This open letter to The Pharmacists of Australia from Australian Skeptics helps clarify what is simple, unadulterated consumer exploitation. At best it is [or rather was, given Aussie pharmacists well proven double standards] an unexpected qualification of legitimacy by mere association with medical science that in part motivated the drafting of such a letter.

Items advocating clearly dangerous and/or useless, 'new age', natural [so are lightening strikes], homeopathic, aromatherapeutic, magnetic stimulation, crystal energetic, pyramid power, detoxification remedies, ear candles, similar products or even practices claiming to enhance/maintain/repair/develop or augment in some way or another such vaguely described, yet "essential" bodily, mental or spiritual functions abound within Australian pharmacies. And they abound right next to recognised and proven treatments.

Indeed the placing of demonstrably non efficacious preparations, alongside products with genuine, documented validity deserves scorn in and of itself. The intuitive feeling of trust that accompanies the consumer associating product X with the decades of reliability of product Y in its familiar and comfortable packaging, is a powerful motivator. Minimal thinking and maximal "satisfaction". You may well have doubted the flushing of "negative energies" through unwilling sphincters as "essential care for the holistic You!" - if not actually impossible - until you saw the Betadine antiseptic ointment nearby.

Legitimacy by association? Isn't that a bit ambitious? Perhaps. Yet we know that human beings seeking advice or treatment trust - and decide to act upon - advice given by a person wearing a white coat. Correct for other variables and results frequently follow that white coat. We learn to expect valuable advice and respond accordingly.

At worst it is a coldly calculated grab for consumer dollars involving products the pharmacist him/herself mocks and derides because of the junk science involved. I have a friend who manages a pharmacy with the slogan: "Passion, People, Price" - or words to that effect. "I'm a skeptic too", he announced as I outlined the scam surrounding the Anti-snor "acupressure" ring. But, he went on snorting derisively, that it's not up to him to advise on "sympathy spending" [I think he meant 'retail therapy'] managing to admit in one breath that his "natural" products were junk but he was still kindly helping customers by allowing the subconscious human need to waste money.

He has a valid point: we can spend our money where we wish. Besides, franchise product choice is not his decision, nor is dissuading customers from spending likely to be a positive career move. Indeed the decision to limit or remove alternative junk from pharmacies won't come from ranks of staff. It will likely arise at a senior level when industry image matters more than profit. Then a "phasing out" period will follow accompanied by consumer information designed to paint the all-knowing pharmacist as a health professional without peer. Why? At some point the ipso facto professional image of the community pharmacy will begin to erode. Poor competition ensures we remain ignorant of varied approaches, and Pharmacy Guild tactics are ruthless if not brutal when it comes to holding onto their monopoly.

Remember the feverish drive by the Pharmacy Guild against supermarkets stocking pharmaceuticals? Seven out of ten items sold in supermarkets are cigarettes, lied one poster in my local pharmacy. Would you trust your health advice to sellers of dangerous products? Therein lies the irony. The angle chosen by pharmacists was concern for your health. We now know without a percentile point of doubt this too was a scam. Supermarkets are examined for price, cleanliness, product quality, claims on packaging, petrol docket value, plastic bag use and so on. Frequently these topics dominate TV, radio and print media. Pharmacists suffer no such intrusion and this is to our disadvantage.

Still, I value my pharmacist interlocutors advice, enjoy his critical wit and might label his greatest crime as not suffering fools gladly. Dastardly deeds for their own sake is not what I'm arguing. Intentionally harming, placing others at risk or promoting junk science as an end in itself is not the aim of pharmacists. Indeed it is the association between clinical skill and unproven remedies that concerns those of us who advocate understanding evidence over accepting claims. Recently, our morning chat was interrupted. He rolled his eyes dramatically because a scooter driving elderly lady required a bottle of cough syrup located near the dispensary. As said friend had decided Swine Flu was "a media rort" at best, Mrs. Scooter was lucky to be served at all. But I had to grin inwardly. The poor lady couldn't move without mowing down ranks of tacky, flimsy shelving. And what was on this shelving? Jelly beans, novelty desk clocks, gym socks, ear candles, antisnor rings, vitamins, vitamins, vitamins and ample detox kits. Bizarre. To think our pharmacies - aside from our hotels - are the final bastions of legal pre-toxing and now stand under assault from "healthy" scams that could harm you as easily as the Class A drugs kept in the dispensary safe.

In this episode Firesnake examines what appear to be quite useless diet plans, on offer at major pharmacy chains. Of particular note is the pushing of poorly monitored and expensive dietary supplements onto children, the lack of training or skill required by staff and incredibly, the arrogant response by Tony Ferguson - a rogue Pharmacist only too well known for his "independent" money making scams over the years. Tony runs "Weightloss and Wellness Centres". He also pushes his programmes from Terry White Chemists.

Recently Australian consumer magazine Choice reviewed Pharmacy Diet Plans. The Courier Mail described Choice as "slamming" such plans. Briefly Choice concluded:

• Pharmacy diet plans may help to shed extra kilos quickly, but most fail to deal effectively with the complex broader issues around weight loss.
• CHOICE cannot recommend these programs until consultants improve their training and move beyond the “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Tony Ferguson seized the opportunity. Guessing that media outlets are as fed up - no pun intended - as the rest of us with self styled gurus, Ferguson used his own web site to "reply" then within weeks launched a new TV advertising campaign bursting with positive "testimonials".

600,000 People Can't be Wrong but Choice Magazine can't get it right with weight loss investigation!

Tony Ferguson

"One of Australia's leading consumer comparison magazines, Choice Magazine, has got it wrong! "says weight loss authority and pharmacist Tony Ferguson.

Renowned for helping Australians make accurate and informed decisions, Choice have unfortunately made a mistake with their review of the weight loss industry including Australia's pharmacy supported weight loss leader , the Tony Ferguson Weightloss Program. In addition the magazine did not review the entire program , only half of it despite being invited to do so.

Ferguson explains that: "They also ignored the psychological aspects of weight loss in their review. The leading authorities in treating obesity around the world acknowledge that being overweight is much more than a product of eating too much and exercising too little. That is an outdated method of losing weight which has failed Australians for almost two generations now."

Ferguson is using old evasion tricks here. Firstly, he introduces variables that have nothing to do with the aims of diet programs, thus pleads unfair. Next he uses some Peacock terminology - "The leading authorities in treating obesity around the world...", basically sound like they agree with Tony although it's irrelevant and conveniently unreferenced.

You may read Tonys full reply here. Keep in mind the panel of experts assembled by Choice described Fergusons latest scam and Ultra Lite as "disgraceful and irresponsible". Given these physiologically brutal approaches aim to maximise ketosis [see below] and no warning is forthcoming one must agree.

Choice magazine does have an entry on healthy eating for those interested. Here's how Choice introduced their programme review:

Our findings confirm these diet plans, if followed closely, will certainly shed the kilos in record time, but are they safe and are customers properly assessed and monitored by the pharmacies? Do these fast-track diet plans address the real issues at the root of the weight problem? And is it the pharmacies themselves who end up profiting the most?

CHOICE investigation

To anonymously assess these programs CHOICE sent three overweight people to a selection of pharmacies offering seven different diet programs, and asked a panel of experts to assess our findings.

All the pharmacy plans involve a weekly visit to your pharmacy consultant and a diet that restricts carbohydrates to some extent. All except Ultra Lite use meal replacements to keep your intake in check. The basics of each program are shown in the table.

Programs we looked at:

• AlphaSlim Pharmacy Weight Loss
• Betty Baxter Complete Weight Management
• Dr. Tim’s Success
• Kate Morgan Weight Loss
• MediTrim
• Tony Ferguson Weight Loss
• Ultra Lite Weight Management
• Xndo Weight Control System

Choice also looked at Meal replacements, standard of replacement, consultant training and ongoing training, claims surrounding weight loss and client suitability - eg; one does not have to be overweight or an adult in programmes other than Dr. Tims Success. This certainly raises serious questions over body image and possible self abuse with such low levels of supervision. Considering the pressure on teens and even children today to conform to the perfect body type, Fergusons plea of "psychological aspects" sounds like a cruel game of mockery. To think a perfectly healthy teen can be supplementing healthy eating with "replacement shakes" on advice from a barely trained part-time consultant is at best careless opportunism on the part of these programmes.

The Choice report looks closely at nutritional value, the upsell of diet pills, flaxseed oil, fiber supplements, vitamins, minerals an so on. In the case of Betty Baxter fiber was so low, constipation is likely. Xndo slap you in the face with $1.60 per drink [called a serve] which is much the same as buying any other commercial drink.

There is ample advice within the Choice report. The decision to appoint independent nutritionists is welcomed and it appears pharmacy diets fail us in almost every manner possible. In fact the highly predictable findings of cheap and tacky equipment and dusty storage areas or corners labelled "consultancy areas", fits nicely with the dollar focus of Australian Pharmacists in general.

Choice also explain the concept of ketosis, which is the default side effect of starving yourself of proper nutrients. We award Tony Ferguson a CPDCT - Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought score of 7.0 out of 10. Well done Tony.

Choice explained:

Some organs of your body, such as the brain and red blood cells, need glucose for energy, and if you don’t eat enough carbohydrates to supply them, your body will break down protein – from your muscles if you’re not eating enough protein – as an energy source for these organs.

What are the benefits? Quick initial weight loss (mainly due to fluid loss) may increase your motivation. Some people claim the fluid loss also reduces feelings of bloating. Ketosis can also help make you feel less hungry.

And the downsides? Some undesirable side-effects are mild dehydration, poor athletic performance, nausea, bad breath, risk of blood pressure problems, an increased risk of osteoporosis and muscle and blood vessel damage. It may also make concentrating on mental tasks more difficult.

CHOICE verdict

These programs are of obvious financial benefit to the pharmacies, and a constant stream of short-term clients will shift a lot of product off the shelves. Will you lose weight? If you follow them closely, yes. Will the pharmacy setting provide you with your own highly skilled weight-loss advisor? Our experts think not.

Considering the inadequate training of consultants, little ability to tailor programs and deal with individual circumstances and habits, as well as the lack of close, qualified supervision, CHOICE does not recommend these programs. The current regulations and voluntary codes of practice covering weight-loss programs are insufficient. CHOICE wants to see a national accreditation system, including minimum standards for training, covering all programs, consultants and leaders who counsel people on losing weight.

It's with genuine effort I find myself holding back from simply abusing the window dressing that is the "pharmacy industry" here in Australia. The truth is, it would do little good and one cannot excuse legislators or ignore the hopeless policies bound in red tape. Presently, Pharmacy Guild members worship at the alter of the dollar and whilst able to promote sound health and science, have clearly chosen to promote a culture of "lock-n-load" profiteering that suits existing Guild restrictions on proprietorship numbers.

There's a huge, growing, aging, drug dependent market out there. Australias pharmacists long ago decided to limit premises to the precious few who play by the rules and rule by the pay. Woo-woo, junk science and reckless dieting by dollar may well be here to stay.

So, how can we limit or prevent junk science and 'new age' rubbish from basking in the integrity of white coated pharmacists? Get medications into supermarkets as fast as is sensibly possible. Faced with competition pharmacists will have fewer choices than placing marketing above medication efficacy hence consumer health.

All relevant articles are here.

Gags,
59 min. 23.5MB

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk. Indeed, a view that is, in EPA Administrator Carol Browner's words, "widely accepted" is not the same as scientific proof. However one feels about the personal hazards of smoking, this ruling is a victory for science and against what Judge Robert Bork has called "authoritarian regulation propelled by moral intimidation."

Here's the Washington Post news story, followed by a link to a Washington Times commentary piece by science author Michael Fumento....

Still, I can live with that. I may even quietly gaze intently at coffee shop menus, partaking of the delectable aroma of brewed coffee, the caress of warm carbon producing air and rejoicing at the nicotine junkies shivering on the footpath. I suppose for men, the cold helps reboot the vitality of sperm the nicotine kills. For women well, they just go old and wrinkly at breakneck speed. And that would drive anyone to smoke I guess.

But seriously. My point is, right, wrong or ahead of its time, banning smoking has an extensive list of positives. From not smelling like an ashtray to making an addiction hard work there are reasons not to overturn the underturn. Besides, no amount of junk science can change what we do know about passive smoking and increased risk of cancer. Perhaps much of the impetus driving moral panic over cannabis induced psychosis is akin to smoking cigarettes in public or private. And if there's one thing we absorbed like good little citizens, it's to fear the gasping wheeze of inhaled smoke. Accepting cannabis smoking may reduce lung cancer risk is counterintuitive. Forgetting the role tobacco plays when mixed with cannabis has made a mess of topics from addiction, to cancer to respiratory function.

There's a few paragraphs spelling things out at Transform:

It seems the source of this incorrect extrapolation is here. Another more strongly worded piece on another study, from that colourful time is headed, Outrageous anti-pot lies: media uses disgraceful cancer scare tactics. The author is Paul Armentano. I respect Pauls right to be angry. For one, he's translated very difficult findings on cannabinoid behaviour across multiple disciplines, many times. Secondly the fact this junk went to press before the study was published renders the human rights and public health aim something of a joke. Reuters, Fox and even - oh, my! - Australias ABC got it very wrong.

On the cannabis induced psychosis factoid ABCs Health Reporter, Norman Swan notes it may not be as safe as the sixties generation made out. Even Norman chose to be politically correct claiming "any use" is related to increased risk, quoting both 40% and "a quadrupling" of risk. What he left out is how useless such a huge variation is or what the most likely risk actually is. In fact, although I give Norman the final say as promised, his insouciant tripe about some imaginary "60s generation" is beyond frustrating, and indicative of the ABCs right wing leaning.

Alcohol increases this risk by 800% for men, 300% for women according to one study. A plethora of others also support alcohols far more durable link to psychosis than cannabis. Despite Australian drinking levels and our teen binge drinking saturating daily discourse, Norman breathes not a word. Indeed, what would he say? Blame the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's.... 2000's generation/s?

A handy piece of useful data would be alcohol doesn't discriminate - it's shrinks the brain. Cannabis does discriminate, with positive correlation to a smaller hippocampus and amygdala, raising major concern as to the integrity of memory, short term memory, memory of emotional conduct. The amygdala also connects to areas responsible for the regulation of dopamine and one is far more tempted to respect these documented realities than gross generalisations.

Dr. Swan ignored Marjorie Wallace of SANE UK, who wins moral panic medals by the bucket load, but has the decency to remind readers that only 10% of human beings are at any risk of psychological injury. He omitted entirely the reality that 800 cases out of 6.2 million smokers is 0.00125%. He failed to explain why psychosis levels have dropped to around 2% and schizophrenia to 1%. There is absolutely no correlation with cannabis use globally or in any single country: in short, where's the epidemic? He omitted that 40% is a piddling change anyway, with 300-400% considered worthy of publishing a paper.

Sadly, the medicinal potential that's well known and under assault from the morally pure, also missed being referenced. Don't underestimate the illogical voodoo of the drug free proponents, dear reader. It makes sense, particularly when other modalities have failed and deserves respect. Illicit drug abuse is emotional, especially if you've had a personal experience. But insisting medicinal cannabis "sends the wrong message" if someone living with severe cerebral palsy uses it to control bladder/bowel when asleep, is brutally deceptive. Or, as Drug Free proponents now insist, it's "legalisation by stealth". Dr. Swan ignored Australias national stance on managing cannabis related harm and our focus on human rights.

Finally, unless one is falling into opinion, it helps to quote scientists - not select tabloid junk. Ergo, thank-you Leslie Iverson:

Then I realised many people wrongly - or too easily - accept that the mysterious "pro-cannabis lobby" insist on their right to push cannabis and claim it's a "natural herb". What is being missed is that prohibitionists sprouting junk science should really fear the pro-evidence mindset which traditionally responds to "natural this-n-that" arguments by throwing them off natural cliffs, or dropping them into natural oceans. Sure, some of these wankers exist. They also reject vaccinating their children because it's not natural, starve someone elses growing body of protein and iron in the quest for vague vegan virtues and spend thousands on "natural" rubbish like homeopathy, MMS, placebo acupuncture, natural medicine and detoxification scams.

