Listen to the program here:http://www.cbc.ca/recivilization/episode/2012/02/05/episode-three-collaborative-health-care/
In part three of the CBC radio series 'ReCivilization', Don examines the future of health care and medicine, where patients become co-managers of their own wellness, and use the web to network with each other for support, knowledge, and healing - outside the old, institutional, medical framework.
Listen to the program here:http://www.cbc.ca/recivilization/episode/2012/02/05/episode-three-collaborative-health-care/
7 Comments
Researcher Confesses: Implicates Dr. Mikovits in Theft of Materials from Whittemore Peterson Institute ("WPI")
by CORT on NOVEMBER 22, 2011 Dr. Judy Mikovits has had a difficult couple of months. First the BWG study indicated the tests she developed for XMRV were not valid, then evidence of contamination resulted in a partial retraction of the original Science paper, then she was accused of doctoring a photo at a conference and in the original Science paper prompting several investigation, then she was terminated from her job at the WPI, then she was served with a lawsuit claiming that she had stolen data from the WPI and since last week, she’s being in the Ventura County jail waiting arraignment as a fugitive from justice because, against court orders, she crossed the Nevada border into California. She must be wondering if it could get any worse. It has - but first some background. The latest episode began with a lawsuit filed by the WPI a month after Dr. Mikovits termination claiming that Dr. Mikovits had taken critical notebooks and flash drives from the WPI after she was fired. According to ScienceInsider Dr Mikovits had the only key to the desk the notebooks were kept in. After Dr. Mikovits termination the WPI had the desk manufacturer open the desk for them and found it empty of her and other researchers notebooks. A source at the WPI said that it was her understanding that Dr. Mikovits desk had been ‘emptied out’ and up to five years research data was gone. They then served notice of the theft to the police and a police investigation began. Why are these laboratory notebooks so important? Because they serve as the document of record in scientific research and are specially manufactured and used in specific ways….. WIKIPEDIA – A lab notebook is a primary record of research…..To ensure that the data cannot be easily altered, notebooks with permanently bound and numbered pages are often recommended. Researchers are often encouraged to write only with unereasable pen, to sign and date each page, and to have their notebooks inspected periodically by another scientist who can read and understand it. All of these guidelines can be useful in proving exactly when a discovery was made, in the case of a patent dispute. After several failed attempts to get the materials back the WPI filed a lawsuit a month later to compel Dr. Mikovits to return notebooks, flash drives, information on her laptop computer and information in her email account. In a blog titled “Wings of Hope: Our Responsibility” the WPI stated that the failed efforts to get the materials back forced had forced them to engage in ‘costly litigation”. The data loss included 12-20 notebooks dating back five years. The WPI stated that, "the costs of legal action pale in comparison to the years of expenses incurred for researcher salaries, equipment, and supplies to generate this valuable work”. (Dr. Mikovits contract stipulated that all intellectual property she produced while under the employ of the WPI was the property of the WPI.) The WPI also won a temporary restraining order stopping Dr. Mikovits from “destroying, deleting or altering’ any of the materials that may be in her position. For her part, through her attorney Dr. Mikovits stated that she received notice of her firing on her cell phone and then immediately left for her home in Southern California without visiting the Institute again. She stated she had placed her keys in unlocked drawers in her lab as was her custom so that other lab personnel would have access to the notebooks. Her attorney stated that: Dr. Mikovits was not and is not in possession of the lab notebooks or any WPI intellectual property. A number of individuals have keys to the office and lab, including the administrative staff, lab staff and custodial. Instead of Dr. Mikovits returning the materials her attorney requested that her notebooks be returned to her so she can continue to work on the grants she won while employed at the WPI. Her attorney stated that: "Dr. Mikovits’ notebooks, as well as those of the employees whom she supervised, should be returned to Dr. Mikovits so she can fulfill her responsibilities as PI on these government grants and corporate contacts". The WPI lawsuit does not request just the return of the materials; if found guilty it also requests that Dr. Mikovits be liable for attorneys fees, punitive damages and other damages to be proven at trial – potentially leaving Dr. Mikovits with a substantial financial burden if the WPI prevails. The Judge overseeing the case ordered Dr. Mikovits not to leave the state of Nevada until the case was resolved. Dr. Mikovits left Nevada and was reportedly arrested at her home in Ventura County on the 18th on felony charges of fleeing justice. She was not allowed to post bail and is being arraigned today. Research Assistant Confesses Theft - in a legal filing pertaining to a preliminary injunction against Dr. Judy Mikovits the Whittemore Peterson Institute provided evidence late last night that Dr. Mikovits engineered the theft of the research materials from the WPI lab after her termination. In an affidavit Max Pfost, a researcher working at the Max Pfost, admitted that he removed the documents/flash drives at Dr. Mikovits behest the morning after her termination. According to Pfost’s affidavit, upon hearing of her termination Dr. Mikovits called him and told him that the WPI would ‘go down’. She then met him in a bar and provided him with the keys he needed to take ‘patient samples’, lab notebooks and other information. Pfost attempted to gain entry to the WPI that night but was unable to and entered the building the next morning when it was unlocked. Pfost then removed between 12-20 heavy notebooks containing approximately five years of research work from Dr. Mikovits, Pfost and two other researchers. Unable to fit all the notebooks into his backpack Pfost carried others out in his arms to his car and then to his apartment where he hid them in a “Happy Birthday” bag. Realizing that the WPI was searching for them he then moved them to his mothers' house. Dr. Mikovits requested that he mail them to her at her house but Pfost protested that the size and the weight of the notebooks made them too expensive to mail. After confessing to his mother that he had stolen the notebooks Pfost removed them from her house and returned them to his condominium. Mikovits In Hiding – Shortly after meeting Dr. Mikovits early in the morning at the Reno airport Pfost handed over the notebooks and other materials to her. Dr. Mikovits informed Pfost that she was hiding out on a boat to avoid being served papers by the WPI and requested that he inform her of the whereabouts of WPI employees to avoid detection. Attempted Removal of Biological Materials as Well – According to the affadavit Dr. Mikovits also attempted to have biological materials including cell lines and blood samples removed from the labs as well. At Dr. Mikovits behest Pfost attempted to recruit other WPI employees to remove these materials from the lab and send them to Dr. Ruscetti. According to the affidavit research assistant Amanda McKenzie, declined to do so. The Stolen Materials – A WPI filing asserts that the WPI uses the stolen materials on a ‘daily basis’ and cannot proceed on critical areas of research without it. WPI needs the Misappropriated Property to research effectively, continue ongoing experiments and studies, communicate with research subjects effectively, apply for patents, recruit researchers, and obtain grants to help find a cure for those patients suffering with NID. Law Enforcement in Charge – A misunderstanding has arisen about the WPI’s role in Dr. Mikovits arrest. When the WPI realized important documents were missing they reported the theft of the materials to the police. At that point a police investigation was launched; based on the facts of that investigation and the lawsuit filed by the WPI, the Judge overseeing the case produced the initial restraining order stopping Dr. Mikovits from altering or destroying the documents or leaving the state of Nevada. Once Dr. Mikovits left the state of Nevada she was subject to arrest. On Nov 17th a warrant was issued for her arrest and she was arrested last Friday. Dr. Mikovits fate is now in the hands of the legal system. The police will determine whether or not to bring charges. Felony Theft - When a person steals property, the market value of the property will dictate whether the theft is classified a felony. Under Nevada law, if the value of the stolen property exceeds $250, the crime is a felony. When the value exceeds $2,500, the crime becomes grand theft, punishable by one-to-five years in state prison and up to $10,000 in fines. If Dr. Mikovits has the documents she certainly has good reason to return them. The WPI’s lawsuit, which was filed over a month ago, asked for legal fees, punitive damages and other damages. Furthermore Dr. Mikovits has been charged with two felonies; avoiding justice and stealing property from the WPI. In the state of Nevada the market value of the product stolen determines how a theft is classified. Thefts above $250 are considered felonies; thefts above $2,500 are considered ‘grand theft’ and are punishable by 1-5 years in jail and up to $10,000 in fines. According to the affadivit the documents in question represent 5 years of work. A hearing is scheduled today in Nevada at 1pm PST regarding the preliminary injunction which will expire after tonight. We're not trying to be sensationalistic here, but are aiming to give a view of the types of people and conspiracies at top agencies that are responsible for our health. A high-ranking CDC official, who played a significant role in the 2009 H1N1 propaganda campaign, has been arrested and charged with two counts of child molestation and one count of bestiality
