Is Journalism dead?

Investigative journalists are alive and well, you just have to look much harder to find them.

It is likely that most of you receive your news from what is generally called the ‘mainstream media’.

It is also likely that you are under the impression that journalists thoroughly investigate the material for their stories and then write their articles or present their news programmes truthfully telling us what is happening around the world in a clear and unbiased manner.

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of the mainstream media most of the time produce what can only be described as propaganda.

This is no exaggeration, we are being fed ‘news’ items that are selected for publication rather than being truly informed about a wide range of events.

More frequently the ‘news’ seems to include many reports of a nature that ought to be categorised as ‘entertainment’ rather than news and presented by ‘personalities’ rather than journalists.

The reason for this appalling situation is that the mainstream media is currently run by just a few very large corporations; the media has indeed become ‘big business’.

The result of this corporate ownership of the media is that the information we receive as ‘news’ is very much dependent upon the agendas of these corporations and will inevitably be heavily biased in favour of their specific vested interests, their business profits, political connections and any other issues that are of benefit to them.

The corporations decide what information is published and what information is suppressed and sadly informing the public of the truth does not seem to feature highly on their agendas, if at all.

Writing in his book, The New Media Monopoly, about the five corporations that own most of the media outlets in America, the award-winning American author, journalist and media critic, Ben Bagdikian said,
“The Five have become major players in altering the politics of the country. They have been able to promote new laws that increase their corporate domination and that permit them to abolish regulations that inhibit their control. Their major accomplishment is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In the process, power of media firms, along with all corporate power in general, has diminished the place of individual citizens.”

Under this corporate-dominated regime, compliant journalists are told what to report and of course what not to report.

In England for example, it was discovered by journalist and author Nick Davies in a research study he commissioned for his book, Flat Earth News, that many stories are just copied from News Agencies or from Press Releases without any corroboration of the material before being published.

But that is not the correct role of a journalist. Journalists should not be subjected to an authoritarian agenda, they should be independently gathering information about events and reporting to the public through newspapers and magazines or via television and radio programmes.

Although far too many journalists currently tow the corporate line, there are still some journalists who remain true to the purpose of their profession, to investigate and report real stories.

One of the most outspoken of these real investigative journalists is the very highly respected John Pilger.

This is what he has to say about the current state of the profession of journalism,
“In one sense, the Wikileaks revelations shame the dominant section of journalism devoted merely to taking down what cynical and malign power tells it. This is state stenography, not journalism.”

As a journalist whose books, articles and documentaries are usually about events within fields of conflict, John Pilger’s reference to Wikileaks is pertinent because most of the recent Wikileaks revelations have been about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wikileaks has made this important information available directly to the public, unlike the controlled mainstream media outlets. And, unlike the mainstream media again, Wikileaks acts responsibly by verifying the authenticity of any information received before it is published.

John Pilger has recently made another revealing yet disturbing film called The War You Don’t See that includes an interview with Julian Assange, the editor in chief of Wikileaks. They discuss, amongst other matters relating to war, how Wikileaks collects information and how it safeguards the identity of whistleblowers. They also talk about the leaked video of the Apache helicopter attack on civilians that included the deaths of two Reuters employees, which is the video referred to as ‘Collateral Murder’.

You can watch a clip of the film, The War You Don’t See, and read an article by John Pilger about it from the link HERE

An extended version of the interview with Julian Assange, which is compelling viewing, can be watched from the link HERE

If you are not familiar with Wikileaks or you have only read about the website and Julian Assange in the mainstream media, please watch this video.

If you have any doubts about the importance of the work of good, independent, investigative journalists and the very real threats to their existence from corporations and government agencies, please watch the following video clips of John Pilger’s presentation at the Sydney Peace Foundation award ceremony in March 2011.
Part 1 HERE
Part 2 HERE

There is also a full version of this presentation at the Foundation ceremony at which they awarded their “gold medal for peace with justice” to Julian Assange HERE

Although in his presentation John Pilger is referring specifically to Australia, his words apply to all of us everywhere.

If you value your freedom to information and the freedom of the media to report the truth, please watch and read everything available from the links in this blog.

We should not have to resort to Freedom of Information legislation to demand the information we are entitled to receive.

Posted in Freedom of Speech, Media Failure | Leave a comment

The Torture of Bradley Manning in the US

Bradley Manning is a 23 year old US Army intelligence analyst who was arrested in May 2010 and is now being held in solitary confinement in a military prison in Quantico, Virginia.

