Xanax, Valium, Vistaril, Mellaril, Thorazine, Tofranil and Halcion. James Crossen, program director of the Chemical Dependency Recovery Unit at the Medical Center of North Hollywood, California, gives his considered opinion on what could have caused the 1988 shootings to happen: "That that young man should have been on drugs all his life, since he was fourteen, is ghoulish. The drugs would be a major contributing factor in such a surprising and sudden act of violence - a major contributor."

Four months after James' rampage, Patrick Purdy, 26, entered a Stockton, California schoolyard and opened fire, killing five children and wounding 29 more, including a teacher, before killing himself. Purdy had an extensive psychiatric drug history.

Two years previously, on 20th November 1986, 14-year-old Rod Matthews had gone on the rampage in Canton, Massachusetts, beating a classmate, Shawn Ouillette, to death with a baseball bat in the woods near his home. The academically gifted Matthews had been taking the psychiatric drug Ritalin since he was nine, and was withdrawing from his medication at the time of the killing. Matthews had told a teacher in the weeks before the killing that he had an urge to kill somebody. The teacher had merely replied that murder was a felony.

Nine months previously, young Timmy Becton, aged 10, had used his 3-year-old niece as a shield while wielding a shotgun at a sheriff's deputy, who had visited the Becton residence with a truant officer. "I'd sooner shoot you than go to school!" Timmy reportedly yelled. The month before, he had been taken to see a psychiatrist to help him with his hatred of school. The psychiatrist prescribed Prozac. His parents described that their son had suffered personality changes when the dosage of the drug was increased. They reported violent mood swings, during which Timmy would get 'really angry'.

The first of the school shooting incidents had occurred on 20th May 1988, when Laurie Dann, 30, walked into a school in Winnetka, Illinois, with three handguns and opened fire, killing one and wounding five. Laurie then fled the school and killed a man in a house nearby before committing suicide.

In 1995 in Illinois, Brian Pruitt, 16, fatally stabbed his grandmother in her bedroom and then laid in wait, killing his grandfather when he returned home. Brian had a history of psychiatric drug treatment.

In July 1996, two boys, aged 15 and 16 stabbed a high-school student after they had been taking sedatives, which they later told police made them feel 'invincible'.

In 1997 in New Jersey, Sam Manzie, 15, attacked and raped 11-year-old Eddie Werner, who had called on the Manzie home selling items door-to-door for the local PTA. Sam strangled Eddie with an electrical cord after the assault, photographing him with the cord still wrapped around his neck. He then threw away his victim's clothes and possessions in a rubbish bin next to the psychiatric facility where he had been receiving regular treatments, including the drug Paxil. His mother reports that Sam had told her: "I wasn't killing that little boy, I was killing [my psychiatrist] because he didn't listen to me."

On 25th May 1997, 18-year-old Jeremy Strohmeyer raped and murdered a 7-year-old girl in the ladies' room of a casino one week after commencing the drug Dexedrine.

On 21st May 1988, 14-year-old Kip Kinkel began his brief rule of terror. Kip's problems began when he was diagnosed with dyslexia and placed on Ritalin. His problems persisted. He attended 'anger control' classes and was additionally prescribed Prozac. Kip later went bezerk, entering his Springfield, Oregon high school and opening fire, killing two and injuring 22. He had also shot both his parents to death.

On 20th July 1987, two horrified parents walked into their garage to find their 16-year-old son swinging from the ceiling. After nine years on Ritalin, and undergoing withdrawal from the psychiatric drug, the tormented young man had hanged himself with water-skiing rope.

In October 1993, 15-year-old Gerard McCra shot his parents and sister to death. He had been taking Ritalin since the age of six. While this explosion of violence shocked Massachusetts, the Boston Globe was keen to begin its story, not in lamenting the tragedy to the family and the neighbourhood, but citing a quote from a medical spokesman incongruously attempting to cover himself: "There is no scientific evidence indicating that Ritalin causes, or in any way triggers violence in children who take the commonly prescribed medication for hyperactivity."

That this ridiculous statement is allowed to be published is all the more unsettling since the manufacturer of Ritalin itself, CIBA Pharmaceutical Company, had published the following public warning about its drug eight years before in 1985:

DRUG DEPENDENCE: Ritalin should be given cautiously to emotionally unstable patients, such as those with a history of drug dependence or alcoholism, because such patients may increase dosage on their own initiative. Chronically abusive use can lead to marked tolerance and physic dependence with varying degrees of abnormal behaviour. Frank psychotic episodes can occur, especially with parental abuse. Careful supervision is required during drug withdrawal, since severe depression as well as the effects of chronic over-activity can be unmasked.

Gerard McCra was reportedly abused by his parents while on Ritalin. Note that, by the admission of the manufacturers themselves, the purpose of Ritalin is to 'mask' the symptoms of 'over-activity', not cure them.

On 14th September 1989, Joseph Wesbecker marauded through a Louisville, Kentucky printing works, blasting eight former co-workers to death, wounding 12 others before turning the gun on himself. One of his surviving victims shudders: "I looked up into the face of who was holding the rifle. He was completely gone. There was just nothing there of what makes a person a person. He was gone. And I thought that, soon, I would be even more gone than he." An autopsy later showed that Joseph had 'therapeutic' levels of the anti-depressant Prozac in his blood at the time of the killings.

Prozac has a long and infamous history of dangerous side-effects. Regulatory agencies around the world consistently receive a string of adverse reaction reports on the drug. Even Valium, a known, highly addictive anti-depressant, only garnered 7,000 adverse reaction reports in the US over 20 years. In just 10 years, Prozac had amassed a stunning 40,000 complaints, including mass murders, suicides, mutilations and more than 2,30o deaths.

On 20th April 1999, Eric Harris, an 18-year-old senior at Columbine High School in Colorado, went on a murderous killing spree. Both Eric and his partner, Dylan Klebold, committed suicide after the event. Blood samples confirmed that Eric had been taking Luvox, a mind-altering drug in the same class as Prozac. Luvox (fluvoxamine) and Prozac (fluoxetine) are known as 'selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors' (SSRI's), so-named because they block the brain's absorption of the neurotransmitter serotonin, responsible for mood stabilisation. Luvox's manufacturers even warn that Luvox is 'sometimes fatal' to those who take it, and can activate mania and impair judgment and thinking.

Nicholas Regush, producer of medical features for ABC News, stated: "This is a widely recognised feature of antidepressants, as documented by their very own manufacturers. These drugs are also associated with bouts of irritability, hostility and aggression. Exactly how all this behavioural change is processed in the brain and how long-lasting it might be is poorly understood. Contrary to the big shows of knowledge by psychiatrists, there is a whole lot of guessing going on."

Eight years before the shootings, Columbine High had been the subject of a 1991 ABC 20/20 documentary for its controversial 'death education' class, in which students discussed such macabre topics as how they wanted to look in their caskets. Both Eric and Dylan had a well-documented obsession with violence, Satanism and weapons, both having been arrested for burglary in 1998 and placed into an 'anger management' program. Both were fans of the infamous pop-star, Marilyn Manson. Eric's web-site alone should have had the alarm bells ringing. Warning statements abounded, such as "I am the law. If you don't like it, you die!" and "You all better… hide in your houses because I am coming for EVERYONE soon, and I WILL be armed to the … teeth, and I WILL shoot to kill and I WILL… KILL EVERYTHING."

DEATH IN THE PLAYGROUND
Today, children routinely threaten their teachers with extreme violence - so much so that in America, a special school police force patrols the campus to confiscate weapons and keep an eye on things. When I was at school, threats of that kind, while maybe entertained after a public humiliation, were never articulated. Even to breathe a threat to a teacher would have ensured a punishment so swift and solid, our feet wouldn't have hit the ground.

Fifty years ago, children almost never killed. Today it is commonplace. Apart from the above, cases such as those involving James Bulger, the Menendez brothers and Damilola Taylor have horrified the world. Gil Garcetti, District Attorney for Los Angeles County, remarks: "It's incredible, the ability of the very young to commit the most horrendous crimes was unthinkable 20 years ago."

Today, robberies are carried out by conscience-deadened youth drug-addicts. Murders, tortures and sadism are practised with Satanic ritual to a degree that was unheard of prior to the advent of the drug culture. Judge Susan Winfield of Washington DC comments: "Youngsters used to shoot each other in the body. Then in the head. Now, they shoot each other in the face." But still the 1980 Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry persists with its nonsense: "…taken no more than two or three times a week, cocaine creates no serious problems."

TEACHER'S COLLEGE
Psychiatry's penetration of the world's schools has long since been accomplished. As early as 1925, more than 1,000 schools in America were changing their educational curricula according to the dictates of the psychiatrists who dominated the highly influential Teacher's College at Columbia University in New York. The new educational system was designed to eliminate what John Dewey, a Teacher's College educational director, referred to as 'stress factors' in the classroom. The 'evils' articulated by the college, which were damaging the pupils, included school failure, academic curricula and disciplinary procedures.

The views of Dewey and his colleagues were congruent with the beliefs of Wundtian psychiatry. Teacher's College was to come to regard children as nothing but animals requiring guidance. Dewey, widely renowned for 'revolutionising' American and Russian education, and later world curricula, declared that putting undue pressures on a child to perform was to risk making them mentally ill. In fact, the true agenda espoused by James Earl Russell, Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey, who dominated Teacher's College, was no less than exercising complete control over the minds of youth, thereby gaining a more compliant society in the future. Educators, trained in the new principles given to them by Teacher's College, would help all the children 'fit into society':

"The ultimate problem of all education is to co-ordinate the psychological and social factors.… The co-ordination demands… that the child be capable of expressing himself, but in such a way as to realise social ends."

One knows trouble is coming when a luminary such as Thorndike, occupying so powerful a position of influence over the world's teachers, believes that "…artificial exercises, like drills on phonetics, multiplication tables, and formal writing movements, are used to a wasteful degree. Subjects such as arithmetic, language, and history include content that is intrinsically of little value. Nearly every subject is enlarged unwisely to satisfy the academic ideal of thoroughness."
Copyright © 2004 Phillip Day
Extracted from The Mind Game

Further Resources
To discover the truth about the so-called 'mental health' industry and the damage it daily wreaks in our society:

The Mind Game by Phillip Day

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

UK Gulf War Illness Inquiry Opens

The first public enquiry into Gulf War syndrome opened yesterday, 14 years after the conflict and seven years after the original demand for an inquest into illness among veterans of the war.

