Graeme Live 25 July 2016

Advertisements

Family Court ignores gold standard Cochrane evidence to give chemo to cancer boy Oshin Kiszko after parents refuse

The Punchline from

 https://fightpharmacorruption.com/donations/

Why did the WA Family Court IGNORE the globally accepted gold standard Cochrane evidence, before ordering chemotherapy for six year old boy, Oshin Kiszko, suffering brain cancer, after his parents refused? 

The Cochrane Collaboration review of chemotherapy treatment for brain cancer known as Medulloblastama concluded –

“The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between treatment including, and treatment not including, chemotherapy”

– see Chemotherapy for children with medulloblastoma – Michiels – 2015 – The Cochrane Library

My post covers eight points:

  1. What the Cochrane review concluded about the scientific evidence?
  2. Why did the Family Court over-ride the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?
  3. Why did the media report this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?
  4. Why did the doctors overide the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  5. Why did the Hospital support its doctors, and take legal action to overide the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  6. Why did the WA Health Minister, and the Commonwealth Health Minister condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  7. Why did the AMA condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  8. Why did the Friends of Science in Medicine condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

1. What the Cochrane review concluded about the scientific evidence? 

The Cochrane Collaboration review of chemotherapy treatment for brain cancer known as Medulloblastama found at Chemotherapy for children with medulloblastoma – Michiels – 2015 – The Cochrane Library concluded “the meta-analysis showed no significant difference between treatment including, and treatment not including, chemotherapy”.

Why is it that we “consumers” can easily read this Review at Chemotherapy for children with medulloblastoma – Michiels – 2015 – The Cochrane Library, but no treating doctor, public hospital administrator, Health Minister, legal counsel or investigative journalist could find this information?

I can always bet on the Friends of Science in Medicine and the AMA to ignore any gold standard Cochrane review of “orthodox” treatments, because they want to preserve their gravy train of subsidies, NHMRC research grants, Big Pharma “marketing benefits” and of course the public’s trust in them to be the guardian of our $150 billion p.a. health system.

Other key Cochrane conclusions include:

  • None of the studies evaluated quality of life.
  • the total number of identified RCTs was eight.
  • Seven studies compared children with medulloblastoma receiving chemotherapy as a part of their treatment with children not receiving chemotherapy as part of their treatment.
  • One study compared children with medulloblastoma receiving standard-dose RT without chemotherapy with children receiving reduced-dose RT with chemotherapy.
  • We excluded 3459 articles based on the title or abstract (or both) since they were not RCTs, did not compare children treated with chemotherapy with children treated without chemotherapy, did not include children at all or did not include children with medulloblastoma.
  • We excluded a further four articles after assessing the full-text article for reasons described in the Characteristics of excluded studies table. 
  • None of the seven studies blinded care providers and participants to treatment. However, it should be noted that due to the nature of the interventions blinding of care providers and participants was impossible.
  • In all studies, it was unclear if the outcome assessor was blinded to treatment.
  • In conclusion, selection bias (based on concealment of treatment allocation) could not be ruled out in five of the seven included studies.
  • Performance bias (based on blinding of the care provider and participant) could not be ruled out in any of the included studies.
  • Detection bias (based on blinding of the outcome assessor) could not be ruled in any of the studies evaluating EFS/DFS and adverse effects.
  • Attrition bias (based on the use of an ITT analysis and completeness of follow-up) could not be ruled out in any of the studies evaluating EFS/DFS, OS and adverse effects.
  • Unfortunately, different definitions of study end points, numerous chemotherapy regimens and doses (none of which would be considered standard of care today), changes inherent to three decades of technological and histo/biological knowledge and the fact that, in most studies, results for different risk groups were not reported separately were major obstacles in comparing the results of the different studies.
  •  The studies used three different definitions of EFS and DFS, and one study provided no definition of DFS. This made pooling of the results of all studies impossible.
  • Eleven different drugs were administered in seven different regimens and the actual received doses of chemotherapy were not mentioned in most of the studies. For evaluation of the effect of chemotherapy, this is important information. The lack of efficacy of a certain chemotherapy regimen might be due to dose reduction due to toxicity.
  • Adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were scarcely reported. Most adverse events were only mentioned in one RCT, or data were only provided for the chemotherapy arm and not for the RT only arm. Thus, as the risk of underreporting was real, caution must be taken in interpreting these results.
  • No evidence of effect’, as identified in this review, is not the same as ‘evidence of no effect’. A benefit of chemotherapy cannot be excluded.

I have prepared a separate post on the workings of the Cochrane Collaboration and its peak standing in the medical community globally to be found at http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/systematic-cochrane-review-findings-covered-up-our-graeme?published=t

Cochrane reviews are designed simply for the public, and have a detailed analysis for the professionals as well, just like our PBS drugs do with the Consumer Medicines Information (CMI) and Product Information (PI) documents lodged by manufacturers with the TGA.

2. Why did the Family Court over-ride the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

Quite simply, the Cochrane evidence was never tabled. Why not? It rarely  is quoted when it comes to so-called “orthodox mainstream medicine” or our “safe and proven vaccine drug cocktail industry”. 