The reasons for his arrest?

He is the alleged source of the Wikileaks documents and video that showed the world some real and unpleasant events that are happening in the war in Iraq. He has not been convicted for these alleged leaks and so they are still only allegations.

He has been charged with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and of ‘aiding the enemy’, which potentially carries the death penalty and is the basis for certain US politicians calling him a traitor, even though he has not yet been found guilty of these alleged ‘crimes’.

However, what is appalling are the conditions under which he is being held.

He is being kept in solitary confinement in a 6 foot cell for 23 hours a day, made to strip naked to sleep and for inspection outside his cell every day and he is also deprived of proper exercise, although he is allowed 1 hour of exercise in chains.

These conditions are regarded by some psychologists as a kind of torture aimed at weakening Bradley both physically and mentally. Furthermore, these conditions are worse than those in which convicted prisoners on Death Row are held.

Remember though, this is someone who has not been tried for the alleged acts, which means that the whole concept of ‘innocent until proved guilty’ seems to have been completely lost in his case.

If Bradley Manning is the source of the leaks then, as some commentators have suggested, he needs to be regarded as a political prisoner as the leaked information contains descriptions of war crimes.

If he is the source of the documents and video then he is a whistleblower, not someone who is ‘aiding the enemy’.

The video that was allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning to Wikileaks is called ‘Collateral Murder’. It shows violence by the military on civilians and can be viewed from this link HERE

The mainstream media is not fully reporting the Bradley Manning situation and is yet again failing in its duties to the public.

The independent news media programme, Democracy Now, recently held interviews with Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower of the Pentagon Papers, on the subject of the Bradley Manning situation and they can be watched from these links HERE and HERE

You can read Daniel Ellsberg’s comments on his website HERE

His interview on the Democracy Now website includes the following comment:
“The conditions under which Manning is being held clearly violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment—even for someone being punished, having been convicted. Here we have someone who has not yet been tried, not yet convicted, being held in isolation, solitary confinement, for something over 9 months. This is something that is likely to drive a person mad, and may be the intent of what’s going on here.”

You can also hear Bradley Manning’s friend David House provide a description of the appalling way in which Bradley Manning is being treated from the link HERE

More information on this appalling situation can be accessed from the link HERE

Posted in Freedom of Speech, Media Failure | Leave a comment

Tamoxifen can cause cancer

A very worrying story has recently emerged in the media.

The website of the UK newspaper the Telegraph reports, “Up to one in 10 women could benefit from anti-cancer treatments such as tamoxifen even before they show signs of the disease, according to an international panel of experts.”

The full story can be read HERE

Although the report does state that Tamoxifen has potentially serious side-effects, it does not mention that those ‘side-effects’ include cancer itself.

Yes, you read that correctly, Tamoxifen can cause cancer.

A more detailed list of the real problems with Tamoxifen can be read HERE

I have conducted some research into Tamoxifen and discovered that it has not been proven to be an anti-cancer drug, it is a carcinogen and has been known to be such for almost 20 years.

This is absolutely outrageous, especially in view of the current reports that it is already used in the US as a supposed ‘preventive’ and now the intention is to roll its use out to healthy women in other countries, the UK being next.

It somehow seems more than coincidental that only recently the media reported that the rate of breast cancer in Britain remains high and now British women are to be scared into accepting a carcinogen as a ‘preventive’.

Dr Samuel Epstein MD is a Professor of Environmental Science and a renowned expert on cancer.

In 1998 he released a document called ‘Tamoxifen Prescribed to Healthy Women is a Highly Potent Cause of Liver Cancer’. You can read this Press Release HERE

You can also read his comments on the conflicts of interest that exist for the chemical companies that sell Tamoxifen HERE

As I have written before, many doctors, scientists and researchers who care about our health rather than company profits, know what causes cancer and what can be done to both prevent and ‘cure’ it, which does not include surgery or drugs.

I have to point out that the word ‘cure’ is not allowed to be used by those who are able to ‘cure’ using natural methods for healing; it can only be used by those who make and prescribe drugs, which ironically and tragically do not ‘cure’.

As I wrote above, Dr Epstein MD is an authority on cancer. He says that much cancer is avoidable and results from exposure to many carcinogenic chemicals that exist in the environment, our food, our water, our personal care and household products and the workplace.