But the Ministry of Defence is still refusing to agree to co-operate with the inquiry. It has been hoped it would provide documents and that ministers would say why 5,000 troops who served in the war had become ill.

Charles Plumridge, of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said: "We simply ask the MoD to answer pertinent questions that will draw this inquiry to a satisfactory conclusion."
The Daily Telegraph, 7th July 2004

Teething Trouble
Why the Fluoride Debate is Set to Rage Again.
by Catherine Murphy

A new book claims water fluoridation is a con-job and is more harmful and less effective than governments will ever admit. Catherine Murphy reports Dr Andrew Rynne wants the State to answer his case. The GP claims that fluoridation of public water supplies -- a measure introduced 40 years ago to halt dental decay -- negates his personal rights and choices.

Dr Rynne, from Clane, Co Kildare, is pursuing a High Court action against the Government and is awaiting a defence response from his regional health board. If successful in his action, Dr Rynne could spark a class action, a wave of similar cases against the Government that might leave army deafness claims in the shade. If unsuccessful, his case will at least re-ignite public awareness of the contentious issue of fluoridation. He also awaits the implementation of recommendations made in the 2002 Forum on Fluoridation report, none of which have yet been instigated.

Navan-based dentist Don McAuley took a different form of action against fluoridation. Four years ago, after setting up his own practice, he spoke to the Irish Independent about how he had received threats and lost jobs as a result of opposing water fluoridation in this country. He now heads up Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation, a group representing about 3% of Irish dentists.

For every Andrew Rynne or Don McAuley opposing water fluoridation, there are an equal number of proponents -- Dr Seamus O'Hickey, former chief dental officer with the Department of Health and now lecturing in public dental health, and Professor John Clarkson from the Dublin Dental Hospital, to name just two. Both are involved in the Expert Body on Water Fluoridation in Ireland, set up following the report of the Forum on Fluoridation and already lashed by critics as a `whitewash'. In addition, bodies such as the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland do not oppose fluoridation.

Now the publication of a new book, The Fluoride Deception, seems certain to reopen the battle lines. It argues that water fluoridation is a con-job, a 1950s measure peddled by a US nanny state as harmless and beneficial, a means of "mass medication by thirst" which treats a non-water-borne condition (dental decay) with water and is more harmful and less effective than governments will ever let on.

The most obvious side-effect of fluoridation is dental fluorosis, which damages tooth enamel and can range from mild to severe. However, fluoridation has also been linked to far more serious conditions -- everything from irritable bowel syndrome and Attention Deficit Disorder to skeletal fluorosis, congenital defects, cancer and neurological disorders. While none of these links has yet been scientifically proven, some experts say the risk is too great to continue with fluoridation.

A toxic by-product of phosphate fertilisers, fluoride contains trace elements of lead, mercury and arsenic and is used in rat poison and nerve gas. A cumulative toxin, it's said to head straight for our hard tissues -- teeth and bones -- and is linked to hip fractures and brittle bones. Given the right dose, it can be fatal, and is said to have contributed to the deaths of American aluminium factory workers exposed to high levels.

Critical experts argue that fluoride isn't a nutrient, that no illness or disease is linked to fluoride deficiency and any dental benefits work by applying it to the teeth rather than swallowing it. Many other fluoride products are sold only on prescription yet, the critics argue, you have no control over the presence or dosage of fluoride in your water supply.

"One of the problems is that you haven't a clue how much fluoride is going into your water," says Ronnie Russell, professor of environmental studies at Trinity College. "I don't trust the authorities enough to administer a consistent dose of sufficient purity to be satisfied. People have to resort to using water filters as the only means of exercising choice and safety. Also, we now get fluoride from many sources that didn't exist in the 1960s."

Water first became fluoridated in Ireland in the mid-1960s on the wave of a High Court case to determine its suitability as a public health measure. Forty years later proponents say it's still of benefit to public health, a necessity in the face of growing obesity and unhealthy snacking habits that threaten dental health. Critics say it's damaging to our health, unethical, undemocratic, unsafe and ineffective, a dated public health mistake which has somehow outlived asbestos, leaded petrol and the advent of fluoride toothpaste.

About 73% of Irish water is fluoridated, compared to 10% in the UK, 60% in America and 3% in Spain. An estimated 98% of European countries do not fluoridate their water and in the US some individual states are revoking it. In Basel, Switzerland, the process has been dropped while in France salt fluoridation and fluoridation applications by dentists are more common.

In Ireland we continue to fluoridate water supplies despite the fact that we also get it from toothpaste, mouth washes, processed foods and beverages, pesticide residues and air pollution. Fluoride fans say it's a good way of protecting poorer communities from dental decay; critics say less nourished people from disadvantaged communities are more sensitive to fluoride poisoning because of other dietary deficiencies.

For every argument in favour of fluoridation, there is an argument against. The Fluoride Deception points to the suppression of medical information, the sacking of experts who found damaging evidence of potentially nasty side-effects that governments didn't want to hear and a powerful political lobby that grasped fluoridation as a cheap means of mass medication to avoid adequate dental cover and dietary education. The contentiousness of the issue hit home in the UK when the British government took moves to indemnify water companies from civil or criminal cases taken by members of the public.

The jury is also out on fluorosis rates and the level of dental decay in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas. Mr McAuley says 50pc of the children and teenagers he sees have some form of fluorosis, the most obvious sign of fluoride poisoning.

Professor John Clarkson, a proponent of fluoridation, argues that the increase in fluorosis cases is small and no proof has been found linking fluoride to any serious disease.

What should worry us most in Ireland is the fact that two years after the publication of the Forum on Fluoridation report, not one of its recommendations has been implemented, a fact recently raised in the Dail with Health Minister Micheal Martin by John Gormley of the Green Party. While an Expert Body has been established with Dr Seamus O'Hickey as chairman, it has only had one meeting so far.

Along with quality assurance measures and plant monitoring, the Forum report recommended a reduction from the current level of 0.8 to 1.0 part per million to 0.6 to 0.8 part per million, with a target level of 0.7ppm. The Forum recommended this decrease on the evidence of increased levels of dental fluorosis and the fact that we're getting fluoride from many other sources on a daily basis. Opponents such as Voice, the voice of Irish concern for the environment, rubbished the forum report, as did Dr Rynne.

"The Government knows that if it withdraws fluoridation suddenly, it could face a rash of compensation cases. Instead, it will turn the levels down slowly over the years. But the Forum's recommended decrease is the stuff of scientific nonsense, which reduces the dose to a level that is known to be of no significant benefit," says Dr Rynne.

According to Mr McAuley, 50 scientific reasons why fluoridation should not be used were presented to the Forum by Professor Paul Connett but none of these reasons has been examined or responded to. "Water fluoridation is a political issue and the expert body is simply a delaying tactic," he says. "After 40 years of this process, we're seeing increased levels of fluorosis -- who knows what effects we'll be seeing in another 20 years?"
Irish Independent 22nd June, 2004

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson is published in the US by Seven Stories Press.

THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK is at www.fluoridealert.org

Further Resources
Need more information on fluoride?

Health Wars by Phillip Day

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
The Second Section in CTM's Series on Vaccination
by Steven Ransom

The simple statements we read today, such as "In the 19th and early 20th century, over 10,000 people a year died from such and such a disease, before the advent of mass-inoculation," are very misleading. The rote repetition by today's journalists of these death rates leads the reader to conclude that vaccines were instrumental in halting the epidemics. This is simply not the case. Never are the death rates contextualised in their reports. The decline in the overall death rate in the populations across the UK at that time was the direct result of much-needed improvements to city and urban sanitation conditions.

DON'T DRINK THE WATER!
By far the biggest human killer, especially in inner-city areas, were the unsanitary conditions in which so many thousands of people lived. In London for instance, between 1800 and 1850, the population rose from 1,100,000 to 2,200,000 without any great investment in the sanitary infrastructure required to support such a growth. "As the teeming rookeries became further overcrowded, cholera, typhoid, the white plague (TB) and typhus cast a necrophagous shadow over the capital." A Dr Hector Gavin visited Bethnal Green, London, in the 1840s. He noticed that a new terrace of houses had been constructed within ten feet of an enormous stagnant lake, "…of thickened, putrefying matter, containing dead dogs and cats in every stage of decomposition, from which bubbles of pestilential exhalation were being given off." During the Industrial Revolution, poorer families often lived in squalid, dark, airless rooms, perhaps 30 families sharing a basic communal lavatory which connected to an open cesspool, overflowing into the street. Some households simply emptied chamber pots out the window into the street below. The 18th century London artist Hogarth has a famous print depicting this very act.

FOLLY DITCH
Charles Dickens had a long association with the London area of Southwark, both personal and literary, and particularly with the area known as The Borough. He first came to Southwark at the age of 12, when his parents and all the Dickens children, except for Charles and his sister Fanny, were imprisoned at Marshalsea Debtors Prison in Borough High Street. In his writings, Dickens described many places in Southwark he had known as a child. A particularly 'colourful' account of London living is found in Dickens' famous work, Oliver Twist:

"Near to that part of the Thames on which the church at Rotherhithe abuts, where the buildings on the banks are dirtiest and the vessels on the river blackest with the dust of colliers and the smoke of close-built, low-roofed houses, there exists the filthiest, the strangest, the most extraordinary of the many localities that are hidden in London, wholly unknown, even by name, to the great mass of its inhabitants.… Rooms so small, so filthy, so confined, that the air would seem too tainted even for the dirt and squalor which they shelter; wooden chambers thrusting themselves out above the mud, and threatening to fall into it - as some have done; dirt-besmeared walls and decaying foundations; every repulsive lineament of poverty, every loathsome indication of filth, rot, and garbage; all these ornament the banks of Folly Ditch."

