The Zika Hoax – the Washington Post backtracks

So mosquitos brandishing the Zika virus were going to bite us all. And women who were pregnant would have babies with small heads and small brains.

Yet again, this fear mongering from the global ‘Health’ community (as always directed by Big Pharma) has been turned out to be tosh – elaborate propaganda to make a few more dollars in profit, while Big Brother Health Authorities try to gain yet more control over your everyday lives. As usual, America is the epicenter of the propaganda.

Big Pharma controls the mainstream media, but every now and then up pop a couple of journalists who ask questions.

In October 2016, the Washington Post, which had been one of the leading protagonists in the propaganda hoax, published a story (1) by Dom Phillips and Nick Miroff which mentioned a few inconvenient truths.

According to their information 650,000 people in Latin America and the Caribbean had been infected by Zika, including ‘tens of thousands’ of pregnant women. But, according to WHO figures, more than 75 per cent of the babies born with small heads and neurological damage were confined to a very small region in Brazil where the original scam (sorry, scare) originated.

Scientists in Brazil are saying that other factors were prevalent, with some especially talking about environmental factors and an accidental dumping of a lavacide chemical into the rivers of that particular Brazilian region.

Despite the second highest levels of zika virus infection, Columbia has had few cases of encephaly, and has declared the problem over.

However, there are always going to be a few scientists trumpeting the fear-mongering propaganda. The latest propaganda (for which there is little scientific evidence at all) is that the encephaly problems will emerge later in life.

Meanwhile, some experts question whether Deet, the insect repellant chemical, is involved. One study (2) concluded that there had been 14 cases of infants where Deet was possibly linked to encephaly, and 71 reportings to Poison Control Centres in America. But the research is tenuous.

Ref

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/the_americas/scientists-are-bewildered-by-zikas-path-across-latin-america/2016/10/25/5e3a992c-9614-11e6-9cae-2a3574e296a6_story.html

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7595461?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Deep State

Does electing a particular President, or a Prime Minister really change anything? Apart from a few cosmetic alterations, does an Obama or a Cameron really change the lives of the population who democratically put him into office? (writes Chuck Cable)

The sad truth is, hardly at all. These elected leaders are little more than puppets. Welcome to Deep State.

But please don’t be fooled here – Deep State is not the inertia caused by non-changing departments and under-bureaucracy ever present in the descending tiers of Government or Civil Service.

Deep State is the control – increasingly, total control – of the state by vested interest. Only recently, President Putin of Russia talked of the resurgence of the ‘Illuminati’ and how he was determined to take them on. Do you think he is a complete crank? He is currently talking about revealing a report by Russian medical experts on the failings and corruption in the vaccine industry. He says Russia wants no part of the America vaccine corruption mechanism near it. He’s certainly right on that argument!

Deep state is the term given to the influence and control by certain parties over democratically elected government. Vested interest is all-powerful.

Everybody must surely be aware nowadays that it takes money to get elected. For example, ‘Big Sugar’ is run by the Fanuji brothers. One supports the Republicans, the other the Democrats. They’re not stupid. And Clinton in flagrante delicto with Monica L, apparently took just one phone call – that’s the power of Big Sugar.

Can you even get elected without a courtesy call to Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook? Or millions in donations from Big Pharma, Apple, Microsoft, Merck and the occasional oil baron? New pipeline across America? No, problem.

Is it any surprise that they expect something in return? Can you even go to war without money from the Big Banks (all under Jewish influence)? And now in California – they want child vaccinations under the control of the State, not the parent. Yes, I know there is a vote, and I know Oregon threw the law out, but the very fact that a bunch of non-elected bureaucrats think they are more competent to decide than the parent, says it all.

Did I say bureaucrats? In Europe elected MEPs passed a law (a resolution actually) to ban over 1000 chemicals of concern from everyday products you use in your home today. Result? A Euro Commissioner (un-elected) said the decision needed rethinking and appointed an unelected committee to look a it. Were lobbying and vested interests involved? Is the Pope Catholic?

In America the Committee at the CDC who approve vaccines, and key personnel at the FDA who approve drugs, seem almost interchangeable with people openly working for Big Pharma. How independent is that? And if a drug or a vaccine is approved in the USA today, how long before it is approved in the UK or Europe, without any real questions asked?