Please read his full article, which was written in 2000 but could have been written yesterday, HERE

His website is http://www.preventcancer.com

The ‘War on Cancer’ is 40 years old, but the situation is worse than in 1971 because we are continually being fed misinformation by the medical and pharmaceutical industry, willingly assisted by the mainstream media.

This misinformation does nothing to help us and our families avoid this ‘disease’, it only helps promote their chemicals that cause it.

The war on cancer is not a war to be fought with surgery and chemicals.

Please read all the articles available from this blog and also read Dr Epstein’s website to arm yourself with real information about cancer, its causes and its prevention.

To reiterate Dr Epstein’s words, “Cancer is avoidable”, but it requires us to know which substances are carcinogens so that we can avoid them. It also requires us to know how to create health in our own bodies, which creates ‘natural prevention’.

Posted in Cancer, Health, Media Failure, Science | Leave a comment

What is the BBC Playing At? Part 5

This blog continues discussing the issues from the BBC Horizon programme presented by Sir Paul Nurse, called Science Under Attack.

It covered many topics in such a biased and ‘unscientific’ manner that I am dealing with the issues separately in a small series of blog entries.

You can watch the Horizon programme HERE

This final blog of the series deals with the topic of the biased view of the state of ‘science’.

Sir Paul commented on the public needing to trust the scientists by saying “We have to earn their trust if science really is going to benefit society.”

Benefiting society is not the purpose of science. Science is an ever-developing knowledge and understanding of how the world works.

As an aside, I would like to ask how Sir Paul would explain to the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, for example, that the purpose of science is to benefit society.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of science is, ‘the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment’.

It appears that ‘science’ has lost its direction from this definition to being an exclusive enterprise for an elite section of the populace who can only call themselves ‘scientists’ if they have succeeded by giving the ‘right’ answer to their examination questions.

The ability to ‘think outside of the box’, as brilliantly displayed by Albert Einstein in his work, seems to be no longer tolerated, which was clearly demonstrated in the programme by Sir Paul promoting the ‘consensual’ view as being the only one permissable.

History can show that the likes of Sir Paul and his consenual science have always impeded the progress of true scientific pioneers.

It seems appropriate to refer, at this juncture, to Arthur Scopenhauer’s famous quote, “All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident.” It would seem that nowadays stages one and two are frequently joined to make a much stronger opposition to new ideas when they challenge the ‘consensus’.

We, the public, are being unjustly judged as being incapable of thinking for ourselves by being told that we have to blindly ‘trust’ the scientists without question; this is not a position we should accept, no matter who says it, as they do not have the monopoly on the ability to study and observe the world.

The crux of the problem with mainstream science is based on money, power and control by certain vested interests who have not the slightest interest in benefitting society. It may all sound like ‘Big Brother’ but, as the saying goes, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Obviously money, power and control are not bad per se, they can indeed be used for ‘good’, but nevertheless they can also have a dark side, depending on the intent of those who wield them.

The dark side of money, power and control can be demonstrated by the example of the pharmaceutical industry, an industry that is supposed to benefit society in terms of our health, using their science of chemistry to make the medicines that doctors prescribe when we are ill.

Doctors are taught in their pharmacology course in medical school that “all medications are toxic to varying degrees.”

The word pharmacology has its root, like a vast number of medical expressions, in Greek. The ancient Greek meaning is ‘poison’.

To emphasise the point I made previously about qualifications being gained by giving the ‘right answers’, Dr Richard Moore MD PhD has said, “The drug companies are subtly manipulating the medical schools so that most future doctors are indoctrinated with the idea that synthetic chemicals, prescription drugs, are the treatment of first choice for almost every ailment that afflicts humankind.”

It is now an unfortunate fact that the vast majority of drug research and testing is either carried out by the pharmaceutical companies themselves or outsourced to other parties, such as university laboratories, but still funded by the pharmaceutical companies.

This system is hardly likely to produce unbiased results, particularly when huge sums of money are involved both in research grants and the prospective drug sales income, which is measured in billions of dollars.

The words of Dr Marcia Angell MD, former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, reveal the true motives of the pharmaceutical companies, “The pharmaceutical industry is now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centres and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)”.

Sir Paul also commented on the importance of the peer-review process, but that too has been severely corrupted as demonstrated by the following extract from a news story in February 2010 about Dr Scott Reuben, who was found guilty of faking dozens of research studies that were published in ‘peer-reviewed’ journals for more than 13 years. “Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news. Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals.”