People would simply draw household water straight from the Thames, or from whatever decaying river flowed through the particular town or city. But London was by no means the dirtiest place. When it came to sanitation and cleanliness, all densely inhabited areas in the UK were nothing less than vile in the poorer quarters. The urgent need in 1830s Bristol, for instance, to provide the city with clean water, had become a pressing public question, according to John Latimer, author of The Annals of Bristol in the 19th Century:

"The state of the poor in many districts was lamentable in the extreme and the high rate of mortality, which generally prevailed, was held to be largely attributable to the consumption of impure water and to the dirt and squalor that prevailed amongst the labouring classes."

Dirt and squalor are the most frequently recurring words in descriptions of the living conditions of poorer classes of the period and with all the usual references to the failure of the authorities to do anything to remove them. These were the conditions surrounding Edward Jenner, when he introduced his particular cowpox 'salve'. And what benefit would be gained by injecting an already compromised immune system with a vaccine containing poisonous cow pus?

NEW YORK
American cities were no different. In the mid-19th century, New York City had a higher mortality rate than most cities in the United States and western Europe. Members of the New York Sanitary Association were convinced that the diseases contributing to this high rate were primarily due to the absence of proper sanitary practices and could be prevented. Sanitarians wanted to improve public health law and educate the public about proper hygiene.

In 1864, New York physician Stephen Smith organised and directed a sanitary survey of New York City, a landmark event in the history of American public health. Many students of public health still consider this survey to be among the most comprehensive ever made. It contains vivid descriptions of living conditions unimaginable to contemporary Americans. The inspectors wrote about overflowing privies, slime-covered streets filled with horse manure, and slaughterhouses and fat-boiling establishments dispersed among overcrowded tenements. One inspector reported that blood and liquid animal remains flowed for two blocks down 39th Street from a slaughterhouse to the river. It was common knowledge that youngsters "could earn nickels by standing along Broadway and sweeping a path through the muck for those who wanted to cross the wretched boulevard."

The New York survey was responsible for immediate sanitation improvements. Smith testified before the New York Senate and Assembly and, just over a year later, New York passed the first comprehensive health legislation in the nation. The newly established Metropolitan Board of Health was the first government agency dedicated to truly professional sanitary reform in the United States, and New York's sanitary legislation served as a model for other local and state bills. Smith's work in New York City also led to the formation of the American Public Health Association, on whose board he served.

CHICAGO
In the 1850s, Chicago endured a succession of cholera and dysentery epidemics, incited primarily by the city's random waste disposal methods. In response, the Illinois legislature appointed Boston city engineer Ellis Sylvester Chesbrough to be chief engineer of the Chicago Board of Sewage Commissioners. Chesbrough immediately submitted a plan for a sewage system designed to solve Chicago's waste disposal problems. At that time, not one U.S. city had a comprehensive sewage system, although most had sewers. In devising a system that would best serve Chicago, Chesbrough visited several major European cities and studied their sewage systems. Chesbrough's innovations decreased illness and death and greatly improved public health.

EDWIN CHADWICK
In the UK, surrounded by the same general decay and stench, social reformer Edwin Chadwick, along with Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Shaftsbury and a Dr Southwood-Smith, created the Health of Towns Association. Visiting 50 towns, the HTA agreed that something needed to be done and urgently. Over the next thirty years, and with much opposition facing them, (all to do with expenditure) improvements were gradually made to town water supplies across the UK. The London cholera outbreaks of 1847 and 1854 killed 58,000 people. The common belief that the cholera was caused by a poisonous vapour was totally disproved in 1854 by Dr John Snow, who traced the source of the outbreak to the stagnant, filthy waters of The Broad Street Pump in Soho. With the introduction of The Metropolis Water Act of 1852, filtration systems were enforced on all water supply companies. Water supplies were monitored regularly by chemical and microscopic analysis. By 1859, several provincial cities enjoyed the luxury of a constant and drinkable water supply. SE Finer, the biographer of Edwin Chadwick, wrote:

"The suddenness with which the people of England appeared for the first time to acquire a sense of sight and smell, and realise that they were living on top of a dung heap, was due to the impact of industrial change. By the 1840s, the slow procession of piecemeal alteration in modes of production had produced a qualitative change, visible to all. England was rich. England lived in towns… Engineering skills and new riches made a sanitary science possible and necessary."

AS SIMPLE AS ABC!
Needless to say, the impact upon the health of the cities was considerable. In October 1970, Dr. Edward H. Kass, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, delivered the presidential address to the Infectious Disease Society of America. In commenting on a number of other diseases, all supposedly 'infectious', he stated:

"It was not medical research that had stamped out tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia and puerperal sepsis. The main credit went to public health programmes, sanitation and general improvements in the standard of living brought about by industrialisation. All the data showed that mortality rates from infectious disease had been in steady decline since the middle of the 19th century, that is, before medicine had become scientific and interventionist."

And it is against this backdrop that all stories pertaining to the worth of vaccination must be weighed. The myriad glowing 'history of vaccination' essays out there make little mention of these matters. Commenting on the need for intellectual rigour when seeking to establish cause and effect, Geoff Watts, presenter of Medicine Now, says:

"Another trap for the unwary lies in the failure to distinguish between association and causation. The fact that two things repeatedly happen at the same time doesn't mean that one is necessarily the consequence of the other. Both may be the result of some third event of which the observer is unaware."

In all the pro-vaccination papers, the authors fail to distinguish between association and causation. They would have us presume that A (improved health) is believed to be the result of B, (vaccination) while taking no account of C, (all-round improvement in social conditions). The enforcement of long-overdue and much-needed sanitation laws coherently explains the downward trend in illness and death rates in the mid to late 19th century. Yes, people appeared to be getting better at the same time as people were being injected with cow pus. But in no way was this intervention the trigger for better health! Vaccination was merely a coincidental act, against a much larger backdrop of eminently sensible sanitation measures.

DUTIFUL RECITALS
But you wouldn't think so, reading the Student BMJ History of Medicine page. Described as, "A fascinating exploration of the history of medicine, showing just how far medicine has come from ancient times to the present day," the following text gives us the conventional history of vaccination:

"Jenner was a country doctor who observed that milkmaids who had contact with cowpox did not catch smallpox. Suspecting that it may be possible to induce this immunity medically, Jenner inoculated James Phipps with pus from a dairymaid in May 1796. Six weeks later he unsuccessfully inoculated the same boy with smallpox, proving his theory. He published his work in 1798 and attracted immediate attention. By 1799 thousands of people had been vaccinated across the world and by 1979 the World Health Organization had successfully completed a programme eradicating smallpox from the world. Enthusiasm for the eradication of smallpox stems from the fact that it was one of the greatest killers in history, responsible for thousands of deaths in the old world and significantly also responsible for wiping out 90% of native Americans in the 1600s, facilitating, in part, the colonisation of the New World."

How much has been left out of this fascinating exploration is painfully obvious. It is not an exploration. It is merely the rote repetition of historical, medical myths by naïve underlings, dutifully reciting their way up the conventional medical ladder. The enormous part which the environment plays in human and animal health has been entirely avoided in the BMJ essay, but is a theme which will repeat itself more and more, the deeper we examine the nature of health and disease in this book. The vaccine industry of course promotes no discussion on such matters.

LEICESTER GETS SICK
Leicester, with nearly 200,000 inhabitants at the time, affords good evidence for the uselessness of Jenner's smallpox vaccination programme. At the commencement of the 1870s, Leicester was one of the most completely vaccinated towns in the UK. In 1871, at the very height of its 95% vaccination record, public records revealed that Leicester's smallpox deaths were higher than that of the less-vaccinated London. Says Pat Rattigan:

"After this potion was injected into the blood of the nation's children, the largest epidemic of smallpox ever known began, with a peak of 42,000 deaths in 1871-72 alone."

Faced with this simple mathematical equation, Leicester inhabitants realised that vaccination was only adding to the death toll. As a result, there grew a steady refusal to vaccinate. Coupled with the already-mentioned sanitary reforms, this refusal to vaccinate meant that Leicester began to witness less death. Pat Rattigan again:

"After this fiasco, the towns of Leicester and Dewsbury rejected vaccination. In 1892-3 Leicester had 19.3 cases of smallpox per 10,000 population. Warrington, with 99.2% vaccinated had 123.3 cases of smallpox per 10,000 population. Leicester and Dewsbury had the lowest death-rates in the country."

TRYING TO CREATE PANIC
The injection of pus and other detritus into the collective bloodstream of the Leicester inhabitants ceased. The news soon spread that Leicester was refusing vaccination and had subsequently witnessed a drop in the death rate. As a result, vaccine refusal spread right across the UK, despite the predictable dire warnings from the conventional establishment doctors who prophesied that death and destruction would reign as vaccination ceased and smallpox returned. The following quotation, dating back 120 years to 1882, demonstrates quite clearly the pharmaceutical forces at work then as are at work today:

"The persistent attempts that are now being made to create panic over the increase of smallpox in London have so far met with little success. What evidently is wanted is to drive the people in flocks to the doctors for re-vaccination. The 'roaring trade' that was done during the epidemic of 1871 is remembered with fervour, and such another 'good time' is earnestly prayed for. It is lucrative work vaccinating troops of terrified middle and upper class Londoners. They hear of 'carefully selected vaccine' with touching simplicity; drop their guineas with grateful alacrity; and retire, persuaded that they are fortified for at least seven years from possibility of infection. Here we see old sorcery and witchcraft under new forms without essential difference."

There are also examples of Jenner's medical contemporaries who, formerly accepting vaccination as a matter of course, were led, after careful investigation of the matter, to reject it entirely. A Dr W. J. Collins, a public vaccinator in London, who, in twenty-five years, had vaccinated many thousands of persons, eventually realised that vaccination had never diminished smallpox, but on the contrary, had often produced it. He expressed the conviction that "cowpox inoculation, whether performed with matter originating in the greasy heels of the consumptive horse or in the running sores of human smallpox, is a practice dangerous to the community at large." and he was so convinced of this that he abandoned vaccination altogether, thereby giving up an income of at least £2,500 a year. And similarly, across the pond in the USA, a Dr J.W. Hodge, ex-Public Vaccinator of Lockport, New York, wrote:

"After a careful consideration of the history of vaccination gleaned from an impartial and comprehensive study of vital statistics, and pertinent data from every reliable source, and after an experience derived from having vaccinated 31,000 subjects, I am firmly convinced that vaccination cannot be shown to have any logical relation to the diminution of cases of smallpox. Vaccination does not protect; it actually renders its subjects more susceptible by depressing vital power and diminishing natural resistance, and millions of people have died of smallpox which they contracted after being vaccinated."