So here we are. A pound of flesh and the rest. Welcome to Deep State – the new Illuminati.

Drugs and vaccinations are given immunity from public claims for causing harm. American companies shift money around the world and avoid local taxes. Big food continues to serve up trans fat, sugar-rich junk; Wiki-leaks shows us the US Government was prepared to threaten and blackmail France if they stood up to GMO; Why, you can even attack Iraq illegally alongside George Bush and when you retire land a plum job in charge of Palestinian Peace, earning a fortune for failure their too.

As always, innocent people are suckered in. For example, every Skeptic arguing against ‘alternative therapies’ is just a Deep State troll in conflict with the fundamental Orwellian prophecies in the book they read and quoted at University. Just when they thought they were standing up for ‘liberty, freedom of speech and true democracy’ – even true science – it turns out they are just Darth Vader clones, making ever more money for the Mr Bigs, and dumping their children in ever deeper shit.

How ironic that Apple’s launch advertising back in the eighties was “1984 will not be like 1984’.

Oh yeah?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Pharma providing ‘Useless and sometimes harmful drugs’

The Queen’s former doctor, also former-president of the Royal College of Physicians Sir Richard Thompson is part of a group of six eminent doctors warning about the negative influence of pharmaceutical companies in the public health arena. The group has called for an urgent and independent public enquiry into drugs firms’ ‘murky’ practices by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.

One of the group’s other experts, NHS cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, two years ago (along with 11 other cardiologists), told the UK Prime Minister to adopt the colourful Mediterranean Diet as a way of ‘preventing all the chronic illnesses that beset the Western World’, instead of ‘popping pills’. Then, one of the targets was statins.

The new group claims that too often patients are given useless and sometimes harmful drugs that they simply do not need. They claim public funding is often allocated to medical research because it is likely to be profitable, not because it will be beneficial for patients.

Crucially, whilst they accuse the NHS of failing to stand up to Big Pharma, they argue that the latter are developing medicines they can profit from, rather than those, which are likely to be the most beneficial to patients.

But the strongest words were left to last. Thompson and his colleagues accuse the NHS of ‘over-treating’ its patients, arguing that the side-effects of too much Big Pharma medicine is leading to countless deaths’.

Examples of the over-claims and money wasting include half a billion pounds on Tamiflu that was neither needed nor worked, and statins, where the original clinical trial data has never ever been published.

Only recently statins have been shown to double the risk of diabetes.

, , , , , , , , , ,

“All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent”

Apparently, patients are losing trust in doctors and scientists.

Dame Sally Davies, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer has decided to make the research behind medical treatments ‘much more transparent’ amid concerns that the public increasingly believe that doctors and medical scientists are “untrustworthy”. The reasons, she claimed, were that doctors over –medicate and prescribe medicines too freely, while scientists are distrusted because of Big Pharma funding.

A BBC ‘File on Four’ documentary on Alteplase, which breaks down blood clots seems to have prompted her action. According to The Times, stroke ‘expert’, Alistair Buchan has said that researchers should publish every figure behind their claims about whether or not a new drug is useful.

But, this move to transparency may not be quite what you or I really hope for. Buchan goes on to talk about negative comments in the media “putting stroke treatment back to where we started”.

Let’s get a few things straight. Peter C. Gotzsche, head of the prestigious Nordic Cochrane Centre has published a book entitled, “Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare”. In February there was a report from the FDA stating that at least 40 per cent of clinical trials were flawed, and recently Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the top rated medical journal, The Lancet, stated that much of the published research data on drugs is unreliable and at least half is false. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Gotszche notes that prescription drugs are the third largest cause of death in the Western world after heart disease and cancer.

Patients are right to have concerns.

The smart public knows this – we know that Big Pharma has spent years bribing and falsifying. Fraud seems second nature to some companies. In the last couple of years Glaxo has been hit with massive fines from America to China.

The added problem is that the hierarchy in medicine has made the doctor complicit, whether he is an ‘expert’ oncologist or a local GP.

Doctors – it’s your own fault patients don’t trust you any more. ‘All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent”.