The problem with ‘science’ is sadly not limited to the medical industry.

It has to be emphasised that problems do not occur in all scientific endeavours, but it does occur in far too many to be able to blindly trust scientific pronouncements at face value.

So my comment to Sir Paul Nurse would be that his idea of ‘science’ needs to undertake a complete overhaul to remove the corruption of true science; corruption caused by certain vested interest groups that currently drive too many areas of scientific investigation.
  
Only by becoming completely unbiased and free from vested interests can the mainstream scientific community possibly hope to earn and then regain our trust.

Some of the preceding paragraphs have been extracted from our book, Why Germs Don’t Make You Ill and Drugs Can’t Cure You, which is the result of our research into what really makes us ill and what we can do to become and remain healthy.

Our research made the staggering discovery that the failure of modern medicine is a consequence of its practices being based more on blind faith and dogma than on true scientific investigation; the horrifying consequences of this are plain to see in the hundreds of thousands of casualties every year caused by the medical establishment.

If this series of blogs on the biased and unscientific nature of the Horizon programme has intrigued you and you want to know more, please read our book, Why Germs Don’t Make You Ill and Drugs Can’t Cure You, which is available from Amazon HERE

Posted in Freedom of Speech, Health, Media Failure, Science | Leave a comment

What is the BBC Playing At? Part 4

This blog continues discussing the issues from the BBC Horizon programme presented by Sir Paul Nurse, called Science Under Attack.

It covered many topics in such a biased and ‘unscientific’ manner that I am dealing with the issues separately in a small series of blog entries.

You can watch the Horizon programme HERE

This blog deals with some issues raised in the programme with particular reference to vaccines.

On the subject of vaccines Sir Paul Nurse had this to say:
“Trust in other scientific theories has also been eroded, such as the safety of vaccines.”

The fact is that there are many doctors, scientists and researchers who say that vaccines have never been proven to be either safe or effective.

If this statement is new to you please download a report HERE

The whole subject of vaccines is far too vast to cover in a single book let alone a single blog entry, so this blog will just address Sir Paul’s point about vaccine safety and concentrate on the recent debate over the MMR vaccine and autism because it will show why trust in the safety of vaccines has been eroded.

If you have only read the mainstream media coverage of the MMR and autism debate, you may think that the person at the centre of this story, Dr Andrew Wakefield, and his work have been thoroughly discredited. You may also be under the impression that his work was unscientific and has been proved to be fraudulent, which is why he was struck off from the British medical register.

This is a brief overview of how it is being portrayed in the mainstream media, but nothing could be further from the truth.

You may also think, from the mainstream media coverage, that his original research paper set out to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism.

Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

His original paper was a case series about 12 children who had severe gastrointestinal problems, which was Dr Wakefield’s area of expertise.

His case is dreadfully unfair and a shocking example of what can only be described as a witch hunt, the reasons for which are money, power and control by certain vested interests. Make no mistake, this issue is not about the health of the children, as will be apparent when you study the links provided in this blog.

If you have only read the mainstream media coverage of this story and want to know more about the true facts, instead of the biased media treatment, and if you care about your children’s health, I urge you to watch two video interviews that you can access from the following links.

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield on January 18th 2011 HERE

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield on January 30th 2011 HERE

You can also access the website that is mentioned in the interviews about the true story and the book HERE

One of the points highlighted by these interviews is that the BMJ, the supposedly prestigious journal of the British medical establishment, ignored the evidence.

It was so important for them to avoid the situation of having to publicly admit that a vaccine had caused harm that they were prepared to take the word of the journalist Brian Deer over that of a conscientious and highly qualified doctor.

What you may not be aware of is that the US National Vaccine Compensation Program has already paid settlements in excess of $2 billion in compensation for vaccine injury claims since 1989.

You can download the information from their website HERE or download this information as a PDF HERE

Please access all the information available from this blog and please especially watch the interviews, then you will understand why trust in the safety of vaccines has been eroded.

The damage they cause is real, whilst the benefits are, at the very least, highly questionable. In fact the overwhelming scientific evidence points to their being neither safe nor effective.

Which only begs the question, why was Sir Paul Nurse promoting such a biased and unscientific view in the BBC Horizon programme?

Posted in Freedom of Speech, Media Failure, Science, Vaccination | Leave a comment

What is the BBC Playing At? Part 3

This blog continues discussing the issues from the BBC Horizon programme presented by Sir Paul Nurse, called Science Under Attack.