Cochrane evidence seriously challenges the safety and efficacy of most orthodox treatments in Australia, and all vaccination drug cocktails administered to our pregnant mothers, babies, children and now adults.

Even a cynical health politics advocate like me can still be quite shocked and disappointed after reading the judgment of The Honourable Justice Stephen Thackray Chief Judge of the Family Law Court of WA, a now landmark decision for medical kidnapping, all too common in the USA. The Chief Judge’s decision over-rode a naturopath mother’s decision not to consent to chemotherapy treatment for her 6 year old son Oshin, suffering the traumatic brain cancer condition of Medulloblastoma.

I have included the judgment in a separate post, and endeavoured to  highlight in bold the words I felt were most relevant, to help those of you concerned at what has happened to Australia – the once “lucky country”. Follow this link at http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/highlighted-judgment-from-oshkin-kiszko-cancer-chemo-graeme?published=t

A few highlights follow of the judgment of the WA Chief Judge of the Family Court, in the case of DIRECTOR CLINICAL SERVICES, CHILD & ADOLESCENT HEALTH SERVICES and ANGELA JADE KISZKO, First Respondent and ADRIAN COLIN ASTRACHAN, Second Respondent  [2016] FCWA 19 include:

  • “I consider that the law is beyond doubt.
  • I do take into account the fact that there will be, in all probability, a number of serious adverse impacts for Oshin.
  • But when called upon to act cautiously, recognising that I am not making the decision about my own child, but making the decision about the child of others, I consider that the prospect of the long-term cure is the matter that must most heavily weigh in the decision, and it is the reason I propose to order that the treatment commence on Sunday after Oshin has had his birthday party.”

No court should have made that order for chemotherapy to take place.

I intend to write to the Chief Judge of each Family Court and put them on notice of the existence of Cochrane Collaboration reviews – we will all be holding our breath for a lifetime waiting for any of our regulators to let these Judges in on the gold star evidence secret.

3. Why did the media report this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

This media article summarises the initial order for chemo treatment – Court orders chemotherapy for cancer-stricken boy Oshin Kiszko after parents refuse

This second media article summarises a second hearing where radiation treatment was not ordered, and proceedings adjourned – Oshin Kizsko: Win for parents of boy with brain cancer as court refuses to order radiotherapy

I intend to write to the Editor of each major Australian media outlet and put them on notice of the existence of Cochrane Collaboration reviews. Let’s see if the media bias changes – I doubt it.

4. Why did the doctors overide the parents’ informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

I think this is the most critical question of all. I will write to these doctors and let’s see if they respond. I strongly believe AHPRA should discipline these doctors to the full extent possible in a landmark medical disciplinary hearing focusing upon why they ignore scientific evidence of the highest standard, which shows treatments are not proven effective and generally have major adverse event risks.

5. Why did the Hospital support its doctors, and take legal action to overide the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

Child and Adolescent Health Service, Western Australia comprising:

is part of the Western Australian Department of Health. The Child and Adolescent Health Service is committed to providing high quality paediatric care to young West Australians.

A media release from Professor Frank Daly, chief executive of Child and Adolescent Health Service, said: “It is acknowledged that there are potential significant side effects to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The response to these treatments will vary from child to child and it is not known in advance what the full impact of treatment will be for the individual child”.

Some immediate side effects can be improved with pain relieving and anti-nausea medication, to a point. Longer term it has been acknowledged publicly that Oshin could have visual, hearing and cognitive impairment. Other medical problems that will likely arise cannot be predicted.

The statement adds: “CAHS has a duty of care to ensure that all children attending Princess Margaret Hospital are provided with the best available medical treatment… treatment with the aim of cure and not palliative care, remains the best treatment for the child”.

I find it very interesting a WA government hospital can make claims it can cure cancer and take action in courts to prove it, over-riding the clear Cochrane evidence? Lucky they don’t practice natural therapies.

6. Why did the WA Health Minister, and the Commonwealth Health Minister condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

The Big Pharma corruption machine ensures a cover-up of Cochrane evidencewhenever it suits.

I am genuinely saddened for patients, as it always seems to be in the best interests of our Governments, Health Ministers, the NHMRC, the TGA, the ACCC and health lobby groups, like the AMA, Friends of Science in Medicine, and the Skeptics associations, to turn a blind eye when it comes to mainstream medicine and the vaccination agenda.

However, not satisfied with ignoring the evidence base behind orthodox medicine, the same unsavoury alliance of Big Pharma, regulators, scientists and lobbyists frequently drag out Cochrane evidence to attack natural therapy professions, their practitioners, and ultimately their patients like me.

I actually learnt about Cochrane evidence first hand in 2013, when our Federal Government, through health regulator AHPRA, strongly relied upon Cochrane Collaboration evidence to seek deregistration of a natural medicine practitioner, in the longest running VCAT health practitioner case, despite the practitioner citing 906 peer reviewed journal articles on his website.