Unfortunately the vote grabbing waste of time, money, print, airtime, interviews and ultimately lives surrounding the reclassification of cannabis in the UK went ahead. If there's any positive side to this it's that only panic merchants who stand to gain politically are now revealed. Despite the ACMD scientists warning against it, the decision went ahead. This launched "drug free" devotees like Jo Baxter of Drug Free Australia [who dismisses education department guidelines] and Chair Craig Thompson to demand the same, whilst lying like champions about cannabis. Suffice it to say, support for right wing rhetoric is well met with fact based objection.

1. Scientists attack plan to upgrade cannabis.
2. Lords must stop plan to reclassify cannabis.
3. Cannabis laws being toughened to appease public.
4. Experts dismiss case for cannabis reclassification.
5. No smoke without fear - cannabis and psychosis.

It takes only a short time to discover the UK government failed its public, and did so amidst calls for legalisation, all round easing of penalties and the steadily growing cries for mature policy changes. There simply is no 'pro-drug' lobby. In the ideology struggle it's war mongering, scare tactics and punitive responses, versus respect for science, human rights and harm reduction.

The question one might ask Australias ABC is when do we hear of all facts pertaining to a failed war on drugs, regularly and fairly? Who shall expose the true cost of successive governments failing to accept reality, lest power be lost. 

Articles of relevance here.

Gags,
23 MB, 58 min,58

This Four Corners article references activity in the UK in late 2001. Despite Australian researchers favouring a cautious approach the facts have been distorted by drug-free proponents. Simply put, 'medicinal cannabis is a covert attempt to legalise cannabis by the back door'. No research, no pilot studies, no bipartisan discourse. A fact sheet here helps place things in context. The NSW cancer council have cautious information here. Ample information may be accessed here at the Medical Cannabis Information Service. In July 2003 Catalyst reported on the issue of medicinal cannabis.

The facts have been distorted quite successfully by the 'drug-free' moral guardians, many of whom stand to benefit financially and politically should we follow their pseudo-science beyond Creationism, miracle cures and adherence to scripture. Suffice it to say, evolution is not the only discipline under threat. Science in general is seen as an evil in dissonance to Gods word.

The Mental Health Council of Australia published Where there's smoke... cannabis and mental health, in 2006. It stressed the paucity of conclusive data. They concluded in part;

This is not the same as a conclusive "no, cannabis does not cause psychotic illness". Likewise, it isn't conclusive - or a "final verdict" the other way either. Indeed, reading the 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, one is reminded of similar observations heard today. Even when minuscule differences are found, such as a 0.00125% increased risk for cannabis smokers - as the Lancet reported, the Daily Mail screamed, "Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%". Then Fox, then the NHS, then the BBC.... viral panic over simply absurd fabrications. See below for clairification.

As with media worthy meta-analyses this was presented as "new data" here in Australia, and across the globe. However a meta-analysis can only "find" what it analyses. In this case cannabis and psychosis association. The Lancet published their don't miss it media blurb, Cannabis use and risk of psychosis in later life on Friday, July 27th, 2007. See page one of thirteen,

We can confirm of course the authors own summary. Or if you check page four of thirteen you'll find the original text of the Lancets meta-analysis paper entitled, Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review.

Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist beyond transient intoxication is unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence pertaining to cannabis use and occurrence of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.

So, however impressive the data we cannot ignore the language. "We conclude there's now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life". This is a long way from claiming as did Jonica, "the data's in".... "final verdict".... "couldn't find psychosis because we'd been looking in the wrong places...". Compare this hypothetical statement as representative of a "final verdict":

World health authorities, acting upon conclusive data, replicated across the globe, have taken proactive measures to inform all adolescents, their parents, schools... that the use of cannabis will result in a serious case of intractable schizophrenia at a later period in life.

My point is semantic trickery. Observe: "Now there's sufficient [not lots, an abundance or irrefutable] evidence to warn [not act to stop/prevent] ... could [not will, or will if...] increase their risk" [not certainly raise by Y percent], is pretty tame. Apart from young adults laughing in the face of risk it sure isn't saying X Will Be The Case. In fact causality is not ever shown. What else is at play here?

In Will one joint really make you schizoid?, Maia Szalavitz makes a calm, rational case;

Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.

What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study need to ask?  First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot,though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.

So what are we really missing? It's true the crudely labelled "COMT gene" got a mention. The caper here is reasonably basic. Catechol-O-Methyl Transferase is an enzyme that catalyses neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine... in fact the catecholamines. In managing the 'building blocks' and blueprint of dopamine, this enzyme must be specific. Humans with a polymorphism [different gene] switch one amino acid in building the enzyme. How do people develop this enzyme? They inherit two recessive gene copies from their parents. Why don't their parents have problems? They [almost exclusively, unless carrying two recessive copies] have a regular gene which is dominant. Upon conception it's the two recessives that make the grade in certain people.

The imperfect blueprint [gene] leads to a subtle difference at the molecular level, issues with psychosis, executive functioning and some subtle neurocognitive effects. Despite the carry on, cannabis ingestion is not certainly going to lead to psychosis. The COMT variant also relates to "being alive" and "length of time being alive" as compounding the onset of psychosis. My guess is if you're alive - indeed the longer you're alive - the greater the chance of smoking cannabis. No, I'm not dismissing it in a frivolous manner, but will not ignore simply existing with the COMT polymorphism is itself a fast-track to psychosis. So, how?

Well, the gene 'blueprint' that builds the Catechol-O-Methyl Transferase enzyme isn't written perfectly in the polymorphism form. In fact it uses the amino acid called valine where it should use methionine. It can still break down dopamine but at four times the rate, leaving the dopaminergic synapses less stimulated. It is this lower or shorter sustained neurodynamic effect in the post synaptic neuron that is associated with cognitive deficits. In the true fashion of neurokinetics and the resultant neurodynamic effect, note here it is less dopamine - not more - that is the problem.

In all "cannabis and psychosis" ranting we are told it is excessive dopamine that is the cause. Then there's the truly concerning fact that we seek to increase with medication, dopamine levels in Parkinsons patients. We give them COMT inhibitors. These drugs "save" dopamine building blocks like Levodopa from being broken down by the COMT enzyme and in all these years, not one episode of induced psychosis has been recorded in these populations. Still, the blinkered view of trouble makers like Cohen - who admits colleagues scream abuse at him - knows no bounds. This - IMHO - may lead to insouciant assumption or generalisations that colour our willingness to be open minded. Viz a viz:

Could it be a case of ill people smoking cannabis to obtain the antipsychotic, CBD, as medicine? Could it be the role of THC in mimicking anandamide - the "bliss molecule"? What of the relationship then of reduced anandamide in psychotically ill humans and the provision of "analogue anandamide" [THC] and anti psychotic CBD only found in cannabis? Despite the junk science behind so called studies into cannabis potency, could it be the documented fact that hydroponic cannabis has an imbalance in the THC/CBD ratio, favouring THC? Could it be ratios of many cannabinoids that mimic endocannabinoids, more than a single molecules concentration at play here?

Surely, we must have an epidemic if as Newby claims, we "haven't been looking in the right places". It turns out Jonica Newby of ABCs Catalyst programme was misleading viewers. The "right place" was actually psychotic patients. My, what a surprise.

And what did we find? This is not a dismissal, but a clarification. According to the Lancet itself the "dose response correction" makes this rather special science. According to reported data, the UKs 6.2 million cannabis smokers presented 800 schizophrenics who would not be thusly afflicted if they never smoked cannabis.

Ergo; 0.00125% of cannabis smokers make up Jonica Newbys "final verdict". Or perhaps cannabis smokers should know that 99.99875% of them will not develop schizophrenia.

In part two we delve deeper into the facts and the reporting of the opposite conclusions.

Related articles here.

Gags,
24 MB. 01.09.18

More articles of interest are in the ever growing pile here.

Gags,
26MB, 58min, 57

Other references are here.

Gags,
20 MB, 41 min, 34.

Well, it could be a handy way to snooker the Evangelical gangs and sooth their anger at being dismissed not just by most thinking people, but also by many previous supporters. Dr. Sylvia Rhue wonders what the values we want to see will become, whilst others are more critical. If you want Obama to "stand up for gay Americans", you can tackle a template letter here.

It pays to remember exactly what the more obvious corruption he can indeed change for ever actually is. With Bush, Creationists with child-like views of the world were hand picked and placed in positions of power. Educational madness like the silver ring thing, virgin pledges and curing addiction and immorality with prayer, siphoned off hundreds of millions. Research proved conclusively that faith based sex education failed, with participants having more sex, using less protection, taking more risks and suffering assault at higher rates than students not fed ignorance - or rings with magical bible passages. Legal retribution of sorts for violation of the First Amendment requirement to be separate from religion was secured by the American Civil Liberties Union. Evidence and education was shelved for faith, belief, ideology and abuse of the reality based community.

Lackeys appeared in other nations, perhaps meaning well but simply misleading peers and unwittingly making fools of themselves. We began to see the first chinks in the integrity of enshrining the right to religious freedom as a human right, when it was used to ultimately ruin, redirect or indeed take lives in secure democratic nations. Pure subjectivity began to buoy rapid reinterpretation of scripture using deadly subjectivity. Plus a nice dollar could be made from repeating useless programmes. "God did it", or worse, "God commands it".

Old themes of scientifically proven deviance, long since relegated to bigotry, intolerance and divisiveness began to re-emerge. The powerful evangelical lobbyists may often be dismissed around the world as liars and charlatans. But in the USA, they controlled the moral voice of the government. One piece of unfinished ignorance is redefining homosexuality as integral to pedophilia and the end of family life as we know it.

Like so much else to be proven naught but cowardly conservative cringing, "the curable disease" of "pedophile induced" homosexuality still terrified the moral terrorists. This rolled out despite the centuries of Christian backed homosexuality, pedophilia, sex slavery and outright debauchery which ironically continued seemingly unabated in modern times. It too engendered unique and offensive apologetics.

And yes, despite ongoing abuse, the Ted Haggards, scams of magical faith healing, the hard link between church identities and serial abusers, protection for same within many church communities, wonderful excuses such as "a private matter between [insert offender] and God", a backlog of Roman Catholic legal escapes and exposure of Pentecostal scams across the globe. Despite theft of welfare and enforced archaic medieval exorcisms, promotion of lifestyles that nurture HIV transmission in Africa, blatant theft of money for legal defence and insultingly tokenistic sentences, it is secular communities and those who value tolerating human beings who are to blame for a problem only a small minority can see. Or rather, they know they see "the devils work" as we hear in the sermon at the beginning and they must "strip the coat off" just as with Sampson and Delilah in the bible.

Essentially, pedophilia and homosexuality may "coexist" as aspects of sexual identity. Indeed, one must be a homosexual to be a pedophile, as evidenced by twin studies. The operative state of potential criminal predatory behaviour is homosexuality. 1/3 of abuse cases involve an adult male and a minor male we're reminded as a type of revelation. Males who abuse female children are "merely" pedophiles. Pedophilia and heterosexuality may cancel each other out in the mind of the biblical fundamentalist and right wing conservative. Many Christians disagree strongly, but can't match the media attention.

2008 saw more juxtaposition in the morality stakes between the USA and Australia. In mid 2007 legislation was passed in NSW parliament following the Premiers backflip, permitting somatic cell nuclear transfer despite threats of eternal torment to compliant Christian MP's from Australia's Cardinal Pell. In the USA in the same month, Bush vetoed legislation allowing funding for embryonic stem cell research.

In Victoria, Australia, IVF laws were improved in December 2008 to allow same sex couples and single women to conceive, drawing comment from multiple sources. Parenting rights took a democratic leap and the religious right took a deep breath. California passed Proposition 8 which added to Article One of the constitution: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Conservatives took opportunity to misinform and alienate further.

Religious conservatives did the thinking for you; "unsure of what to vote on prop' 8? Vote Yes" offers one Catholic "fact" page. It was a highly funded campaign and with a narrow margin of 52.5% vs 47.5% citizens had cause to be suspicious, given that California is the state most despised by conservative USA for it's homosexual decadence. Incredibly, the "debate" that homosexuality and pedophilia are related psychologically due to handpicked biomechanical similarities is regaining currency.

From Homosexuality vs Pedophilia:

On November 27th Fairfax media reported on our federal health ministers two homophobic staff who had contributed to the gallingly offensive 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters. Ironically they were referred to in her department as Health Ambassadors. A trashy piece of absurd bigotry it was defended proudly by one member and excused as a type of administrative mistake by the other who, to his credit, did insist he rejected discrimination and that people, "should be accepted the way they are born". John Howard supported the 'strategic summit' that attempted to legitimize such appalling rubbish. Health minister Nicola Roxon summed it up herself.

The intuitive thrust that masks the resurrecting pathological homophobic pseudoscience is aimed at "the family". Suddenly or intentionally being bereft of a father figure or a male role model, regardless of how one gets there, spells certain supernatural danger. Think of it as a snippet of the larger creationist rejection of "scientific materialism" and anything remotely related to Charles Darwin. The fallacious thesis is as much a call for quaint traditional - and problematic - values to be elevated to the status of essential, as much as pure bigotry. A raft of dysfunctional issues is to strike all who stray from the model of a nuclear family: referenced once by John Howard to applause at the Fatherhood Foundation's National Strategic Conference on Marriage, Family and Fatherhood in September 2007 - see video below. He managed with a straight face [bold mine];

"A properly functioning family is the best social welfare system mankind has ever devised".

So, it's for your own good when we get down to it. Forget what he did to indigenous families, immigrants, refugees, psychologically ill Australian citizens, innocent Iraqis, his own working public and indeed, poor Peter Costello. Forget the alienation and offence imposed on millions of citizens in Australia as gender bias is made up on the spot. Moral egos that justify the type of hypocrisy and suffering forced upon others are like a swipe card to areas of our nature some of us never earn the humility to fully understand. 

Despite both APA's definition of homosexuality being readily available, and facts so well known they are almost gathering dust, the type of rubbish pushed earlier this decade by Trayce Hansen, NARTH, Dougherty, the much criticised and antagonist of mainstream Christianity, Focus on the Family - who have a disturbing presence here in Australia - Christians for Truth, Catholic Education Resource Center, etc is increasing, making links to climate change seem almost wonderfully just plain old weird. The Mark Foley issue involving hand picked Christian Congressional pages apparently solicited for private rendevous helped create the media energy to re-float these intellectually repugnant themes.

In the Humble Firesnake Holeplex it is certainly hoped that evidence, tolerance and secular values of acceptance and compassion come to the fore and we gradually see the end of this 'science of homophobia'.

From The Fatherhood Foundation:

The first purpose of the National Strategic Summit on Marriage, Family and Fatherhood is to strengthen and support marriages and set a vision for the renewal of marriage in Australia that can be supported by all. The National Strategic Summit on Marriage, Family and Fatherhood is the official launching pad for the release of the 'Marriage Manifesto', a call to the nation to value and treasure the relationships that we all hold so dear. Marriage is the foundation for our families and families are the foundation for our nation.

www.gendermatters.org.au

"A properly functioning family is the best social welfare system mankind has ever devised".

John Howard - Sept. 2007

Articles mentioned are here.

Gags.
53 min, 53 sec.
23 MB.

The placebo effect is a demonstrably reproducible and reliable example of 'mind over matter'. More simply, an effect not attributable to a known substance, stimulus, belief and so on co-occurring with the observed effect.

Not only is it fascinating in it's manifestations but it is a valuable tool in science, serving as a control and pulling impressive stunts itself. For example when it comes to pain relief, as reinforced in this study, whether one receives acupuncture or not isn't important. The observed effect is due to the belief one is or is not.

In this episode we look at the realities behind the very recent 'ancient Chinese medicine'. Mao's revolution gave a shot in the arm to outmoded techniques - including human labour to successfully combat parasites. Herbal remedies filled the void left by the loss of scientists and research. Only after Mao's direct intervention in the 1960's did it gain popularity along with his Barefoot Doctors. These 'peasant medicos' lasted until the late 1990's as the rise of industrialisation drove doctors toward cities, leaving provincial China without adequate health care. In an unusual twist Shamans with an entirely primitive approach tried to corner the 'market'.