It covered many topics in such a biased and ‘unscientific’ manner that I am dealing with the issues separately in a small series of blog entries.

You can watch the Horizon programme HERE

This blog discusses the highly contentious topic of genetic engineering.

Admittedly the GM section of the Horizon programme was very short, but that didn’t stop Sir Paul from making some very generalised sweeping statements.

For example, Sir Paul Nurse made the following comments:

“The GM debate once again raises the issue of public trust in science. There’s a gap between the fears of some sections of the public and the opinion of scientists that what they are doing is both useful and safe.”

“There have been angry protests against the use of genetically modified foods.”

“Part of the problem may be due to past controversies where mainstream science has failed to win over the public.”

The implication is that the scientists have produced something that is both safe and good for us and that we, the public, are just too stubborn, or possibly just too stupid, to understand about genetic engineering and that we have just let our feelings overtake our reason.

This attitude is insulting.

The programme shows ‘activist’ protestors, who angrily claim “we don’t want their new technology” and are seen destroying crops that presumably are part of GM trials.

However, only showing these activist protestors is a gross misrepresentation of the type of people who strongly protest against genetic engineering, because many people object to GM from a scientific perspective based on strong scientific evidence of the dangers of GM products.

The objections to this part of the programme have been clearly laid out in an open letter to Sir Paul Nurse, written by Dr Brian John, that you can read at this link HERE

I strongly recommend that you read this letter as it details the problems with the whole GM industry, none of which Sir Paul refers to in the programme, clearly displaying his bias on the topic.

Dr Brian John’s letter contains the following extracts, which counter Sir Paul’s comments listed at the beginning of this blog:

“I am intrigued by your apparent belief that scientists are always truthful and honest, and that they are all signed up to an unbreakable code of ethics. If only that were true…………..The conspiracy of connivance and silence that we have uncovered is truly appalling – and something of which the scientific community should be truly ashamed.”
“You will be aware that there has never been a single piece of epidemiological research to back up the claims that GM foods are entirely safe to eat.”

Is Sir Paul Nurse so naive? Did he really not do his homework properly on these subjects before presenting the Horizon programme? Or was he just selective about what he chose to present?

His attitude to this topic displays his hypocrisy, because being biased in one’s ideas without viewing the whole of the scientific evidence is precisely the problem he complains about in the programme.

The title of the Horizon programme is Science Under Attack, but just to show the GM science that IS under attack, a film has been made called Scientists Under Attack, with the subtitle, Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money.

Although the ‘Scientists Under Attack’ film has not been on general release, you can read a review about it HERE

You can watch a short clip HERE

The film is mainly about two scientists, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Ignacio Chapela whose researches uncovered negative effects of GM foods and crops. It details how these previously respected scientists were subsequently ill-treated by their academic institutions and the GM industry, and how dreadfully one of them was treated by British Prime Minister of the time Tony Blair.

It also includes interviews with other respected researchers including Jeffrey M Smith, who is an expert in the field of GMO as well as the founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology and a bestselling author.

The website for the Institute for Responsible Technology contains a wealth of scientific information about the dangers of GM that you can access HERE

In the film, Scientists Under Attack, it is shown that the scientists are being attacked because they don’t agree with the ‘consensus’, which seems to be dictated by industrial giants like Monsanto that have heavily invested in GM products.

So the question for Sir Paul is, why is he trying to promote a pro-GM view, is it just because he wants it to be true?

Again, the consensual view is not necessarily the correct view.

He states in the programme that “The controversy surrounding GM was something I really wanted to understand.” but what he presented on the programme had very little to do with understanding the controversy and very much more to do with promoting the industry propaganda.

A pertinent quote by Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind, “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody will see it.”

If you read the information available from the links in this blog you will see that the weight of the scientific evidence shows that GMOs are very far from being either good for us or safe.

Posted in Freedom of Speech, GM, Health Freedom, Healthy Food, Media Failure, Science | Leave a comment

What is the BBC Playing At? Part 2

This blog continues discussing the issues from the BBC Horizon programme presented by Sir Paul Nurse, called Science Under Attack.

You can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89AeCLCtJQ

It covered many topics in such a biased and ‘unscientific’ manner that I am dealing with the issues separately in a small series of blog entries.