Ultimately the VCAT injustices in that case transformed my life mission into my quest, with your help, to fight pharma corruption – see www.fightpharmacorruption.com.

7. Why did the AMA condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

National chairman of the AMA ethics committee Michael Gannon told 720 ABC Perth it was an extremely rare case. See link at AMA ethics committee supports treatment ( 8 April 2016).

“The doctor’s responsibility is always to do the best for a patient, and when it comes to the care of a child, they need to consider the rights of the parent or guardian,” he said.

Dr Gannon said it was standard practice for complex cases to be discussed by a multi-disciplinary team including a surgeon, oncologists and others.

“I have no doubt that a case like this would’ve been discussed extensively by the doctor in charge before they took the difficult and, I think, the very brave step of involving the courts,” he said.

It is very difficult to try and make the case to a parent or guardian that you think you know better than their wishes for their own child.

Dr Gannon said it was a vexed and difficult ethical issue.

The burden of proof is very high, this is not something the doctors do commonly, it’s not something that they would want to do,” he said.

The case of the medical evidence would have to be extremely strong before a judge would dream of going against the wishes of a parent or guardian.”

It is a scary thought that none of these pillars of the mainstream medical community could reference the gold standard independent evidence supplied by Cochrane reviewers, preferring biased medical evidence, no doubt discarded by Cochrane when completing its systematic review.

Dr Gannon has had a bit more luck lately than poor OSHIN and his parents, being since promoted to head honcho of AMA – see Dr Michael Gannon promoted to AMA President. No doubt the new AMA President’s “ethics” background cemented his appointment, as steering the AMA requires the perpetual cover-up of Cochrane evidence for conventional treatments.

When will the public wake up please – unfortunately I doubt the AMA ever will?

Why did the Friends of Science in Medicine condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

The anti-Nature lobby group , Friends of “cherry-picking” Science in Medicine, highlights the importance of Cochrane gold standard evidence on its website at www.scienceinmedicine.org, to strike out against any of the 20 natural therapy professions, or a scapegoat natural practitioner from time to time.

“Speaking with a strong voice provided by our constituency we will make every effort to ensure that Australians have access to interventions and medicines backed by science-based tertiary education and scientific evidence of their clinical effectiveness.”

Check out  also this statement from the Friends of Science website

“All Research should be aimed at the evaluation of the long-term safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of alternative and so-called complementary interventions; all trials should be pre-registered and all results reported in mainstream, scientifically, peer-reviewed journals. With the introduction of the Cochrane Collaboration based on evidence-based health care, clinical practice and Medicine, increasing numbers of Cochrane Reviews on CAMs have uncovered the poor evidence on which their claims are based.

CAM and conventional interventions either work or do not work. Valid scientific evaluation can identify those which work. Those that do not work, whether conventional or CAM, should be discarded.”

I will also post this Post on the Friends of Science’ s Facebook page.  I am confident from past experience they will ignore my substance, and “cleverly” divert readers attention, or just simply attack me personally which is their favourite social media custom for anyone who challenges their opinion as to the adequate evidence supporting conventional medicine.

What action steps are open to Oshin’s parents now?

The government authorities are generally under a model litigant requirement to put all relevant evidence before a Court, so the Cochrane review should have been tabled.

I consider all medical practitioners involved in Oshin’s treatment should be subject to disciplinary action by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for a start, and possibly the local health services complaints authority.

Our Federal and State governments should inform all health disciplinary Tribunals and the Family Court of the existence of Cochrane Collaboration reviews of most common medical interventions.

The legal decision should be annulled as a precedent and compensation awarded by the WA government to Oshin and his family.

A public apology to OSHIN and his parents by all relevant parties who failed to represent the gold standard Cochrane medical evidence before the Court, or in any media reporting of this case, or Ethics Committee.

Join me in Adelaide on 12 July to hear Friends of Science’s Assoc Prof Helen Marshall talk about her “proven” vaccination science for pregnant women

The punchline?

Is there any “proven” safe and effective evidence for providing whooping cough and influenza vaccines to pregnant women as claimed on Channel 9              by Assoc Prof Helen Marshall?

Before all of you in Adelaide decide to join me, first check out my letter to Assoc Prof Marshall, with lots of QUESTIONS, in relation to her forthcoming seminar at Adelaide University, entitled “Pregnancy Protection” – see Pregnancy Protection seminar by Assoc Prof Helen Marshall on Tues 12 July at 5.30pm at Adel Uni

 FROM : Graeme Little né Peter Pope

 glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com 

www.fightpharmacorruption.com

 DATE : 10 July 2016

ATT : Assoc Prof Helen Marshall, Friends of Science in Medicine Member; Deputy Director, University of Adelaide; Medical Director VIRTU & A-Prof Vaccinology / Affiliate Lecturer helen.marshall@adelaide.edu.au

tel: 08-8161-8115 http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/helen.marshall

Your Recent research

McMillan M, Porritt K, Kralik D, Costi L, Marshall H. Influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic  review of foetal safety. Vaccine 2015;33(18):2108-2117 Conflicts disclosed by MARSHALL H. HM is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1016272). HM’s institution has received research grants from vaccine manufacturers GSK, Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi Pasteur for investigator-led research. HM has been an investigator for studies funded by pharmaceutical companies INCLUDING Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi-Pasteur, Novartis. Travel support has been provided to her institutions by GSK and/or Sanofi-Pasteur for HM to present scientific data at international meetings. MM has received travel support by GSK to present at a national immunization conference. There are no other potential conflicts of interest.