The shamans, they all have their own deities, says Xie Jinbao, who works as a doctor in the village of Muye, Danian township. They call the deities and when they talk to them, they are in a trance. Sometimes they demand to kill a chicken or even a cow to find out about an illness".

In Muye, a village of 1,200 people deep in the mountains where no car has ever reached, there is a thriving community of six witch-doctors. What can one person like me do against six of them, Xie shrugs.

His worn-out doctor's bag is packed with measles vaccines. Xie, 27, is on a two-hour treck by foot from the township hospital to Muye where he is scheduled to vaccinate children. If it were not for the children's vaccinations, the peasants wouldn't come to me at all, confesses Xie. They have known my father who was a 'barefoot doctor' for years. They know me, but they still go to the witch-doctors.

And it is not because of the money, Xie says. He would charge them just four yuan for a consultation and a simple medicine, while the village shaman will ask for a meal on top of his fee. They simply don't trust me, he concludes.

To the villagers, Xie represents a health system they have learned to distrust and shun. The disillusionment grew gradually, hidden from the eyes of the outside world which had applauded the success of Mao Zedong's public health campaigns in the first decades after the communist revolution.

With the collapse of Mao's peasant communes in the late 1970s came the collapse of rural health care. The state withdrew from the rural world where it had acted as a provider of free preventive care and had guaranteed access for treatment to everyone. [Rest here].

There is a the paucity of Chinese references about acupuncture until a few centuries ago. Early Chinese advocates and commentators stressed acupuncture is only beneficial for those "who believe it works", and even as a medicinal adjunct - much less a treatement - it had limited value. Images and claims around it's use in major surgery are bogus. It does sometimes play a minor role in later pain relief - as a placebo. The role of herbal medicine no doubt met many ailments with ephedrine, opiates, cannabis, caffeine, tea, hallucinogens, roots - such as Ginseng - leaves, flowers, pollen, stems, bark, seeds, thorns and more of a huge variety of species up for grabs. Ten Herbal Myths offers a unique perspective. Then as now, it is growing technique that dictated potency. Could variations in thousands of growing modes and millions of doses consumed within TCM be less of a worry than say, hydroponically grown "super potent' cannabis strains?

Drug companies do have an interest in China primarily due to it's climate, and preponderance of herbal flora. How serious this is, is ambiguous. Problems arise with herbal medicine due to side effects with - for example - St. John's Wort effecting both SSRI's and prescribed pain medication. In reality, modern 'ancient Chinese medicine' is an unproven, expensive and potentially dangerous practice. Despite official sounding bodies 'overseeing' practitioners of contemporary techniques the potential for abuse is high. After all, the client agrees to pay for nothing.

Reflexology is a contradiction as it is. Qi is said to be the flow of energy around the body or the material of 'information-energy'. Meridians are the pathways via which qi travels. Indeed the 'running of qi' is the sole purpose of meridians. Even though they have never been found, nor has qi or for that matter acupuncture points. Yet relflexology manages to get blood flowing along meridians. Whether with qi, without or as a hideous love child of blood and qi - the Qimoglobin Energy perhaps - isn't clear. Is that allowed? I wonder if the 'ancients' would have frowned upon it... had they existed?

Sadly with ideas such as tiger penises linked to increased libido, many species are in constant danger. Recently, Harriet Hall M. D. wrote Puncturing The Acupuncture Myth, generating some stimulating feedback; “twaddle wrapped in swaddling rhetoric.” We touch on this piece also and go over some of the testimony within, as to how gullible we consumers are to vague, expensive and proven to be useless "treatments" with a perpetually positive spin on them.

The moral to this myth is to be aware that all TCM is generally safe but unproven. It's benefits are mostly 'felt' as placebo and in the main one may safely say it's a pointless expense. On the other hand getting a little more attention than traditional medicos deliver may be just what the doctor ordered. The opportunity for easy money here makes many areas ripe for abuse. It won't hurt you to part with cash, but do be aware the "power to change" is perhaps the choice to change your mind about the validity of such baseless and bogus practices.

Articles noted are here.
Music; Garageband

Gags.
56 min
15 MB

Looking closely it seems we have long past the time of accepting this is "about religion" - something we should tolerate. Today the effect of US foreign policy cannot be ignored [see table below]. As the cry of "God did it" continues to rise, consonant with an apocalyptic and revolutionary - not evolutionary - approach to global challenges, every human alive is subject to the whims of this Divine Guesswork.

We look at the disparity in emphasis placed on Obama's "minister scandal" compared to Palins own "sermons" and her close buddy Pastor who insists Jesus wants his followers to die, and indeed one cannot follow Jesus without wishing to die for him. Jesus, Palins pastor claims would be "in War mode" if alive today [and was during his life, anyway] just as every good Christian must now be. It is this very same intellectual repugnance that exposes this trendoid approach to scamming ones fellow citizens and that draws the condemnation of most of Christian USA and fundamentalist USA.

From Alaskan Pipelines to dying in Iraq, Palin "can only do so much" unless her followers are "right with God". Also we examine the absurdity and hypocrisy of Creationist Sarah Palin and wonder if she solves, what was becomming, McCain's Evangelical Problem. Perhaps those obsessed with seeing a woman in the White House care little for the character beneath the skin. Yes, the new star of female rights who miraculously expunged the "pregnancy scandal" whilst pledging herself as a pious, chaste, "servant of God", has fooled the devout already.

Can the USA afford to make the same mistake again? Well, in the humble Firesnake Holeplex we do have an opinion... or two.

History of the use of early Apocalyptic Psyche' in US Foreign Policy

- Source: The Chosen Nation: The Influence of Religion on U.S. Foreign Policy. John B. Judis [page 3].

Some quotes supporting the 'christian heritage' of the Founding Fathers:

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.

"Lighthouses are more useful than Churches"
-- Benjamin Franklin

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
--John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

"Man is fed with fables through life, and leaves it in the belief he knows something of what has been passing, when in truth he has known nothing but what has passed under his own eye."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1823

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
--James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

". . . no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
--Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter, 1787

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see, but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790

All references touched on are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.
52 min. 20 MB.

The "de-redicalisation" of Muslim youth and Islamic extremists in this way is based upon fundamental Islamic jurisprudence. Whilst there is no doubt radical Islamic schoolers are concerned over the levels of violence, they are equally concerned about the Koranic doctrine as it pertains to prosecuting a Just and Holy Jihad. Actual violent jihad is traditionally arrived at only after considerable introspection. It is this concept of internal struggle, or jihad, that underscored years of fierce clerical debate within Islam prior to 9/11. Bin Othman himself remains a strident critic of Western policies from his London base and includes the UK government in his blame for the rise in potential British Muslim extremists. He tells BBC security correspondent, Frank Gardner [audio here]:

He's referring to al-Qaeda "mastermind" Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, who has a personal knack for usurping the jurisprudence of jihad prosecution. We've watched him "mature" since taking the role of spokesman "to the world" for the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, as we'll hear, after they assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981, for failing to wage a Just jihad and breaching fundamental Islamic rules. He's no doubt the real brains behind al-Qaeda atrocities - their Islamic strategy - but the point on which this turns is the fact that "Islamically", these techniques lack authoritative credit. The crisis for Islamic purists is that alienation and oppression motivate todays jihadists; not theology for which they have little time. Al-Qaeda is exploiting this for their own ends whilst insulting Islamic law, as Sayyid Imam clearly states above.

Bin Othmans logic is quite right. However this does not mean those facing possible attacks from Islam are significantly safer. Nor does it criticise indiscriminate killing of Westerners in Islam or elsewhere. The killing of infidels is entirely sanctioned and permitted by Islamic jurisprudence. Yet nothing in Koranic doctrine, the Hadiths or centuries of in depth and complex debate on how to kill the enemies of Islam, sanctifies killing Muslims. Ex Muslims most certainly, but not true Muslims. Insurgents have been more than vocal in accusing those they kill of being either infidels or fatally flawed in interpreting Islam - using revised archaic Sharia Law in particular.

Furthermore, the attraction of violent jihad has arguably polluted the pool of emerging influential identities with rank amateurs. Increased "conversion" and immigration has lent a vocal and savvy twist to centuries old dictates that embellish only violence. From the life of the prophet, to the 1000 year expansion of Islam via violent jihad to modern day authors who inspired the surge in radicalism, there is no precedent. More so, there is no chance of Martyrdom for a jihadist killed in the act of killing Muslims [believers in Islam]. Islamic law is clear on whom Allah deems a threat to the expansion of the Ummah and how to treat them. It doesn't take much empathy to see that senior clerics would perceive, for example, Muslim rappers in ski masks bragging about 9/11, threatening torture and death in the nations that educate, protect and support them, as little more than opportunistic groupies.

Many Islamists do want a Just jihad and a Just peace. But only as it applies to Islamic law and only in the pursuit of global peace under the Islamic government: the Ummah. This episode we look at exactly what this issue is about and why it is not a random fortuitous event from which the West can expect "justice". We also again raise the issue of Western misunderstanding of Islam, this time focusing on the xenophobic view multicultural nations often hold toward their Muslim citizens. Whilst the threat of Islamic extremism must be taken seriously, the fundamental interpretation of any religion cannot be ignored. Are we perhaps ignoring the problems of other religious fundamentalism and exaggerating that of Islamic fundamentalism? Seven years since 9/11 just which fundamentalists have actively or passively undermined democratic processes?

British historian Hilaire Belloc’s “The Great Heresies” written in 1938:

All articles mentioned are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags,

32 min.
14 MB.

Dedicated to Ken Bigley: 1942 - 2004.

NB: This widely circulated image of an "Iranian stoning" is an enactment of how the practice is carried out. However a quick search of videos should satisfy any questions.

The debacle in the UN HR Council stands yet again as another fabulous advance for The Ummah as the earth moves slowly but surely to one rule under one true God - Allah. An admirable and well won victory for Diplomatic Jihad. Our War on Terror is as useful to understanding the theological, political, social and military issues driving conflict as is Black Death to mapping the Yersinia pestis bacteria genome, in an attempt to arrest the spread of plague. As always, it is the gullibility in the West that will see Islam one day rule our planet. The old, tired and dusty standards were present. Misunderstanding over freedom, justice and peace.

In the West we associate Freedom with freedom to vote, of speech and of self expression. We have freedom to elect governments - of, by and for the people. We see Justice as peer controlled judgment ensuring outcomes are to the benefit of society: human beings. Peace of course, is the absence of war. Australia will be mumbling away like this the day we elect our first Muslim P.M. as an expression of our 'oh, to die for' concept of multiculturalism. Perhaps only when Sharia is written into Aussie law, will we wake up. Freedom to Muslims is conquest of Allahs land from the unbelievers, or reconquest of Dar al Islam from Dar al Harb [the house of war - nationhood] and Tyranny from oppressors - the West, via Jihad: Justice. Only when Dar al Islam has justified for Allah the Land of War, removed all unbelievers according to His demand, and established a global Ummah, can Peace reign.

To Dar al Islam, the 1400 year global Jihad, interrupted on September 11th 1683 at the siege of Vienna, is open for business. Now that the control of Pakistan is close to a reality, The West held fast in a Middle Eastern trap and militarily stretched too far to stand by Zion [Israel], the time for pretense is fading. What we in The West must now grasp is our concept of nationhood is a speck in history dependent upon abundant resources. We are blinded by our concept of Tolerance and in our rush to realise Equality fail to see human nature. If democracy has a self destruction mechanism it must surely be that of tolerance leading to a wall of political correctness, that will act as its trigger. Cultural and intellectual hubris has possibly sealed our demise.

We worry over "nuclear destruction", never bothering to check of all seven worlds in Islamic law, Allah may be everywhere, but resides only here. He already owns the world - it's the duty of Islamists to remove those who reject His Word. Destroying what is dictated to be ultimately devoted to his glory is unlikely, given a prior 1400 year struggle. And it's this very subterfuge the UN failed to see. Allah desires only Paradise for Muslims whose purpose it is to conquer the world for Him. Some pleasure in this world follows those who follow Him, but only as it applies to expanding the Ummah.

Humans have no rights - only Allah - the landlord. Any "rights" exist only under the Ummah which serves to oppress equality of religion. That is what Sharia Law is about. That is what Islamic immigration aims to achieve. Just as does Christianity. All the world for their idea of God - who is of course the same god; the God of Abraham, the God of the Jews - His originally "chosen people".

Payback has been a long time coming, and Islamists have patiently obeyed the lessons learned by the prophet at the battle of Uhad. To return to "the straight path" - Sharia, introspection, accepting blame, prayer, devotion to Allah - in temporary suspension of Jihad. This is required under Islamic law. 9/11/1683 signaled the decline of Islam, but it was the Industrial Revolution that dealt the 'death blow'.

At this time Dar al Islam covered more of the Earth than the Roman Empire did at its peak. The quality of life was over 500 years ahead of medieval Christian Europe, suffering miserably in serfdom and ruled by a corrupt hierarchy of Christian misogynistic megalomaniacs. Christendom grew from the destruction of knowledge and suppression of evidence. Greek science was expunged primarily due to it's "exposure" of biblical phrasing as astrological allegory - not magic. Put simply; Rome thrived on the horrific ignorance it inflicted on others. We call that time The Dark Ages. Iran is particularly pleased about its scientific success and has told us on several occasions, it will reverse the order to its prior state.

It's traditional to claim there's "no such thing as a moderate Muslim". Alluding that to be Islamic is to be an extremist. It's actually very wise to acquaint oneself with the teachings of Islam and particularly Islamic jurisprudence as it has grown since the prophets death. Even more so with writings of Islamic thinkers over the last century. It is this intellectualising that brought the genocidal life of the prophet into essential Muslim teachings, gave us anti-Semitism and urges hatred and annihilation of not only Jews - 'Zionists' but all unbelievers and any who support Zion. As The Great Satan the USA supports Israel, it too is Zionist. Allah forbids nationhood, personal gain, equality between belief systems or tolerance of any non Muslims. "Wait for them, set traps for them, kill them wherever you find them".

Perhaps however, we should remind ourselves of what The West did to this civilisation if we seek to understand Fundamental Muslim psychology and the pain which drives modern day conflict. Hamas is the result of "democratic elections" in Islam. Islamic parties win because of the need to remove any trace of Dar al Harb from what was once rightfully The Ummah. The Crusades, nationhood and the 1948 and '67 Israeli victories are a crisis of faith for Muslims hinting that Allahs chosen people, are losing to his designated inferior race of "worst creatures". It's not "racism" driving anti Semitism. It is the sacrilegious assault upon the demands of the one true God.

It was the inability of European Christians to reach the Holy Land thanks to Turkish Islamists and conversion to Islam by Christians that prompted the Crusades. As for the slicing and dicing we love to blame each of these stupid belief systems for, I'd prefer to not hand out medals. It's human nature at play. Yes, religion is to blame as with all horrors in our world - either in the first instance or as a result of passive apathy. But this is about us, not magic unseen beings with different criteria to satisfy for their jollies and your eternal reward. Belief, dear reader, is a most foolish intellectual exercise. Cult psychology [religious doctrine] is about controlling others and to control ones mind is to have absolute control - particularly when eternal damnation is a possibility for engaging in free thought.

As is clearly dictated by Allah to the Prophet and recorded in the Koran, it is the sacred duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad - either covertly, violently, deceitfully... you name it, until The Ummah covers the world and all is for the glory of the one true God. In modern times the concept of Taqiyya [Def], occasionally spelled "Tiqayya", erroneously, has been amplified to include non Sharia societies and allow expatriate Fundamentalist Muslims to live alongside Gods forsaken creatures [within Democracies] without killing them as Islam demands.

Tiqayya is the lying about Islam and ones true nature, for protection of Islam and spread of Jihad for the global Ummah. It's basis is directly from the Hadiths outlining a discussion about lying to kill a Jewish enemy: "I will kill him for you Oh Prophet, but we must tell lies". "Dude, knock ya-self out [or words to that effect] you are free in the matter", replied the prophet. There is only the Ummah and the land of war, yet to become the Ummah. It's non negotiable, punishable by eternal damnation and indeed violent, brutal Sharia Law. To not behave this way is to indeed be the enemy and deserving of all tortures Allah demands for kafir - non believers, "the worst of creatures".