A large part of the programme covered the topic of whether climate change is manmade, about which Sir Paul says, “One of the most vocal arguments currently raging is about climate science. Many people seem unconvinced that we are warming our planet with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

It is this highly contentious topic of whether climate change is manmade, with particular reference to CO2 emissions, that this blog entry will discuss.

The statement was made that half of Americans and a third of the British think that climate science is being exaggerated, to which Sir Paul Nurse makes the comment “It’s this gap between scientists and the public that I want to understand”.

His comments suggest that ‘the science is settled’ and that all of ‘the scientists’ agree and that it is just ‘the public’ who have yet to be convinced. He goes on to say “The scientific consensus is, of course, that the changes we are seeing are caused by emissions of carbon into the atmosphere.”

He is wrong. There is no scientific consensus, which is why the public are not convinced.

Incredibly his emphasis is on consensus, but science should not be limited by consensus.

In the words of Albert Einstein “the important thing is to not stop questioning”. This is the essence of science, its ever-evolving nature, which would be severely impeded, if not completely halted by the insistence that it must be consensual.

The climate is a very complex system, so it is particularly relevant to the relatively young science of climatology to keep developing its understanding of the climate system.

In the programme Sir Paul interviewed Professor Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist who has been studying climate science for nearly 50 years, who said “There is no scientific evidence that greenhouse warming is occurring, or, if it is, that it would lead to disaster”.

Professor Singer continued, “We’re seeing no evidence in the climate record that the increase in carbon dioxide, which is real, has made any appreciable difference in the climate.”

It is clear from his website www.sepp.org that Professor Singer does not believe that humans are responsible for climate change; he attributes it to natural forces.

Sir Paul refers to Professor Singer as someone who has been battling against the ‘consensus view’ for over 20 years and who influences ‘skeptics’ around the world in a tone that implies Professor Singer doesn’t know what he is talking about, which is insulting to him and wrong because there is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports Professor Singer’s view.

On the subject of CO2 being a pollutant, the website of Dr Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, contains an article that includes the following extract:
“The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth.”

The entire article can be read here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/on-the-house-vote-to-defund-the-ipcc/

Further evidence is provided by Professor Bob Carter, a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who has written an article that can be accessed here http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/carbon-dioxide-tax-the-people-s-revolt

Please ensure that you also read part 2 of this article, which can be accessed here ttp://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science

The following is an extract from part 2:
“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of logic, language and science, given its pivotal role in the photosynthetic processes that underpin most of our planetary ecosystems. In essence, carbon dioxide is the very staff of life, and increasing it in the atmosphere helps most plants to grow better and to use water more efficiently.”

Although this article is from the Australian perspective, it has relevance for us all, no matter where we live.

There is plenty of scientific evidence about the issue of carbon dioxide and global climate change, some of which can be viewed at the website for The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change here http://www.co2science.org/index.php

So now we can answer the question Sir Paul poses in the programme, “How can we be sure that humans are to blame for this?”

The answer is that we humans are not responsible to any degree that is relevant. As Dr Roy Spencer was quoted in my previous blog entry on carbon footprints, “….manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability.”

Contrary to what Sir Paul Nurse wants us to believe about an alleged scientific consensus, the links from this blog provide more than adequate scientific evidence that climate change is not being driven by manmade emissions of carbon dioxide.

Posted in Freedom of Speech, Global Warming, Media Failure, Science | Leave a comment

What is the BBC Playing At? Part 1

I recently watched and was appalled by the BBC Horizon programme narrated by Sir Paul Nurse called Science Under Attack, which covered some hotly contested topics, such as global warming, HIV and AIDS, genetically modified foods, the ability of the medical industry to cure people and vaccines.

You can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89AeCLCtJQ

It covered many topics in such a biased and ‘unscientific’ manner that I will need to deal with the issues separately in a small series of blog entries. It also raised a great deal of heat within the disciplines of each of the topics that were covered, as you will discover.

This blog discusses the topic of HIV and AIDS.

Sir Paul Nurse stated that HIV causes AIDS with such certainty that you would assume that this has been scientifically proven; it most definitely has not.

He interviewed a gay man called Tony Lance who, at a routine checkup, was told by his doctor that he was HIV-positive, given a prescription for ARVs (anti-retrovirals) and told that if he didn’t take the drugs he would be dead in 2 years. On his way home he threw away the prescription and never went back to the doctor for anything HIV related.

He was relating this story 13 years later!