Yes, we are concerned that you over-medicate. Polypharmacy (dishing out a cocktail of drugs to patients) is the number one cause of death in the state of Florida where the average age is higher than most other places. Thirteen drugs per patient is not uncommon. When did you ever see a clinical trial featuring thirteen drugs?!

But the bigger issue is the dismissive nature of many doctors. Offered statins by his doctor, a friend of mine asked about the side-effects. “There aren’t any” came the reply. “Well what about heart and muscle problems”. “They aren’t problems – we have tests for those”.

The doctor didn’t even consider talking about increased risks of diabetes.

I listen to patients offered Taxol and told there is nothing to worry about when they ask about side-effects. Yet German research presented at the European Breast Cancer Symposium a few years ago expressed real concerns on it causing cancer spread.

Meanwhile the same doctors tell patients not to take supplements, when there is no research on conflict. It’s not just that some doctors are corrupted by Big Pharma bribery. Their advice is a mess.

So, what is the answer? Unfortunately, Dame Sally is looking at ‘a proliferation of contradictory claims in the press and scientific journals’. There’s a possible next step.

Stop the media reporting that drugs might be dodgy. Then scientists and doctors will become trustworthy again. Brilliant!

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hear this well: Vaccines cause autism

CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen well and truly put her foot in her mouth last week.

Seeking to state the ‘Official view’ that vaccines are safe, and especially the MMR vaccine following the CDC whistleblower story that research evidence had been fraudulently withheld, she leant forward to camera on TV and said, “Autism is not a side effect of vaccines or to say it another way because some people don’t hear this well, vaccines do not cause autism.”

The backlash was immediate and huge. Welcome to the ‘Hear this well’ campaign.

Starting with Polly Tommey: This lady has two children, one perfectly normal but the other became seriously autistic following MMR vaccination at the age of 13 months. Seizures, high pitched screaming, head bashing and severe gut problems were just four of the symptoms; Polly had already formed the Autism Media Channel.

Polly cut ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ from the CNN piece and then she explained on video the story of her autistic son with the words ‘Some people don’t hear that well’. See the first video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WsLuR3X6cpg&list=PLJpPObXpZncOfT0bG2ghgkVb2Nxjd_bNe&index=1

Others follow on from this link, because it started a landslide. Mothers, fathers, grandparents all made short videos about their offspring, and MMR vaccines and autism. And the videos all used variations of the theme ‘Hear this well’. In double quick time there were more than 400 posted on You Tube. Some featured stories, at least one involved the death of the child. Others featured the child clearly showing their condition symptoms.

Several even talk of family members catching measles from the vaccinated child. Destruction of lives is a constant theme and even death is mentioned in some.

It wasn’t only Big Pharma and the CDC that Cohen exposed. Much of the mainstream media (who often benefit from large drug company budgets in America) have not covered any of this news story about whistleblowers, autism and vaccines. Nor have the Big Pharma-sympathizing skeptics who originally produced such a robust attack on Dr Andrew Wakefield.

However accidental, Cohen has inflamed the situation and brought it to a wider audience on social media.

See also “#CDCwhistleblower” and “#hearthiswell”.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

GlaxoSmithKlein – an endemic culture of fraud?

GSK the UK pharmaceutical to deodorant company is fast making a name for itself with brand values that include bribery, fraud and corruption, plus a fair smattering of junk science thrown in for good measure.

You would think that one bribery case would be enough to force the board to review its whole business strategy worldwide – especially as getting caught in America was extremely serious. The criminal fraud case involved a variety of drugs and issues such as making false claims, ‘exaggerating’ research conclusions, telling lies and bribery. That case in America cost them $3 billion plus change. Well, it was the largest fraud case in medical history. At this point, most boards of companies would be looking at themselves and putting ‘best practice’ into place to avoid any chance of a repetition.

But it doesn’t seem quite like this at GSK. Over the past months allegations of fraud, bribing doctors and even sex scandals have emerged in the great frontier market of China. A whistleblower sent an e mail in January alleging that doctors were sent expensive gifts and even cash. They would be invited to attend conferences, which were really all-expenses-paid holidays. (Isn’t this exactly what happens in Europe and America?). And payments were allegedly channeled through a ‘travel agency’ business. Hardly dodgy at all, really.