Indeed, it is because the world belongs to Allah that this duty exists and one may never rest - be at peace - until we all cry out his name, and profess we believe the word of a medieval warlord. As he was the last and true prophet, it's fairly clear that Unbelievers must die, submit under Dhimmitude and for some races be tortured for the pleasure of Allah. Then with Dhimmitude and control of freedom exerted over vile kafir Harbi, as per the Most Merciful Allahs Compassionate request, may Peace reign. To repeat: Islam as a "peaceful religion" is the concept of when our planet "belongs" to Allah as total Ummah. Tony Blair the noted "religious" British P.M., is an exemplary example of idiocy born of selfish faith, amusing Islamists across he globe as he led his public astray insisting Islam is a "peaceful religion". As Earth already belongs to Allah, it is merely the establishment of the Ummah He requires.

For this reason His word was revealed to the final prophet - the true prophet. The only reason the global Ummah does not exist is because the direct word of God, is as yet unfullied. The aim of the Koranic revelations are to set straight Jewish and Christian divine texts which had become garbled over time, leading to impure practices and Harbi - unbelievers - in the land that was supposed to be Allahs. The prophet was instructed to set in motion the 'final divine solution'. As Allah is God, failure to recognise that "compassion" in Islam means killing for Allah, "the Most Merciful, the All Compassionate" and observation of murderous Sharia Law practices, is exactly why the UN fell into this trap. As each Koranic chapter begins with the above phrase, all of Islamic Jihad is notated as "compassionate".

The Cairo Declaraion of 1990 has been given a breath of new life and contains all the requisite points cleverly wrapped in double speak semantics, fit to fool any uncritical eye. Average Joe sees a fairly benign, if somewhat superstitiously obsessive, list of "rights". Islamic critics note immediately a document designed to enslave human beings to the very word of barbarism as demanded by Allah. The final article: Article 25- The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration. Which essentially means humans have no rights other than to act as Allah demands.

Allah wants the world, "desires for you" paradise and if you can't see how darn simple this is you will die. If you're too stupid to live a pious life then die as you kill for Allah - and it's an X rated paradise for your trouble. For a psychotic warlord in the habit of consummating marriages with nine year old girls - why 9 is the legal marriage age under Sharia - who needed an army to travel and kill with a guarantee of loyalty, it's an ideal formula. In the 21st century it gives us terrorism urged by Extreme Islamic Clerics. Motivation for Jihad is fundamental interpretation of the prophets strategic mind control and "revelations".

Genital mutilation, decapitation, amputation of opposite feet and hands, eye plucking to extract information [torture] and so much more is the "emulation" of the prophet. The Borg would be proud of such hive mentality, and I hope you can see the purpose of rubbish such as this website. It's claimed the prophet "Ascended" into heaven, making his senior followers outright liars who then inherited his military state, ensuring the opportunistic genocidal "explosion" of Islam we see in history.

So, then. Remembering everyday people get caught up in drug related crime what of drug users under Sharia? Harm Reduction is documented as reducing HIV spread among Iranian prisoners, something the Iranian regime may have to acknowledge. Some Sharia may be open to interpretation. Allah changed his mind when the prophet realised no-one liked him much around the year 615-20. So, he found out God actually wanted lots of blood - not social cooperation and equality of worship, as is mirrored from earlier Koranic verses in Mecca - before the Islamic calendar begins in Medina 12 years later.

This concept of abrogation did away with the benign verses seen in other "religions". As the Koran is published from longest to shortest chapters, chronology is confusing - and this is exploited by Islamic apologists. Clarification of Koranic messages is gained from consulting the over 100 volumes of Hadiths - chronicling the prophets life. Much like no-one who ever laid eyes on Jesus ever wrote about him, the Hadiths were also began many years after the prophets death, by interfering apologists using notations supposedly gathered during his life.

Hadiths supporting care of "the oppressed" exist and are discussed as essential to Islam today. As is the more important personal ideal of inner Jihad: struggle. Open and firm discourse is needed for all minority groups in Islam and for those under influence of the Official Islamic Council.

Presently in the Middle East the socio-political climate favours an unacceptable humanitarian crisis due to the escalating influx of illicit drugs, and arguably further capital punishment. Despite the scale, despite claims of UN bodies, resolutions, promises and human rights, the level of open and honest discourse within multicultural communities is approximately zero. Perhaps in the first instance the greatest hurdle is not one of malignancy, but of widespread misunderstanding.

The concept of 'Drug User Rights' remains controversial across the world. Attenuating the human rights aspect as it pertains only to the influence of various religious beliefs and theocracies is markedly misunderstood. Despite the crucial import it remains an utterly thankless task, ignored by all institutions.

We cannot ignore the evident gulf between changes in policy outlook secured at the Beyond 2008 Forum, and the reality of UN sanctioned Sharia law specific to the drug using community in the Middle East. The need for compassionate discourse on this issue has never been greater. The opportunity for The Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Drug Demand has never been clearer.

Surely we cannot hope for integrity on the issue of human rights if we fail those in need. Certainly the failure of beneficiaries of human rights to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, is naught but intellectual and cultural hubris that must rightly attract condemnation.

All articles touched on are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags
1hr. 22 MB

"Of the nine regions of the world, only North America sent two delegations. The first, which had met in St. Petersburg, Florida, in January, deliberately excluding harm reduction and drug reform groups, was the "official" delegation, representing hard-line prohibitionist organizations aligned with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, such as the Drug-Free America Foundation and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), the California Narcotics Officers Association, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals."

"The second North American grouping, which had held its regional meeting in Vancouver in February, included dozens of organizations in drug reform and harm reduction, as well as treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation groups. Among the organizations from the Vancouver meeting that went to Vienna were the ACLU Drug Law Policy Project, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Virginians Against Drug Violence, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the Harm Reduction Coalition, Break The Chains, and the Institute for Policy Studies."

They also succeeded to alienate many delegates and NGO representatives, as we hear in audio from Vienna in this episode. As did Drug Free Australia's Gary Christian speaking for the Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy. Seizing the final moment to claim the process had been less democratic than would suit his need to overlook human rights for the greater good of zero tolerance, Mr. Christian has loudly proclaimed his tactic for ignoring the Resolutions: the process was flawed and undemocratic. Ergo; why respect the need for increased harm reduction? The entire charade embarrassed and outraged the Australian and NZ contingent, and was noted by Committee Chair Michael Perron as a "final potential disaster".

He also complained about the selection process which is proved to be a false concern on page 42 of the Australian and NZ report. Overwhelmingly, the call for increased harm reduction, input from drug users, NGO's and policy regulators went out and is reflected in all nine regions, not least by a long shot, the Aussie/NZ contingent. The selection process involved consultation with two members of the ANCD. Perhaps reflecting two ideologies, or anticipated arguments? Drug Free Australia Executive Officer, Jo Baxter is on the ANCD board. I'd say the selection process was entirely fair and representative. Mr. Christian is intent to prove himself an ongoing thorn in the side of human rights for drug using communities.

The Transnational Institute published their review under, Beyond 2008 - A truly remarkable event. They did not miss the significance of an overwhelming rejection of prohibitions harms. After all, the issue we had to agree existed was simple, self evident and radical, all at once: prohibition is a failure which harms our communities and innocent human beings, more than the drugs we prohibit. No candy for guessing that ideological differences elicit fierce debate or that legislation reflects the aims of elites at the time. That's how we got in this mess. That's why some elite institutions blame "drug industry elites" for present problems and conspiracy to seize control. Politically, there's an entire imperative in the semantics alone.

The candy goes to pragmatism, and I think T.I. chose the word "remarkable", well. Drug Policy is an area that makes Western democratic disputes over religion and politics seem cosy. The struggle of minorities is a human rights issue. The clash between criminality and health is a moral crisis for many, and for disparate reasons. So I was interested that they noted,

Also;

Nonetheless. This was a hugely significant achievement. Danny Kushlick, of Transform UK, proffered the impending end of prohibition at 2015 - 2018. "2009 will pass with no change", he wisely reminds us. According to the United Nations Information Service, in Civil Society Gives a Voice to Those Most Effected;

"Three key themes have emerged from the deliberations:

Shared responsibility and accountability. Governments, at all levels, need to leverage the experience, reach, professionalism and passion of NGOs. In the past five years NGOs have become more focused, disciplined, inter-connected and organized around how to take on this global problem. NGOs are well placed to contribute - but only if their experience, reach, impact and commitment is engaged. As Eva Tongue, Chairperson of the Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs commented in her opening remarks "Money alone is not enough. Governments need to recognize that the fieldwork done by the NGOs is fundamental to success in all aspects of this matter."

Giving the most affected a voice. This is an issue that has to be addressed at the human level. The Declaration and Resolutions represent many different voices - individuals, families, and communities - from around the globe. This voice needs to be heard because it brings a fundamental understanding on how to achieve demonstrable progress to reduce illicit/harmful drug use and its adverse health, social and economic consequences.

Beyond 2008 Forum has created a call for action. The Declaration and Resolutions are just the start. It is a commitment by all of the participants to build on what was achieved here in Vienna as they return to their work and engage with their governments.

The Declaration and Resolutions coming from the Beyond 2008 Forum has a created clear consensus from NGOs. In his closing remarks to delegates, Mr. Perron said: "As we go back to our communities and responsibilities let us go knowing that our commitment to consensus over the past three days has created the opportunity for civil society to have a substantive voice here in Vienna."

This episode Firesnake looks at the forum process and controversies therein. We check out documents highlighting the most common themes and hear from attendees who express concern at "the bullying" of anti-Harm Reduction or Drug War proponents. We hear of hopes before the forum and the welcome outcome despite lively debate, covert tactics to sabotage harm reduction and the obvious attempts by the USA to continue the illusion it's sustainable war, is working.

The unfortunate failure to get drug users themselves as contributers to the final resolution text, is balanced by the fact drug user organisations now have a place at the table and can only advance human rights from there. Thanks to all below who attended and gave up their time to be interviewed on their own view of proceedings.

Special acknowledgement to Hungarian Civil Liberties Union.

Danny Kushlick, Transform UK.
Martin Jelsma; Transnational Institute, The Nethlerlands.
Kristopher Krane; Students for sensible drug policy, USA.
Alan Clear; Harm Reduction Coalition, USA.
Andrea Efthimiou-Mordaunt; International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS - John Mordant Trust, UK.
Elias El Araaj; Soins Infirmiers et Development Communautaire, Lebanon.
Monica Luppi; San Patrignanno Foundation, Italy.
Geoffrey Evans Drug Free Schools Coalition, USA.
Caitlin Padgett; Youth Rise: International network for reducing drug related harm.
Ahmed Al-Shatti; Kuwait National Anti Narcotic Drug Committee, Kuwait.
Tripti Tandon; Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, India.
Lennice Werth; Virginians Against Drug Violence.
Michael Perron; Chair - NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna and Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Walter Cavalieri; Canadian Harm Reduction Network.
Sanho Tree; Institute for Policy Studies, USA.
Mike Trace; International Drug Policy Consortium, UK.

All articles touched on are here.

Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.
49 min.
15 MB.

Voices include:

Danny Kushlick; Dir. "Transform" UK - EU Review "Towards a drug free world", Private interview.
Tony Geoghegan; Dir. Merchants Quay Ireland - Private interview.
Lieut. Jack Cole [Ret] Founder, LEAP - Private interview.
Fr. Joe Kane; Chaplain, Reuters Island Jail. NY - Private interview.
John McGroarty; Ret. Det. Chief Superintendent, Cardi Drugs Unit - Private interview.
Ethan Nadelmann: Dir. Drug Policy Alliance, NY - Private interview.
Matsukis Marios; Cypriot MP: Allied Democrats and Liberals for Europe - ADLE; EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Francis Wilkinson; Ret. Chief Constable, UK - Private Interview
Sanho Tree: Dir. Institute for Policy Studies, Washington - Private interview.
Chris Davies; ADLE MP, UK - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Paul Hunt; UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health - IHRA presentation
Peter Sarosi; Hungarian Civil Liberties Union - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Antonio Maria Costa: Ex. Dir. UNODC - Private interview.
Dr. Philip Emafo; Chairman INCB - Private interview.
Margaret Court; DFA Patron, Australia - Marketing Audio
Boris Van Der Ham: ADLE MP: Netherlands - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Bronwyn Bishop; Australian Liberal MP: out-take of interview out-take from "The Winnable War" podcast
Christopher Hitchens [Author/Journalist]; USA Live TV interview, 2007
Paul Gallagher; Firesnake - "Prohibition: The I.N.C.B." - podcast
Sophia In 'Tveld; ADLE Dutch MP: - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Michael Heney; Investigative Journalist
Tony Abbott; Australian Liberal MP - Interview grab

And more...

Enjoy.

All sources and articles touched upon are here.

Music, thanks to Garageband.

Gags.

1 hour.

27 MB.

Despite Australia's robust role in domestic and regional Harm Reduction there remains a vocal minority in favour of zero tolerance. Or rather, against Harm Minimisation. The misconception that HM is "pro drug" is common and reflected in "cloned" non-evidence based opinion pieces in Australia and Canada. Others point out the evidence in favour of increased Harm Reduction, noting the benefit to the entire community - who primarily support harm reduction. The shrill moral tone levelled at all minority groups continues apace with regard to drug users.

As noted here often, Harm Minimisation is always finding itself under attack. The policy is poorly understood and a main sticking point is that it "accepts" the inevitability of drug use. Some don't like hearing this and go to great lengths to discredit HM. Usually for moral reasons or the ease of apportionment of blame: if we have a drug problem, it must be somebody's fault. Young adults are most vulnerable to this. As we become "post cognizant" we all see our parents, guardians, family as human beings - not omnipotent beings there for our egocentricity. With a history of drug use, violence and laxity over the rights to property ownership, it is axiomatic that guilt will arise. This can be managed or exploited. Young ex-users blaming everyone but themselves, claiming HM promotes drug abuse have experienced the latter. As most drug use does not led to harm, the problematic user is psychologically challenged to rationalise uncomfortable realities about themselves.

The other concern thus, is the sheer momentum behind this idea as it's deliciously tempting for users and ex users to shirk responsibility and ultimately turn their energy to harming others - by undermining harm reduction. The primary driver of this activity is one's inability to cope with reality or accept responsibility. This promotes apportionment of blame, both personally and as an elemental "truth" for ones world view. We've touched on binary opposites here before. Defining the quality of X by focusing on the opposite qualities in Y.

For the politically astute, you'll recognise this as the neoconservative ['neocon'] philosophy, beloved by the GWB administration. The very fundamental ontology of the pro-abstinence/anti-HM/zero tolerance/Harm Prevention/Just Say No approach, is utterly dependent upon the flaws of "the other". There is nothing on offer that does not involve blame, punishment, revenge and worse. Positive values are defined by the malignancy of "the other", lending false validity to the "conquest" not otherwise proven by evidence.

Yet, if the value of something demands the presence of an active, harmful entity what then occurs without an enemy, or in this case in the absence of supporting evidence?

"The easiest way of uniting people is to have an enemy, and if you then split away from that enemy... you start looking for another enemy within your ranks ".  Paul Hadley, Editor: The Church Times

So, we still hear of absurd 'just say no' campaigns redressed as the "new" discovery outlined above. It is really simply the new face of the zero tolerance camp in the long running drugs debate. Despite all the evidence, all the suffering and all the inconsistencies, the attack on Harm Reduction serves only to endanger the "enemy within": all of us.

This episode we look at why it's understandable, if wrong, to fall for this intuitive claim. We also examine the evidence and consider what the struggle of minority groups subject to use, abuse and far worse by others means for us in a democratic society. Do we still today have the luxury of ideological and subjective opinions? In the face of evidence to the contrary?


 HIV in IV users by region; pub.2006. Arguably the INCB have 'overseen' all rises except Australia, in which Harm Minimisation predominates. [Source]

The human and social cost in delaying an immediate acceleration of harm reduction, implementation of needle exchanges in prisons, heroin trials for intractable users, and injecting facilities to match our over 1000 needle exchanges, is beyond unacceptable. However Australia's INCB representative argues another case [ABC]. To think in light of such clear data, our media misinform the public with compelling opinion pieces that play on emotions, not rationale, [still] is appalling.