Dr. Kimberly Quinlan Lindsey, a top official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been arrested and charged with two counts of child molestation and one count of bestiality. Dr. Lindsey, who joined the CDC in 1999, is currently the deputy director for the Laboratory Science Policy and Practice Program Office. She's second in command of the program office. Prior to that role, she was the senior health scientist in the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, an office that oversees the allocation process for $1.5 billion in terrorism preparedness. According to CNN: "Authorities also charged Lindsey's live-in boyfriend, Thomas Joseph Westerman, 42, with two counts of child molestation. The two are accused of 'immoral and indecent' sexual acts involving a 6-year-old ... The bestiality charge says Lindsey 'did unlawfully perform or submit to any sexual act with an animal.'" Between January and August last year, Dr. Lindsey and her boyfriend allegedly involved the child during sex, and DeKalb County police claim they discovered photographs of Lindsey performing sex acts on a couple of her pets. Some of you may wonder why I've chosen to discuss this story. Some may think it's in poor taste and doesn't belong in a newsletter about health. However, I believe it's relevant to be aware that someone in charge of your child's health is allegedly engaged in child abuse. Her actions raise serious questions in my mind about her level of concern for the health and well-being of children in general. Dr. Lindsey Played Primary Role in Bogus Swine Flu Propaganda Campaign As you may recall, the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic turned out to be a complete sham, with a fast-tracked and particularly dangerous vaccine being pushed as the sole remedy. Children and pregnant women were the primary targets of this dangerous vaccine. The H1N1 flu was a perfect example of how the CDC can brazenly distort reality, and often ignore and deny the dangerous and life-threatening side effects of their solution. As a result of this bogus propaganda campaign, thousands of people were harmed (and many died) worldwide. In August, it was revealed that the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine increased the risk for narcolepsy—a very rare and devastating sleeping disorder—in Swedish children and adolescents by 660 percent. Finland also noticed a dramatic increase in narcolepsy following vaccination with Pandemrix. There, an interim report issued in January of this year found that the H1N1 vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy by 900 percent in children and adolescents below the age of 19. In the US, the H1N1 flu vaccine was statistically linked with abnormally high rates of miscarriage and stillbirths. As reported by Steven Rubin on the NVIC's blog, the US H1N1 flu vaccine was SIXTY times more likely to be reported to VAERS to be associated with miscarriage than previous seasonal flu vaccines. The only "winners" in this game were the pharmaceutical companies that received millions of dollars for this never-proven-effective and highly reactive vaccine, while being sheltered by our government from liability for any harm it caused. Dr. Lindsey played an important role in that campaign, which ended in tragedy for countless many—not from a killer flu (statistically, the 2009 H1N1 flu was MILDER than usual) but from the dangerous and expensive "remedy" to this oversold non-threat. All of that said, I do want to stress that Dr. Lindsey has not yet been found guilty, and there are still many unanswered questions relating to this case. But this is not the only shocking story raising questions about the ethics of those involved in creating the CDC's health recommendations. The CDC's Stance on Water Fluoridation—Another Misleading Recommendation Take water fluoridation for example. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have had sole control over the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation. The CDC is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances. The general assumption has been that the agency used a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation. After all, since fluoride is swallowed, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth. Yet the documents show that no CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position. This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation? The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear completely at odds with current scientific knowledge, and the fact that no outside experts from related fields were ever included may very well explain this discrepancy. CDC Doctor who "Debunked" Vaccine-Autism Link Indicted on Fraud Another shocking case involving the CDC is that of Dr. Poul Thorsen, who, after being found to have falsified documents, was indicted on fraud, money laundering and tax evasion after stealing somewhere between $1-2 million in research grant money from the CDC. Here you might wonder why I'm faulting the CDC, as the organization was the victim of fraud. The reason I fault them is because they hired Dr. Thorsen to debunk the link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism—which he did to their satisfaction. However, CDC officials may have played a significant role in "guiding" this research to their desired end, and now that Thorsen has been exposed as a fraud, the agency still upholds his research as being of high caliber. As explained in a 2010 article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC's claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen's 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic. His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines. Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children. Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits." Were CDC Officials in on the Fraud? Emails released in response to FOIA filings by parents also show that Kreesten Madsen, one of Dr. Thorsen's research partners, had acquiesced to the wishes of CDC officials who wanted to cherry pick facts in order to prove vaccine safety. Furthermore, according to an April 28 report by Natural News: "From February 2004 through June 2008, says the DOJ indictment, Thorsen allegedly submitted over a dozen fraudulent invoices requesting reimbursement for expenses that were fabricated. Interestingly, these allegedly fraudulent invoices were signed by a laboratory section chief at the CDC, indicating that someone inside the CDC was either duped by Thorsen or potentially involved in the alleged fraud. … This is the great untold story of an alleged criminal ring operating inside the CDC, with the purpose of falsifying research that would "disprove" any links between vaccines and toxic side effects." Why Does the CDC Not Invalidate Dr. Thorsen's Research? Dr. Thorsen's studies are frequently quoted in rebuttals to the claim that vaccines may play a role in the disorder. The studies in question were riddled with flaws, yet despite the fact that Thorsen's studies may actually be a complete sham, the CDC has not officially declared them invalid. In fact, they're still listed on the CDC website as part of the scientific backing of their stance on autism and vaccine safety. Nor has the media jumped on this story and exposed how vaccine-safety claims have been based on junk science by a scam artist. They've also failed to question why none of the journals have denounced Dr. Thorsen's studies, which support the claim that vaccines are safe, while Dr. Wakefield's research was denounced after the mere insinuation of wrong-doing. Furthermore, according to research by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill writing for AgeOfAutism.com, Dr. Thorsen has also been working with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) on an updated definition of "autism" for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which is slated for release in May 2013. I believe it would be prudent to take a deeper look at his input, to make sure his connections to the CDC and his role in protecting vaccine safety has not tainted the new definition of autism. The sad fact is that conflicts of interest color most of the ties between our government and the pharmaceutical industry, and conventional media repeatedly fails to report the truth on these matters. So, who can you trust? I would recommend trusting yourself. Do your own research, and make your own decisions accordingly. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is an excellent resource on all things relating to the controversial topic of vaccines. They have been compiling objective evidence showing both sides of the issue and have been one of the strongest voices for vaccine safety and true informed consent. Source: CNN October 11, 2011 Source: The Inquisitr October 11, 2011 Source: Age of Autism April 2011 Related Links: Two Dangerous "Experts" You Should Never EVER Believe... Why is the CDC Ignoring Life and Death Vaccine Studies? These Documents Virtually Force You to Destroy Your Health Malcolm Hooper 30th July 2011
with acknowledgement to members of the ME community Tom Feilden’s notably excited introduction to his interview with Professor Simon Wessely about the disorder ME on the BBC’s Today programme on 29th July 2011 exemplified a failure to exercise the requisite journalistic neutrality when reporting a “story” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9550000/9550947.stm). Feilden seemed excessively eager to inform the nation about Wessely’s claims of how he, a genuine scientist, is harassed and threatened by patients with ME to the extent that his mail has to be routinely scanned before he is allowed to access it and how he needs police protection as he has received death threats. A dramatic and disturbing story by Wessely, but is it true or is it, as some people believe, an attempt to denigrate sick people and direct attention away from the ever-growing body of biomedical evidence which invalidates his own now-disproven beliefs about the disorder? When challenged in the past to provide actual evidence – corroborated by the police -- of such threats to his life, did Wessely produce any evidence? The police take death threats seriously so each would be allocated a crime incident number. Have any of these alleged death threats been substantiated? Have there ever been any prosecutions and have they ever been reported in the press? What must Wessely’s “protection” cost the nation in the currently straightened economic climate, and do a few immoderate emails and postings on the internet by desperate patients pushed to the brink by Wessely’s consistent denial of the very existence of the disease from which they suffer warrant such costly “protection”? As for the “threats” allegedly suffered by Professor Myra McClure and Dr Esther Crawley, it seems they may be a matter of interpretation. Quite certainly, it is known that Professor McClure has dealt with a correspondent’s valid concerns about her work by sending a receipt six weeks later which said “Your message was deleted without being read” (http://tinyurl.com/3pftbtl) and Dr Crawley has admitted that she has not received explicit death threats but has interpreted one email in particular to constitute a death threat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b012nlcv). Feilden seemed unaware that claiming vilification and abuse by ME patients is a regular pattern of behaviour exhibited by Wessely over the years, usually when yet more published evidence further disproves his belief that ME is perpetuated by patients wrongly attributing their symptoms to a physical disease. At such times, Wessely often appears to deflect media attention away from the emerging biomedical science by portraying himself as the victim of endless harassment from vicious and intimidating ME patients. Is such behaviour not one of the tactics of denial used by “deniers” and “revisionists” of whatever discipline? It is common practice for “deniers” to claim that “pressure groups” are active against them and are attacking both them and the truth and to claim that there are “orchestrated campaigns” against them (“The Mental Health Movement: Persecution of Patients? Background Briefing for the House of Commons Select Health Committee”. Professor M. Hooper; December 2003: http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Select_CTTEE_FINAL_VERSION.htm). Can it be co-incidence that this latest well-orchestrated campaign of media coverage of the alleged threats to Wessely and his colleagues who share his views about ME has been mounted hard on the heels of the publication by Carruthers et al of the International Consensus Criteria for diagnosing ME compiled by 26 researchers and clinicians from 13 countries (Journal of Internal Medicine; Accepted Article: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x)? The sound biomedical evidence upon which those criteria are based completely vitiates the belief of Wessely and colleagues about the psychiatric nature of ME, so what does he do? He once again claims he is being vilified and threatened by patients with ME and he publicly denigrates and “attacks” them by asserting that they would rather have a disease caused by a retrovirus than admit they suffer from a mental disorder. There are many who hold that it is Wessely et al who are orchestrating a media campaign against patients with ME, not the other way round. The campaign to “eradicate” ME by Wessely et al cannot be denied and the documented referenced evidence can be accessed at http://www.meactionuk.org.uk In 1990 Wessely asserted that ME exists “only because well-meaning doctors have not learnt to deal effectively with suggestible