After a Private detective, Peter Humphrey, hired by GSK to investigate a smear campaign against them, reported that he thought claims might well be true and he himself was jailed this week for buying and selling private information, the likely outcome in China looks not much better than it did in America. Chinese authorities have filed criminal charges of bribery, corruption and fraud against Mark Reilly, the former head of GSK operations in China with the Serious Fraud Squad crawling all over the company – the UK is now helping their Chinese counterparts.

Such allegations, if proven, would also bring the American Authorities back into play. The US Dept. of Justice is now looking into possible breaches of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Britain may also investigate as it has a new ‘Bribery Act’.

But now GSK faces new corruption claims in Syria where it is alleged to have bribed doctors and officials to drive sales. Of course, there are some that would say that GSK was just being caught up in politics, given the war and views on Britain held locally. But then GlaxoSmithKlein is also being investigated for bribery in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Poland.

GSK has issued a statement saying that they are ‘committed to taking disciplinary actions’ if guilt is proven and that they have ‘zero tolerance’ of unethical behavior. One wonders quite who it is that has the ‘zero tolerance’?

And isn’t this all huff and puff? Par for the course? Peter C. Gotzsche, a Danish Medical researcher and leader of the prestigious Nordic Cochrane Centre has written a complete review of the atrocities that Big Pharma routinely get up to in his book, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare (first published 2013; ISBN 9781846198847). You can guess the atrocities he talks about. Anyone with an open mind knew them long ago.

We have covered GSK in Junk Science before – that time they had been in top medical journal, BMJ, with the finding that 80% of flu vaccine research did not hold up to proper scrutiny.

We also covered this: Just a decade ago Dr. Allen Roses the worldwide Vice President of genetics and a top executive of the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline stated simply that “The vast majority of drugs – more than 90% – only work in 30 to 50% of the people.”

Isn’t that the crux of the problem? If GSK made wonderful drugs that worked for the majority of people, why would doctors need to be bribed to use them? Maybe the drugs aren’t that wonderful; and/or maybe all the competitors are playing the same games too?

, , , , , , , , , ,

Who pays this Doctor?

A new website has been launched. Who pays this Doctor? And it’s at http://www.whopaysthisdoctor.org/. It is voluntary. But it would be nice to think all British Doctors would rush to sign up and declare their interests.

One would hope clinics of, say; six doctors would do the same. In the USA some clinics are paid fees by Big Pharma to provide data for research. I’m sure that doesn’t happen in the UK though.

Great idea. I hope all doctors sign up immediately. We will see how it progresses.

“The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) has announced that the 2013 total for funds ‘provided’ to doctors by Big Pharma in the UK is around 38-39 million pounds slightly down on the 2012 level”.

, , ,

Big Pharma bias and inaccurate conclusions in vaccine research

The conclusions drawn in over 80 per cent of flu vaccine global research studies did not hold up to objective scrutiny, according to a report in the BMJ, March 2014. Huge inaccuracy levels like these rightly fuel serious skeptic concerns that flu vaccine benefits are often hyped.

The BMJ study, which looked at some 274 comparative studies on flu vaccination, found that only a mere 18 per cent of the studies were deemed to actually prove what the articles claimed to be their findings!

The better the quality of the study the more likely the study was to prove what was claimed.

However,

1.The size of the study was not linked to accuracy of conclusions.

2.Nor were more citations. Actually they were linked to partial or complete industry funding. And then these are more likely to be found in more prestigious journals.

The BMJ report stated that, “Studies partly or completely sponsored by industry, however, were published in more prestigious journals and are probably cited more, although their methodological quality and size were similar. Some of these findings might help to explain the continuation of a near global policy, (to flu vaccination), despite growing doubts as to its scientific basis”.

While “70% of the studies reported conclusions favourable to the vaccines … only 18% showed complete concordance between data reported and study conclusions. Over half (56%) of studies were at high risk of bias, with only 4% being at low risk”.

Given that doctors and other healthcare professionals have little time and tend to ‘flick read’ little more than the top line conclusions, a figure of 18 per cent accuracy is cause for great concern. But worse, the appearance in ‘trustworthy’ prestigious publications is more to do with funding by interested companies than accuracy.