Moving on a few decades, and we read this from Dr. J. C. Ward:

"I believed that vaccination prevented smallpox. I believed that if it did not absolutely prevent it in every case, it modified the disease in some cases, and I believed that re-vaccination, if only frequent enough, gave absolute immunity. Experience has driven all that out of my head; I have seen vaccinated persons get smallpox, and persons who had been re-vaccinated get smallpox, and I have seen those who had had smallpox get it a second time and die of it."

According to the official figures of the Register General of England for 1933, only 109 children under 5 in England and Wales died of smallpox in the twenty-three years previously, but 270 children had died of vaccinations in the same period. Between 1934 and 1961, not one smallpox death was recorded, and yet during this same period, 115 children under 5 years of age died as a result of the smallpox vaccination. This grisly toll ultimately forced the government to repeal the Vaccination Act for smallpox. And from that day to this, the unvaccinated (and, as our health officials would stalwartly proclaim, unprotected) UK has had a negligible smallpox mortality rate. Well, of course that would be the case. The UK enjoys all the public amenities that prevent such an illness. Not good news for today's £multi-million vaccine industry that desires us to believe the hype and 'get vaccinated' for all diseases.

The last recorded death, supposedly from smallpox in the UK, was in 1978. Janet Parker, a medical photographer from the Medical School of the University of Birmingham, was apparently contaminated with smallpox while working at the laboratories of Professor Henry S. Bedson, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology. As a result of her unusual and much-publicised death, Bedson committed suicide, slitting his throat with a pair of scissors.

PROMOTIONAL DISASTER
One early attempt at vaccine promotion went disastrously wrong over at the print office of Encyclopaedia Britannica. This publication had called upon the services of a Dr Charles Creighton to write an article for its 1888 edition on the benefits of vaccination. Creighton had written for EB previously and was presumed a sound candidate for the project, having authored a book entitled 'History of Epidemics' - a book described as by some as '... the greatest medical work ever written by one man.' He was considered a safe pair of hands. However, no-one had envisaged him critically researching the subject before writing the piece. His article began:

"It is right to say that the views expressed in the present article diverge in many points from the opinions generally received among medical men, and must be regarded not as the exposition of established and undisputed doctrine, but as the outcome of an independent and laborious research."

As a result of his research, Creighton was unable to list any actual benefits of vaccination. As a 'promotion' for vaccination, Creighton's piece was a disaster. The Vaccine Awareness Network Takes up the story:

"Even though Creighton tried to favour vaccination and please the medical profession in his article, he found he could not, with any honesty and accuracy, state that vaccination had ever had any influence in reducing any disease. It was all too obvious that the practice had caused thousands of deaths plus an unbelievably large number of cases of disease and disability. Having publicly requested the article from the eminent physician, the hapless publishers had to use it.…

The physicians and vaccine laboratories were shocked but he had the proof of what he said and they knew it was correct…. However, in the next edition, his article was left out, and was replaced as soon as possible by what was little more than an advertisement for glycerinated calf lymph written by one of its promoters. Creighton, perhaps the greatest medical mind of the last century, was virtually turned out of his profession. The ninth edition became a collector's item."

AND ALL THANKS TO A NEW NEEDLE? HMMM…
So much for Encyclopaedia Britannica as a vanguard of truth. The Virtual Museum of Bacteria shows the same simple disregard for truth. Not once in its history of vaccination pages does it mention sanitation or hygiene. Here is a snippet from its glowing vaccination references:

"Jenner had first proposed the idea of worldwide eradication of smallpox by vaccination in 1801. In 1950, the World Health Organization proposed a programme to eradicate smallpox from the Americas. This was achieved in 8 years. In 1958, the W.H.O. proposed a worldwide eradication campaign, but this did not really get under way until 1965. Between 200 and 300 million doses of a standardized vaccine were produced and administered annually. Smallpox vaccination was greatly helped by the development of the bifurcated needle in 1968, making administration of the vaccine simpler and more effective. Even in the best-organised campaigns, it was not possible to vaccinate 100% of the population, so a new strategy was adopted in addition to blanket vaccination campaigns - early detection and vigorous containment of outbreaks. This proved to be highly effective."

Highly effective nonsense.

© Copyright Steven Ransom 2003
Excerpted from Wake up to Health in the 21st Century

Further Resources
Need to know about the vaccine controversy?
Wake up to Health in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom
Health Wars by Phillip Day

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

Vegetable Oils & Macular Degeneration Eye Condition Linked to Diet
by Anna Coren

Macular degeneration is the most common cause of blindness in Australia but new research suggests avoiding vegetable oils could prevent the condition.

It's spreading like a disease - a blindness called macular degeneration affecting at least 800,000 Australians and costing $1.5 billion per year in health care.

But with the latest research pointing to vegetable oils as the main culprit, it's possible we may be able to fend off this disease by simply changing our diets.

You might not cook with vegetable or canola oil but take a look at the ingredients in any sauce, dip, bread, margarine or biscuit - any processed food for that matter. Vegetable oil is hidden in all of them.

Most of us have been consuming these processed foods from the time we could walk. Dr Paul Beaumont from the Macular Degeneration Foundation has been studying the link.

"[The research] showed that people eating vegetable oil got the disease twice as commonly as the people who didn't," Dr Beaumont said.

"Even more convincing was a prospective study where they looked at patients with the disease and those eating too much vegetable oil progressed at 3.8 times the rate of those eating a little vegetable oil. You look at bread, they make it on margarine, you look at currants and they've gone and sprayed vegetable oil on them to stop them from sticking, you go and try and get tinned fish and they've put it in vegetable oil. So yes, it's become ubiquitous, it's crept right into our food chain and you hardly know you're eating it."

Gwen Oliver was diagnosed with macular degeneration two years ago. She was astonished when Dr Beaumont told her to steer clear of vegetable oils and only cook with extra virgin olive oil. "I was surprised about diet and all the products that we've been eating in the past," Ms Oliver said. "We've always had it advertised that vegetable oil was far better for us."

The macular sits at the back of the eye. It's made up of many different nerve cells. The oils that you eat become part of your eye but normally they're used and flushed out.

When you're eating vegetable oils, researchers believe the eye can't seem to biodegrade the oil and it ends up blocking the cells and causing macular degeneration.

"In the 1920s and 30s they started to get big presses that produced hundreds of tons of vegetable oil," Dr Beaumont said. "In 1957 margarine outsold butter so we've had this massive infiltration of our food chain by vegetable oils." Dr Beaumont says he doesn't envisage vegetable oil being removed from all foods, but says there should be a consumer health warning. "I think we have to have a warning on the packages similar to a warning of a cigarette package: 'vegetable oil can lead to macular degeneration'," he said.

The major reason for blindness in Australia 30 years ago was diabetes and it was rare to find macular degeneration. Today the condition has overtaken diabetes five-fold and is now the leading cause of loss of vision in Australia. Two-thirds of those who lose their vision are blind due to macular degeneration.

"I've seen an exponential rise from the early 1970s through to the 1990s," Dr Beaumont said. "If we look at Japan 40 years ago the disease was rare, now it's common. I don't think there's any doubt we have an epidemic."

Dr Paul Beaumont is horrified at the rate macular degeneration has multiplied. He's seen a tenfold increase in the last 30 years. "I think we could halve the number of people going blind with macular degeneration if we could change their diet, cut out the vegetable oil," Dr Beaumont said.

When macular degeneration strikes, patients like Gwen Oliver are first given laser therapy to help stem the bleeding. They're also told to look at a chart daily and if they see any difference in the lines on the charts -such as a straight line looking bent - it's back to Dr Beaumont for treatment.

But for Jillian Price, laser therapy didn't work. Her last chance is a cutting edge treatment called photodynamic therapy. It doesn't look like much but it causes plenty to happen inside the body.

"You inject a chemical that slowly accumulates in that blood vessel and doesn't accumulate in normal tissues," Dr Beaumont said. "And then you shine a light on the eye and it selectively activates that chemical that shuts down the abnormal tissue and [does] not damage the normal."

For Jillian Price, the disease has disabled her life as an active woman.

"Two months is very fast to lose so much sight; I've lost a lot of my independence," Ms Price said. "The distance, everything is distorted, getting on the buses, shopping is very hard, I can't read labels any more. One day I was doing crosswords and the next day I couldn't."

A specialist told Colin Noble he'd be blind within 18 months. Luckily Colin sought a second opinion and today he's one of the lucky 10 per cent who regain vision after having photodynamic therapy.

"Usually the treatment merely stops or slows down the degeneration. It's a miracle, I'm so grateful for this man," Mr Noble said. "It's had a big effect on my life and my family's life … it's allowed me to do so many things. I can still tie a fish hook, important things like that … I'm a very lucky bloke."

Dr Beaumont has lobbied the federal Health Department to help fund this huge
problem, but to date nothing has happened. "I think they should move fairly urgently," he said. "I don't think we can afford to delay in informing the public about something which can be affecting their vision."

The federal Health Department is looking into this massive problem but wouldn't tell us any more than that. As for the Australian Food and Grocery Council - the voice of the food manufacturers who use vegetable oil - they had nothing to say, except that they were waiting to hear more evidence linking vegetable oil and macular degeneration.

"There are hundreds of thousands of Australians waiting for that advice," Dr Beaumont said. "And I think the government has to move quickly."

For more information please contact the Macular Degeneration Foundation on
1800 111 709 or visit www.mdfoundation.com.au

BROADCAST DATE: July 5, 2004
Channel 7, Today, Tonight

Further Resources
Need an eating plan to get you out of trouble?

Health Wars by Phillip Day
Food or Thought by Phillip Day

Parkinson's Disease
Linked to Environmental Toxin

A study found that environmental toxins could be an underlying cause to Parkinson's disease. It was discovered that the compounds known as proteasome inhibitors could be made with bacteria and fungi, which were capable of getting out into the environment. For these reasons, researchers are looking into how these toxins find their way into the environment, the level of exposure to humans and its possible link to the development of Parkinson's disease.