patients” (Psychological Medicine 1990:20:35-53). In 1991, he cited medical comments made between 1880 and 1908 on patients with neurasthenia, with the very clear implication that such descriptions apply equally well to today’s ME patients: “always ailing, seldom ill; a useless, noxious element of society; purely mental cases; laziness, weakness of mind and supersensitiveness characterises them all; the terror of the busy physician” (BMB 1991:47:4:919-941). His dismissal and rejection of the biomedical evidence on ME has continued unabated. On 6th October 2003 in her regular column “Doctor’s Notes”, Dr Margaret Cook, former wife of the late Robin Cook MP, wrote an article about Simon Wessely in The Scotsman entitled “ME sufferers have found an enemy in Wessely – so they need friends”, commenting: “It seems that he has been central to the psychiatric perspective that ME does not exist at all, and that the related “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” is a mental condition best managed by a psychiatric therapeutic approach….He has downplayed the need for research into diagnostic markers…and such is his influence that no state funding is forthcoming to support any other research than his own….You can tell…that he is used to dictating principles and having everyone in his orbit humbly accept his gospel…When you have enemies like him, you need a powerful lot of friends”. Wessely was both hurt and angry by that article and he demanded its retraction and an apology from The Scotsman, which meekly complied and as a result of his threats of litigation duly dispensed with the services of Dr Cook as a columnist. Of note in relation to Feilden’s broadcast is that in Wessely’s reply to Dr Cook published in The Scotsman, he stated he had spent 15 years of his life looking after sufferers from ME. That does not chime with the fact that for the most part he has denied the very existence of ME – how many other “caring” doctors have amused themselves by orchestrating a campaign in the BMJ about “non-diseases” and proposed that ME be one of those “non-diseases”, along with freckles and big ears, as happened in 2002? Patients with ME know what Wessely really thinks about them, as his published views leave no room for doubt or conjecture (for illustrations of his descriptions of ME/CFS patients, see “Quotable Quotes about ME/CFS”: http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Quotable_Quotes_Updated.pdf). Later in October 2003, Wessely asserted that those who disagree with him and believe that ME is an organic disorder -- to whom he referred as “the radicals” -- are (quote) “crazy” and that they are “engaged in fantasies, lies and gross distortions”, that the “radicals” are left “fighting yesterday’s battles” (seemingly because he believes he has established that ME does not exist except as a false belief), that they need a “reality check” and “their behaviour is outrageous” (private communication). Those words hardly concur with his claims to be a caring clinician who has looked after people with ME all his professional life. Responding to Wessely’s claims of vilification and denigration by patients with ME that he made seven years ago, in his letter of 7th January 2004 to The Scotsman, Dr John Greensmith pointed out: “It is deplorable if he has been so treated, no matter how controversial his views. It is instructive, however, to examine how Professor Wessely has raised passions to this level of fervour by, perhaps, more than any other single individual, being responsible for making the area as controversial as it is”. Referring to Wessely’s use of the term “battleground”, in a letter of 9th January 2004 to The Scotsman, DM Jones pointed out: “It is astonishing that he seemingly is blind to the fact that that this situation has arisen almost entirely due to his own prolific output and that of his like-minded collaborators, denying the existence of ME on the one hand and reclassifying (his) preferred term ‘CFS’ as a mental and behavioural disorder in the ‘WHO Guide to Mental Health in Primary Care’ on the other….Professor Wessely should be held accountable for his own role in this controversy over CFS/ME, which provides the basis for this ‘battleground’ and which has had such disastrous consequences for so many patients”. Importantly, as Erik Johnson noted, Wessely has stated: “Right from the start, ME has been identified with a refusal to accept the doctor’s verdict” (Co-Cure EDU: 9th January 2004). Johnson drew attention to the dictum of Sir William Osler: “Listen to the patient. He is telling you his diagnosis”, commenting that Wessely’s name “threatens to stand as the epitome of physicians who refuse to listen to their patients”. In another letter of 9th January 2004 to The Scotsman, Dr Joseph Lenz, a clinical psychologist, hit the nail on the head: “Science has no greater enemies that those who seek to confuse an issue, and those who create the most confusion are invariably those who believe that they already know the truth” (Co-Cure EDU: 10th January 2004). This being so, can – or should -- one take at face value what Wessely says? One moment Wessely states, as he did on 12th May 1994 in his 9th Eliot Slater Memorial Lecture: “I will argue that ME is simply a belief, the belief that one has an illness called ME” but ten years later he states, as he did in his article in the Scotsman on 5th January 2004: “I have been saying for 15 years that this is a real illness”. Clearly both statements cannot be true. Presently, Wessely has seized the opportunity to weave the theme of his alleged personal harassment into his responses in the current issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience published online on 27th July 2011 (Viewpoint: Chronic fatigue syndrome: understanding a complex illness: doi:10.1038/nrn3087): in answer to the question “What is the best way for the field to make progress?”, his answer was: “So long as decent clinical and basic scientists continue to engage with the field it will make progress, although sadly that no longer includes myself….The ongoing antagonism that has been directed towards so many of the scientists who failed to replicate the original (XMRV) finding and who thus came up with what the extremists see as the ‘wrong answer’ has alienated yet another group of scientists from getting involved in this area”. What Wessely and the media fail to acknowledge is that it was the utterly triumphant and contemptuous comments of certain of those scientists whose studies failed to replicate the original XMRV study published in Science (2009:326:585-589) that so incensed some people with ME, many of whom have daily to run the gamut of undisguised disdain amounting to abuse meted out by those who are supposed to be supporting and helping them cope with a devastating disease. In the interests of common justice, Tom Feilden would do well to investigate the reasons why people with ME are so angry by checking the easily verifiable facts and then to redress the balance by reporting with equal enthusiasm the other side of the “battleground” because, compared with Wessely’s 25-year campaign of dismissal and denigration of extremely sick people that has resulted in no appropriate healthcare provision and in the relentless harassment by the DWP of people with ME, there may be those who consider that, whilst abusive emails and death threats are never in any circumstances to be condoned, complaints to the GMC are entirely understandable and legitimate. July 29, 2011 via BBC, Tom Feilden An estimated 250,000 people in the UK suffer from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Scientists working on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), or ME, say they are being subjected to a campaign of vicious abuse and intimidation that is hampering research into the causes of the condition. The harassment has included death threats, vilification on internet websites, and a series of official complaints alleging both personal and professional misconduct to universities, ethical oversight committees and the General Medical Council (GMC). "It's direct intimidation in the sense of letters, emails, occasional phone calls and threats," says Professor Simon Wessely, of King's College London, who has received a series of death threats and threatening phone calls, and now has his mail routinely scanned for suspect devices. "But more often indirect intimidation through my employer or the GMC. All of it intended to denigrate and try and make you into a leper." Behind the vitriolic nature of the attacks, the core objection, by some activists, is the association of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome with mental illness. They claim the real cause is biological and want research to focus exclusively on identifying the - as yet undiscovered - virus responsible. "Sadly some of the motivation seems to come from people who believe that any connection with psychiatry is tantamount to saying there is nothing wrong with you, go away, you're not really ill," says Dr Wessely. "That's profoundly misguided. They fall victim to the label, and believe that the mere involvement of psychiatry denigrates them and denigrates the condition." Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a debilitating condition involving severe fatigue, painful muscles and joints, gastric complaints and poor memory and concentration. It is estimated there may be as many as a quarter of a million sufferers across the UK, but exactly what causes it is still a mystery. That has been incredibly frustrating for patients who have often received short-shrift from doctors, and been branded as malingerers - the victims of "yuppy flu" - in the media. Even the existence of the condition has only recently received widespread acknowledgement by the medical establishment. Speaking on the programme on Friday, ME Association's Dr Charles Shepherd condemned the abuse of researchers, but said sufferers had a justifiable complaint that almost no government-funded research was looking at the bio-medical aspects of the illness. "The anger, the frustration, is the fact that all this effort, all this government-funding, has just been going to the psychological side," he said. Hostility towards a psychiatric explanation for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome reached a peak in 2009 when research published in the journal Science appeared to show a link to the XMRV retrovirus. But a series of follow-up studies failed to replicate the finding, unleashing another torrent of abuse - this time aimed at virologists, including Professor Myra McClure, of Imperial College, London. "It really was quite staggeringly shocking, and this was all from patients who seemed to think that I had some vested interest in not finding this virus," she said. "I couldn't understand, and still can't to this day, what the logic of that was. Any virologist wants to find a new virus." Professor McClure says she will not be doing any further research in this area, and that may be the single most important consequence of this campaign of abuse and intimidation. According to the Wellcome Trust's Dr Mark Walport it would be a tragedy if serious researchers are put off working on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. "We clearly don't yet understand exactly what's going on, and if we're going to find out it needs good scientists to work on it," he says. "But why would any scientist work on it if they know that all they're going to receive is a torrent of abuse?" This is an informative, well-documented offering about how one mans' novel cancer treatment has tried to be suppressed because it worked, threatening Pharma and the FDA. At present he is having 50-60% of tumours disappear with his gene-targeted treatment. If patients have had radiation or chemo at dangerous levels previous to receiving his treatment, many autopsies show they die of their side effects, while their bodies are cancer-free from Burzynski's treatment. At present, he is also reporting a better relationship with the FDA.