We see an MP use a privileged position to promote zero tolerance ideology. Previously argued by merit [page 2] of it's not being HM therefore not "soft on drugs". This tough on people approach is, well... now enshrined in a spectacularly futile "bong ban" in South Australia. Now we have little idea of what toxic plastics, chlorides, putties, heavy metals, glues, etc, smokers will use to make a bong, much less issues on cleaning and hygiene. This very issue attenuates the point at which moral panic serves no-one and costs the community. If anything, it's value is in the lesson that we must vocally and stridently object to exploitation of our parliamentary system. The net result will be wasted resources in piddling cases most of which may never reach court. Any chance to focus on quality control and carcinogenic materials could be lost. Such tokenism does nothing for drug related harms bar confuse expedient management with punishment.

Given smoking chambers can be made from everyday items, including apples, we can accept the instigator is genuine in claiming HM "implants messages" that destroy us and that "bongs on display" is one such subliminal assault on our youth. Perhaps when inanimate objects start to control you, it is psychology, not policy to which we must turn. Nonetheless, this is supposed "proof" a conspiracy exists to legislate all drugs, keep our young addicted and profit "drug industry elites". The trendy new term given to those who've worked to keep Australia's health excellent, in the face of prohibition induced harms. Sadly, this is the level of "bipartisan discourse".

Seeing as the rights of marginalised have come up, we should also note what generations of human rights jurisprudence can tell us. It is actually the real elites who can make such claims as supposed "default" truths, thus ensuring discrimination and ongoing elitism. Equal rights is about confronting and revealing elitism as the facade it is. The struggle in HIV/AIDS riddled Africa, Myanmar, South America, The Philippines, etc  to ensure the uptake of condom use is one with an elite religious institution whose power base demands that it "knows the will" of our moral guardian. As this is impossible, we can see how decent human beings will behave in passively savage ways, blissfully sleepwalking to nowhere on the corpses of those who are expendable pawns.

But this isn't about "them". It's about you, me and every free thinking independent individual in a democracy. We've been on this train before. Minority groups gain recognition. Opponents argue morally for the "head in the sand" approach, discriminating and marginalising fellow citizens without a second thought. Democratic rights come in leaps. Women had to fight for the right to vote, blacks for the right to not be segregated by law.

Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton remind us of how important law reform and education are in moving progressive civilizations forward. Obama has now won the Democratic nominee position, once explaining he "did inhale - that's the whole point", in reference to the legion of public figures who puffed "pot", but never inhaled. Here we have three powerful pointers that serve to remind us, there really is no "other" and our way of life aims to realise this. Some alive today can remember a time when prohibition of drugs, politically active women or "colored people" running for any public office was unthinkable. We now understand the harms related to prohibition have prompted awareness of the need for change.

We cannot see the juxtapositions inherent in prohibiting drugs, harming/punishing users and the path to corruption until we accept the rhetoric-come-propaganda stereotyping of drug users is a backward step for free society.

At every juncture of democratic leaps, we can identify our religious right and puritanical watchdogs warning of our imminent doom. But no. It is the attempts to deny mounting evidence, and the cowardice in accepting it's import, that opens the door to doom. Doom for individualism, civil rights, the right to health, equality and freedom from harassment from others in positions of influence. Freedom from those who'd impose their will on others for personal gain, sometimes as "revenge" for immoral modernity and it's tolerance for individual expression.

In what can be described as a win for democracy, drug users and human rights, the Supreme Court of B.C., ruled Canada's punitive 'controlled drugs and substances act' to be in breach of the Canadian Constitution. Health Minister, Tony Clement had aimed to close Insite, Vancouver's Safe Injecting Site precipitating an appeal. Judge Ian Pitfield expressed concern over the "unfettered discretion" present legislation placed in the hands of the minister. He ruled in favour of the facility giving Ottawa until June 30, 2009 to "rectify" the disparity with the right to medical treatment and the right to health, as per the charter of rights and freedoms.

Firesnake looks at these issues and pays particular attention to the INCB, now under sever criticism for complicity in human rights breaches. The full scale of barbarism may be found in the references noted and linked to at the base of these notes.

The unacceptable conflict of interest Australia faces, with INCB board member and DFA board member Brian Watters in a position to influence policy to suit his ideology cannot be ignored. Made up of individuals who serve their personal agenda, the INCB works in secrecy with accountability to no-one. This quote from the IHRA blog "HR2", reflecting on the INCB's failure to respect it's duty and implement pharmacological treatment in response to illicit drug use is a typical example;

As we note, all evidence points to the INCB promoting drug related harms, shirking it's mandate in favour of "war" and undermining domestic success. We see it here in Australia. Attacks on the signifiers of HM continue without evidence, encouraging confusion and anxiety in the community. Recently DFA published material in two separate 'news pieces', initially written by outspoken biblical moralist, Bill Muehlenberg, attributing it to DFA Executive Officer, Jo Baxter. It was a careless dismissal of Wodaks proposal to examine cannabis regulation benefits.

This very example iindicates that DFA have an agenda not related to drug related harms, but to moral deportment. Illicit drug related harms are secondary to behaviour. Both items remain prominent in the 'rolling news'. DFA snorted at requests for clarification. DFA officially claim "no religious affiliations".

A prior Chairman of the ANCD, Watters' recent scare tactics, reported by ABC, in selling an INCB report underscored how many Aussies use cannabis and highlights the insouciance of Watters self serving approach. The INCB mandate is to promote global HM - not reefer madness sensationalism - via implementation of the 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN Drug Conventions. It's wise to now regard INCB reports and claims with suspicion.

Australia must begin to see itself on the global stage and understand the politics. Why this chap, at this time with the evasion of responsibility quite clear in the evidence discussed? And what of 'The Winnable War' recommendation #18 that the ABC use "standard" terminology when reporting on illicit drugs? It hasn't been adopted, but highlights how easily freedom is replaced with fear. What does that say about free thought, much less free speech?

Well, if you fail to listen to this "pro-drug" episode and miss having messages implanted with the intent to "keep you addicted", you may never know. In this episode, we also examine expert comments referring to the INCB as a "relic from the past": a time of punishment and misguided belief in a winnable war on drugs.

We also heard from Watters that QLD is Australia's primary source of methamphetamine production. Rather than offer any solution the point made was "governments have the power to change this"; an allusion to his wish to dismantle HM. If the good Mr. Watters understood the "balloon effect", he'd admit it is the result of offshore "wars" on production. Force down production in one area and another immediately picks in up. This statistical fact, proven time and again internationally, is testament to both the failure of and harms induced by, the so called war on drugs.

Continue this until an entire region reduces production and domestic production spikes. If we note the evidence supports the INCB contributing to this, congratulating nations who abuse their public, enforce labor, death squads and sentences, jail all drug users and generally breach the INCB's responsibility to human rights, we have a right to demand better. Ironically DFA patron, Margaret Court includes the claim meth' labs are "toxic waste dumps" in her Scare repertoire.

How bizarre it is that the result of the INCB failing to respect human rights and support outmoded "just say no" approaches, is to criminalise the entire health problem. Said differently, Watters and DFA support the very head in the sand approach that ensures "toxic waste dumps" and escalating large scale crime. Having done so this handiwork is then dressed up to amplify calls for more "toughness" on drugs [people].

 Sadly it is no secret DFA are strident critics of Harm Minimisation, demanding forced drug testing, random police searches, scare tactics, enforced detoxification - despite a four times greater mortality rate. Support for gagging the ABC such that "tough on drugs" messages dominate, closure of vital facilities based upon opinion alone and denial of education/evidence to vulnerable students on the basis of adult guilt, fear and ignorance.

Sweden, the gold standard of zero tolerance, have just passed laws allowing unfettered eavesdropping on phone, internet and email communications [2] [ABC]. The implications of eroding civil rights this way are significant. One of DFA's key demands is unhindered policing and surveilance of all home computers, cell phones, vehicles, finances etc. If "cannabis finances terrorism" as we now hear from the extreme right, we can predict how this "monitoring" will be marketed here in Australia.

Finally, we may also ask ourselves, in the face of evidence supporting regulation, why calls for open and honest discourse, immediately attract immature, sensational responses. This excuses moral panic. Surely a nation known for success in managing drug related harms and the spread of viruses is able to meet the challenge of uncomfortable questions.

The argument Harm Minimisation encourages people to use drugs is false. It has no more import than claiming that Britney Spears' parenting issues have created an army of soon to be abusive parents. The difference is that tens of thousands of lives are ruined in the quest to "lock ourselves away" from reality. We do ourselves and our families a grave injustice by lying to them and disrespecting their intelligence and ability over such high stakes.

Say no to prohibition.

Articles mentioned are here.

Music: Garageband.

Gags.
70 min.
25MB.

In God's Business - BRW June 29-July 5, 2006 - Adele Ferguson spells out the extent of religious tax exemptions. In doing so, she also exposes how opaque this self-righteous business really is. The pointy bit is this. Religious groups receive exemptions on income tax, GST, FBT, payroll tax [non-commercial], stamp duty [all property transfers], rates and land tax. Nor do religious groups pay capital gains tax from asset sales, tax on commercial businesses or observe any Banking Act rules where they would apply. As Ferguson puts it, "better still" once exemptions are granted specific to financial services. "There is no sunset clause or review by APRA of it's operations".

Excluding donations, congregation and collection income, credit card machines or income from over 200 charities and additional business, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, Uniting, Salvation Army, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist and the Pentecostal churches produced a miraculous revenue of $23.3 billion in 2005. The Catholic Church reaped a whopping  40.3%.  Pentecostalism is growing faster than any religion in Australia, generating $263 million in 2004.

Pentecostalism claims around faith healing and supernaturalism are of significant concern. It represents the pinnacle of con artistry, non critical thought and unguarded conformity. It's cost to the community is beyond significant. Hillsong are the largest earner in this fastest growing religion. Hillsong Emerge is the benevolent "arm" of Hillsong Church, once illegally using funds intended for Indigenous communities, for it's own benefit.

Remember the disturbing link between Hillsong, Mercy Ministries, Gloria Jeans coffee shops, and medieval superstition? Sheer theft of money from vulnerable and disturbed Aussie girls who were then subject to exorcisms, bible classes and glossolalian ranting to cast out the demons that made them "evil" initially. The Age reported on this appalling abuse at the time.

However, we don't need to be demon exorcising, bible quoting devotees to coerce ill people for no reason other than vague superstition. As Ferguson noted, "Hospitals run by the Catholic Church, for example, will not conduct vasectomies, tubal ligation or abortions, although they are routine in other public hospitals". Max Wallace from ANU says: “People in many parts of Australia are discriminated against by not having an alternative hospital provider.” [Page. 44] Sisters of Charity simply refuse to reveal revenue. And on the pattern goes.

Of interest is that an April 23rd shin dig put on as a "gee thanks" by Cardinal Pell for former PM John Howard, included CEO of World Youth Day, Roy Wakelin-King on the 'confidential' guest list. Held at Pell's Pad - Cathedral House - in St Mary's Cathedral precinct in College Street, it was rumoured Kevin Rudd would drop in "for a chat". Pell who lunges forward with "Be Not Afraid" as his motto is the man who smoothed things over for a resolution to this silly business of the Roman Catholic Church paying for self indulgence.

To satisfy the Jockeys Club for any manner of potential deficits from Pious partying at Randwick, Pell scooped $42 million from Howard. For the gig itself our Chief Magician appointee from Castle Vaticanus scored another $35 million. Remember this is his buddy who handed him $4 million for a Sydney campus at Notre Dame Uni. On the eve of the 2004 election. Leaked to Sunday papers, read just before the pews fill.

The really strange thing is even when we know the ultimate terminus of where this train takes us, we fail to do the responsible thing. Category 12 funding is available via the Education Department Funding Scheme for "the poorest schools in the lowest-income communities in the country", according to one of the scheme's architect's Jim McMorrow. "They were meant to be very, very poor, with very, very low income, and largish average class sizes," he said, according to Fairfax papers.

Despite the sect itself boasting of being "in the upper levels of the socio-economic group", The Exclusive Brethren's already notably wealthy schools continue to receive the "special" funding. A Brethren spokeswoman claims the payments were initiated under the Keating government.

Of significant concern is the decision by the Rudd government to hand over $50 million in coming years. This is despite the schools failing to meet criteria noted above. Below are schools funded via Category 12 Special needs over 2001 - 04.

• Kulkarriya Community School, Fitzroy Crossing, WA
• The Alice Springs Steiner School, Alice Springs, NT
• Nyangatjatjara College, Yulara, NT
• Bellhaven Special School, Young, NSW
• Mansfield Autistic Centre, Mansfield, VIC
• St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children, Castle Hill, NSW
• Melrose Park School, St Marys, South Australia [$$$]
• MET School, Sydney, NSW [$$$]

   [$$$] - Brethren Schools.

The Age continued;

Education Department documents also reveal that the Exclusive Brethren regarded former prime minister John Howard as their most influential supporter and ally of last resort. In 2000, the sect's elders asked Mr Howard for special assistance on school funding because of his "sympathetic support in the past and the contact with you over the years".

Federal school funding documents show that the Brethren's multi-campus NSW school, Meadowbank, and the South Australian school, Melrose Park, were funded at the same rate as "special schools", giving them the same per-student funding as Nyangatjatjara College, in the Northern Territory, the Giant Steps school for autistic students and schools for the hearing-impaired.

The Brethren's MET school in Meadowbank does not meet the criteria for category 12 funding: it is in suburban Sydney, has small class sizes, and is financially supported by a community that boasts it has no poverty. The sect's Victorian school, Glenvale, which has campuses at Glenroy, Lilydale and Melton, receives a lower rate of funding. [Source]

Other more benign disparities include the YMCA securing Recreation Centre contracts, not due to service quality, but due to tax breaks. With the above financial favour, the YMCA simply undercut non religious commercial entities, involved in the bidding for tendered contracts.

In true religio-centric character the YMCA is one of a very few organisations to ignore qualifications and experience staff bring to public health and recreation needs. Pay, for example, is in the lowest income bracket for staff who have a fitness hobby certificate and those with science degrees and years of clinical experience.

When we pay for "extra" services it's a mere marketing strategy we respond to. Ditto referrals from physiotherapists to community recreation centres. We have no idea if the individual provider at the YMCA is a professionally trained therapist or someone earning a few part time dollars. An identical national uniform serves to depersonalise the individual and add weight to the "team loyalty" con.

Occasionally, this blinds the staff themselves. Many become convinced such poor income is "a necessary part of the job", focusing on free use of facilities and "community contribution" as their noble career path. Coerced philanthropy, perhaps?

Join and we must pay by monthly or fortnightly direct debit. Stop attending and we alone must stop the debiting. In most cases it's the attrition of members that finances the centres. Fee paying members who don't attend always outnumber those who do. But that's fine as it is the accepted model in the health and fitness industry. Guilt and well meaning plans to "get fit" will ensure we do not cancel paying until long after we've stopped attending. And there's always the disincentive to stop paying in the huge joining fee we're continually reminded about.

In fact, the YMCA go after profit like a struggling business. In an age of diseases related to lack of exercise, one may wonder why this Christian group is not feeling too charitable - despite massive financial help.

A global organisation, the YMCA to probably afford to run our centres at no loss, as a favour to a sports keen nation. But such financial realities apply to all religious affiliates - great and small. It's always been about the money. Nothing but the money. Staff, clients and the Great Aussie Fair Go are used or abused to advantage in keeping ahead, as it were.

For a mere fraction of the above, religions in Australia, Pell, Baptists, Brethren Elders, Cults, Catholics, business savvy Seventh Day Adventists, "Drug Free" Scientologists/Evangelists, Harley riding con artists, Christian City, Teen Challenge, greed focused magic working Pentecostals - and more - have much to smile about. This of course, is only topped by the rise of fundamentalism in all it's lethal malignant glory.

And still, we keep on paying...

All articles touched on and other posts are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

NB: Explicit Language at beginning.

The YouTube URL of George Calin's act is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Gags.
31 min.
14 MB.