Facts on Parkinson's Disease
Approximately 1 million Americans suffer with Parkinson's disease

Related symptoms: slow movements, tremor when at rest, muscle rigidity, abnormalities of gait caused by a steady depletion of nerve cells particularly in the area of the brain referred to as the substantia nigra. Decreased levels of the brain chemical dopamine.

With the use of rats, researchers were able to closely replicate the effects of the disease by injecting them with man-made and naturally occurring proteasome inhibitors. After being administered injections for a two-week period, the rats began displaying symptoms of Parkinson's disease such as a slowing in movements, muscle rigidity and tremor. Over the course of the next few months the symptoms became increasingly prominent.
One researcher stated that one of the strongest proteasome inhibitors, epoxomicin, was produced by a common bacteria called actinomycetes, which could be found in soil and well water worldwide.
Annals of Neurology June 21, 2004

DR MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Other toxins like petroleum-based hydrocarbon solvents such as paints and glues, pesticides, and even too much iron have also been linked to Parkinson's disease. Armed with this knowledge, it is clear we need to make sure the water we are drinking is safe and free of these dangerous toxins.

It's imperative that you drink pure water. If the water you are drinking is contaminated, you are harming yourself. I no longer recommend bottled water, not only because it's hard to guarantee the water is from a clean source, but also because of the excessive burden these plastic bottles place on the environment.

Your best bet to ensure a clean and affordable water source is to filter your own water at home. Avoid drinking unfiltered tap water, as chlorine and fluoride, which are added to most municipal water supplies, are toxic chemicals that shouldn't be consumed in large quantities.www.mercola.com (Free newsletter available)

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: In my view, reverse osmosis is the best filtration system for fluoridated households. Not as dear as other, ludicrously more expensive systems which often make dubious claims, an RO filtration product fits under the sink and provides extremely clean water (20-40 ppm) with no viruses, bacteria, pesticides, estrogens, fluoride, chlorine, THMs, etc. For more information, please e-mail info@campaignfortruth.com

Cancer Surgeon Rebukes Prince Charles
Over Alternative Therapy Support
by Celia Hall

A leading breast cancer surgeon has issued a strong rebuke to the Prince of Wales over his support for alternative therapy for cancer patients.

Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London, told Prince Charles: "With respect, Your Highness, you have got it wrong."

Prof Baum, who is also visiting professor of medical humanities at UCL, says today in the British Medical Journal that the Prince's reported support for the Gerson therapy and more recently for coffee enemas and carrot juice cures are ill-advised.

In an open letter to Prince Charles he says: "Over the past 20 years I have treated thousands of patients with cancer and lost some dear friends and relatives to this dreaded disease. The power of my authority comes with knowledge built on 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer research. Your power and authority rest on an accident of birth. I don't begrudge you that authority but I do beg you to exercise your power with extreme caution when advising patients with life-threatening diseases to embrace unproven therapies. It is in the nature of your world to be surrounded by sycophants who reinforce what they assume are your prejudices. Sir, they patronize you. Allow me this chastisement."

Professor Baum says that he has "much time" for complementary therapies in the treatment of cancer when they offer improvements in quality of life and spiritual solace, providing that they are properly integrated with modern medicine. "But I have no time at all for alternative therapy that finds itself above the evidence and practices in a metaphysical domain that harks back to the dark days of Galen," he writes.

"You promote the Gerson diet whose only support comes from inductive logic - that is anecdote. Collective self-satisfaction is the death of research. It is restlessness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, agony of mind that nourish science. Please, your royal highness, help us nourish medical science by sharing our agony."

Prof Baum, who is lecturing in Australia, said yesterday that it was hard to judge how many people might have stopped taking medical cancer treatment in favour of alternative therapy in response to Prince Charles's support.

He said that research had shown that more was spent on alternative cancer therapies than on medical treatment. "This is an awful lot of money changing hands. If it went into medical research perhaps we could move forward faster. The interest in alternative medicine is largely a middle-class phenomenon. People who you would describe as the salt of the earth trust their doctors and regard these treatments with contempt. There is this peculiar idea of a conspiracy in orthodox medicine that doctors want to deny their patients effective treatment. I don't know of any doctor who would not use treatment that worked."

He pointed out that many cancer treatments were based on plants. "Alternative therapies are not subject to rigorous, scientific proof. They call us bigots, but bigots are those who don't want to put their treatment to the test," he said.

In a speech last month the prince called for more research into alternative therapies in the treatment of cancer. He said that the "terrifying sense of doom" that descended on cancer patients could bring with it feelings of frustration and lack of control. "This can in part be mediated by giving patients treatment choice: treatments that allow personal health management and that help to foster a renewed sense of control through integrated approaches to health."

A spokesman for Prince Charles said that he had never proposed alternative remedies as an alternative to orthodox treatments. "The prince was not promoting alternative medicines over orthodox medicines. He is president of the Foundation for Integrated Health and is interested in an integrated approach to health care where complementary treatments are used alongside orthodox medicines," she said.

"In his speech last month the Prince of Wales was calling for more research into complementary medicine both for its potential benefits and adverse effects."
The Daily Telegraph, 9th July 2004

Further Resources
Need good, solid information on cancer and what to do about it?

Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day
Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom
B17 Metabolic Therapy compiled by Phillip Day

How Scientific are Orthodox Cancer Treatments?
by Walter Last

The medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that underpins its approach to cancer treatment. Someone newly diagnosed with cancer faces enormous pressure from our healthcare system to start immediately on a scientific medical treatment program that involves surgery, chemotherapy and radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in shock, most individuals in this situation are no match for the overwhelming power of medical authority.

How would you react in this situation? You may be leaning towards natural therapies for simple health problems, but for something as serious as cancer you may feel safer with the tested and proven methods of orthodox medical care. Nevertheless, if you have the chance, read the following before you make your final decision. You may then have a better appreciation of natural cancer treatment.

In this article I have assembled some little known facts about the science behind orthodox cancer treatment. In cancer research, success - expressed as a five-year survival rate - is established by comparing other forms and combinations of treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared with survival rates of untreated patients and never with patients who have adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is basically unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect.

In support of my position, I offer the following key statements and conclusions from medical and scientific publications. "Studies appear to show that early intervention is helpful, because pre-cancerous lesions are included in early removals that frequently would not become cancerous if left untouched [author's emphasis]." In other words early intervention appears to be helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but are counted as being cancer, and that improves the survival statistics. "Also, it does not matter how much or how little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the same." This statement indicates that surgery does not improve survival chances, otherwise there would be a difference between radical surgery and lumpectomy.

Researchers have said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to a futile, mutilating procedure. Furthermore there is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this they would most likely refuse surgery.

In 1993, the editor of the Lancet pointed out that, despite various modifications of breast cancer treatment, death rates remained unchanged. He acknowledged that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion (his words not mine) in all truth has lost its way. At the same time he rejected the view of those who believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient. He asked, "Would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?" Not too soon to ask this question after a century of mutilating women, I would say. The title of this editorial, appropriately, is "Breast cancer: Have we Lost our Way?"

Basically all types and combinations of breast cancer treatment appear to result in the low long-term survival rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum MD, a leading breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increase the risk of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to accelerating the cancer by stimulating the formation of metastases in other parts of the body.

An earlier German comparison found that untreated postmenopausal women with breast cancer live longer than treated women, and the recommendation was not to treat postmenopausal women for breast cancer. This conclusion confirms a finding by Ernst Krokowski, a German professor of radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly triggered by medical intervention, including sometimes even a biopsy or surgery unrelated to the cancer . Disturbance of a tumour causes a greatly increased number of cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical intervention (especially chemotherapy) suppresses the immune system. This combination is a recipe for disaster. It is the metastases that kill, while primary tumours in general, and those in the breast in particular can be relatively harmless. These findings have been confirmed by recent research which shows that surgery, even if unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of metastases and lead to an untimely end.

This follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also tends to spread the disease. Actually, prostate cancer was investigated in the first randomized clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years, there was no difference in the survival rates of those who had surgery and the controls who did not have surgery, but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as impotence or incontinence.

The late H B Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading US cancer statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society in 1969 that no study had proved that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On the contrary, his studies proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer and with better quality of life than treated ones. Needless to say, he was not invited again.

Massaging Statistics
An epidemiological study confirmed the questionable value of conventional therapy by concluding that "medical interventions for cancer have had a negligible effect on survival". Even the conservative New England Journal of Medicine had an article with the headline, "Cancer Undefeated".

Common ways to make medical statistics look more favourable are as follows. Patients who die during prolonged treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy are not counted in the statistics because they did not receive the full treatment. In the control group, everyone who dies is counted.

Furthermore, success commonly is judged by the percentage of shrinking tumours, regardless of patient survival: but if the rate or length of survival is measured, then it is only in terms of dying from the treated disease. It is not normally shown how many of the patients die due to the treatment itself.

The current trend is to pick up pre-cancerous conditions very early and treat them as cancer. While this statistically increases the number of people with cancer, it also artificially prolongs survival times and lowers death rates, thereby making medical treatments appear to be more successful. However, there may also be a genuine component of improved survival, as increasing numbers of cancer patients opt for additional natural therapies.

An investigation of the records of 1.2 million cancer patients revealed that the death rate attributed to non-cancer death shortly after treatment was 200% higher than would normally be expected. Two years after diagnosis and treatment, this excess death rate had fallen to 50%. The most common cause for the excess death rate was listed as heart and respiratory failure. This means that, instead of dying several years later from cancer, these patients died from the effects of the treatment and helped greatly to improve the cancer statistics because they did not strictly die of cancer. This misleading report of cancer deaths has led to demands for more honest statistics.

After analyses of several large mammogram-screening studies found that mammography leads to more aggressive treatment with no survival benefits, even the editor of The Lancet had to admit there is no reliable evidence from large randomized trials to support mammography-screening programs. The significance of this statement goes far beyond the use of mammograms.