-ME/CFS Assist Below article via Mercola.com Important! The producers of this powerful film are allowing a full and FREE preview through June 13th! Please tell everyone you know to watch this film in it's entirety through June 13, 2011. Visit the Mercola Video Library Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history. In the 1970’s, Dr. Burzynski made a remarkable discovery that threatened to change the face of cancer treatment forever. His non-toxic gene-targeted cancer medicine could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades had his discovery not been criminally suppressed by the US government, as his therapy, called “antineoplastons,” have been shown to effectively help cure some of the most “incurable” forms of terminal cancer. This documentary takes you through the treacherous 14-year journey Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to finally obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of antineoplastons. His story is yet another testament that fact can be far stranger than fiction, as the film exposes the powerful, unscrupulous forces that work to maintain the status quo of the medical- and pharmaceutical industry at any cost—including the lives of millions of people. Sources: Burzynskimovie.com Dr. Mercola's Comments: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was born in the early 1940's in Poland, and was trained as both a biochemist and a physician. He's spent the last 35 years developing and successfully treating cancer patients suffering with some of the most lethal forms of cancer at his clinic in Houston, Texas. I recently interviewed Dr. Burzynski about his cancer treatment—a gene-targeted approach using non-toxic peptides and amino acids, known as antineoplastons. Here, I will follow up with a review of his recently released documentary, Burzynski, The Movie. It's an absolute jaw-dropper... For anyone who has ever been affected by cancer, either directly or indirectly, the facts presented in this film will hit you like a rude slap in the face. You will learn that not only did the US Federal government spend 14 years actively suppressing a cancer treatment that had a FAR greater success rate than any other treatment available, they also spent well over $60 million of US taxpayer dollars trying to put the inventor of the treatment in jail in order to steal his patents and either suppress or cash in on his discovery. This film is an absolute MUST-SEE, as the summary I'm about to present below simply cannot do it justice. It's available for purchase at BurzynkiMovie.com, where you can view the first half-hour for free. The site also contains a large number of video clips, as well as a full transcript of the entire film, along with links to all the documentation presented. What's so Special about Dr. Burzynski's Treatment? The story begins back in the early 1970's when Dr. Burzynski discovered that people with cancer lacked a certain peptide, while those who were cancer free had a plentiful supply of it. This finding eventually led him to create a medical treatment referred to as antineoplastons. The drug contains a mixture of peptides and derivatives of amino acids. These were known to act as molecular switches, but as genome research blossomed and science progressed, Dr. Burzynski discovered they also work as genetic switches, and that is why antineoplastons work so well. They're actually able to turn on cancer suppressing genes, while simultaneously turning oncogenes (cancer genes) off. As explained in the film: "Our bodies contain two categories of genes that allow cancer to flourish: oncogenes, and tumor suppressor genes. When someone has cancer, they have a higher level of oncogenes switched on, with a higher level tumor suppressor genes switched off. The goal is to tell the body to both switch back on the tumor suppressor genes, and turn off as many oncogenes as possible." While other gene targeting cancer drugs now exist, they're only capable of targeting a small number of specific cancer genes. Antineoplastons, on the other hand, targets a wide spectrum of cancer genes—about 100 of them at once. In a very simplistic way, antineoplastons are to cancer what a broad-spectrum antibiotic is to infectious disease. Success Rates of Chemo and Radiation versus Antineoplastons The film features several remarkable case stories of people who were successfully cured of cancer, but it's when the clinical trial data of conventional therapies versus antineoplastons are stacked against each other that the benefits of antineoplastons become really obvious: Radiation or Chemotherapy Only
Antineoplastons Only
Tackling Childhood Brain Tumors Dr. Burzynski was so confident in his antineoplastons that he even accepted the most difficult and "hopeless" cases, such as childhood brain tumors. Conventional medicine has little or nothing to offer in these cases, and the side effects can be as horrific as the disease itself, if not more. Furthermore, the best outcome conventional treatment can offer is to slow down the growth of the tumor. Using antineoplastons, however, Dr. Burzynski has been able to successfully cure many of these otherwise hopeless cases, such as Jessica Ressel. She was 11 years old when she was diagnosed with brainstem glioma—an incurable brain tumor. After learning that she would die no matter what toxic drugs and radiation treatments she underwent, the family decided to not put her through it. When they found Dr. Burzynski, they literally had nothing to lose... Twelve months later—after having initially been told she had but a few months to live, and given no chance of survival at all—MRI's confirmed she was cancer-free. Her brain tumor was completely resolved. Today, Jessica is a healthy 24-year old woman, pregnant with her second child. Even more interesting, while some of Dr. Burzynski's patients did eventually die after the five-year mark, most who did NOT undergo chemotherapy prior to getting antineoplastons have gone on to live normal, healthy lives—yet another indication that in many cases, the conventional treatments are more lethal than the disease itself. Side Effects of Chemotherapy Drugs Here's just a sampling of the side effects of three conventional chemotherapy drugs:
Dr. Burzynski's Troubles Begins... The legal battle Dr. Burzynski found himself embroiled in over his invention is convoluted to say the least. There are many bizarre twists and turns, and I strongly urge you to watch the documentary to fully appreciate what happened. Dr. Burzynski had tried to get the FDA to review and approve antineoplastons since 1977, to no avail. To make sure he would not get into trouble for using the experimental therapy in his practice, his legal team reviewed federal and Texas state laws, confirming that he was acting within the laws and could use antineoplastons in his own practice "to meet the immediate needs of patients," since he was a licensed physician. Particularly if no other alternatives were available to the patient. He could not engage in interstate commerce, however, so he had to restrict the use of the drug to his home state of Texas. But word spread, and patients started traveling to his office from out of state. Suddenly, in 1984, he found out that agents from the Texas board of medical examiners were traveling to patients across the country trying to convince them to file charges against him. What followed next truly challenges the rational mind. Texas Board of Medical Examiners Try to Strip Away his Medical License In 1988, despite not breaking any laws, and having produced more evidence than was required to show that his treatment was effective and that no harm was coming to his patients from it, the Texas medical board charged him with breaking a law that didn't exist, claiming it was grounds for revoking his medical license. They didn't have a case, but kept the charges going by continuing to file slightly amended complaints, until finally, in 1993, the case went to trial. By then, 60 of Dr. Burzynski's patients had filed a petition for the medical board to stop harassing their doctor—a petition that the board successfully eliminated from the trial by filing a motion to strike it from the record. Testifying on Dr. Burzynski's behalf, however, was a leading expert from none other than the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Nicholas Patronas, MD, a board certified radiologist since 1973, and the founder and chief of Neurology at the NCI. Even he recognized the absurdity of the board's case, and put his own career on the line to testify. The judge ruled in Dr. Burzynski's favor, confirming that no laws had been broken. You'd think that would be the end of it. But not so in this case. Instead of accepting defeat, the Texas medical board filed charges against Dr. Burzynski with the Texas Supreme Court. The Method Behind the FDA's Madness It eventually came to light that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license—despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective. But WHY? It's been stated many times that a crime can be solved simply by following the money, and this case is no exception. The FDA and the pharmaceutical industry had realized that if Dr. Burzynski's discovery—which he owned the patent for—received a fair review, chemotherapy and radiation would rapidly dwindle into obscurity, effectively crippling the industry. Not only that, but if antineoplastons were approved, billions of dollars of cancer research funds would get funneled over to one single scientist who had exclusive patent rights... Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances." It became clear that ever since 1977, when Dr. Burzynski first tried to get antineoplastons approved, the FDA had begun scheming to eliminate the threat he and his discovery posed to the entire cancer industry... The Harassment Continues Unabated The FDA, under the direction of Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, called no fewer than FOUR different grand jury investigations into Dr. Burzynski's practice, despite the fact that none of the grand juries ever found him to be at fault, and no indictment ever came from any of the investigations. But the FDA did not let up. Finally, in 1995, just days after the final grand jury investigation, which also had found no fault, Dr. Burzynski was inexplicably indicted on charges of fraud, and 75 counts of violating federal law. If found guilty, he now faced 290 years in federal prison, and $18.5 million in fines. A year later, in a bizarre twist brought about by congressional and public pressure, the FDA agreed to accept all of Dr. Burzynski's patients into a series of 72 FDA-supervised phase 2 clinical trials. A 1996 article in The Washington Post noted: "The prosecution marks the first time the FDA has tried to jail a scientist for using a drug on which he is conducting FDA authorized clinical trials." Federal Government Spent $60 Million Trying to Bury Dr. Burzynski This second trial cost American tax payers a whopping $60 million just in legal fees alone—that's not counting the cost of continually harassing him (including several raids on his office) and his patients over the preceding 11 years. Dr. Burzynski spent $2.2 million on his own defense, $700,000 of which was raised by Dr. Julian Whitaker through requests for donations in his newsletter Health & Healing. On March 4, 1997, the judge declared it a mistrial, due to a deadlocked jury. However, after stating the government had not presented sufficient evidence in its case, he ordered that Dr. Burzynski be acquitted of 42 of the 75 counts. But the FDA wasn't done yet. They took him to court AGAIN! Third Time's the Charm... At this point, many were becoming increasingly aware that something very bizarre and unusual was going on. Jurors from the first trial even joined patients in protests outside the court house. One clear-headed juror from the previous trial stated: "Please don't waste my money abusing the system to make sure that you maintain your power!" On May 28, 1997, after three hours of deliberation, the jury came back with their final verdict: Not Guilty. By now you're probably thinking that this victory surely must mark the end of the wrongful harassment of Dr. Burzynski. But no. It gets worse. Secret Dealings Hide True Intents While this ongoing drama unfolded over the course of more than a decade, something even more sinister was taking place behind the scenes, unbeknownst to Dr. Burzynski and his legal counsel. In 1989, Dr. Burzynski had retained Dr. Dvorit Samid as a research consultant, and she did a lot of work with the antineoplaston ingredients. At the time, Dr. Samid worked at the Uniformed Services Medical School in Baltimore. She later transferred to the National Cancer Institute. By 1990—while the Texas medical board kept filing one amended complaint after the other against Dr. Burzynski, in an effort to revoke his license—he had decided that the easiest way to keep the government from putting him out of business or in prison, was to partner with a pharmaceutical company. As luck would have it, he'd treated the sister-in-law of the Chairman and CEO of Élan Pharmaceuticals, and Élan eagerly drafted a letter of intent stating they would aggressively pursue the filing of the necessary protocols with the FDA for approval and marketing of antineoplastons. Dr. Samid began working closely with Élan on the project. But once the financing, licensing agreements and royalties had been negotiated and agreed upon, Élan suddenly changed its tune, stating they had significant doubt as to whether the active substances could be patented, which would render an agreement meaningless. As it turns out, Élan had instead partnered with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where Dr. Samid got the position of section chief. They then co-sponsored laboratory research and clinical trials on just one of the antineoplastons' ingredients—an ingredient that Dr. Burzynski had NOT been able to patent due to the fact that it was already known. However, he had also already determined it to be very limited in terms of effectiveness on its own, over a decade ago. Élan and the NCI spent tens of millions of dollars testing this single ingredient... Not surprisingly, it failed. Dr. Burzynski had already established that the ingredients must be used in combination in order to be effective. After realizing they could not duplicate the effectiveness of Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastons, the NCI finally agreed to conduct his clinical trials under the direction of Dr. Michael Friedman. Sabotaging Trials—Par the Course for the National Cancer Institute How do you sabotage a clinical trial? It's actually easier than you might think. You'll have to watch the film to get all the details, but in summary, the trials were closed prior to completion, and were written off with the statement that "no conclusion can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons." But it was clear, based on the study data, that seven of the nine patients enrolled received NO antineoplastons whatsoever! The others received dosages that were far lower than recommended. Adding insult to injury, in 1999, about a year after Dr. Burzynski had been acquitted a third and final time, the NCI published these invalid trials in the medical literature, citing antineoplastons as a complete failure. So sure, Dr. Burzynski was a free man; cleared of all charges and free to practice medicine, but now the National Cancer Institute had effectively undermined the credibility and commercial viability of his medical discovery... What the film reveals next, truly boggles the mind. After the National Cancer Institute intentionally violated all protocols of their own antineoplaston trials, and after all state and federal agencies had failed in their 14-year campaign to remove Burzynski from society—after all of the dust settled—a profound truth began to emerge. Theft and Patent Infringement—All in a Day's Work In October 1991—while the Texas medical board kept filing amended complaints against him in an effort to revoke his license, due to pressure from the FDA—the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski's clinic, and verified that "anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons." As it turns out, a mere 17 days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by "The Department of Health and Human Services," filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1... one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented. The inventor listed? "Dr. Dvorit Samid," Dr. Burzynski's former research consultant. The patent states: "The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon." Over the next four years, while the witch hunt to put Dr. Burzynski behind bars was in full swing, the US Government filed 10 more patents antineoplastons. By the summer of 1995, around the time that Burzynski was indicted for fraud and 75 counts of violating federal law, Dr. Michael Friedman—who sabotaged the NCI antineoplastons trials—had left the NCI and become Deputy Commissioner of Operations for the FDA, working directly under FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler—the man responsible for dragging Dr. Burzynski in front of no less than four different grand juries a few years earlier. In November of 1995, a month into Dr. Burzynski's trial, where he faced 290 years in prison, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved all 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1.... Who Pays for Their Crimes? By now your head is probably spinning, so let's recap. Dr. Burzynski developed a cancer treatment that surpassed all other treatments on the market, and the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the National Cancer Institute all knew it. They also knew he was the sole owner of the patents for this therapy, and these two facts combined, threatened the entire paradigm of the cancer industry. The cancer paradigm is based on very expensive machines and toxic drugs. There's an enormous amount of money to be made in this paradigm, and Dr. Burzynski single-handedly threatened to overturn it. So they tried to copy his invention using a single non-patented ingredient. It failed. The next step was to steal the whole thing right from under him. There was just one problem. They knew they couldn't use the stolen patents as long as Dr. Burzynski walked free and had the ability to defend his rights to them... So they concocted 75 fraudulent charges to tuck him away in jail for the rest of his life. Fortunately for us, they failed in that too. Dr. Whitaker sums it up nicely when he says: "How can the US Patent office be corrupted to the point they issue patents for a medical treatment that's already been patented and issue them to someone who had nothing to do with their discovery or use? And how can the Patent office then assign these fraudulent patents to some of the most powerful institutions in the American government? And, imagine, all of this was done while these same agencies were spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to put Dr. Burzynski in jail, so he could not fight the criminal theft of his discovery!" As I said in the beginning, the facts of this case challenge the mind of any sane and rational person, but make no mistake about it: These things did happen, and Dr. Burzynski has all the documentation to back it up. The US Government did harass and intimidate, and they did try to falsely imprison a brilliant scientist, simply because he'd discovered an effective cancer therapy, while simultaneously engaging in patent infringement. Now, while this was an enormous personal hardship for Dr. Burzynski, the US Government also, through their enormous greed, in a very direct way prevented millions of cancer patients to receive a non-toxic therapy that could have saved their life. Remember, Dr. Burzynski has been trying to get antineoplastons reviewed and approved since 1977, to no avail. It's absolutely heartbreaking to consider the cost of this criminal behavior in terms of human life, including young children. The Deadly, But Highly Profitable, Cancer Paradigm While the stolen patents are filled with useful information about the benefits and efficacy of antineoplastons, one statement in particular sums up the problem with the current cancer paradigm: "Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease." Dr. Burzynski's therapy, as you may recall, is non-toxic, giving patients the option to at least not suffer more grievous harm from the treatment itself, in addition to a significantly greater chance of being cured. I'm sure that whenever someone donates their hard-earned money or participates in a pink-ribbon walkathon, they believe they're doing a good thing. They believe they're helping fund vital cancer research that will hopefully, some day, find a cure for cancer. Little do they know that much of this money goes toward perpetuating the status quo of cancer treatment, namely highly toxic drugs and expensive machines—the same old paradigm centered around profit. As of 2010, the National Cancer Institute's annual budget is $5.2 billion. Dr. Burzynski cannot get a single dime of it. All of his research into antineoplastons over the past 35 years has been self-funded. Think about that for a moment. Not one dime has been funneled toward developing one of the most promising cancer therapies to emerge in the past three decades... Are you still convinced they have your best interest at heart, and are diligently working to "find a cure for cancer". Related Links: Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down Is it Time to Boycott This 'Anti' Cancer Charity? To demonstrate how low ME/CFS funding is compared to other illnesses... Table Published: February 14, 2011 This table displays the annual support level for various research, condition, and disease categories