An editorial critical of the TGA's failure to monitor the outcome of what is essentially exploitation of the Special Access Scheme was published in the same issue. The scheme is designed to allow access to medication not otherwise available for terminally ill patients. The medication must have a proven unique ability to manage the symptoms in question. This is not the case for naltrexone implants which are being used in unregulated settings as an alternative to other - proven - treatments for opiate addiction. Indeed, it is this legal loophole via the TGA that acts as a deterrent for naltrexone proponents to report adverse reactions. From ABC's The Health Report April 21st, 2008:

A co-authour of the editorial commented. "It is concerning that the recent research on naltrexone implants in Australia has not followed usual scientific processes," Associate Professor Robert Ali, Director of the Drug and Alcohol Services Council in Adelaide, said.

Reminiscent of Gibson, Degenhart and Hall's paper Opioid overdose deaths can occur in patients with naltrexone implants [MJA, 2007; 186: 152-153], this latest data caused similar responses and academic discussion over methodology. The responses to Gibson et al are interesting and indicate how difficult an area to clarify this is. Simply put, how does one die and what role - if any - does naltrexone play? I'd point out the following;

• If someone died "from" the implant it would require a scenario in which reasons for IC admission went untreated: renal failure, dehydration, metabolic acidosis.If someone dies from opiate toxicity due to a faulty implant, it heralds poor technology and monitoring. Eg; it's a two month wait for blood level test results in Perth, poor technique: insertion may be incomplete [not all tablets successfully inserted].

• If someone dies from opiate toxicity after cessation of treatment, then it raises questions about the treatment in total, and suggests poor follow up or ineffective counseling. Reasons for using are not addressed in full by blocking cravings.

• If someone dies from opiate toxicity with an active implant, and toxicology reveals other CNS depressants, it may go unrecorded as poly-drug toxicity can be argued as COD.

• Finally, if someone dies of obvious opiate toxicity, in circumstances familiar to emergency services, there is no reason to then confirm if an implant is active, faulty or inserted in the first place. The COD would be opiate toxicity and variables related to the implant not recorded.

Hence, anecdotally there is some confusion regarding "deaths from naltrexone treatment", as it is often noted.

However this paper did not deal with deaths - only admissions. And symptoms were quite severe, including metabolic acidosis, renal failure, dehydration, prolonged and profound withdrawal symptoms, vomiting, diarrhoea, confusion, delirium etc with some requiring Intensive Care. We can see from above we're talking about the failings of the implant, hygiene, monitoring and perhaps poor methodology in calculating naltrexone dose. It's done via Body Mass Index. Yet it may well be ambitious to think body size equates strictly to neurophysiology and genetic predisposition to neuropharmacodynamics - how drugs effect the individuals brain.

Nonetheless as with all things involving naltrexone, the opportunity to observe abstinence proponents defend an ideology, in the face of evidence, presents itself. Close, chronological examination of one vocal proponent, in light of ongoing problems and previous fatalities is cause for concern. Dr. Albert Stuart Reece has been the focus of attention in the humble Firesnake Holeplex before. On this occasion another response to the denial of evidence relating to naltrexone implants. He offers no evidence - just promises. In looking for reasons why Reece may ignore contrary evidence one finds the theme of fundamental conservative morality. It's as if Reece wants to excise "immoral" Harm Minimisation and implant morality...

In this episode, Firesnake looks at the rebuttal from Drug Free Australia to the MJA findings. Australia could be the biggest loser. You can read the response here. There's an extensive reply at the Drug Free Australia Watch blog. Citing "important contemporary evidence" and quoting Dr. George O'Neil and Dr. Stuart Reece in support of the W.A. implant trials, we are promised upcoming positive data in "the world's leading medical journals". It has actually been submitted for review and it remains to be seen as "a truly significant achievement", as Dr. Reece claims.

In fact Reece has promised these "radically superb", "brilliant" implants are the "best in the world" and "statistically powerful results" will follow. However, he said that 15 months ago in his submission to the Inquiry on the Limits of Harm Minimisation. "The outcomes of this trial are already very obvious. They will be brilliant, and in addiction medicine, as radically superb as the HPV vaccine has proven in infectious disease control in that discipline", he said in his Parliamentary Submission. Methadone itself came in for particularly vicious and unfounded criticism. Whilst Reece is prone to claim the presence of drugs other than opiates causes overdoses in naltrexone patients - when the implant fails - he's also prone to claim the opposite applies to methadone. He reasoned that 78 methadone related deaths were really 851 because the presence of other drugs meant "the figure should be clarified". [Page 5]. Or rather, dismissed.

"Therefore the problem is not one of evidence or safety assurances - those determinations have already been made by the many reputable and highly skilled clinicians who have used the devices, invariably with superb results". [Pages. 14-15]  How is progress going? Well, despite DFA's claims, Norman Swan noted on April 21st, 2008;

Firesnake has taken interest in the moral conservatism of the religious right and it's propensity toward abstinence. It's argued that fundamental religious beliefs can have an adverse effect in the public health domain in the quest to enforce morality over evidence. It's further argued the global involvement of certain naltrexone proponents in anti HM propaganda is well demonstrated and this conflict of interest makes for poor integrity and objectivity from DFA and their "fellows". Drug Free Australia don't so much present evidence on Harm Prevention successes, as present attacks on Harm Minimisation as the self evident cause of our drug problem. Attacking the signifiers of Harm Minimisation as malignant is done over and again, rather than promote the socially unpopular strict conservative moralism, that is the assumed alternative. We follow the loyal devotion to abstinence of Dr. Stuart Reece from 1990 quotes beloved by the International Abstinence Association on the moral decline of society [bold mine];

Enduring the "hedonistic delirium" of modern democracies, Reece threatened the QLD government, claiming they'd "have blood on their hands" if he couldn't prescribe naltrexone - September, 1999. He got his way. By the last week of May 2001, 25 patients were dead and the QLD medical tribunal launched an inquiry into "gross negligence", also noting his breaching guidelines regarding pregnancy.

From ABC The 7:30 Report - 4 June 2001:

ANNE REYNOLDS: He was very, very passionate. He was very enthusiastic about his program. He was very adamant that it was The best thing available, nothing else was as good as Naltrexone.
SIMON ROYAL: Anne claims Naltrexone treatment left her son with chronic depression and a new addiction to antidepressants.

Six hundred days after his course of Naltrexone tablets, Paul Reynolds took heroin again.
It killed him. Anne is flying back to London after interring her son's ashes.

ANNE REYNOLDS: He's doing it without the right - enough support.
He's sending them back into the world with just the families to care for them without the rehabilitation process in place. He seems to think that he has all the answers and he doesn't. He's one man. [Source].

He was defended by Dr. David Hunt who, claimed the death rate was similar to methadone. But a 2005 study at NDARC noted over 2000 - 2003 naltrexone had a death rate associated with it, four times that of methadone [Page 49]. Hunt, along with Reece and O'Neil, appears in a thank-you list in the anti methadone, pro naltrexone, pro "bible classes" Trophy of Grace. Written by Bronwyn Healy who now holds a place on Youth for a Drug Free Australia.

Total Mortality per 1000 Episodes, 2000 - 2003 [Source]:
Methadone: 102,615 treated. 282 related deaths. Total Mortality = 2.7
Naltrexone: 3,169 treated. 32 related deaths. Total Mortality = 10.1

Two years later the Inquiry was indefinitely adjourned, Reece had hurt feelings and claimed "vindication" from a "conspiracy between drug addicts and The Courier Mail". Three months later on September 14 2003, he was on Sunday Nights with the ABC, claiming Dr. God was the one in control and that "faith cures addiction". Remember, it's not what one believes we're noting. It's what one does with it.

In Februrary 2007 Dr. Reece introduced himself to the Inquiry into the impact of illict drug use on families. He glossed over his tragic past with naltrexone;

At least 25 dead and 1,800 rapid detoxes - each taking days and requiring intensive medical support - in eight years. And he "knows the science"? Asked about naltrexone fatalities;

On August 7th 2007 Reece wrote to the Commissioner of Health in New Jersey, USA, lobbying against needle exchange programmes and also painted his experience with naltrexone as authoritative and positive. He also again attacked Wodak;

We also note the support of certain overlapping elements of the religious right in Australia. Firesnake looks closely at this approach toward addiction "treatment" and asks just where the morality lies. How is it "morally correct" as some supporters claim, to place ones superstitions ahead of another's health in making clinical choices?

It seems plain that ideology is what defines policy and procedure for certain practitioners. At some point we must ask ourselves which dynamic is really dominating here? The health of the individual or the cosmic duty of the practioner to expunge the aforementioned off-shoots of progressive societies "hedonistic delirium"? And ensure society finds "the way back" as the way forward solution to modern day problems? I must submit dear reader, that the latter is plainly demonstrated. When the gains of democratic society are so insouciantly insulted, we may conclude the signifiers of Harm Minimisation must terrify the morally conservative and appear as invitations to debauchery.

More so, it is also plain identities associated objectively with Harm Minimisation, are justly discredited in spectacular evidence vacuums, by dent of their professional leanings. Naltrexone is the emergency adjunct to faith based education and general "just say no" abstinence, employed when they fail. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored as is the option of respecting the best of both approaches.

The conflict of interest here is clear. Faith and superstitious belief cannot be allowed to intercede in the treatment of vulnerable at risk community members. When we consider also what certain proponent will gain from "success" and lose from failure, we must remain highly skeptical. The last word should go to Professor John Saunders who said in 2001 referring to the Reece deaths;

The first tragedy is that now a large number of young people have reportedly died having had treatment with Naltrexone.
The other tragedy is that the adverse publicity that Naltrexone has received recently will prevent there being a proper research and development program into Naltrexone treatment, including Naltrexone implants. I have a real concern that a useful, the availability of a useful form of treatment, will actually be compromised by all the drama which is occurring at the moment.

All articles mentioned in the episode are here.

Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.
1 hour. 3 min.
25 MB.

More so, it is often the speakers role or intention to lay out hard evidence, proposed solutions and respected findings or predictions they have not made. At most a few sentences of reflection may be included. Hence it is with something close to disbelief I find at Creation Ministries International an article, viciously and slanderously "critiquing" the episode published on Janurary 26th, 2007. Written by Aussie Creationist, Christian Fundamentalist and enemy of reason Bill Muehlenberg, fallaciously attacking Williams, Reid and exploiting the style of presentation to claim insouciant nonchalance on Williams part. The title, Melbourne Atheist - chillingly consistent aplication of evolution gives away it's intention to bolster the theistic position that evolution is a malignant force. One that both hides the truth about "creation" and applies genocidal ideologies fit for extreme Stalinists, Nazi's to anyone who asks the hard questions and finds evidence to challenge the worth of "Mans dominion over all the Earth".

I had to chuckle. Reid opens with his skeptism - as a scientist - that humanity will find a way to manage our challenging future, through science. He claims so because people are adept at deluding themselves. Although Reid was referring to passive delusion leading to apathy and inaction - particuarly on the morally difficult issues - Muehlenberg grabs the ball and sprints over the line into the realms of malignant fantasy and reckless zealotry. All the time, trying to make the old "no God, no morals" claim. By the way I know what you're thinking. ABC Science Show, Ockham's Razor and Williams vs "Creation Ministries International" and Bill Muehlenberg? It's a no-brainer, and yes, Bill offers zero evidence to substantiate a solid refutation. But if you're interested read on.

What became truly fascinating is that every piece of Muehlenberg's article is a false and deceptive construct, built upon demonstrably false claims and invented references to "arguments" that appear nowhere in Reids presentation. In fact, Reid actually argues the opposite to what Bill accuses him of on specific points. Muehlenberg misses this or intentionally ignores it because if one is not for God, one is indeed for evil and unspeakable deeds. Bill is a true believer. He takes the bible as absolutely literal and indeed favours the shiny new toy Creationists frequently play with: Biblical End Times.

It is impossible to accept Bills piece as anything but comical, until one realises he not only claims Australia is at civil war over morality, but is also a worthy foot soldier. Jesus must return as the world ends. Why would any sensible person ignore an open invitation to paradise and attempt to save our wonderful planet?

The scriptures are clear. Redeem or be damned for eternity. Could this be the basis for such a childishly and demonstrably false piece by Bill Muehlenberg? There are over twenty demonstrably slanderous and fallacious claims about Dr. Reid, Williams, science, the production piece itself and the existence of active dynamics seemingly bent on destroying humanity. All on a piece supposedly quoting from another on how to save humanity!

The only way to deconstruct Muehlenberg's Rally-to-arms against reason, is to go through his fallacious and insultingly personal attack on Reid and measure it against Reid's actual presentation transcript on ABC Radio National. This episode Firesnake does just that. Let's forgive Bill for deceptively slandering Robyn Williams: there's no way one can miss the intention of Ockham's Razor to be something more than succinct. Muehlenberg forgoes journalistic credibility to his detriment. Had Williams satisfied Bills need for hand-holding the show would lose it's impact. Bill's real gripe is that Robyn has no theistic persuasions.

Acknowledging climate change is an easier topic than population control, Reid is then at pains to stress it is birth rate, not living persons, we must reduce if we do decide we cannot sustain present growth. Reid argues that he has little confidence in civil means solving the problems. Primarily voluntary abstinence from procreation, due to the urge to do so and the belief in an inalienable right to have children - more affluent than their parents. At no time does he claim he has an alternative solution. At no time does he propose so much as plucking a blade of grass.

He refers to the findings and suggestions of international bodies and advances the calculations specific to population, ecological foot printing, sustainability and climate change. Just to be clear: all Reid's advances note the need to reduce birth rate as a documented strain on food and essential resources, land availability and care and climate change. Reid uses an entire paragraph thusly: "Let us canvass them", after noting theories and findings do exist.

This is a tired trick Creationists favour. Actually, Darwinian evolution by natural Selection explains the evolution of all life on the planet and our astonishingly improbable presence as a superior primate. I don't say "improbable" as in "unlikely". I mean to point out we can calculate the probability of being born, and this includes understanding the probability of our planet forming, genesis of life, the irrefutable march of evolution, the achievements and trials of our species over 1/4 million years and finally the fact our parents "dumped" billions of suitable gametes when only two came together to achieve conception. And, how many others could either parent have conceived with?

Simply put, whilst we are just half a chromosome away from chimps and indeed higher primates, Evolution explains why we are certainly not in the same ball park as microbes, slugs or diseases. Bill has no idea of how evolution works. No religious fundamentalist can hold to their beliefs and hope to seriously comment on this brilliant scientfic theory nor the hard facts that support it. Evolution proves why Bill is deluding himself. And his response is not untypical.

Other ridiculous offences include linking only to other similar pieces on the same site and claiming Dr. Eric Pianka urged dropping Ebola virus on 90% of humanity - to a standing ovation of people like Reid. It turned out to be one person who "certainly gained that impression". It is a false claim, period. He also links to other pieces which twist the words of scientists and criticise Robyn Williams. Consider this quote from another piece by David Catchpoole and Jonathon Sarfari, "Doomsday Glee":

Muehlenberg's personal attack on Dr. Reid is unmistakable and very telling about the true nature of modern Christian charlatans. Muehlenberg has attributed an entire malignant mindset to Reid based solely on his own vile mess which he then leaps into for a further four paragraphs. Bill tells us that food prices are cheaper. Global crises are not to be considered as accurate and it is actually a "birth-dearth" that has supposedly led to the challenges we face on our very trouble world. He denies globally accepted findings on climate change and insists we can easily continue to feed a population of 12 billion. His offerings include:

Not surprisingly we have the "anti-Christian" theme of Reid's piece invented, and then explained to us, by Bill. He peppers his piece with taunts and insults such that one finds it hard to follow his train of superstition. Even though Dr. Reid notes that the "three horsemen of the apocalypse - war, famine and pestilence" would be both cruel and inefficient at reducing the population it is the following Muehlenberg seems to have really reacted to:

Bill Muehlenberg concludes:

As Dr. John Reid correctly notes;

Human beings are self-deluder's. We can convince ourselves, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, that black is white and heat can flow from a cooler to a hotter body. It is this power of self-delusion that leads us to believe that somehow we will find a way to fix the problem of our unsustainable consumption of the Earth's resources.

Or as Stephen Hawking noted in January 2007:

"Humankind must Understand The science that rules our life. Otherwise how can we meet the future if we don't know our options?"