It is openly acknowledged by the proponents of conventional medicine that they have no effective way of helping patients with advanced cancer. Until now, the catch-cry has always been "Detect it early, then it can be cured". These mammogram evaluation studies demonstrate that it does not matter when cancer is detected; the conventional methods are useless, as is the whole multibillion-dollar cancer industry (my conclusion).

A 13-year Canadian study involving 40,000 women compared physical breast examinations with examinations plus mammograms. The mammogram-plus-examination group had many more lumpectomies and surgeries with a death rate of 107 compared with 105 deaths in the physical examination group.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a common, non-invasive form of breast tumour. Most cases of DCIS are detected through the use of mammography. In younger women, 92% of all cancers detected by mammography are of this type. Nevertheless, on average, 44% - and in some areas 60% - of these are treated by mastectomy. As most of these tumours are harmless, this needless treatment makes survival statistics appear to be better than they actually are.

While conventional diagnosis is invasive and may help to spread the cancer, a kind of electrodermal screening - called the Biofield test - developed by a team from eight European hospitals and universities, was reported in The Lancet as being 99.1% accurate in diagnosing malignancy in breast tumours.

A large meta-analysis of radiotherapy results for lung cancer showed that after two years there were 21% more deaths in the group that had radiotherapy in addition to surgery as compared to those who had surgery alone. The Lancet article stated that the rationale is to kill any cancer cells remaining after surgery, but it is a shame that the facts do not agree with this theory.

Chemotherapy: Medical Russian Roulette
Chemotherapy for children with leukaemia and Hodgkin's disease is the proud showpiece of the arguably only apparent success of orthodox cancer therapy. Now a long-term follow-up study shows that such children develop 18 times more secondary malignant tumours later in life. Even worse, girls face a 75 times (7,500%) higher risk of breast cancer by the time they are forty. A main problem appears to be the development of deep or systemic Candida albicans infections shortly after commencement of chemotherapy. If these infections are not appropriately treated, then relapses or future health problems are likely to occur.

A study of ovarian cancer found that the risk of developing leukaemia after treatment with chemotherapy increased 21-fold or 2,100%. Chemotherapy showed a clear dose-dependency whereby the incidence of triggered leukaemia doubled between low-dose and moderate-dose then quadrupled between moderate-dose and high-dose groups. Also, other tumours commonly develop after treating malignancies with chemotherapy. In a trial for multiple myeloma, no advantage was found by using chemotherapy as compared to no treatment.

The respected German biostatistician Ulrich Abel presented a comprehensive analysis of over 3,000 clinical trials on the value of chemotherapy for advanced carcinoma (for instance, breast cancer). (Oncologists tend to use chemotherapy because this may induce a temporary shrinking of the tumour, called a response; however it also tends to produce unpleasant side-effects.) Abel concluded that there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival in these cases. Abel stated: "Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies."

Ralph W. Moss, PhD, in Questioning Chemotherapy, provides a detailed analysis of this subject. The overall conclusion of the book is that there is no evidence in terms of the majority of cancers that chemotherapy extends life.

However, even if chemotherapy were to extend life for a few months, what about the quality of this life? Tom Nesi, a former Director of Public Affairs at a pharmaceutical giant, Bristol-Myers Squibb, wrote in the New York Times about the successful treatment of his wife, which statistically extended her life for three months. Two weeks after the treatment, she scribbled on a note-pad: Depressed - no more, please. I am not surprised about reports that most oncologists would not have their own family members use these treatments.

The Full Treatment
Virginia Livingston (later Virginia Livingston-Wheeler), a remarkable cancer researcher and therapist, in her book, Cancer: A New Breakthrough, gives an account of one of the many patients she saw who came to her after receiving the full medical treatment for breast cancer.

"After discovering a small breast lump, she had radical mastectomy. None of the lymph nodes removed from the armpit [was] involved; all of the cancer had been successfully removed. To make extra sure there was no re-growth in the scars, she received radiation treatment, and also her ovaries were taken out.

"To her dismay, a year later several small nodules appeared in the old breast scar. Again she received radiation. More lumps appeared on the neck that called for still more radiation. In addition, she received male hormone therapy, resulting in acne and coarse facial hair. Still the nodules came back. Now she received chemotherapy with the usual side-effects.

"Before her hair could regrow, pain in her bones was diagnosed as bone cancer. More chemotherapy and hormone therapy was expected to help. However, several months later the bone lesions became worse and removal of her adrenal glands was recommended and performed. Hopefully, that would prolong her suffering for another year. After that, the removal of her pituitary gland might give her a further three to six months to live.

"By now her faith in her medical advisors was sufficiently shaken that she came to Dr Livingston for help. She asked to be examined without her husband being present, as she wanted to spare him the agony of seeing her naked body, distorted, mutilated and shrunken with an immensely swollen abdomen and thin legs. Finally she whispered: "Doctor, shall I kill myself?"

Conspiracy of Silence
Why are they doing this? (By "they", I am referring to what is commonly called "The Cancer Establishment"). I believe the answer was given by the eminent medical commentator and former editor of New Scientist, Dr Donald Gould, in a timeless article called "Cancer: A Conspiracy of Silence" The subtitle summarises his position: "The commonest cancers are as resistant to treatment today as they were 40 or 50 years ago. Nothing is to be gained by pretending that the battle against cancer is slowly but surely being won."

This truth has been deliberately concealed from the general public. According to Gould, the reason for this conspiracy of silence is money. The public must continue to see the Cancer Establishment as a winner to continue providing money. One of the quoted scientists said that with tens of thousands of radiologists and millions of dollars in equipment, one just gives radiation treatment even if study after study shows that it does more harm than good.

Gould also is of the opinion that patients who could be comfortable without medical treatment until their inevitable death, with medical treatment are made miserable in a pointless attempt to postpone death for a few unhappy weeks. But, of course, that is when most of the money is being made. Gould feels that they poison their patients with drugs and rays and mutilate them with unnecessary surgery in a desperate attempt to treat the untreatable.

Not much has changed since Gould wrote this article in 1976. In a recent edition of The Moss Reports, we can read that long-term survival from common cancers such as prostate, breast, colorectal and lung "has barely budged since the 1970s" In summary, this means that there has been no significant improvement in cancer survival rates in the last 70 to 80 years.

The Scientific Basis for Drug Approvals
It is also interesting to know the scientific basis for the approval of cancer drugs. Most of these drugs come initially from the USA. In the past, a company had to submit two favourable, large randomized trials to obtain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. "Favourable" means that there must be a certain rate of tumour shrinkage lasting for at least one month. It was not necessary to show that the treatment prolonged survival, and it was not necessary to submit the results of any unfavourable results from the same drug.

These "strict, scientific" guidelines were relaxed in the Clinton era, and drug companies can now get FDA approval on the basis of small preliminary trials, even if a large randomised trial may be unfavourable. In a remarkable statement about drug approvals, an FDA spokesperson pointed out that any delay in approval did not mean unnecessary deaths because "all these treatments for advanced cancer don't cure people".

Perhaps the situation is worse than a case of just ineffective treatments. A group of respected researchers reviewed all the published statistical evidence on the outcome of medical treatments, and showed that the medical system is now the leading cause of death and injury in the USA. Deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 were 666,697, for cancer the figure was 553,251, while for medical interventions it was 783,936 per year! Appropriately the title of this study is "Death by Medicine".

You may wonder why health authorities turn a blind eye to these massive fatalities, mostly caused by drugs, while concentrating their energies instead on suppressing food supplements and natural remedies.

A symptom of this official attitude is the recent saga of Pan Pharmaceuticals, when in 2003 the Australian government forced the largest local manufacturer of natural remedies into bankruptcy, allegedly because there was a possibility that these products might cause someone to get sick or even die.

In my view, a main reason for this distorted official attitude is the fact that health departments and regulatory authorities are dominated by medical doctors who have been trained (partly with money from drug companies) to believe that drugs are beneficial and natural remedies are potentially harmful. Despite a majority of Western populations preferring natural remedies, almost all political parties promote dependency on pharmaceutical drugs.

Therefore, as a first step to changing this oppressive political climate, we urgently need a political party that promotes natural healthcare rather than drug dependency.

We can find a clue for the cause of these appalling "Death by Medicine" statistics in an editorial by Richard Smith in the British Medical Journal: "Yet only 15% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all".

A good demonstration of the unscientific nature of medical research is the recent fiasco with hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Several decades ago, it was shown in "rigorous scientific" research to be safe and effective, otherwise it would not have been approved. It was strongly promoted as protecting against heart disease and cancer. Now every new trial shows HRT to be dangerous and to increase the risk of developing heart disease and cancer.

What went wrong? Why was this not picked up earlier? Quite simply, the original research was conducted with the aim of generating profits while recent researchers are not sharing in any of these profits. Therefore, I mistrust any research that is conducted with profit in mind. Unfortunately, this presently applies to most medical research.

The Way Forward
It is now 32 years since President Nixon declared war on cancer. Since then, US $2 trillion has been spent on conventional cancer treatment and research, with the result that more individuals are dying from cancer than ever before. While there have been many studies to evaluate the effects of various nutrients on different cancers, none of the two trillion dollars has been available for natural therapists to conduct trials of holistic cancer therapies. Natural therapists have had to face a century of persecution, many of them being dragged before courts and ending up in jail.

Would it not be more scientific to evaluate the methods of natural cancer therapists rather than put the therapists in jail? Most alternative cancer clinics in the USA have had to relocate to Mexico. (For a list of such clinics worldwide, see the website http://www.cancure.org)

An holistic cancer approach includes superior nutrition, herbs, electromedicine and vibration or energy medicine, emotional healing and mind therapy. The only reported study that compares an holistic approach involves the Gerson therapy in an evaluation of five-year survival rates of 153 melanoma patients. Here, 100% of Gerson therapy patients with Stage 1 and 2 cancers survived, but only 79% survived who had conventional therapy. With Stage 3 cancers (regional metastases), the figures respectively were 70% and 41%; with Stage 4 (distant metastases), 39% with Gerson and 6% with conventional therapy survived.