And worse still, many of the studies are then re-quoted, and/or used to substantiate others. It’s self-perpetuating medical mythology.

Tom Jefferson, lead author said, “The study shows that one of the levers for accessing prestigious journals is the financial size of your sponsor. Pharmaceutical sponsors order many reprints of studies supporting their products, often with in-house translations into many languages. They will also purchase publicity space on the journal. Many publishers openly advertise these services on their website.”

Ref: BMJ 2009;338:b354

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/338/feb12_2/b354

, , , ,

Chemotherapy doesn’t work very well because you’re fat!

No, seriously. It’s your own fault your chemotherapy didn’t work very well. According to a September research study in the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) Journal of Clinical Oncology, the amount of chemotherapy drugs should increase with body weight.

The fatter you are, the more drugs you will need. At least that’s what Big Pharma is now saying ably supported by a number of top oncologists in America. Apparently, their concern is that as waistlines increase, people are being ‘under-treated’ by as much as 85 per cent!! No wonder the drugs didn’t work.

There’s a slight biochemical hic-cough with this view. You may be fatter, but it is unlikely that your tumour will be much bigger than a thin person’s, nor that it is growing any faster, and the organ it has attacked may be no bigger either. If it is growing faster, all the recent research suggests that this is because a fat person’s blood glucose levels are likely to be higher than those of a thin person – but that’s a different issue requiring a different solution. Conversely, Calorie Restriction seems to make chemo more effective as we covered earlier in 2013. But there again, as CANCERactive covered at the time, Big Pharma thinks doses of chemo should be higher with Calorie Restriction too (?).

So, what the heck?! Fat and high blood glucose, or, thin and low blood glucose? ‘Supersize’ them now’ is the cry from Big Pharma.

, , , , , , ,

Yet again destructive skeptic trolls are trying to silence free comment that could benefit the health of people in Britain, this time by fabricating stories and whipping up media comment around erroneous claims. The hand of the Pharmaceutical Industry seems all too evident. This just shows the dreadful depths the dark side will go to to keep mainstream medical mythology from genuine sceptical challenge.

Many rational people often feel that Pharmaceutical Ccompanies pay skeptics to be their shills. But, of course, there is little evidence. However, they are known to fund certain skeptic organisations. For example, Sense about Science, a well funded anti-homeopathy skeptic organization in the United Kingdom, once complained about a consumer’s group H:MC21’s, assertion that SAS was funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The consumer group wrote in response to the complaint.

‘You quote us as saying that Sense About Science “received over 35% of its donation funding from the pharmaceutical industry between 2004 and 2009”, but then refer only to funding “from pharmaceutical companies”. As a result of the investigation following your email, we have found that our original claim about Sense About Science’s funding was too conservative. In fact Sense About Science appears to have received an average of 42.3% of its total income between 2004 and 2010 from pharmaceutical companies or organisations clearly linked to the pharmaceutical industry. In 2006, the year [the anti-homeopathy] ‘Sense About Homeopathy’ was published, there was a huge leap in such funding, from£37,300 (36.9% of total income) to £102,165 (51.2% of total income).

The Canadian skeptic organization called Centre for Inquiry, which is another anti-homeopathy skeptic group, is almost entirely funded by a director of a pharmaceutical company. Both groups are attempting to stop consumers’ choice of alternative health modalities and stop the sale of homeopathic remedies.

THE WDDTY WARS: Why they don’t want you to ‘read all about it!’
Two days ago we woke up to find ourselves and our magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You the subject of a national scandal. On Tuesday October 1, the Times ran with an article about how there was a ‘call to ban’ our journal What Doctors Don’t Tell You over ‘health scares’.

The original Times article alleged that a group of ‘experts’, including ‘scientists, doctors and patients’ were ‘condemning’ shops for carrying our magazine,

The article also said that we’d claimed that vitamin C ‘cures’ HIV, that homeopathy could treat cancer, that we’d implied the cervical cancer vaccines has killed ‘hundreds’ of girls and that we’d told parents in our latest (October 2013) issues not to immunize their children with the MMR.