based on grants, contracts, and other funding mechanisms used across the National Institutes of Health (NIH). At the request of Congress, the NIH embarked on a process to provide better consistency and transparency in the reporting of its funded research. This new process, implemented in 2008 through the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) system, uses sophisticated text data mining (categorizing and clustering using words and multiword phrases) in conjunction with NIH-wide definitions used to match projects to categories. The definitions are a list of terms and concepts selected by NIH scientific experts to define a research category. The research category levels represent the NIH’s best estimates based on the category definitions. The NIH does not expressly budget by category. The annual estimates reflect amounts that change as a result of science, actual research projects funded, and the NIH budget. The research categories are not mutually exclusive. Individual research projects can be included in multiple categories so amounts depicted within each column of this table do not add up to 100 percent of NIH-funded research. Consistent with the Administration’s emphasis on transparency, two separate columns are used to distinguish FY 2009 and FY 2010 actual support funded from American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) accounts from projects funded by regular NIH appropriations. The FY2007 data were produced from a reporting process historically used by NIH. The technical elements of the previous reporting process did not have the ability to produce uniform results and led to wide variability in the way research categories were coded. This process caused inconsistencies in reporting data. RCDC use of data mining improves the consistency and eliminates the wide variability in defining the research categories reported. The table shows historical data for FY2007 and data produced with the new RCDC methodology for FY2007 through FY2010. The FY 2011-2012 estimates are based on RCDC actual data. Total Number of Research/Disease Areas: 229 ME/CFS figures are in the second panel: it is ranked as one of the LOWEST funded illnesses in the US, coming in at $6 (I am assuming per diagnosed person, as this is not really clear; yet, just by taking the figures comparatively, we see how low ME/CFS funding really is). Vaccinations are an important consideration for everyone, especially those with ME/CFS. Some severely disabling cases of ME/CFS started with vaccinations (like Lynn Gilderdale's, who was 100% bedridden for almost two decades before finally committing suicide). Vaccinations disrupt the normal functioning of the immune system; an issue that people with ME/CFS already face. They are also implicated in Autism, a neuro-immune disease (like ME/CFS). I cannot tell you what to do regarding your personal choices, though I can tell you to research the issue of vaccination thoroughly before making a decision. And, as always, follow the money and the belief system behind the motivation of vaccine proponents.
-ME/CFS Assist American prosecutors are attempting to extradite a Danish scientist. Poul Thorsen has been charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering; a federal grand jury alleges that Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008. Thorsen is said to have used the proceeds to buy a home in Atlanta, two cars and a Harley Davidson. He is said to have stolen the money while serving as the 'principal investigator' for a program that studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines. The Copenhagen Post reports: "... [O]ver the four-year period he submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University, where he held a faculty position, instructing them to transfer the funds to a CDC account, which was in fact his personal account ... Thorsen's research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure. A paper of his on the subject, which is known as 'The Danish Study', is quoted extensively to refute the autism vaccine connection." Another prominent name in vaccine medicine, Dr. Paul Offit, well-known shill for the vaccine industry, has also been called out for making false and unsubstantiated statements about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report looking into the ties between vaccine supporters and the vaccine industry. On April 18, 2011, the California Orange County Register issued a retraction of an August 4, 2008 article containing disparaging statements made by Dr. Offit about Attkisson. According to Adventures in Autism: "Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit's statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report 'How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?'" The unsubstantiated statements included a claim that Attkisson "lied", and a claim that CBS News sent a "mean spirited and vituperative" email. Offit also told the OC Register that he provided CBS News "the details of his relationship ... with pharmaceutical company Merck", but documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose all of his financial relationships with Merck. Sources: Atlanta Journal Constitution April 14, 2011 WKAR Atlanta April 13, 2011 The Copenhagen Post April 15, 2011 Dr. Mercola's Comments: When two of the biggest names in vaccine research and support turn out to be guilty of fraud, major deception, lying and making unsubstantiated statements, it really calls into question the validity of their work on the vaccine front … and that's putting it mildly. Yet, this news has only been quietly shared by a handful of media outlets. Countless American parents are putting their trust, and their child's lives, in the hands of the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) every time they vaccinate their children. Yet two of the CDC's "go-to guys" have now been caught red-handed lying and, in the case of Dr. Poul Thorsen, committing outright fraud. This includes:
Dr. Poul Thorsen is most widely known for a 2003 study known as the "Danish Study," which reported there was a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after mercury-based preservatives like thimerosal were banned from vaccines. The research team therefore concluded that mercury-containing vaccines were safe. But the study was actually a masterfully done example of lying by omission, because at the same time the apparent autism increase took place a new law had been put into place in Denmark that required autism cases to be reported on the national level. There was also a new clinic dedicated to autism treatment opened. These two factors were likely the driving forces behind the sudden increase in reported autism cases, but the researchers failed to disclose them. Despite the obvious ramifications of these omitted "details," the CDC has relied on the Danish Study to "prove" their case that MMR vaccine and mercury are safe for your kids. Adding fodder to the fire, an investigation by Aarhus University (where Thorsen held a faculty position) and the CDC uncovered that Thorsen had not only falsified documents but was also receiving salaries from two universities (which is a violation of the universities' rules). Then in 2009 Thorsen disappeared amidst serious fraud charges and with nearly $2 million that was supposedly used for research. Now a federal grand jury in Atlanta has indicted Thorsen and charged him with 13 counts of wire fraud, 9 counts of money laundering and stealing more than $1 million in grant money from the CDC over a four-year period. It turns out that Thorsen was reportedly submitting fraudulent invoices with fabricated expenses to the CDC, and using the money to purchase cars, a motorcycle, a home and cashier's checks. The Copenhagen Post reported: "Thorsen helped two Danish government agencies obtain research grants, which amounted to $11 million between 2000 and 2009, whilst he was working as a visiting scientist at the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the 1990s. He returned to Denmark as the 'principal investigator' for the programme, which studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines, allegedly putting him in charge of the administration of the funding. It is alleged that over the four-year period he submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University, where he held a faculty position, instructing them to transfer the funds to a CDC account, which was in fact his personal account. Thorsen's research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure." CDC Gives Nearly $15 Million to Thorsen's Research Center Thorsen's research center, the North Atlantic Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA), has received $14.6 million from the CDC since 2002, according to the Huffington Post. Many of the resulting "research" studies from NANEA have been used to support supposed vaccine safety. As the Huffington Post stated: "Questions about Thorsens's scientific integrity may finally force CDC to rethink the vaccine protocols since most of the other key pro vaccine studies cited by CDC rely on the findings of Thorsen's research group. These include oft referenced research articles published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and others. The validity of all these studies is now in question." However, this measure of common sense seems lost on the CDC, who stated in regard to Thorsen's research: "Dr. Thorsen was one of many co-authors on these research projects. All of these were subject to extensive peer review and we have no reason to suspect that there are any issues related to the integrity of the science." Paul Offit also Called Out for Lying Dr. Paul Offit is another pro-vaccine big-wig, the same man who has notoriously stated that infants can tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once. In 2008, veteran CBS journalist Sharyl Attkisson wrote an article detailing Offit's many ties to the vaccine industry, and noting that Offit failed to inform CBS about exactly how much money he and his employer, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, are paid by Merck, the manufacturer and marketer of numerous vaccines, including Gardasil, hepatitis B, chicken pox, shingles, MMR, and the rotavirus vaccine that Dr. Offit helped invent. In response, Offit gave Attkisson's article a scathing review and his rebuttal was posted in the Orange County (OC) Register shortly after Attkisson's report ran in the CBS Evening News. Now the OC Register has issued a retraction of Offit's rebuttal, stating: "An OC Register article dated Aug. 4, 2008 entitled "Dr. Paul Offit Responds" contained several disparaging statements that Dr. Offit of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia made about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report. Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit's statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false … Unsubstantiated statements include: Offit's claim that Attkisson "lied"; and Offit's claim that CBS News sent a "mean spirited and vituperative" email "over the signature of Sharyl Attkisson" stating "You're clearly hiding something." In fact, the OC Register has no evidence to support those claims. Further, Offit told the OC Register that he provided CBS News "the details of his relationship, and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck." However, documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose his financial relationships with Merck, including a $1.5 million Hilleman chair he sits in that is co-sponsored by Merck." A Pattern of False Accusations Offit seems to have a pattern of falsely accusing people of lying. Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), sued Offit in 2009 for defamation and also named reporter Amy Wallace and Conde Nast after Offit said "She lies" in an article published by Wired magazine without providing any evidence supporting his baseless accusation. Fisher asked the Fourth Circuit federal court in Virginia for a jury trial and $1 million in damages but Judge Claude Hilton dismissed the lawsuit primarily on the grounds that both Fisher and Offit are public figures and that, in his opinion, Offit said "she lies" in the heat of spirited public debate. In Hilton's opinion, Offit's accusation was protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. Attorney Jonathan Emord filed an excellent brief opposing the motion to dismiss that argued there is good evidence that Offit knew exactly what he was doing when he falsely accused Fisher of lying and that libel per se is not protected by the First Amendment. Fisher stated: "I was not able to get my day in court in front of a jury of my peers to defend myself against Offit's false accusations. But I am very glad a respected veteran journalist, who Offit tried to defame, has had the public record set straight. It is never too late to ask for justice or get the record corrected when bullies like Offit engage in a smear campaign against people who disagree with him. It is ironic that in my libel case, the judge said Offit has a right to defame public figures in the spirit of free speech when Offit's real goal is to censor free speech about vaccine risks by demonizing anyone who criticizes vaccine safety." Offit Named "Vaccine Denialist of the Decade" Case in point, Offit's new book "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All" attempts to discredit some of the highest profile names that dared to question vaccine safety, including Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, and Barbara Loe Fisher. As the Age of Autism reported, the book: " … Deride[s] those who have any concerns whatsoever about the safety of the current vaccine schedule. There is plenty of sympathy for parents of children who have died of infectious diseases, but perfunctory dismissal in cases where parents blame vaccines." Their intriguing article from December 2010 names Offit as the "Denialist of the Decade" and points out numerous questionable omissions and other curiosities from Offit's book, such as not mentioning the fact that the U.S. government concluded childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of autism in 9-year-old Hannah Poling. According to Age of Autism: "Anyone concerned about any of these things fits Offit's definition of anti-vaccine, because vaccines don't cause any of them, because Paul Offit says so ... Yet Offit himself yields an amazing amount of ground by describing unsafe vaccines -- including early polio shots and a rotavirus vaccine that was the immediate predecessor of his own. His technique is to situate all this as historical, part of the triumphant march of progress into the bright sunshine of vaccine safety." They make an interesting point in that Offit actually describes historical instances where vaccines were dangerous, yet fails to realize the connection that the same safety issues could be ongoing today. Offit wrote: "When Barbara Loe Fisher burst onto the scene, several vaccines had serious side effects, every year causing allergic reactions, paralysis, or death. Public health officials and doctors didn't hide these problems. But they didn't do anything to correct them, either. And most parents had no idea they existed." Despite this acknowledgement, he states that a study involving vaccinated and unvaccinated children to gauge which group is ultimately healthier would be "an entirely unethical experiment." Mainstream Media Message: Silence Vaccine Critics, Protect Proponents There also appears to be a pattern of censorship in the mainstream press, which has barely featured the news about Dr. Thorsen's fraud charges and has not carried stories exposing Dr. Ofitt's lies, yet has widely circulated criticism against Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who has investigated the connection between developmental disorders and bowel disease, and early exposure to vaccines. There are tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of profits involved in the vaccine industry, and as a consequence there's major pressure to suppress scientific evidence documenting vaccine risks, such as the findings Dr. Wakefield uncovered. Even Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has tried to censor what the media reports in regard to vaccines. As Age of Autism reported, Sebelius stated: "There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We (the office of Secretary of Health and Human Services) have reached out to media outlets to try to get them not to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting." There is immense pressure to keep negative press -- like the fact Age of Autism reports that Dr. Offit earned at least $29 million, and perhaps as much as $55 million, as part of a $182-million sale by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine that Offit helped invent … or the fact that a key player in the autism research the CDC uses to support vaccine safety has been accused of criminal activity -- quiet. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) -- to whom the vaccine industry gives millions for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even to help build their headquarters -- even sent a letter to CBS containing misinformation about NVIC in an attempt to strong arm the network into taking down our Times Square billboard message, which encourages everyone to make informed vaccine choices. Always Remember This When Seeking the Truth The truth is, questionable ethical practices have long been associated with the pharmaceutical (including vaccines) industry. Numerous times in the past 50 years they (and their paid shills) have been accused of falsifying drug study results, paying bribes, covering up or omitting side effects and deaths, and denying responsibility when drugs are pulled off the market or vaccines end up permanently injuring or killing people. This begs the question, with a track record like this, how can you believe anything they say? Unfortunately, it is often naïve to trust blindly, even when a prominent figure has earned the respect of his peers and comes complete with a laundry list of credentials (as was the case with Thorsen). Instead, if you want to stand even a chance of getting the truth, you also have to consider the hidden motivations behind their recommendations and research.
Remember the words of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who, 200 years ago, said all truth goes through three stages:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." The good news is that many issues -- including the right to transparency in vaccine research and safety, and the right to vaccine choice -- are in the Violent Opposition / Fighting phase. As you can see, we know what comes next! Get instant access to the full Food Matters documentary, on sale now at WebSeed.com: http://programs.webseed.com/Food_Matters__NN.htm Some of what you'll learn as you watch the Food Matters documentary: * How to use food as medicine * Raw foods, superfoods and nutrition * Who needs vitamins? * Is organic better than conventional? * How safe is our food? * How the body heals itself * Foods for depression, anxiety and mental illness * Natural treatments for lowering cholesterol * Natural therapies for cancer * Which Pharma drugs might be causing more harm than good? * The best ways to detox and remove heavy metals, pesticides and chemicals from your body ... and much more. Here's what some of the world's top nutrition and health experts say about Food Matters: "This film lays out the inconvenient truth the food industry doesn't want you to hear - that nearly all degenerative disease is actually caused by the processed, nutrient-depleted food being consumed in first-world nations around the world. 'Food Matters' dares to reveal how we can stop this cycle of destruction and restore true health to ourselves and our planet." - Mike Adams, the Health Ranger founder of Natural News.com "James and Laurentine provide a radiant beacon of hope with steps you can do today to take control of your health and begin healing. This is such important information - and much aligned with my personal health philosophies. It's time to get it out to everyone who will listen. I encourage you to order a copy of Food Matters today and watch it with your friends and family." - Dr Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com "Food Matters is a must see for those looking to take control of their health." - John Gray, PhD, NY Times Best Selling Author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus "Anyone who is serious about their health needs to see this stunning film." - Christiane Northrup, MD, author of Mother-Daughter Wisdom, The Wisdom of Menopause and Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom "Outstanding" - John Robbins, author of Diet for A New America "This eye-opening documentary is important to anyone who has ever taken the safety of our nation’s food supply for granted. 'Food Matters' is destined to be a classic." - Jordan Rubin, NY Times Best Selling Author of The Maker’s Diet "Food Matters is to getting healthy as The Secret is to becoming wealthy." - Ed Bauman, Bauman College: Holistic Nutrition and Culinary Arts "YES! Food Matters! This riveting, inspiring film is a giant step forward in awakening people’s consciousness about what we are putting into our bodies and how we are nourishing ourselves and our planet." - Alissa Cohen, Author of Living on Live Food Get instant access to the full Food Matters documentary, on sale now at WebSeed.com: http://programs.webseed.com/Food_Matters__NN.htm The use of mammograms has dropped following recommendations by a medical task force that women in their 40s may not need to get breast cancer screenings every year. Studies suggest that fewer physicians are recommending annual mammograms for women in their 40s, and that fewer patients in that age group are getting screened.