And yet Paul Nurse won’t call that evidence! He stated to camera that “……..there is such an overwhelming body of evidence that HIV causes AIDS, I really want to understand how Tony has reached his opinion.”

Opinion?

Has Paul Nurse failed to appreciate the evidence of his own eyes? The man is still alive after 13 years and has managed it without drugs, surely that blows such a massive hole in Paul Nurse’s ‘overwhelming body of evidence’, that he should be rubbing his chin and saying ‘Hmmm, we need to look at this HIV=AIDS=DEATH story a bit closer’.

But it seems that for Paul Nurse, the evidence of Tony’s ability to still be alive without drugs is not ‘scientific evidence’ so it doesn’t count.

There is a difference between applying the scientific method and mere ‘opinion’. Tony Lance has studied the evidence, which is apparent from a detailed and extensively referenced article he has written that you can view here http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/gutaids

You can view an article on the same topic by Dr Henry Bauer PhD here http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/intestinal-dysbiosis-theory-confirmed/

I must point out that Paul Nurse’s fixed and incorrect view of the ‘HIV causes AIDS’ hypothesis shows that he is doing exactly what he criticised within the programme; having a fixed view and then looking for the evidence to support it.

But what is worse is that he is completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence that refutes this hypothesis.

You would think that as a Nobel prize winner Paul Nurse would, at least, have respect for a fellow Nobel Prize winner, Dr Kary Mullis, who says that HIV has not been proved to cause AIDS.

You can view Dr Mullis’ comments on HIV and AIDS from the introduction to Dr Peter Duesberg’s book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, at this link: http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html

The introduction includes the following extract:
“We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.
We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we’ve seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.”

You can also watch a video interview with Dr Mullis in which he states that he searched in vain for the original papers that were supposed to prove that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3cAS3YUKM

There are other interviews on this You Tube video and if you click on the ‘show more’ below it you will find links to many other resources, including the film House of Numbers.

You can read more about the much maligned Dr Peter Duesberg at his own website http://www.duesberg.com

If you study the information from the links in this blog you will realise that the weight of the evidence shows that the HIV=AIDS=DEATH hypothesis is false.

Posted in HIV and AIDS, Science | Leave a comment

Mainstream scare tactics on cancer!

A recent article in a UK online newspaper reports that 1 in 4 cancer cases are missed by GPs delaying vital treatment.

This article can be viewed here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1361269/1-4-cancer-cases-missed-GPs-delaying-vital-treatment.html

The reason given for the delays is that GPs are ‘dismissing early warning signs as minor ailments’ and are therefore prescribing minor treatments such as painkillers or antibiotics.

The article suggests that patients have to make repeated trips to their doctor before being given a ‘correct’ diagnosis.

You would be justified in thinking that this may cast a great shadow over the doctors’ ability to diagnose disease correctly.

Whilst this appalling situation gives rise to a justifiable degree of anger, unfortunately your anger will probably be misdirected.

The reason I say this is that your anger will probably be directed towards insisting that more tests are conducted earlier to enable early detection of ‘cancer’.

The reason that it is misdirected is that this is the completely opposite direction that the situation needs to take to improve the chances for patients to return to health.

If you look hard enough you will find that there is abundant literature by many respected scientists, physicians and researchers who all say that the causes of cancer are known and that the current treatments of a combination of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation are not only ineffective but actually dangerous.

Have you ever wondered why an industry that requires ever-increasing expenditure in the billions every year has systematically failed to find the cure for the most dreaded disease? And have you ever wondered why we are suffering an ever-increasing incidence of cancer instead of a reduced incidence?

In the words of Dr Vernon Coleman, “………….the cancer industry is now so huge that it requires vast amounts of money simply to stay alive. Since a good deal of that money comes from the drug industry (which is, not surprisingly, only interested in pharmacological solutions) the cancer industry’s aims, methods and motives are now virtually indistinguishable from the drug industry’s aims, methods and motives.”

I recommend that you read his full article ‘The Real Cause of Cancer and the Solution by Dr Vernon Coleman’; it is a strong indictment of the cancer industry, but nevertheless contains information that is vital for everyone to know.

You can access his full article at http://www.whale.to/cancer/coleman.html and his own website at http://www.vernoncoleman.com

Whilst his views may seem to be radical, they are views you will find echoed by many other doctors on the real cause of cancer and other diseases, and the real route to natural health.