Your Recent NHMRC grants

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/national_register_public_health_research/48630 This was a four year grant of $396,061 to Assoc Prof Marshall awarded in 2011, to which a NHMRC website search showed the following results:

Grant outcome summary (if available): No data available 

Publications arising from this project: No data available

Dear Assoc Prof Marshall,

I look forward to attending your “Pregnancy Protection” talk on Tuesday 12 July 2016, and hope you will be able to address some evidence based questions, which have been raised with me, by a mother unable to get answers from the head immunisation nurse and paediatrician at a leading Children’s Hospital.

These questions relate to the Australian Immunisation Handbook’s informed consent requirements, and are adapted to also address your recommendations of influenza and whooping cough vaccination drugs during pregnancy.

I include your preliminary comments in your brochure for reference taken from this link at Pregnancy Protection seminar by Assoc Prof Helen Marshall on Tues 12 July at 5.30pm at Adel Uni

“Pregnancy can be a confusing time for soon-to-be parents, raising many questions about how to ensure their baby’s health.

 While the benefits of infant immunisations are generally well accepted, they don’t commence until the child reaches six weeks, making their lives up until then a genuine ‘danger zone’.

 Immunisation during pregnancy offers another way to protect newborns during this period of vulnerability. Proven safe and effective—and offering the dual benefit of preventing disease in both expectant mothers and their infants—vaccines to protect against influenza and whooping cough are now widely recommended, including in Australia. Yet many pregnant women miss out on being protected, often due to lack of awareness, information or opportunity.

 This timely presentation will explore the evidence for vaccination during pregnancy, and how its access and uptake might be improved.”

Your recent additional comments on Channel 9 include claims you have strong data that show vaccinations during pregnancy are safe, and that it is really the best way to protect your newborn – these can be found at this link “WATCH: Vaccinating your baby before birth – a new hope in fighting childhood disease. @TomAngley9 explains. #9News”

My questions to you follow :

Q1. Do you agree your recommendations for immunisation require the immunisation provider to obtain a valid informed consent from a pregnant woman to the medical interventions of vaccination?

Q2. Do you agree that the Australian Immunisation Handbook guidelines (“Handbook”) should be taken into account from the immunisation provider in relation to the provision of your recommended vaccinations during pregnancy?

Q2A. Why do you assert the initial vaccinations take place at six weeks in your brochure when the Australian Immunisation Schedule states 2 months for the initial eight vaccinations? {****Addendum – since writing this letter, a member of my network has pointed out The Handbook does actually recommend starting at 6 weeks, even though the official “due” age is 2 months, here: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook10-home~handbook10part4~handbook10-4-12#4.12.7 under the heading “4.12.7 Recommendations, Infants and children, Primary doses”. It states that “giving a 1st dose at 6 weeks of age rather than 2 months of age is estimated to prevent an additional 8% of infant pertussis cases” and references these 2 articles: (Ref. 33) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20811313 and (Ref. 49) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18977982}

Q2B. {***Addendum – see Q2A} – Have babies in South Australia been administered vaccinations at six weeks of age, and if so, what is the science to support this departure from the Australian Immunisation Handbook recommendations to be found at this link http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/national-immunisation-program-schedule?

Q2C. Why do you refer to a genuine danger zone” in the first six weeks of a baby’s life, but recommend pregnant women only have one vaccination out of the eight required under the Schedule at two months, excluding Hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, inactivated poliomyelitis (polio) (hepB-DTPa-Hib-IPV), Pneumococcal conjugate (13vPCV) and Rotavirus. What is the science behind this selective policy to address your notion of a “genuine danger zone”?

Q2D. Would you be prepared to announce at the commencement of your seminar on Tuesday 12 July 2016 that you have at least six conflicts of interest, I have identified so far, namely :

  • Pfizer,
  • GSK,
  • Sanofi-Pasteur,
  • Novartis
  • Membership of lobby group member, Friends of Science in Medicine, the prime opposition to the practice of natural therapies in Australia
  • NHMRC grant for $396,061 – NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1016272), the authority which approves the Australian Immunisation Handbook, without reference to any mandatory guidelines which have been applied to NHMRC reviews of Natural Therapies. 

Q3 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q4 Do you accept the Handbook requirements at page 26 require that valid consent must be voluntary, and after conveyance of sufficient, appropriate and reliable information?

Q5 Do you agree that the Handbook guidelines differ from other NHMRC guidelines as stated on page 3 of the Handbook?

Q6 Do you agree the Handbook has omitted some or all of the mandatory guidelines detailed on the NHMRC website drafted pursuant to the NHMRC Act?