Many natural cancer therapists claim a success rate of more than 90% in arresting and reversing cancer, provided that patients have not been subjected to orthodox treatment beforehand. The most damaging treatments appear to be chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Therefore, if you are confronted with cancer, I suggest you resist acting out of fear and under pressure. The situation is hardly ever so urgent that you have to act immediately. Instead, do your own research from books, journals and the Internet, and then trust your common sense and intuition.
Nexus, Volume 11, Number 4, June-July 2004

About the Author
Walter Last worked as a biochemist and research chemist in the medical departments of several German universities and at Bio-Science Laboratories in Los Angeles, USA. Later he worked as a nutritionist and natural therapist in New Zealand, where he is now based.

Further Resources
Need good, solid information on cancer and what to do about it?

Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day
Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom
B17 Metabolic Therapy compiled by Phillip Day

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

Skrabanek,P., "False Premises and False Promises of Breast Cancer Screening", The Lancet 2:316-19 (1985)
Baum, M., "The Curability of breast cancer",British Medical Journal 1:439-42 (1976)
Cunningham,L., "Mastectomy for so-called lobular carcinoma in situ", The Lancet 1(8163):306 (February 9,1980)
Editorial, "Breast Cancer :Have we lost our way?" The Lancet 341:343-44 (1993)
Baum,M., "Does surgery disseminate or accelerate cancer?",The Lancet 347:260 (January 27,1996)
Gregl,A., "Die Lebenserwartung des unbehandelten Mammakarzinoms" (The life expectancy of the untreated mamma carcinoma {breast cancer],Klin. Wschr. 41:676 (1963)
Krokowski,E.H., "Is the Current Treatment of Cancer Self-Limiting in the Extent of its Success?", J.Int. Acad. Preventative Medicine 6(1) 23-39 (1979)
Tagliabue,E.et al.," Role of HER2 in wound-induced breast carcinoma proliferation", The Lancet 362:527-533 (August 16, 2003)
Iversen, P. etal., "Radical Prostatectomy versus Expectant Treatment for Early Carcinoma of the Prostate", Scand. J.Urol Nephrol 172:65-72 (1995)
Jones, H.B., Lecture at the American Cancer Society Conference, New Orleans, July 3, 1969
McKinlay, J.B. et al., "A Review of the Evidence Concerning the Impact of Medical Measures on Recent Mortality and Morbidity in the United States" Int. J. Health Services 19(23): 181-208 (1989)
Bailer,J, C, 111, Gornik, H.L., "Cancer Undefeated", New England Journal of Medicine 336: 1569-1574 (1997)
Brown, B.W., Brauner, C., Minnotte, M.C., "Non cancer deaths in white adult cancer patients", Jour. Nat. Cancer Inst. 85:979-987 (1993)
Welch, H.G., Black, W.C., "Are Deaths Within One Month of Cancer-Directed Surgery Attributed to Cancer?", J. Nat. Can. Inst., 94:1066-70 (2002)
Olsen,O.,Gotzche,P.C., "Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography",The Lancet 358:1340-42 (October 20, 2002) and Editorial,pp1284-85
Miller,A.B. et al., "Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study-2: 13 year results of a randomised trial in women 50-59 years", j.Nat. Cancer Ins. 92:1490-99 (September 20, 2000)
Ernster,Virginia L.et al.,"Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast", Journal of the American Medical Association 275(12):913-18 (March 27, 1996)
Page, David L., Jensen, Roy A., "Ductal Carcinoma in situ of the breast", JAMA, ibid pp948-49
Cuzick, Jack et al.," Electropotential measurements as a new diagnostic modality for breast cancer". The Lancet 352:359-63 (August1, 1998)
PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group, "Post-operative radiotherapy in non-small-cell-lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomized controlled trials", The Lancet 352(9124):257-63, 250-51 (July 25, 1998)
Bhatia,S., Robinson,L.L.et al. "Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin's disease", New England J.Med.334(12): 745-51 (March 21, 1996)
Klingspor, L,. Stintzing,G., Tollemar,J., "Deep Candida infection in children with leukaemia", Acta Paediatr. 86(1)30-6 (1997)
Klein-Szanto,A.J.P., "carcinogenic effects of chemotherapeutic compounds", Prog. In Clinical and Biological Research" 374:167-74 (1992)
Riccardi,A.,Mora,O. et al., "Long-term survival of stage 1 multiple myeloma given chemotherapy just after diagnosis or at progression of the disease; a multicentre randomized study", Br.J.Cancer82(7):1254-60 (April 2000)
Abel,U.,"Chemotherapy of epithelial cancer:a critical review", Biomed. Pharmacother, 46(10):439-52 (1992)
Moss, Ralph W.,PhD, Questioning Chemotherapy, Equinox Press, NY, 1995
Nesi, Tom," False hope in a bottle" (Op Ed)New York Times, June 5, 2003
Livingston, Virginia, Cancer:A New Breakthrough, Cancer Book House, LA, 1972
Gould, D. ,"Cancer: A Conspiracy of Silence", New Scientist, 2 December,1976
Moss,R.W., The Moss Reports, no127, April 4,2004 http://www.ralphmoss.com
Moss, R.W., The Moss Reports no 86, June 7,2003
Moss, R.W.,The Moss Reports, no122, February 28, 2004
Null,G., Dean,C.et al.,"Death by Medicine". Nutrition Institute of America, November,2003. http://www.NutritionInstituteOfAmerica.org
Smith,R.(Editor), "The poverty of medical evidence", British Medical Journal, vol.303, 5 October, 1991
Begley, Sharon, "New statistics show increase in cancer rates: cancer rates go up not down", Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2002, p B1
Hidenbrand, G.L. et al.,"Five year survival rates of melanoma patients treated by diet therapy after the manner of Gerson: a retrospective review", Alt.Therapies 1(4):29-37 Sept., 1995s

Bush Officials Weaken Organic Food Standards
Changes Made With Zero Public Input
Bush Greenwatch.org

The Bush Administration is giving Americans new reason to watch what they eat. Over the course of ten days last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued three 'guidances' and one directive, all legally binding interpretations of law, that threaten to seriously dilute the meaning of the word 'organic' and discredit the department's National Organic Program.

The changes which would allow the use of antibiotics on organic dairy cows, as well as synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and more… were made with zero input from the public or the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the advisory group that worked for more than a decade to help craft the first federal organic standards, put in place in October 2002. The USDA insists the changes are harmless: "The directives have not changed anything. They are just clarifications of what are in the regulations that were written by the National Organic Standards Board," stated USDA spokesperson Joan Schaffer. "They just explain what's enforceable. There is no difference…. (between the clarifications and the original regulations)… it's just another way of explaining it."

But Jim Riddle, vice chair of the NOSB and endowed chair of agricultural systems at the University of Minnesota argues that what the USDA is trying to pass off as a clarification of regulations is in fact a substantial change: "These are the sorts of changes for which the department is supposed to do a formal new rulemaking process, with posting in the federal register, feedback from our advisory board, and a public-comment period. And yet there is no such process denoted anywhere."

Organic activists suspect that industry pressure drove the policy shifts. They point out that the USDA leadership has longstanding industry sympathies: Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman served on the board of directors of a biotech company; both her chief of staff and director of communications were plucked right out of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. One practice favored by large agribusiness is the use of antibiotics on cows. A USDA guidance issued on April 14 will allow just that on organic dairy farms - a dramatic reversal of 2002 rules.

Under the new guidelines, sickly dairy cows can be treated not just with antibiotics but with numerous other drugs and still have their milk qualify as organic, so long as 12 months pass between the time the treatments are administered and the time the milk is sold. "This new directive makes a mockery of organic standards," said Richard Wood, a recent member of the FDA's Medicine Advisory Committee and executive director of Food Animal Concerns Trust. Another new guidance put out the same day would allow cattle farmers to feed their heifers non-organic fishmeal that could be riddled with synthetic preservatives, mercury, and PCBs, and still sell their beef as organic. And the following week, on April 23, the USDA took the startling step of issuing a legal directive that opens the door for use of some synthetic pesticides on organic farms.

Last but certainly not least, another guidance released on April 14 narrows the scope of the federal organic certification program to crops, livestock, and the products derived from them, meaning that national organic standards will not be developed for fish, nutritional supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, or personal-care products. Despite the USDA's demurrals, activists view the department's changes as a serious threat to hard-won standards for organic products.

The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and other groups are investigating possible industry influence into the USDA's process, and some environmental groups are preparing to take legal action.

This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch and Grist magazine. For more on this story, visit Grist Magazine.
SOURCES:
1 Antibiotic Guidance statement, USDA, Aprr.14,2004
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/AntibioticGuidance041304.pdf
2 Fishmeal Guidance Statement, USDA, April 14,2004
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/FishmealGuidance041304.pdf
3 Pesticide Compliance, USDA, Apr23, 2004
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/compliance/PesticidesCompliance.pdf
4 Scope Guidance Statement, USDA, Apr14, 2004.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/ScopeGuidance041304.pdf
5 http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000123.php
21st May, 2004

Victory in New Zealand
By Paul Connett

Dear All,

This worldwide roller coaster continues unabated. I am happy to tell you that yesterday the Rotorua District Council in NZ voted against introducing fluoridation. Please send your congratulations to Martin Sharp and the some of the other fluoridation fighters listed below.

Even from the other side of the planet this makes me feel good - actually I visited Rotorua (I didn't give a talk or anything - just a visit) in January of 2003 -and it is a very beautiful place, so I am particularly pleased that wisdom has prevailed there.

Paul Connett
http://www.fluoridealert.org

by Martin Sharp

I attended the Decision meeting for the Rotorua District Council LTCCP 10 Year Plan today. There was a short discussion time with most Councillors making statements. I did not record the wording exactly but the final motion that 'RDC water supply not be Fluoridated' was amended to the effect that the Council also write to MoH Minister of Health) requesting that they investigate other means of tackling the problem of increasingly poor dental hygiene.

The motion was carried unanimously.

The only two vocally against did not bother voting against as they could see the numbers were against them. Interestingly the Councillor that is also on Lakes DHB that previously had been very pro supported the motion and in fact proposed the amendment. What was very evident was that ALL the Councillors saw through all the Red Herrings and made their decision based on some very simple truths.

1) Fluoride is not effective in today's environment of sugar rich, nutrition deficient
diet.