Firesnake awards a Clear and Present Danger To Critical Thought to Bill, with a brilliant entry score of 9.2/10  for:

• creating misinformation by selective quotation
• linking selective quotes of another's work to demonstrably false claims
• attributing negative and malignant personality traits to innocent academics and supposedly those who reject his version of reality
• misleading over the facts of evolution
• cultivating and nurturing the fallacious claim non theistic views equate to genocidal ideologies
• and indoctrinating innocent, gullible or vulnerable people with an aggressively anti-evolutionary, anti-scientific and dangerously ignorant viewpoint

All articles mentioned are here.
Music: Garageband.

Gags,

1 hr, 4 min
25 MB

Please feel free to reacquaint yourself with Paul Mullett and his honest approach to power struggles.
Flash Audio: OPI Police Phone Taps; Ashby, Mullett, Linnell. Explicit Language
Direct Download - "save as" here.

That his involvement in corruption, bullying of members, cowardice, threatening of female officers, tipping off murder suspects and ethical breaches may secure a 25 year jail term is of no moment within Murdoch's pages. This is a paper in which police are perpetual "heroes", reporting on whom is biased milk-sop pulp fiction and who regularly run beat ups and campaigns based on fallacious claims they initially propose. It's a fertile ground for a conspiracy nutter to air his paranoia. Selfless heroes with a swan song "What About Me?". Sure guys, sure.

It is the latest most recent association with Melbourne's only real rag-paper that beggars belief. A day after we learn from two other sources Mullett faces a challenge from within his own union, the PPC excelled itself. The paper forwarded a "survey" packed with leading questions to a one third minority of members, collated the predictable results and pretended to have a "news" story. Packed with distractions like "devastating", "shock findings", "graphic results", "pressure" on Chief Commissioner Nixon, readers were bound to lose their way. We hear primarily of the 69% who dislike Christine Nixon. We had to wait on the good Commissioner herself to hear that only 69% of one third of Victoria Police were suitably "pulped" - shall we say. Put another way, she's actually admired by the bulk of her members.

The very fact the Herald Sun survey includes responses critical of Mullett's suspension when the reality is that even his closest confidants want him gone, and ask only questions about their beat up dynamic can't be ignored. More so, most of the detail is superflous. It's a Mullett vs Nixon beat up. The Police Association Magazine actually notified members of the impending survey. Disenchanted members and Nixon antagonists had pencils at the ready. Herald Sun readers can join in. Unaware of the world outside their boxes the uncritical readers had an opportunity to vote on her performance themselves. This was replaced by a "new" poll on whether these corrupt cops should have stun guns and automatic pistols.

Ironically, it's other leading piece was coverage of a rally primarily attended by Police Association members and somewhat peppered with other emergency service members. In a nutshell Police supposedly want more members, more resources, less females and no "improper association policy". The final sticking point requiring police to reveal all social contacts of a criminally dubious nature. In this episode we look at how valid these concerns are in the present climate and in the context of Mullett's real history. The final insult was the "editorial". Remember, this entire story is nurtured by this newspaper. There really is no problem other than a demonstrably right wing appraisal of it's own delusion. It included:

Police have also challenged falling crime statistics and are intent on labeling the forward progression of modern policing as "the softly, softly approach". The tiny minority who bemoan the morale-eroding "feminisation" of the force almost certainly realise they act for Mullett - not themselves. The reality is that Victoria Police has a problem. Mullett is yet to address issues raised in previous episodes here; Mullett's Mumbles, Mullett's Motives and Corruption in Victoria Police, extending back to Janurary 2007. On the issues raised by the Herald Sun farce one must note Victoria has below average numbers of female officers with only one other state having less. Policing today requires a sharp mind and access to data for economic exploitation. Police deal with people - not characters. The PPC may wish it were otherwise but our crime rate has fallen 23.5% under Nixon. To this we can add that of the 20 best performing service areas, 14 had more than a quarter of female members.

The onus is on proponents of this rot to serve up some evidence. It's doubly offensive coming a day after we hear of a national youth homelessness crisis. These individuals present with dual problems of substance/medication use/abuse and psychological disorders of almost any magnitude. Certainly they come daily into police contact. Is brute force really what we want here? Or is it the skills of a well educated and properly trained compassionate person we need to step back to see clearly?

The other annoyance is double standards. Victorian Police are certainly corrupt - charges have been laid, conversations heard. I actually think the "improper association" idea is going to be a logistical nightmare, possibly discriminatory and perhaps of limited value. I also think it's a great idea. Victoria has no Spent Convictions Policy. Our L.E.A.P. database is compromised. Our privacy is a joke in Police hands and to Police members. Today, Victorians can loose careers, homes, families and worse solely due to the brandishing of criminal "records" by insouciant police and their nosey assistants. In other words, you and I have no such "protection" in our relationship with authorities or indeed their flawed and discriminatory use of our own personal history.

That we, as a community, pay taxes for this corruption to run unchecked in the largest law enforcement body in the second largest city in a so-called "globally progressive democracy" is, objectively speaking, utterly fascinating. Just how gullible are we? Fairly so, I'd wager. 

In January 2007, in The Australian Don Stewart former Supreme Court Judge, Royal Commissioner and founding director of the NCA said the "deep seated and continuing corruption" will only be  finally managed with a Royal Commission. He claimed at the time recent findings were "the tip of the Iceberg", describing the task of cleaning up Victoria Police as "herculean". "Only a wide ranging Royal Commission will do it". The article went on to report:

"Mr Stewart is one of the most senior legal figures in Australia to warn that Victoria has failed to address police corruption. In 2005, former royal commissioner and former ASIO head Edward Woodward said corruption in the state was at its highest level ever".

"I take the opposite view," he says. "Why the Victoria Police don't want, and the Victorian Government will not have, an independent wide-ranging judicial inquiry into police corruption, such as was had in Queensland and NSW, is obvious. They know that it would reveal what they don't want revealed."

Mr Stewart says that, while head of the NCA, he met opposition from many members of Victoria Police, whom he describes as "bad as any". He says he had to terminate the secondments to the NCA of a number of state-based police because of concerns over their conduct".

In March 2007 in an interview with Damien Carrick for ABC's The Law Report, Stewart noted,

"We have to look at establishing proper agencies, research areas, but looking at them, making them transparent, auditing them all the time. You can't let the police investigate themselves, it doesn't work, never has done, never will. And there are all sorts of ways that you can endeavour to maintain integrity, and I don't want to become involved in the discussion of this in any way, but one cannot but be aware of what is happening in Western Australia at the moment. It's not just the police obviously who can become involved in corruption and corroding to use your word, of institutions. There are other people who can be, other people in powerful places. Including politicians.Not only politicians but public servants at high level. Money is a great incentive. I don't know how you get rid of greed, you can't just wave a magic wand and say 'From now on the human race shall be greed free'. It doesn't work like that. It is part of the human condition...".

Damien Carrick: The more things change, the more they stay they same.

Don Stewart: They do. And it reflects the human condition, and we can't change that. All we can do is our best to minimise it.

This Episode Firesnake looks at these fun times with audio grabs from the main players. We also award a Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought to Paul Mullett himself. He slam dunks a more than respectful score of 8.6 / 10 for being himself. Of course, moaning about "weakening" female officers, then using a picture of a "diminutive female" disarming a shoddy copper during a rally to highlight the true evil of these people we call women, was delightful.

The real issue some say is this silly business of human rights and fear of "being sued". This "thuggery" - yes we're still on about a "diminutive" lass - demands we actually compromise our very definition of democracy such that law enforcement have unprecedented powers and limited accountability.

Where have I seen that before?

All articles touched on are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.






Gags,

51 min.
19.5 MB.

We see above that there are numerous problems with this being a prophecy of Jesus. The first and foremost is the translation problem. We see that Isaiah was familiar with the term BETHULAH and used it when he wanted to convey a woman's virginity. That he did not employ it at 7:14 seems to indicate that this is not what he meant for this prophecy. In addition to this is the problem that the prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to occur in the time of King Ahaz. Lastly, we see that the child is indeed born during Ahaz's time as chapter 8 shows us.

Far from being a prophecy of a virgin birth, we find a regular pregnancy some 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

Prophecy busted.

We're told God demands "unconditional surrender" and is obsessed with "nakedness" in the USA. This most religious of developed nations, with many holding to medieval superstition and belief in demonstrably false religio-superstition, has even earned extra points for "refusing to repent".

Bible Prophiteers simply engage in postdiction - finding something that can be squeezed to conform. Nostradamus was all the rage before our Creationist profiteers saw the potential. Typical examples include as "honey" is sticky to touch, this meant oil. As "darkness" was mentioned and oil is black, this means oil is important. The "battle" must be in the middle east. Hence, with troops there we must of course be about to witness the end of the world. Israelites was predicted to "return" [they invaded] to the "homeland" before the "End Time". Global Warming is the necessary preparation for a "scorched earth", refugee crises are "scattering of the people", equal rights are the doing of "the unrepentant", etc, etc - in fact Pin the Tail on the Passage is all the rage.

Sadly, not only do they fail to provide a shred of evidence, they fail to explain why any other phenomena might not be viable. This is in line with the general literal interpretation we see in trendy Christian Magicians. Exegesis is the re-interpretation of text. Hermeneutics is the active physical meddling with reality to give the impression prophecy - as per any text - is correct.

The concern is of course the promotion of climate change - "bring it on man, global warming is holy" - may not be entirely helpful to future generations of Earth. In fact "The New Apocalypse" cares little for the planet, human beings, present day suffering or social decay of any sort. The worse it is, the better chance JC is packing his bags for the Second Coming.

Encouragement of war and geographical migration, falsely linking current events to archaic text are daily events. One boasts that George W. Bush has said WW3 is due in 2008, thus so is the "Rapture". Another claims Bush said the "last years" begin in 2008; thus it's 2015 for the Rapture. "End time radio" in the USA specialises in linking daily news events to the horror outlined in the book of revelations - "Amen, brother" is the standard utterance to dead civilians, dead soldiers, economic downturn, struggles over oil and so on. The belief is being pushed that events in the Middle East herald the realisation of events written so obscurely, even proponents can't agree on the best lie. War is good - that's for sure. Jesus loves us so much, he'll kill most of humankind in a blaze of "glorious and holy fury that will shake the Cosmos".

What is truly bizarre are the dual claims of JC judging "the repentant" as worthy yet this "essence of redemptive soul", as it were, may be learned from a quick DVD tutorial. Why go to Confession when the Digital Deity [and your credit card] is at hand? So, if this JC guy is so dumb rote learning by video is enough to enter "Gods Dwelling", who'd want to go play in the clouds with him? Plenty of gullible, bored and very annoying people with far too loud a voice it seems.

Sam Harris put it well once; "But you ask me what the scariest things are in Christianity: this infatuation with biblical prophecy and this notion that Jesus is going to come back as an avenging savior to kill all the bad people". -- Sam Harris, Beliefnet inverview

One typical site contains the following:

Sensible Christians debunk the silliness of the entire affair and others have patiently explained the flaws to simpletons. One poor chap who we hear from this episode believes he will find Prophetic Oil - in already drilled fields - and sink a well so large it will drain Saudi Arabia. Not only does this fly in the face of geological evidence and mining principles his only reason is because of what he thinks he can see in the bible.

Oh! And it's actually all on his DVD - that he mentioned contained all the real data and full truth, whilst he was announcing he didn't want to profit from the interview.

It is simply the cowards way out. Not only do trendy god botherers have a real life Harry Potter book to justify bigotry, abuse, suffering, war and financial greed - it contains a get out free caveat. No need to conserve energy, think green or care for our environment. That's pure blasphemy. In fact, it is the problems we see today that prove we must repent - not apply ourselves to the evidence at hand.

Why? Well, we must "prove" the bible is literally true. Science must be discredited, religion must be reintroduced and men must have superstitious control over as many people and as much money as faith in magic allows. In fact, it seems to be an out of control extension of Evangelical Creationism with all the pizazz of oxymoronic "Creation Science".

Faith indeed is a cognitive detriment when it comes to novel thinking. What we must guard against is hermeneutic interpretation: invading Iraq so "the final battle" may begin. Exogesic interpretation might have you smiling happily at starving Aussie families and suiciding farmers, but at least you get to die and plunge to heaven-less oblivion, void of afterlife as a final [albeit very quick] payback.

Killing innocents, invading nations and ruining economies to then say "there, told ya so", is going too far.

This episode Firesnake has some out-takes from what is run of the mill rubbish pushed out by these groups. We look at the absurd claims, the easy exposure of fraud and the potential causes and outcomes.

All articles are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.

56min.
15MB.

    Firesnake looks at these issues and awards a CPDCT award to The Herald Sun for it's absurd "poll" of cleverly manipulated and deceived readers who are force fed invented imperatives on AFL drug policy. Congratulations to the Pulp and Print Court for a score of 8.4 out of 10. A Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought indeed. Despite crafting the entire sham, then publishing how stupidly misled readers are the editors forgot over 22 leaders in the field of substance abuse had praised the AFL policy only weeks before;

“…for resisting the pressures from populist quarters to use such issues for partisan ends. Such populist approaches ignore the mass of evidence that humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive 'name and shame' approachesï?. 
[Source: Page 4.]

All articles of interest are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.


47min
15MB

All articles touched on are here.

Please note the tapes contain Explicit language.

Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.
46min.
13MB

Bishop has taken on DFA's "catch me if ya care" approach. Conflicts of Interest between DFA, Bishop and Crusading Moralism render this posturing in an effort to please her PM, quite pathetic. The entire might of Harm Prevention - a single page requesting one's details - is parroted by Bishop as some contribution - not the verbal plagiarising of one ambitious single page.

Campaign to Refocus Australia's Illicit Drugs Policy to "Harm Prevention" is the single title on the DFA PDF [May 10. 2007].

Others who respect evidence supporting Harm Reduction were also assumed to be "pro-drug". The use of evidence to attack Harm Minimisation and insouciantly dismiss the experiences in submissions that accept the evidence of Harm Reduction is a standout feature. These poor souls are of course misled by the band of international research fellows intent on bringing Earth to it's knees. Wodak is one, it came out in the bowels of Parliament. Seemingly intent on quality research, progressive thinking, economic policy rationale and compassion, he has continued in this most unhelpful heathenism of effortlessly educating Australians.

And now, they've started to think. For themselves, no less! That's as Un-Australian as power walking in a non-Aussie tracksuit. Far better to ignore the intractable, escalating and horrific outcomes of prohibition. The global drug industry is, quite seriously, something we must not shirk from understanding. It holds the esteemed status as a member of the tripod of the stand on which our fragile globe spins. Arms, Oil, Illicit Drugs.
 
It is not however, the proper term to describe those who have taken a stride ahead. Cannabis is easier to purchase than tobacco. It's perceived as less damaging, and available with no checks, advice, prior awareness, images, ID requirements and help lines enforced by law under Harm Minimisations Harm Reduction concept, as with cigarettes. It is erroneous to cast such progressive reasoning as "pro-drug" and attempt to cast those who seek trials of regulation as "for drug legalisation". Why bother examining the intricacies of illicit drug economics, when we have a real life conspiracy that is aiming to sell Ice to kids. To legalise drugs.

Many drugs are of course already legal. Heroin is a medication prohibited 54 years ago. It's proven disastrous. Trials for addicts run similarly to methadone maintenance indicate greater efficacy at addressing lifestyle, community contribution, crime and even the buzz word of the decade: Families. But we can't have an illicit seen as a health issue. Next thing backyard shed grade Meth' will be on sale at McDonalds. Surely that's what these "evidence proponents", as they've been called, want.

So it's War, Goddamnit! But not just any War. A Winnable one! Assuming Aussies won't take part in waging war on the Oil industry [if there's room for another one] or buy arms from the global arms trade to wage war on the global arms trade, we may indeed have the resources. But where to start? What the heck would 20 million people fall for after Iraq, AWA's, Immigration, Refugees, our shiny new presence on Amnesty HR watch, or Howards moral relativism and bed rolling with cashed up god-botherers?

Why, the family. Fair bet most of us have or had one. Now that we wield morality, we shall not speak of how families come to be, but we will control how they exist. In fact, we'll qualify them.

