Thursday, 15 September 2016

Yes Minister,




At Hinkley Point politicians talk about expenditure in BILLIONS, and rightly worry and fret about it perhaps becoming double the current build estimate of £18 Billions over the next 20 years.


Hinkley Point is chicken-feed when compared to other totally wasteful government expenditure occurring right now, and year after year after year, to the detriment of the funding of the whole U.K. National Health Service.

Parliament's own National Audit Office (in respect of ANNUAL expenditure for the maintaining of 200,000 legally prescribed O.S.T. methadone addicts) reports that, on average, across ALL Government Departments, every such legalised addict costs the British taxpayers in excess of £47,000 annually - for likely up to 40 years.

Unless I have my decimal-point in the wrong place,
200,000 X £47,000
= £9.4 BILLION - not once - but EACH & EVERY YEAR for the next 40 years,
a 40 year total of £376,000,000,000 (HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS !)

But what problem is that super-massive spending supposed to be solving ?

Because of its well recognised long term fundamental dangers to both the economy and the society IT IS THE PROBLEM OF THE DAILY DEPENDENCY OF OVER 3 MILLION U.K. CITIZENS ON ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES.

Addictive and / or hypnotic drugs already supplied to some 5% of our population by criminals, smugglers, psychiatrists, other physicians and pharmaceutical companies.

But the psychiatrists and pharmacologists who are the so-called “experts” dictating the government policies which result in the spending of all these £BILLIONS, pretend that the problem has nothing to do with the 7.4 MILLION doses of pharmaceutical drugs they prescribe and dispense EACH AND EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR to 2.6 Million of those 3 Million U.K. drug addicts !

Instead, they lay the blame on, and focus government attention wholly on, the 15% (a few hundred thousand) of people who are victims of ILLEGAL drug addiction, by issuing Clinical Guidelines on what they call “Drug Misuse and Dependency” which apply ONLY to that 15%, but which successfully diverts attention away from the 2.6 Million addicts they have created with medical prescriptions, and on whom the massive £BILLIONS are spent EVERY YEAR.

NOT TO CURE THEM.  But to “manage” their addictions to the further benefit of psycho-pharmaceutical turnover and profit.

Of course, those 2.6 Million involuntary addicts are not labelled as “addicts” by the psycho-pharm fraternity.

NO.  THEY ARE CALLED “PATIENTS”.  Because as patients, they can go on, day after day, month after month and year after year receiving daily psycho-pharm “treatment” in the form of more and more addictive pharmaceutical drugs paid for by taxpayers via the N.H.S's already overburdened budget.

BUT, as they are designated as “patients”, any Minister, other Politician, Civil Service Official or Member of the Electorate has not only the right, but the duty, to ask: “for what are all these “patients” being treated” ?

And, the honest answer is: “For their addiction to the medical prescriptions we give them every day in order to handle their somewhat disastrous “cold turkey” withdrawal effects, which we do by every day renewing and re-enforcing their addiction with each succeeding dose”.

Don't ask the physicians if they are curing the patients' addiction - because the honest answer is: “Well we don't fully know how to, and we don't really have the resources, and in any event, the pharmaceutical companies don't actually manufacture the small doses we need to enable us to start treating them with a small-dose step down withdrawal programme.

In leading the on-going revising of the 2007 Clinical Guidelines Working Group on Drug Misuse and Dependency (in order to validate new drug treatments for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [N.I.C.E.]) - Professor Strang is hoping to create more and more involuntary prescription “patients” / addicts by again ensuring that the Government's funded drug “misuse” addiction rehabilitation programme is based exclusively on the prescribing of addictive medical substitution drugs in place of “street” drugs.

But, because this cannot cure addiction, it will not reduce the number of U.K drug addicts and never will.   Quite the reverse.

It will also not reduce the number of deaths by drug poisoning, which have increased by 39% over the last five years.

And, it will definitely not reduce the burden of pharmaceutical drug expenditure on the N.H.S.  Again quite the reverse.

SO MINISTER, please tell me when is someone going to remove the blindfolds from your eyes and the propaganda headphones from your ears, and allow you to quietly talk with people like S.A.F.E., and thus know the truth about the International Narconon® Programme which has been curing addicts of substance addiction for fifty years at 98 centres in 49 countries on a 13 week residential programme and, if you so desire, on a Payment by Results basis.

The only thing wrong with the U.K. drug addiction scene is lack of communication between the right people in government and people - like the writer - who actually DO KNOW how to recover addicts from addiction without administering drugs, on a lasting relaxed abstinence basis and on a viable and economical cost level.