Q7 Are you able to provide any sufficient, appropriate, or reliable information to me, as to what information the Handbook has omitted by excluding reference to the mandatory guidelines normally applied by the NHMRC CEO, when approving other clinical guidelines for medical and clinical interventions under section 14A of the Act?

Q8 Do you agree the immunisation provider has discretion whether to provide immunisation when the provider is unable to convey sufficient, appropriate and reliable information in response to question 7?

Q9. Do you agree the immunisation provider has discretion whether to provide immunisation when a pregnant woman considers there is not sufficient, appropriate and reliable information in response to question 7?

Q10 Are you aware of the reasons the Handbook guidelines have decided to withdraw or omit the NHMRC mandatory guidelines, and in particular, whether this omission impacts the adequacy of the evidence base supporting the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of administration of the whooping cough and influenza vaccine drugs to pregnant women?

Q11 Are you aware of any systematic reviews, which consider the efficacy, effectiveness or safety by combining the whooping cough and influenza vaccines, in comparison to individual vaccine injections? Can the whooping cough vaccine be administered individually in Australia?

Q12 Are you aware of any systematic reviews of the whooping cough and influenza vaccines, which examines the efficacy, effectiveness or safety of those vaccines, based upon a comparison of those vaccines, with a placebo trial that excludes the adjuvants, or other ingredients specified in each vaccine?

Q13 Are you aware of any controlled studies as to the safety of the the whooping cough and influenza vaccines, in which comparison of health outcomes in vaccinated pregnant women versus unvaccinated pregnant women is documented?

Q14 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q15 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q16 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy.)

Q17 What weight do you consider reports by Cochrane Collaboration into vaccination efficacy or safety should have, in relation to other studies referred to in the Handbook, or in your presentation on 12 July 2016?

Q18 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q19 – Q31 are based upon page 3 of the Handbook, 10th ed in so far as they relate to administration of the whooping cough and influenza vaccine drugs to pregnant women.

Q19 Which are your recommendations based upon strategies in the absence of high-quality evidence?

Q20. Which are the less rigorous studies such as uncontrolled clinical trials, case series and/or other observational studies?

Q21. Which immunisation handbooks, produced by comparable countries, were also consulted by ATAGI?

Q22. Which public sources were inadequate, resulting in recommendations being based upon expert opinion?

Q23. What are the limitations and challenges to developing recommendations, which continue to exist?

Q24. What are the unaddressed scientific questions?

Q25. What are the complex medical practice issues?

Q26. What are the differences in expert opinion, and which experts were ultimately followed?

Q27. What were the conflicts of interest of those experts who were ultimately followed when resolving differences in expert opinion?

Q28. Given all these limitations, which recommendations of ATAGI were not possible to provide clear and relevant recommendations?

Q29. Are there guidelines of NHMRC older than the 1975 Ist edition of the Australian Immunisation Handbook?

Q30. How does the scope of the Handbook differ from other NHMRC guidelines?

Q31. How does the complexity of the Handbook differ from other NHMRC guidelines?

Q32. What would be the grades of evidence assigned to your recommendations for the administration of the whooping cough and influenza vaccine drugs to pregnant women.

Thank you Assoc Prof Marshall for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Graeme Little né Peter Pope

Health Politics Advocate/Lawyer

https://fightpharmacorruption.com/donations/

Chance for Natural Health Providers to attend Structural Review of NHMRC’s Grant Program Public Consultation July 2016

Post 1 – FY 2017 – www.fightpharmacorruption.com

NHMRC staging public forums in each State in July

Tune in all natural health  practitioners

and their patients like me. Here is your chance to put your view to our Federal Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council as to how structural reform should address the extraordinary NHMRC bias against all natural health therapies.

The need for the NHMRC to adopt a consistent, transparent and honest “level playing field” for evaluating evidence based treatments has never been greater for our pharmaceutical drugs, vaccination drugs and natural therapies.

The NHMRC structural bias against natural health is the fundamental core issue for natural health therapies to address for the following reasons:

(a) the damaging NHMRC 2015  Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance which concluded a lack of clinical efficacy supporting the 17 natural therapy professions has led to my conclusion that the state based health complaints legislation has effectively abolished the right to practice these well accepted therapies. See my explanation in my post at SIMPLY why I say 17 Natural Health Professions…

(b)  the same review led directly to the Labor Party policy to drop rebates for natural health therapies in its recent election campaign promises;

(c) the NHMRC committees are littered with participants with major conflicts of interest, either through links with the anti-Nature sect, Friends of Science in Medicine, or through direct conflicts with pharmaceutical companies, sometimes disclosed;

(d) the Friends of Science in Medicine initially created its membership base by inviting NHMRC recipients of grants to become their foundation members, so escalating the conflict of interest issue when it comes to “creating” appropriate review conclusions;

(e) the NHMRC has provided a very small proportion of research funds to advance the science base behind natural therapies.