In November of 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board, said that yearly mammograms should not necessarily be automatic at age 40. They did recommend routine mammography screenings every two years for women ages 50 to 74. CNN reports: "Mammograms are less effective in detecting growths in younger women, whose breasts may be denser. The screening gets better with older women because breast tissues change over time. As a result, some women experience false positives, anxiety and unnecessary biopsies because of mammograms, according to data." Meanwhile, more and more clinical studies are showing that an alternative, noninvasive breast cancer screening test – thermography – could soon become the initial breast screening tool for pre-menopausal women. Sources:
Dr. Mercola's Comments: When the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said annual mammograms weren't necessary for women under age 50, and that screenings were recommended only every two years after that, the breast cancer community all but fell apart. Protests erupted from surgeons and radiologists to cancer advocacy groups like the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Since two of the task force's members represent the insurance industry, and since the industry looks to the task force for guidance in what tests insurance will cover, critics claimed that money and conflicts of interest swayed the decision to reduce mammography screening recommendations. I agree. Money and conflicts of interest probably are involved here – but not the way you might think. Breast Cancer Screening is a Booming Business According to a 2008 report by market analysts Medtech Insight, breast cancer screening is a $2.1 billion-a-year business that is projected to compound by 5.4 percent a year through 2013 as Baby Boomers start regular breast cancer screening. The core of this market, Medtech said, centers on mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound. Anticipating the surge years ago, imaging providers started spending hundreds of thousands of dollars – and in some cases, millions – on new breast radiology equipment, specialty services, and clinics. The outlook was so good that Imaging Economics, an online economic adviser to radiologists and health care executives, was already reporting in 2003 that breast cancer screening was a "booming business." And it was: with annual mammograms recommended for everybody over age 40, the bottom line was absolutely guaranteed in the breast imaging department, from mammography, to ultrasound, to MRIs, to stereotactic biopsies, to radiographic-guided lumpectomies. And then the Preventive Services Task Force had to go and "ruin everything." With the task force's new guidelines paradigm, the breast screening bull market was about to bust. Naturally, the imaging industry was furious: "If the USPSTF guidelines were followed to the letter, then imaging centers would face a dramatic decrease in mammography volume across the entire age spectrum of women," Imaging Economics reported in January 2010. "For centers that focus on women's health and breast imaging, especially, this could be a devastating blow." Of course, as is all too frequently occurs, the concern and emphasis is on loss of personal income NOT on what best serves the patient or how to adjust their business model to make it a win-win for them and the patient. When it comes to business decisions, it seems what is best for the patient nearly always is factored out of the equation. So what happened? They urged breast screening specialists to work harder to keep their volume up, Imaging Economics advised them to talk to their patients and tell them about women in their 40s and 50s who have been affected by breast cancer. For example, a center in New Jersey sent out letters to all its patients stressing the importance of annual screening, despite the task force's recommendations – and it worked. The key to keeping radiologists' doors open, Imaging Economics said, was to emulate this New Jersey center, and continually educate patients, referring physicians and the public at large about "the value of mammography as a screening tool for breast cancer." Beware -- The Price You Pay Could be Your Life I've shared with you on many occasions my concerns about the safety and effectiveness of mammograms. Time and again, studies published in prestigious medical journals are progressively showing that mammography isn't all it's made out to be – and the task force indicated that this is what they were thinking when they changed the screening guidelines. I'm sure it also knew that mammograms miss up to a third or more of all breast cancers, as reported by Medscape, depending on the composition of your breast tissue and the type of cancer that might be lurking in there. And secondly, the task force certainly found that mammography and its subsequent tests, such as MRIs and stereotactic biopsies – actually can CAUSE cancer. The task force also had to have known that false positives from mammograms – a diagnosis of cancer when it turns not to be cancer – are notorious in the industry, causing women needless anxiety, pain and, often, invasive and disfiguring surgical procedures. It's true. What the Imaging Industry Doesn't Want You to Know What the imaging industry doesn't want you to know, but what the U.S. Preventive Task Force evidently saw, is that mammography not only is sadly lacking in accuracy, but it can be dangerous as well. If you're new to the Mercola website, I urge you to click on the links above, and read this information for yourself, to get some background on what I'm talking about. You may be asked to register to read the Medscape link, but it's free and the information is priceless. Then take a peek at some of these other sites, which show that the imaging industry is definitely downplaying the downside of mammography:
The Imaging Industry Admits that Thermography is a Viable, Safe Alternative Interestingly, in 2003, at the same time it was heralding the radiology boom in breast cancer screening, Imaging Economics also talked about thermogaphy as a safe, viable, noninvasive, pain-free alternative to mammography. Admitting that thermography isn't a new kid on the block – the FDA approved its use in 1982 – Imaging Economics announced that several companies had new thermography products in the pipeline. "By itself, thermography is 86 to 90 percent effective for detecting breast cancer," the agency quoted one of the owners of this "new" technology. When you consider that the task force said that mammography alone can misdiagnose up to 56 percent of women ages 40 to 49, those statistics are pretty impressive. Adding to the proof, Imaging Economics added: "Clinical Thermography of Colorado opened its doors in July 2002 and uses Meditherm's (Lake Oswego, Ore.) Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging system. Scans (thermography) are non-invasive and complete in 15 minutes; physicians trained to read thermograms read the scans offsite. "Marshall notes, "Physician acceptance has been higher than I anticipated." In fact, some local physicians are referring patients for thermography. One surgeon recognized the value of thermography after a patient elected a double mastectomy based on her thermogram, which revealed abnormal patterns in both breasts. After the surgery, the surgeon found that the patient's thermogram matched the pathology report. "A number of patients are women who have had mastectomies and need to monitor remaining breast tissue, but don't want to be compressed during a mammogram. Other patients have cancer and want to monitor their condition." And this comes from the very industry that is quaking in its shoes about mammograms going by the wayside! When you add the fact that some radiologists are now training in thermography in anticipation that in the future it may be the "first signal" for finding a developing tumor, and that thermography has become a college unto itself, it shows that maybe the U.S. Preventive Task Force knows more than the industry would like you to think. As Usual, the FDA Stands in the Way Aside from trade associations like the AMA, the Society for Breast Imaging, and the American College of Radiologists (ACR) – people who have lots to lose in the way of mammogram dollars – the FDA, as usual, is taking its time reviewing thermography's new evidence as a first-line defense against breast cancer. Currently the FDA classifies thermography only as a Class I medical device that can be used as an adjunct to mammography. As a result, insurance companies and Medicare have refused to endorse and pay for thermography for breast cancer screening. They all cite numerous studies showing a presumed low effectiveness of the procedure – but those studies ARE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD. When you review more recent studies, you'll find that the thermography has well-known benefits. In fact, a study published in 2009 in the Journal of Medical Systems and the National Institutes of Health's PubMed reported that thermography aided by the latest analytical software sensors is 94.8 percent accurate – or nearly twice as effective as mammography! With more and more recent studies supporting these numbers, it has to make you wonder what the FDA is thinking by refusing to admit the good that it is. Thus, the FDA is denying women – and men, because men get breast cancer too – this potentially life-saving procedure! What You Can Do to Protect Yourself I don't have to recite another litany of studies that show that thermography is an extremely safe and useful tool, particularly in women with dense breasts. The point is that thermography is a safe, viable alternative that can help you get reliable, accurate information for diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of breast cancer. Not only that, it can detect inflammation of other kinds in other places in your body, from your heart to your teeth to your circulatory/vascular system, and more – all in a procedure that doesn't involve touching or invading your body in any way. It's cost-effective in that it can help you make lifestyle and treatment choices you might not have with other procedures, including mammography. And, it's risk-free and provides you with instant feedback – in other words, no need for a return appointment just to hear the results. The important thing is that it still is an FDA-approved procedure, and you still have the choice to consider it as part of your annual health prevention plan. Related Links: Why Mammography is NOT an Effective Breast Cancer Screen Breast Cancer Breakthrough – Cut Your Risk of Breast Cancer in Half Avoid Routine Mammograms if You Are Under 50 The Breast Cancer Screening Mistake Millions Make |
AuthorI have lived with ME/CFS for fourteen years, nine of them totally bed-bound. I post about ME/CFS and related health and advocacy issues such as vaccination, EMFs, radiation and GM foods from the perspective of a holistic practitioner interested in healing our bodies, relationships, societies and mother Earth. My approach integrates science and spirit and includes the best of alternative and allopathc healing modalities and research. Archives
April 2013
Categories
All
|