Inexplicably, Bronwyn Beehive - our assistant for the CPDCT awards - is absent from the Humble Firesnake Holeplex. So, in view of spare time we have replaced the Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought, with a live cross to Beehive Island.

We cross live via satellite to Agent FS, holed up in a bunker Apocalypse Now style, to bring us the first reports on secret trials of Harm Prevention.

Articles relevant are here.

Music thanks to Garageband

FX thanks to grsites.com

Gags.

20 min.
8 MB.

We touch on Study 329 which produced the very data GSK decided to hide. Self harm, highly addictive and non-efficacy: things look bad for paroxetine. Problems continue to unfold and GSK released studies "showing suicide, hostility, etc". It's clear that the jury verdict [original document] holding GSK 80% liable for the murder-suicide case of Donald Schell was reported widely and led to the BBC Panorama investigation - which actually continues in court today [timeline]. The argument over addiction or discontinuation semantics proceeds splendidly with the courts eventually catching on to the shortfalls of addiction definitions.

BBC Panorama: Secrets of the Drugs Trials - can't see embed? Pop in here.

Struggles with paroxetine are complicated. We can see a gradual "chronology of admission" as GSK confirms dangers effect all ages and quietly reveal it's a major risk during pregnancy. At last after more time - and possibly energy - than earning a PhD, GSK admit what we wanted: paroxetine is an absolute tragedy regardless of age, and can induce suicid ideation in at risk adults.. Thankfully, the FDA agree.

Ultimately, Eliot Spitzer lodged a class action [original PDF] on behalf of New York residents deceived by GSK. The FDA succeeded in agitating for close reviews of paroxetines trials: the famous and detailed Article 31. This episode includes  more out-takes of Dr. Alistair Benbow lying heroically as authours drag his name through mud [2]. GSK itself continually releases token "warnings" and basks in the credit-for-responsibility spotlight.

Our TGA is silent, yet vocal on Straterra - the type of medication one leap up from SSRI's targeting norepinephrine also. Read the documentation, find your own answers. Never use paroxetine - but it is your choice.

This Episode has an Extended News section focusing on the god-bothering moralists distress over those bastions of evil, debauchery and altered consciousness. No, not the pub - The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. But, this isn't relevant?

Piers Akerman who is a writer for The Daily Telegraph" - Sydneys sister to Melbournes Pulp and Print Court wrote this hysterical gem. Piers, foolishly quotes the misinformative trickery of Drug Free Australia and Dr. Stuart Reece in his hilarious leap from the window sill of journalistic integrity. Kicking off with supportive waffle for The Independent in UK, which raised sales splendidly by "apologising" for a brilliant and much needed call to end prohibition of cannabis a decade ago, Piers races ahead of the Biblical rants of Stuart Reece [last episodes winner] by on-publishing a sentence containing "estimated", "could have" and - my personal favourite - "if" as fact. The tripod holding the sign "run away" snares Piers in one stupefying intellectual thrust. Go Piers!

The Kings Cross Medically Supervised Injecting Centre - Uniting Church report here on why it took the decision - is a world class facility, and recognised as such. The British government is considering such a trial because of this very success. A strict review found the Kings Cross pilot study was a success, other key findings supported Harm Reduction and recommendations were made to commence the same in the UK. Incredibly, in 2007, Australia still has Victorian obsessions with the behaviour of others - as witnessed by the tripe we pay to read, and the fact this "room" is a pilot study.

Whilst an accepted and respected legislative bill gives weight to the need of such facilities. It's up for review this year - hence the efforts of Drug Free Australia to sell it's hysteria. Family and Friends For Drug Law Reform, in March 2007, demolished DFA's so called "report". National experts never question its value. This approach has been repeated by numerous independent bodies. Germany has dozens of these facilities, as they are vital to the public health landscape. Canadas Insite is often attacked with the same non-logic: 'addicts aren't worth the cost of government small change'. Insite also, succeeds in its mission. References abound. Critics write fictional opinion pieces - not science. European Report on "Drug Consumption Rooms" - 97 page PDF.

A full reply to Akermans piece - for which he is yet to apologise to his readers and the health community - from Dr. Ingrid van Beek, the Centres director, on May 3, 2007 is as follows:

Mr Akerman cites Drug Free Australias "review of the statistics" of the first 18 months operation until October 2002, of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Kings Cross, as evidence that it has "failed" (DT 3/5/07) despite a range of health professionals respectfully pointing out the various flaws in its extrapolations over the past several years.

The irrefutable statistics are that in the 6 years the MSIC has now been operating, around 400,000 injecting episodes have occurred in this clinical facility instead of public parks, back alleys and public toilets etc improving public amenity; more than 2,000 drug overdose cases have been successfully treated undoubtedly saving lives and drug users have been referred to treatment and other relevant services on more than 6,000 occasions. Meanwhile the number of drugs users in the Kings Cross area has decreased 40%, the number of ambulance callouts to overdoses has decreased 86% and drug-related crime has decreased 30 - 40%. These facts perhaps explain why 80% of local residents living in the area over these past 6 years support the MSIC.

Please also note that the MSIC is funded by the confiscated proceeds of crime and not tax payer revenue and that I am employed by the Area Health Service and not the Medical Faculty of the University of NSW, which employs the MSIC's evaluation team.

Dr Ingrid van Beek

Medical Director, MSIC.

All articles specific to Aropax/Paroxetine are here

All articles specific to Injecting Facilities are here

Music thanks to Garageband.com

All welcome,

Gags.

In this Two Part review of GSK's fraudulent activity Firesnake looks at the "pillars of evidence" as it were, surrounding a fairly useless drug, the obscene logic of the business mind and a close examination of sensational cases. Can Paroxetine really be said to have been 80% of the cause motivating Donald Schell to kill? We pick over what we have as evidence and in Part 2, reach the only conclusion possible - jury verdicts aside.

Whilst it's easy to embellish with an accusatory tone, simply presenting the data allows for readers to remain within their own "emotive space". The mature view holds that these issues certainly occur and we can learn from them. It's a case of big business management, investment, expected outcome and the pressure of competition in manufacturing pharmaceuticals. It's also a case of vulnerable people being ignored, ill people being made more ill, tragedy and deception. It also raises concerns over present regulation. And yes - government apathy.

Part One ranges broadly casting a net over what we can encapsulate. Part Two, will examine specifics, health choices and offer advice.

Paroxetine has been marketed as "non-addictive". Whilst the withdrawal form paroxetine is now recognised and Canada has insisted on removal of the "non-addictive" label from packaging, GSK argue semantics. The definition of addiction originally trotted out some decades ago never included drugs like SSRI's. Excluding psychological components such as compulsive behaviours like gambling, overeating, etc the physiological aspect is;

1. Withdrawal symptoms in the absence of the drug such that normal functioning is difficult if not impossible. Symptoms are specific to the type of drug.
2. Physical dependence. This gets immediately murky for SSRI's because tolerance is a component of dependence. It even stands seperate from "addiction" because addiction per se includes behavioural changes [drug seeking, spending, apathy] and a complex psycho-social aspect].
3. Tolerance. SSRI's don't induce tolerance. Tolerance is part of dependence so it can be argued SSRI's don't come close to the accepted definition.

Yet we had a medication that presented withdrawal symptoms in it's absence and these symptoms cease in it's presence. People were unable to function without it. This made management of depression difficult as symptoms conflicted, and paroxetine has proven to be powerfully addictive. One must be slowly weaned from paroxetine. This severely limits the opportunity depressives have to assess various SSRI and NSSRI meds. [1], [2], [3], [4] [5], [6]. GSK has gone to some lengths to fight what have become known as "Withdrawal Lawsuits". Canada succeeded in having GSK release a statement regarding prescription to teens and children.

There is enough concern over paroxetine withdrawal for data specific to it to get an airing in many areas - and the data are helpful. But the nuts and bolts are this: One of the world's foremost experts in SSRI neurophysiology is Dr. David Healy. He has published a 5 page PDF on halting SSRI medication. However, there are conflicts of interest relating to Dr. Healy's employers, his research findings and his perceived bioethical stance [2]. However, Healy has been a key player in exposing GSK, and in the case of Donald Schell.

The "Problem" with paroxetine isn't it's status as the most addictive SSRI and the most difficult to withdraw from. It was the fact that paroxetine had been shown to be non-efficacious in treating depression, led to suicidal ideation and acts in healthy subjects of all ages, led to anxiety in depressed and healthy subjects, may well lead to suicide in children and teens and should not be released.

By then however, GSK had invested billions. The "target" demographic was 25 million in the UK alone, as proudly boasted to UK Labour MP, Paul Flynn. They had invested and budgeted on paroxetines success. Lilly [formerly Eli Lilly] were racing ahead on the success of Prozac. As will be plain in the documents below, the company tried to suppress data and present a favourable outcome, fraudulently. It was considered "commercially unacceptable to include a statement efficacy had not been demonstrated" [original memo here]. [Definition of "Efficacy"].

GSK tried to stop sales reps from divulging the accurate information to potential prescribers - thereby puttng the public at immediate risk. This fact was published in the journal of The Canadian Medical Association. But it was the paying of compensation to the family of Donald Schell, after a jury ruled GSK liable [2] [Jury Verdict original], that was a turning point. This decision brought closer inspection to the safety of SSRI's in general and GSK specifically, due the public awareness of executive deception.

The BBC Panorama investigation shook the U.K. It was a regular discussion point in Parliament and the Labour member for Newport West, Hon. Paul Flynn, delivered a condenming speech on Feb. 23rd 2004. Concern for children's health was plain in later discussion. Indeed, some of Flynn's claims as specific to paroxetine are well documented in the treatment of depression by other means and even all other means; Eg - suicide risk does increase in the early stages of recovery from depression and this has long been recognised. Reasons postulated range from a renewed energy enabling the depressed person to suicide on a "bad day", an as yet not understood "stage" of recovery [ie; recovery may not be steady but a rise and fall process and we should be treating for this] or simply a clearer mind and renewed sense of identity actually play a role in the person rationalising suicide as a non-selfish "correct" choice.
The speech may rankle the scientist in me, but it did draw much needed attention toward this billion dollar industry. Other SSRI meds received scrutiny. This, along with the ever increasing noise from The Seroxat Users Group who continue to produce up to date media releases, led to scrutiny around the world. [Info' PDF: Happy Pills that make you go Mad].

Ultimately, parents in the USA began a class action. New York Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer acted firmly on their behalf [original court lodgement]. This also had the effect of re-igniting the debate of a "trials registry" to record all trial data from the outset. Prior to the merger with SmithKline Beecham in 1998, GlaxoWellcome was considering such a registry.

And data continue to emerge in various forums around the world, giving a fragmented chronology of events at a time we need to seriously assess just what to attribute to paroxetine, SSRI's, illness per se and Poor Science. For this is a fact: whilst paroxetine was released and marketed in an unacceptable fashion, it was marketed and widely prescribed. For better or worse, planet Earth has become a living laboratory. Whilst much attention is given to the re-examination of GSK's data regarding paroxetine, many patients choose to remain on this particular SSRI. That choice must [at present] remain.

Part Two also expands on the documentation that damns paroxetine, acknowledges the work of Citizen Investigators, looks present tensions and offers advice on alternative treatment/s.

In News we touch upon a 3 part offering from health writer Ray Moynihan on the dangerous and unregulated use of Naltrexone Implants [not oral naltrexone] by two Christian Fundamentalists. Used to stop the effect of illicit drugs, these implants carry risks. Severe risks if relapse occurs.

Our Minister for Morality Hon. Father Abbott, has given this risk his blessing - and our money. This issue itself, deserves an episode.

Whilst methadone is evidence based and effective and naltrexone isn't, a christian fundamentalist mag erroneously and negligently reported on Reece's "vindication" and the value of Naltrexone implants over the failure of methadone. A crusador against porn, free thought and Harm Minimisation - Australias official D&A policy, Firesnake must conclude it is Sin, not Suffering Reece seeks to "cure".

Any refusal to answer a perfectly legitimate question on our communities health, by a theocrat profitting from his personal moral crusade on our ill, is indeed a Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought. Congratulations Dr. Reece!

All documents mentioned in both episodes are here.

Music thanks to Garageband.com.

Gags.

 Essentially, Four Corners wish to interview Mullett over the OPI findings, the content of damning video evidence, the massive Cost Fund used by corrupt officers in lengthy legal battles [$14 million] and why is it so bloody secret, what actions are underway - if any - to clean up corruption, relations between staff and governance standards, is he a bully as alleged, what's their political agenda, who did what to Janet Mitchell, and what's goin' on over there in general.

 Firesnake, of course, would like to contrast this very favouritism - particularly legal - afforded members, with the hash reality of Victoria lacking a Spent Convictions Policy or indeed any avenue of reproach, for average offenders. As we have stressed previously, this unacceptable situation snares fine community members who have repaid any "debt", the ill and those caught in highly atypical circumstances.

 Firesnake reads through all Nine letters in the correspondece chain and highlight the manner in which Mullet attempts to 'extort', I believe one may argue, firm control over the dynamics of this highly emotive, damning and powerfully significant issue. He attacks Commissioner Nixon's awarding of [then] Association President Janet Mitchell, with a Bravery Award, for tackling his BS, as a specific swipe of antagonism aimed only at his culture. A little boy to the core it seems.

His utter disdain for even remotely accepting responsibility for accountability of any kind shines like a beacon. His constant efforts to intimidate journalist sources and demands for covert face to face, "off the record meetings" are there in black and white. He'd play, but only if he was umpire also.

 The 'source' of course is prior President of The Police Association, Janet Mitchell, [and supporting senior police] who was vilified, ostracised and bullied into neurotic stress leave by Mullett [we allege], and thus we note present president Brian Rix was a.) asked for an interview also, and b.) remained absolutely mute. Only Mullett responds. Even direct requests to Sandro Lofaro - Association contact and prior correspondent - are answered only by Mullett. We say 'allege' as we can say only that "Kit Walker"; the fictitious character who became "The Phantom" of Comic Book Fame, signed intimidating emails. Such is the maturity of these attacks - and an interesting age profile to boot. Bummer when police tactics come back to bite Police.

 Is not an unbiased interview owed the people of Victoria and Australia. Why is "the Association's view..." identical to Mullett rhetoric? Is this merely vintage MMM - Micro Mullett Mindset? We watch as Mullet wails in frustration at not getting his way, then takes the bat and ball, and goes home.

 You may judge dear reader. We raise more than mentioned above, and pick over the intuitive, biased language used, and touch on how this relies upon the readers lack of critical guard - something we all drop, in understanding the writings [a minimal communication form] of another.

 The Four Corners transcript is here. Access to all relevant articles reviewed in the body of the show Mullett's Mumbles and raised by Four Corners is here. Four Corners Home Site.

Of course we have the usual contribution from The Good Book, today - The God Delusion, with thanks to authour Richard Dawkins. We touch on some of the absurd biased allowances made in the name of religion. From war service, to hallucinogenic substances - religion gets the thumbs up, no questions asked.

We pop over to http://del.icio.us/firesnake.org/08 for Interactive News and check out ABC Science News.

All welcome.

Gags.

Music thanks to Gargeband.

Articles: http://del.icio.us/firesnake.org/08

Four Corners Transcript.

Access to All Correspondence and Brecht Report.

We touch base with the visionary ideas Christine Nixon has of more sophisticated training for officers, and the fact this may be the best fashion in which to remove such a culture. Officers simply lack the skills to access, exploit and apply the vast realms of data we have collated on today's recidivists for the past 20 years.

Most are significantly marginalised with a plethora of co-morbid health issues. Unable to solve crime via intelligent means, Police fall back on exactly the same behaviour they claim to be protecting Victorians from. And we remind ourselves that most community members convicted and sentenced have a legitimate mental illness - at vast cost to our community.

We visit the issues of security problems behind ID theft at MySpace during Interactive News and touch on the minimum security options for Windows users.

A reading from the good book - The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins - today touches on Lennons song, Imagine, and the fact U.S. Creationists have hijacked his work, replacing with no religion too, with the words, with one religion too. We shoot that one down on the spot.

Comments and feedback are most welcome here, or emails to:
firesnakepodcast@gmail.com

Music today from Garageband

Thanks,
Gags.