The Wright Stuff on channel 5 quickly followed suit with a television debate, flashing up a picture of me, Five Live followed up with a television debate about our magazine. By Thursday, when the Press Gazette were onto it, the headlines had escalated to: ‘Warning that claims in alternative health mag could prove fatal.’

In all of the furore, not one of the newspapers, radio shows or television stations bothered to contact us, even to solicit a comment – which is Journalism 101 when you intend to run a story on someone, pro or con.

It’s also apparent from the information published in The Times and in all the media following that not one journalist or broadcaster has read one single word we’ve written, particularly on the homeopathy story, and for very good reason: the article and the magazine containing it in fact have not yet been published.

Here is what the Times said, and here is what we actually published:

The Times stated: we said vitamin C cures HIV.

We had written: “US internist Robert Cathcart…devised an experiment with around 250 inpatients who tested positive for HIV. In a letter to the editor of The Lancet, he wrote that his regime of giving oral doses of vitamin C close to “bowel tolerance” had “slowed, stopped or sometimes reversed for several years” the depletion of an HIV patient’s CD4+ cells.

The Times says we tell parents not to immunize their children with the MMR.

We interviewed – and simply quoted – a medical doctor called Dr Jayne Donegan, who had carried out her own research into the MMR, and concluded that a child with a strong immune system shouldn’t have the vaccine. This was the considered view of Dr Donegan, not us. We were simply quoting her.

The Times says we said that we implied that the cervical cancer vaccine has killed ‘hundreds’ of girls’.

We had said that, up to 2011, the American Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System had received notification of 68 deaths and 18,727 adverse reactions to the vaccine. The figure has now risen to 27,023 events.

The Times said we referred to a study in India in which girls had died following the vaccine but had not mentioned that one girl had drowned and one died from a snake bite.

We said that seven children died and 120 suffered debilitating side effects so bad that the trial was stopped following protests from parents, doctors, public health organizations and health networks. The Times also omitted to mention that, in 2010, an official Indian government report discovered huge lapses in the study’s design, which resulted in gross under-reporting of serious side effects.

The Times said that we ‘suggest homeopathy could cure cancer’.

In the ‘Coming Next Month’ column in our October issue we wrote the following (and this is all we wrote:

‘The US government has carried out impressive studies into homeopathy as a treatment for cancer, and a clinic is India is actually using it. We report on their findings about homeopathy as a cancer treatment.’

The Times story – and all the stories that follow – are entirely the work of Simon Singh, and his organization Sense About Science, a protracted skirmish that’s been going on for about a year, ever since we went launched our magazine in September 2013. Singh, you may know, is the self-proclaimed guardian of all things ‘scientific’ with the pharmaceutically backed organization he fronts, ‘Sense About Science’.

Singh contacted our distributor, and then all our outlets (like Smiths and the supermarkets) and tried to persuade them to stop carrying us (they refused). He then relentlessly pestered the Advertising Standards Association with complaints about our advertisers, to try to prevent them from advertising.

Singh is also associated with the Nightingale Collaboration, a ragtag group who meet in a pub of the same name, also allegedly wedded to ‘true’ science. After our launch, dozens of anonymous trolls began writing hateful and fairly libellous stuff on our Facebook pages.

Last autumn the Guardian ran an online story claiming that our distributor was threatening to ‘sue’ Singh (they are not and never have threatened, nor have we). We also got ‘interviewed’ by a Glaswegian doctor named Margaret McCartney, also associated with Singh, who writes for the BMJ.

Recently, a doctor called Dr. Matthew Lam began contacting supermarkets, and informing them that he was calling for complaints to be made to customer service teams at all the supermarkets who carry us. He said he was spearheading this campaign with Singh, McCartney and Alan Henness of the Nightingale Collaboration.

Please allow me to join the dots. Sense About Science publishes online as its sponsors the British Pharmaceutical Association, the official trade body for the UK’s drug companies. Another one of its sponsors is The Guardian.

The next interesting aspect of this episode is the sheer hypocrisy of News International, which published the original story about us. That company, which owns The Times, is owned by the Murdoch organization. The Murdoch organization also owns HarperCollins. HarperCollins published three of my books, including a book entitled What Doctors Don’t Tell You, a culmination of many years of research for WDDTY the newsletter.