2) Fluoride is mass medication. Citizens have a right to say NO. They also felt that
the MoH needed to expand its thinking past the cheap, nasty and ineffective
fluoride solution to solve our poor dental hygiene problem.

The Deputy Mayor Trevor Maxwell left the meeting to thank me for all the efforts of FANNZ and Rotorua Fluoride Free Water. He made that statement that the presentation Dr Mike Godfrey made to Council during the hearings was crucial to our campaign.
Forwarded to us by Ailsa Boyden in Australia.

Other NZ FAN members and fluoridation fighters:
Martin Sharp martinsharp@lagrouw.co.nz;

Mike Godfrey godfrey@wave.co.nz; Melvin Bowen mel.bowen@xtra.co.nz;

Mark Atkin valhalla@paradise.net.nz; ImeldaWilsoHitchcock imeldah@xtra.co.nz;

FAN dakenbyrne@paradise.net.nz; Bill Wilson bill.wilson@xtra.co.nz

Further Resources
Need more information on fluoride?

Health Wars by Phillip Day

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

From the Mailbag

"Just a quick note to let you know I attended Phillip Day's seminar and it was brilliant! Thank you for giving me the information and opportunity to attend his talk. Although the information is stuff I already teach, I enjoyed his sense of humour and found him very entertaining. It was also good to have re-enforcement that what I 'preach' is on the correct track as well. It's always good to know a person is updated and informed with all the new 'stuff' coming out on a daily basis." - Cecilia. S., Utah, USA

"Great workshop - very convincing!"- Norm G., California, USA

"Your wonderful book 'Health Wars' is a recommended book in our Nutrition Course at the Global Institute for Alternative Medicine." - Beverley J., California, USA

"I attended your seminar in the United States and enjoyed it very much. Keep up the good work. I am with the Cancer Support Group of North California." - Teri D., California, USA

"Thank you for tremendous mission and contribution to our global world and planet!" - Betty B., California, USA

"Fantastic! You cleared up a lot of questions! Thank you so much! God sent me tonight for a reason." - Sue M., California USA

"Thank you so much for your great work!" - Jennifer B., California, USA

"It is great to finally hear someone with the facts on the lies that are being propagated by the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical companies." - Ron C., California, USA

"Fantastic presentation. Thank you…" - Rene H., California, USA

"Great seminar! Good info." - Rebecca K., California., USA

"Great seminar - so good to meet you!" - Barbara L., California, USA

"Thank you for your insight and motivation." - Kathy G., Arizona, USA

"Thank you very much for the info (wisdom)." - Hi E., California, USA

"Really enjoyed meeting you both. Thank you for coming to Phoenix!" - Sherry B., Arizona, USA

"Thank you for the work you are doing!" - Sage B., Arizona, USA

"I try to spread the word about cancer treatment and prevention but it is frustrating when people look at you as if your brains have been locked in a cupboard for years, but I will keep on spreading the Credence message." - Patricia P., Mid Glamorgan, UK

"When I read the British euro-sceptic sites I find that you, the British, think that you are the sole victims of the European Union. It is not true, a lot of countries are losing in many ways because they are members of the EU. Portugal, my country, is one of the big victims. We have all the prices going up (not the wages) and a lot of problems. Worse than that, the democracy is going down. Any politician that suggests that the EU is not a good thing sees the end of his political career. We must destroy the EU. And to destroy it, we must stand together." - Alvaro., Portugal

"There is great information in the books - thanks for the hard work." - Scott K., Idaho, USA

"Please keep up the good work. I am taking the message to everyone I can." - Sandra W., Stillwater, USA

"A wonderful evening of learning." - Michele S., Rupert, USA

"Very informative, I think it would be helpful for Mr. Day to go to schools, universities & colleges." - Reiko P., California, USA

"My introduction to apricot kernels was through a friend who lives in New South Wales. She visited my house in September of 2000 and was very sad as she had been diagnosed with metastasised bone cancer and had spots on her rib, spine and hip. She previously had breast cancer some six years before this diagnosis. I know she thought her life expectancy was doomed and I felt quite shattered as I also had breast cancer 18 months before this and had used my friend as a benchmark of how I was going to progress.

When speaking to her some months later to check on her health, she informed me she was eating apricot kernels each day. I believe it was around 30. This intrigued me as I had no idea there was any value in the kernel of this fruit but decided to start searching the internet for information and this is when I started to come across Phillip Day and other sites which endorsed this cancer strategy.

My friend is now cancer-free according to her professor/specialist and a hair test, she has a lavender farm which she works from the bush to the end product and also has alpachas (hard work), what an inspiration she is.

My cancer was bad, aggressive, two tumours in the left breast and 14 of 17 lymph nodes cancerous. I had a mastectomy of the left breast, undertook 4 intense doses of chemo and 6 standard doses, spaced 3 weeks apart. I also had 6 weeks of radiation therapy. I knew I had a fight on my hands as the specialist explain that their belief was the cancer would be elsewhere.

I made a decision to take other vitamin supplements, including selenium at the very beginning of my diagnosis and then when I heard about apricot kernels, I thought maintenance and prevention was my next option.

My five-year extensive check-up happened in March of this year and all my tests are great. I am very well, feel terrific and know I have lots of energy to enjoy a wonderful life with my precious family and friends. My health is my wealth and the help and joy I give to others, who are embarking on a journey with cancer, is a wonderful reward for being a survivor." - Judy M., Australia

"I was honoured to be at Phillip Day's meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on June 29th and was totally spellbound! WHAT a meeting and what an education! I am pumped more than ever to help spread the word!" - Rhonda B., Georgia, USA

"I applaud Phillip Day for taking a stand against the medical community and sharing the truth." - Vicki Q., California, USA

"I never knew!" - Andrew S., London, UK

"Thank you for your commitment to the truth."- Esther.P., Kent, UK

"Preserving our right to free access to supplements of all kinds, is fundamental. This is a constitutional issue, and at the very least, should have sparked a 5-year analysis, conducted by all interested parties and government officials, before anything resembling changes in the laws, was even contemplated."- John P., LA, USA

CREDENCE AUSTRALIA

Winter 2004 Special Offer

Winter is now well and truly upon us!

Relax indoors out of the chilly air
with a good book in hand!

Why not take advantage of Credence's special Winter Offer and purchase any three book titles for the low price of
$90.00 (plus postage)

AND

receive FREE of charge, a 90-minute Health Wars audio;

Choose from the following book titles; The ABC's of Disease, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century, The Mind Game, Ten Minutes to Midnight, World Without AIDS, Food for Thought, B17 Metabolic Therapy: A Technical Manual, Health Wars, Wake up to Health in the 21st Century and Toxic Bite.

To place your order

Phone the friendly Credence staff on: (03) 5762 1299, Fax: 03 9923 6349
or email sales@credence.com.au

Offer valid until midnight 31/8/04, or while stocks last

CREDENCE NEW ZEALAND

Winter 2004 Special Offer

Winter is now well and truly upon us!

Relax indoors out of the chilly air
with a good book in hand!

Why not take advantage of our special Winter Offer and
purchase any three book titles for the low price of
AUD $82.00 (plus postage)

AND

receive FREE of charge, a 90-minute Health Wars audio;

Choose from the following book titles; The ABC's of Disease, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century, The Mind Game, Ten Minutes to Midnight, World Without AIDS, Food for Thought, B17 Metabolic Therapy: A Technical Manual, Health Wars, Wake up to Health in the 21st Century and Toxic Bite.

To place your order

Phone the friendly Credence staff on: 0800 443 744, Fax: 61 3 9923 6349
or email sales@credence.com.au

Please note: all charges will be in Australian Dollars
Credit card orders only can be accepted

Offer valid until midnight 31/8/04, or while stocks last

CREDENCE USA AND CANADA

Even though Phillip Day has left our shores, his message continues on stronger than ever.

Phillip's recent ABC'S of Disease tour has attracted huge audiences around the country, with so many people embracing the "Force for Change".

If you missed seeing Phillip live, or you wish to further your knowledge, Credence offers you this post-tour special:

For just $45.00USD or $59.00 CAN, you will receive a copy of the following book titles:

Health Wars
ABC's of Disease
and
Receive a copy of the Healthy at 100
video FREE! (NTSC format)
(Inclusive of shipping / handling / tax)

Join Credence in your journey for better health!

To take advantage of this offer
Phone Credence on: (208) 524 1571, Fax: (208) 524 1511
or email credenceusa@cableone.net

Offer valid until 8/31/04 or while stocks last.

Dear CTM Subscriber

CTM, Credence and Vital Minerals are expanding their opening hours, so it is even more convenient for you to get hold of us! The new opening times are as follows:

Monday to Friday: 9-6pm (GMT)
Saturday: 9-1pm

The phone number still remains the same, (01622) 832386, or +44 1622 832386 if you are calling internationally. The website addresses are also unchanged:

www.campaignfortruth.com

www.credence.org or www.phillipday.com

www.vitalminerals.org

Credence and Vital Minerals also have an out-of-hours call centre operating, so you are still able to leave orders and messages which will be dealt with during the specified office hours.

We currently have a few special offers within Credence and these can be found on our website www.credence.org

Details of my latest UK and Ireland tour can also be found on www.credence.org/tours

With my best wishes for your continued good health.

Phillip Day

WELCOME MAT

Welcome to E-Club! This bulletin is FREE! If you have received this bulletin in error or wish to unsubscribe, please e-mail us at eclub@campaignfortruth.com and put “Cancel” in the message header. Please note that CTM accepts no responsibility if you have received this bulletin from a source other than CTM. If you have received this bulletin unsolicited from someone other than us and do not wish to subscribe, please contact the person who forwarded you the bulletin and request that they take you off their mailing list.

For those receiving this bulletin legitimately for the first time, you are part of an active and daily-growing group interested in the latest advances and news in the realm of alternative healthcare.The purpose of E-Club is to convey the latest and hottest news surrounding alternative health to subscribers by their thousand all over the world at the touch of a button. Have a friend who would be interested? Have them log on to www.campaignfortruth.com/join.htm to subscribe to the greatest alternative health phenomenon on the Internet! Have some great news or testimonies you feel others should know about? Don’t be shy! Send us an e-mail!

Published by Campaign for Truth in Medicine, UK