So health practitioners, and your patients, and of course your Association leaders, lets plan a co-ordinated strategy to have your voice heard finally by the NHMRC and its Health Department staffers.

Time for the natural health professions to stand up and be counted.

 

Here is the release today from the NHMRC.

“NHMRC plans to release a public consultation paper in July 2016 and invite all interested individuals and organisations to lodge written submissions in response to the paper.

 Additionally, NHMRC will hold public forums in several capital cities for researchers and organisations to hear from NHMRC and ask questions about the review.

 Attendance at each venue will be limited. Those wishing to attend are encouraged to register via the links provided below.

 Any questions should be directed by email to Structural.Review@nhmrc.gov.au(link sends e-mail). Further information about the consultation paper will be provided in July, when it is released for public comment.”

Graeme Little né Peter Pope
Health Politics Advocate/Lawyer
glittle@fightPHARMAcorruption.com 

www.fightPHARMAcorruption.com 

Gofundme donations can be made at this link https://www.gofundme.com/fightPHARMAcorrupt

Fraudulent electoral advice being given to enable tampering of your vote – TAKE YOUR OWN PEN

I just got the tip off from one of our network of democracy lovers of nature, being abused by the ANTI NATURE satanic sick rulers of our nation.

Ignore Electoral officers lying about your rights to use your own pen to vote – do not follow any advice you have to use their silly fraudulent pencils – this is a FAQ n democracy – Frequently Ask Questions

Click on the above link and Go to page 14 of this document above put out by the Electoral Office !!!!!!!!!! headed –

Where do I mark my ballot paper?

“You may see other voters at cardboard voting screens.

Voting screens let you mark your vote where no one else can see.

Take your ballot papers to a voting screen.

The voting screen will have a pencil. You can use this to mark your vote on your ballot paper.

You do not have to use this pencil.

You can use your own pencil or pen.”

Why does Health Minister Sussan Ley like “killing” our mothers with a USA banned dementia drug, the anti-psychotic Risperdal?

Why does Health Minister Sussan Ley like “killing” our mothers with a USA banned dementia drug, the anti-psychotic Risperdal?

The punchline :

Q1 Why do we need this drug for dementia when the manufacturer’s own country bans it use and provides a massive black box warning of its death risk for our elderly in its consumer document disclosure?

Why has Australia’s TGA recently partially banned Risperdal for vascular dementia and mixed dementia but censored the revised science evidence belatedly announced six months after Health Canada announced this new science?

Who is guilty of corruption or manslaughter or misleading information or professional misconduct or cartel behaviour or ????

A. Why did Minister Ley in mid July 2015 reject, in writing, my request to ban Risperdal for dementia in Australia, following my earlier meeting with my Federal electoral representative, Environment Minister Greg Hunt on 29 May 2015?

B. Why did Minister Ley choose to censor the USA’s black box warning system, which noted Risperdal was not approved for dementia and carried a significant increased death risk?

C. Why did Minister Ley say to me, in writing, her health system policy rejects the USA black box warning system of serious adverse events for around 700 other pharmaceutical drugs marketed in Australia to “dumbed down” consumers?

D. Why did Minister Ley say to me in writing that Australia follows the health regulation protocols of the United Kingdom and Canada?

E. Why did Minister Ley fail to act in prohibiting Risperdal for dementia conditions back on 18 February 2015, when Health Canada so did on the back of revised safety information provided by Johnson & Johnson?

F. Why did Minister Hunt, and Alzheimer’s Australia Chairman Graeme Samuel, attempt to stop my private campaign to ban Risperdal for dementia on Saturday 1 August 2015, whilst Minister Hunt was trapped on his three week electoral campaign walk around his 500 km electorate, raising funds for autism awareness?

G. What was the link between my correspondence to Minister Hunt and Graeme Samuel on Sunday 2 August 2015, which resulted in the TGA reversing its position and adopting the “Canadian style” prohibition announced by Health Canada some six months earlier on 18 February 2015.

H. When did Minister Ley and Minister Hunt, become aware of the upgraded safety data announced by Health Canada on 18 February 2015, which was supplied to Health Canada prior to that date by Johnson & Johnson?

I. What date, and to whom in Australia, did Johnson & Johnson supply the upgraded safety data announced by Health Canada on 18 February 2015?

J. Would no action have been taken in Australia had I not written firm letters on Sunday 1 August 2015 to Minister Hunt and Graeme Samuel, resulting in the ban being announced by the TGA 48 hours later, whilst Minister Hunt was visiting his primary school constituents?

K. What was the other major side effect I raised back then with Minister Ley and Minister Hunt affecting the use of Risperdal for young male autistic children, which remains a cover up, despite massive litigation over this side effect in the USA, and a serious adverse warning? 

=========================================================

To help me, and my alarmed network of natural medicine practitioners and patients, fight this war on big pharma corruption, please consider helping out by making donations at https://fightpharmacorruption.com/donations/ or help me by any other legal means. Fighting pharma corruption does not attract paying customers easily, as I have found to my financial detriment the last five years.