Harper liked the book so much they published it twice, first in 1996 after paying a team of lawyers at Carter-Ruck, the UK’s top libel firm, to spend hundreds of hours of legal time carefully sifting through all of the scientific evidence supporting statements I made in the book to ensure the material was rock solid. It was only published after they were satisfied that every last statement was correct.

WDDTY was a bestseller for Harper – so much so that they asked me to update it and published the new version in 2006. It’s also been an international bestseller, currently in some 20 languages around the world.

At one point, I was also a columnist for the Times and ran a story highly critical of the MMR vaccine.

Besides being a demonstration of how shoddy journalism has become, what interests me about this episode is that it offers evidence of the enormous shift that has occurred in the press’s notion of its role in society. The Times seems to be suggesting that their role is to ‘protect’ the public by censoring information that departs from standard medical line.

Determining what is fit for public consumption, or indeed how its readers should treat their illnesses, is emphatically not a newspaper’s job – ours or anyone else’s.

Our job as journalists is simply to inform – to report the facts, even when they are inconvenient truths, as they are so often in medicine, particularly with such things as vaccines or alternative cancer therapy.

For despite all the grandstanding and pink ribbons and prettily turned phrases, the fact remains that the whole of modern medicine’s arsenal against cancer is both blatantly unscientific and ineffective. When not manipulated, the bald statistics reveal that chemo only works 2 per cent of the time .The War on Cancer from the orthodox perspective is decisively being lost.

Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of people are being cured by other methods of cancer treatment. Millions of others who have cancer or whose loved ones have cancer want to know ways to treat cancer that are less dangerous and more effective.

That qualifies as news, and it’s our duty as the press to report that. It’s my job to deliver well researched information, and that’s supposed to be the Times’ job too.

Several months ago, I met Patricia Ellsberg, the wife of Daniel Ellsberg. Back when I was a student, deciding whether or not to be a journalist, Ellsberg, an employee of the CIA, came across hundreds of pages of documents revealing America’s shameful role in the Vietnam war.

Ellsberg felt this was news and it was his duty to leak these papers to the New York Times. The Times felt it was their duty to publish these revelations, these inconvenient truths. Then President Nixon attempted to censor these leaks by attempting a legal embargo on The Times – a blatant attempt at government censorship.

The Ellsbergs (faced with life imprisonment – was anybody ever so brave?) turned on a photocopy machine, made multiple copies and leaked the documents to the Washington Post.

And when Nixon went after the Post, the Ellsbergs smuggled the papers to 17 other newspapers. Not one paper blinked. Not one paper decided this information wasn’t fit to print – or that the public needed to be ‘protected’ from a lying presidency.

But these days, the press – far less ‘free,’ now largely owned by huge corporations, including in the pharmaceutical industry (Murdoch’s son was on the board of one such drug company) – has now become the party with powerful vested interests to protect. Today the press is the Richard Nixon of the piece.

Back when the NY Times was publishing The Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post published the Watergate disclosures, newspapers wouldn’t be caught dead being associated with some industry backed body, especially one with the track record of carnage enjoyed by Big Pharma, as the Guardian now is.

But today newspapers are haemorrhaging money, and so have to have industry backing and its consequent influence. The public, which wants the truth, knows this and rejects this industry public relations by boycotting newspapers. Presently, the Guardian is losing £100,000 a day, and the Times is losing £80,000 a day. People don’t believe newspapers anymore. They know they have to go elsewhere for their news. That’s why they come to publications like ours.

As Deep Throat once told Woodward and Bernstein, when they were investigating Watergate: If you want to find out the truth, just follow the money.

If you’d like to support WDDTY and a free press, and you haven’t yet voiced your support of the stores for stocking the title, let the following Customer Service departments know:

WH Smith
Customer.Relations@WHSmith.co.uk

Sainsbury’s
customerservice@sainsburys.co.uk

Tesco
customer.service@tesco.co.uk

And with the weekend coming up, show your support by buying a copy. It’s available in Tesco, Sainsbury’s, WH Smiths, and over 8000 independent retail outlets.

, , , , , , , , , ,