One of those many other doctors is Dr Samuel Epstein, who, as stated on his website, is “an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly unknowing exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products – food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products including pesticides – besides carcinogenic prescription drugs.”

Dr Epstein’s website is http://www.preventcancer.com where you can read a number of articles he has written including some on the topic of avoidable causes of cancer.

One article is about the worrying increase in childhood cancers and can be accessed from this link http://www.preventcancer.com/press/releases/may09_02.htm

There is another article about Tamoxifen from this link http://www.preventcancer.com/press/releases/sept1_98.htm

Dr Epstein says on his website:
“Winning the war on cancer means preventing cancer. Yet cancer is a multi-billion dollar business. Isn’t preventing cancer bad for business? It is for the pharmaceutical and mammography businesses. These industries have intricate ties to U. S. policy makers, directing research funds to insure their continued profits in cancer diagnosis/treatment. It’s time for reform. Congressional leaders are calling for an investigation of the U. S. National Cancer Institute for its indifference to cancer prevention, other than smoking, and for denying the public of its Right-to-Know, and for failing to inform Congress and regulatory agencies.”

The late Edward Goldsmith was the founder of the Ecologist magazine and a proponent of the importance of maintaining the health of the earth and of caring for the natural world. He has also written articles about the chemical causes of cancer, 2 of which can be viewed from the links here:
http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page23.html
http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page51.html

To know more about cancer, the treatments that work and the best way to prevent it, please read the articles mentioned here.

Posted in Cancer, Freedom of Speech, Health Freedom, Healthy Food, Media Failure | Leave a comment

Worried About Your Carbon Footprint?

Are you seeing carbon footprints on many of your usual shopping products?

Take for example a simple carton of orange juice, something that we would all think is part of a healthy diet and one of our ‘5-a-day’ fruits and veggies.

According to the ‘not from concentrate’ orange juice carton I recently purchased:
“The carbon footprint of this juice is 400g per 250ml serving and we have committed to reduce this.
By comparison the footprint of Tesco from concentrate ambient orange juice with bits is 150g per 250ml serving which is lower because less energy is required to chill and transport from concentrate juice than not from concentrate juice.”

So why are we being made to feel guilty because we want to buy the healthier ‘not from concentrate’ orange juice instead of the less healthy ‘from concentrate’ orange juice?

The ‘reason’ given is that if we reduce our carbon footprint then we will have a much healthier planet to leave to our children and grandchildren.

But is this ‘reason’ accurate, is it in any way true?

And furthermore is humankind actually responsible for the apparent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide? Is global warming solely due to manmade CO2 emissions? Is it really all our fault?

The governments and ‘their scientists’ all say it’s true, so why is there any discussion on this matter? According to Al Gore the science is settled.

Unfortunately no matter how often Al Gore says it and no matter how many ‘inconvenient’ films he makes to try and play on our guilty consciences, the science is NOT settled, at least not in the way he says it is.

More importantly, real science is never definitively settled, it always develops in line with the best evidence. That is the nature of true science, it is an ongoing investigation.

As Albert Einstein said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”

And there is scientific evidence that refutes Al Gore’s claims because it hypothesises that climate changes are natural and are not driven by manmade CO2 emissions.

Dr Roy Spencer PhD, is one of many scientists whose research supports the hypothesis that global climate changes are natural.

His work can be seen on his website http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

On this website there is a section called Global Warming 101 in which he states that “….manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability.”

Might not be measurable? Isn’t that what the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore et al have been doing, measuring manmade global warming? Did they really forget to factor into their calculations the most potent force of all, the force of Nature?

So where does this leave us with our decision about which orange juice to buy?

Yes, we do have to be responsible and make appropriate decisions that affect our world, but they must be based on accurate information, not on misinformation.

This is not a discussion on pollution nor on the issue of ‘energy’, they are separate issues and not the point I’m making here. The point I am making is that the whole carbon footprint ‘guilt trip’ we are being made to follow is based on what can only be called pseudoscience.

It is, however, a scientific fact that CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist in the first place and that increasing CO2 will not be detrimental to the planet, in fact it will be extremely beneficial because it will promote plant life.

Which makes me wonder what do these ‘scientists’ think they are doing by trying to reduce CO2?

Are they really trying to achieve a reduction in plant life?

And if so, why on earth would they want to do that?

Posted in Freedom of Speech, Global Warming, Healthy Food, Media Failure | Leave a comment