Check out the world’s leading whistleblower, former Merck executive, Brandy Vaughan’s website at http://www.learntherisk.org/ . I was blown away again just listening to her live internet seminar as I was writing this post today. Lucky for me Brandy has linked in with me some time back, and is very keen to come to Australia to help us fight the war of words here too.

A few short statements by Brandy Vaughan from 2.40pm today say it all:

“They are focusing on keeping us sick, not healthy”.

“There is a lot of information we are not being told”.

“Drop in the bucket compared to what is coming along the line, including adult vaccinations.”

Nearly 300 vaccines under development”

“passports and driving licences will be linked to mandatory adult vaccination schedules”

Check out the Huffington Post exposé of the $3 billion corruption settlement by Johnson & Johnson for their marketing of this Risperdal drug in the USA in my earlier post of 22 September 2015 at Huffington Post’s “The Credo Company”.

In Australia, Minister Ley ensures all her various health regulatory arms turn a blind eyeso our mums in dementia homes can be fed this “killer” as if it was like lolly water.

Let’s try and keep this post simple and to the point my supporters keep telling me. I find everything with Big Pharma extremely complex, detailed, often confusing, and leading into endless further streams of enquiry into ever more cover-ups. But let me try to sum this up and have a short rest before I tell you about the WA chemo boy and that outrageous injustice and hypocrisy.

  1. I say Health Minister Sussan Ley has been party to a grand plan to prematurely kill our elderly.
  2. This premature death plan has been condoned by Graeme Samuel’s Alzheimer’s Australia.
  3. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Therapeutic Goods Administration.
  4. This premature death plan has been supported by the Labor Party and the GMO driven leader of the Greens Party, Dr Richard Di Natale.
  5. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
  6. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which subsidises the cost of this drug by nearly 1500%.
  7. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Medicare Benefits Scheme.
  8. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Australian Medical Association, which ignores all Cochrane Collaboration Reviews expressing negative conclusions about Big Pharma’s drugs.
  9. This premature death plan has been supported by our satanic Friends of Science in Medicine, and its sister organization run by Prof Dwyer, the Australian Healthcare Reform Alliance, comprising 54 individual associations.
  10. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted nursing home structure administered by our Federal Government’s Human Resources Department.
  11. This premature death plan has been supported by our “fear driven” registered nurses “paralysed into silence” in the face of intimidatory tactics, and the inevitable loss of job for being a whistleblower.
  12. This premature death plan has been supported by our ACCC and Federal and State Attorney-Generals, who have ignored a litany of successful corruption cases overseas, particularly by the US Department of Justice.
  13. This premature death plan has been supported by our Coroners Office, who has made no effort to understand why dementia has crept into the no 2 slot for cause of death in women.

 So if you think I am making outlandish statements, read on. 

Fact One: Health Canada, the equivalent of Australia’s TGA, acted to ban Risperdal for vascular dementia and mixed dementia, and restricted its use for Alzheimer’s Disease in Canada on 18 February 2015 as described at  

Risperidone – Restriction of the Dementia Indication

 Fact Two – 18 February 2015 is now the critical start date for my first proposed class action, being the relevant date of Health Canada’s change, nearly 6 months before Minister Ley reluctantly partially ended her deadly cover up.

 So confidentially email me at glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com

or phone me on 0402 904749

if you are concerned as to why your “dementia diagnosed” mother or father has been administered Risperdal

since 18 February 2015.

Fact ThreeOn 18 February, 2015Health Canada noted the manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, through its subsidiary Janssen Inc., “submitted a review of safety information related to antipsychotic drugs, which indicated a higher risk of cerebrovascular adverse events in patients with mixed and vascular dementia compared to those with dementia of the Alzheimer type.”

Fact FourOn 18 February, 2015, the indication for risperidone in dementia was restricted by Health Canada “to the short-term symptomatic management of aggression or psychotic symptoms in patients with severe dementia of the Alzheimer type unresponsive to non-pharmacological approaches and when there is a risk of harm to self or others. The indication no longer includes the treatment of other types of dementia such as vascular and mixed types of dementia.”

Fact 5On 18 February, 2015, Health Canada advised “Physicians to assess the risks and benefits of the use of risperidone in elderly patients with severe dementia of the Alzheimer type, taking into account risk predictors for stroke or existing cardiovascular comorbidities in the individual patients.”

Fact 6Janssen Inc., in consultation with Health Canada,

 would like to inform healthcare professionals, caregivers and patients

of important updates to the indication of risperidone for severe dementia. The decision to limit risperidone’s indication to severe dementia of the Alzheimer type is based on a comprehensive evaluation of the safety information related to all antipsychotic drugs which indicated a higher risk of cerebrovascular adverse events in patients with the mixed or vascular dementia compared to those with dementia of the Alzheimer type.”

Fact 7 – Products affected were:

  • “RISPERDAL® (risperidone tablets and oral solution)
  • RISPERDAL M-TAB® (risperidone orally disintegrating tablets)
  • All generic versions of risperidone oral formulations”

Fact 8 – Background information provided by Health Canada –Prior to this dementia indication update,

risperidone was approved for use in Canada for severe dementia.

The indication for risperidone in dementia has been limited to Severe Dementia of the Alzheimer type – Symptomatic management of aggression and psychotic symptoms.

Elderly patients with dementia treated with antipsychotic drugs present an increased risk of death compared to placebo, mostly due to cardiovascular events and infections.”

Fact 9 – Health Canada advised consumers as to who is affected 

Risperidone belongs to a group of medicines called antipsychotic drugs. 

Risperidone may be used for short-term treatment to control aggression or psychotic symptoms (hallucinations or delusions) in severe dementia of the Alzheimer type. Dementia is a brain disease that decreases the ability to think and remember. Risperidone is no longer recommended for use in other types of dementia such as vascular and mixed types of dementia.

Patients and caregivers should contact their Healthcare Professional for further information and questions about risperidone therapy. Additional information about risperidone is also provided in the Part III: Consumer Information section of the RISPERDAL® Product Monograph.”

Fact 10 – Health Canada provided Information for health care professionals

“Physicians are advised to assess the benefits and risks of the use of risperidone in elderly patients with severe dementia of the Alzheimer type, taking into account risk predictors for stroke or existing cardiovascular comorbidities in the individual patient.

Please refer to the RISPERDAL® Product Monograph for full prescribing information.

The current RISPERDAL® Product Monograph can be found at the Janssen Canada Web site and Health Canada’s Web page.”

Fact 11 – Health Canada noted for more information

“The update to the product monograph was not a result of a Health Canada safety review. Therefore a Summary Safety Review is not available.”

 So confidentially email me at  glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com

or phone me on 0402 904749

if you are concerned as to why your “dementia diagnosed” mother or father has been administered Risperdal

since 18 February 2015.

Friends of Science’s John Cunningham peddles false and misleading information – No 1FSM

Step 1 : Read Dr Judy Wilyman’s expose of the battle she has faced with our satanic Friends of “cherry-picking” Science in Medicine, and in particular their big gun, John Cunningham.

Newsletter 116 Correcting the False and Misleading Information Provided by John Cunningham in the Vaccination Debate (Part 2)

Step 2 : Also watch this graphic 4 minute video, just sent to me an hour ago, which displays the sick extreme depths the Greens have descended by aligning themselves with the ultimate of satanic cyberspace criminals, “guilty” of the Federal Crime of Intimidation.

Greens love affair with pro vax hate group Stop The AVN (SAVN)

The satanic desire of the Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), to destroy the credibility, teaching, practice, and evidence base of so many traditional healing modalities of Australia’s multicultural community –

is coming to a brutal end !*!

Professor John Dwyer with his two main sidekicks, Ken Harvey and John Cunningham, and their sick band of FSM followers, have shown an extraordinary discrimination with their blinkered attack on Australia’s multicultural community. This satanic assault challenges the very core essence of being an Australian, far removed from our once “lucky country tag” rich in freedom of choice and democratic values.

Check out my recent post highlighted below about the satanic Friend’s handling of Professor Dwyer’s only attack on my credibility. His intended hard hitting response just vanished into cyberspace after I challenged him further, but not before the Professor created the substance of multiple regulatory action steps for false and misleading statements. In addition, the criminal offence of intimidation could well be triggered yet again as intimidation is the modus operandi of this clandestine sect of arrogant elites created out of ANTI NATURE genes I suspect.

The subject matter not surprisingly was the failure to quote the Cochrane Collaboration’s review of another mainstay of fairyland medicine, the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine, and rubella in particular, for which Cochrane found no proper studies at all supporting efficacy.

Professor Dwyer gets his blog attack on me censored by Ken Harvey, John Cunningham and Loretta Marron

We are now all subject to a “reign of health terror” far more perverse than any so-called “war on terror” invented in the White House after 9/11.

Our lost freedom to challenge the corrupt science behind the pharmaceutical industry is unprecedented in the western world. I believe Australia is the most corrupt, and “health science censored” nation, for reasons which ultimately a Royal Commission will discover.

Cardinal Pell should be approached to advise Health Minister Sussan Ley, that continuing the cover up of the health science truth will inevitably ensure political suicide and a total rebuild of the health based public service.

Social media forces are building their political power base to break through the mainstream media manipulation our major parties rely upon to achieve office.

Find time to read Judy Wilyman’s work below as she may well prove to be an Australian of the Year, when it becomes politically correct –

to challenge the exponential growth –

in vaccination drug cocktails –

from cradle to grave.

I refer you again to read Judy Wilyman’s work – your children and grandchildren will be immensely proud you decided to research the topic yourself – after all, everyone 65 years and older will have to be vaccinated to get the pension soon but no political party will tell you that. I will take that legislation to the Queen to overrule its satanic intent to fix the baby boomer’s burden on our health budget.

Judy Wilyman PhD
Science and Politics of Australia’s Vaccination Policies
www.vaccinationdecisions.net

Newsletter 116 Correcting the False and Misleading Information Provided by John Cunningham in the Vaccination Debate (Part 2)