Because of those communication lines having been cut so expertly by black propaganda and condemningly dishonest P.R., most of what Ministers and their Officials "think" they know about addiction recovery and Narconon - is totally misleading and mainly false.

But the truth is available – not far from Westminster – and if you would like to learn more, feel free to phone on (01342) 810151 or 811099 any weekday after 11.00am and before 9.00pm.

S.A.F.E. Is A Not-For-Profit Community Support Group Formed In 1975.
Society for an Addiction Free Europe.


Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Congratulations Professor Of Psychiatry John Strang. A Truly Profitable Result !

BUT FOR WHOM . . . . ?








LASTING RELAXED ABSTINENCE is the RESULT for which the 2010 government's fabulous Drug Strategy would have given PAYMENT to successful addiction recovery providers if Strang had not managed to get himself put in charge of that strategy's test “piloting” programme, with the intention of seeing it fail.

Payment by Results” essentially means that the provider of residential addiction recovery services receives up-front remuneration ONLY for an addict's 3 months of bed, board and toiletries, and NOTHING for treatment or training until the passage of time over 3, 6, 9 and 12 months has proved by medical examinations that that addict has been free of addictive substance usage for the relevant period under test.

Since the moment in 2011 when Strang persuaded the then government to let him start a four year “pilot” to test the viability of residential recovery of drug addicts to lasting abstinence - on a “Payment by Results” basis - not only have the number of U.K. addicts rocketed, but the latest 2015 report from the Office For National Statistics also announces a 39% increase in fatal drug poisoning, based on “cause of death” reports on certificates from doctors' across England and Wales.

But even these appallingly bad results are being called into question by regular observers of the drug addiction scene in Britain.

The first reason is because, over the years, it has become very apparent that iatrogenic deaths (i.e. deaths caused by the medical profession) are often under-reported to a marked degree for rather obvious reasons. No physician likes to admit on paper that the medication he or she (or one of his or her practice partners) was prescribing for the patient - is what killed that patient. So the disorder for which they were being prescribed their benzos, opioid pain-killers or other drugs, is naturally most often assigned as “cause of death”, rather than usage of the drugs themselves.

A second reason is the division in politicians' minds which has been cleverly orchestrated by the psycho-pharm fraternity between “addictive ILLICIT drugs” and equally or sometimes more “addictive (and / or hypnotic) LEGAL drugs”.

i.e. The psycho-pharm community have made it appear O.K. to be addicted daily and for life to pharmaceutical drugs, but a similar addiction becomes a serious problem which needs desperate and expensive measures IF, AS and WHEN the substance involved happens to be criminally produced or criminally obtained.


In other words, the psycho-pharm answer to drug addiction, instead of being “CURE IT” - is “LEGALISE ALL ADDICTION” by letting “us” supply each addict with a free supply – paid for by U.K. taxpayers – at our usual profit !

So today, in the age bracket from 16 to 59 the U.K. and Wales together have just over ONE MILLION addicts on a range of illicit drugs including amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine and heroin, etc., some 200,000 legal O.S.T. addicts on legal methadone and / or buprenorphine, and 2.4 MILLION addicts on legal benzodiazepines plus uncountable other old people on addictive opioid painkillers, and school children on behavioural management drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac, etc.

Assuming that the painkiller addicts can have NON-OPIOID painkillers prescribed for them instead, and because more and more parents are learning to say “NO” to A.D.H.D. psychiatric labels for their kids, this still leaves us with at least 2.6 MILLION N.H.S. patients consuming 7.4 MILLION additive drug doses EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR – and usually for life.

And, according to the Government's National Audit Office and University statistics, this costs the N.H.S. (i.e. the U.K. Taxpayers) £11.028 BILLION PER YEAREVERY YEAR – for an average of 30 years per addict.

Over that same period, for only £967 MILLION A YEAR (less than 1/10th of all current departmental annual “drug spending”), every single U.K. addict of every type – illicit & legal – can be put through a residential addiction recovery course on a “Payment by Results” basis (proven over 50 years at 98 charitable training centres and prison units in 49 countries) with a success rate of better than 69%.

But what was the result of Professor John Strang's four year “piloting” of Payment by Results at eight very carefully selected rehabilitation centres ?

From his interim report, we know that, instead of test piloting - as one might well have expected - with a selection of eight carefully separated DIFFERENT types of programmes, he chose only two – based mainly on Opioid Substitution Therapy, but which was also occasionally combined with some elements of the Narcotics Anonymous and Cocaine Anonymous “12 Steps” programmes.

Strang has for decades been a long term campaigner for Opioid Substitution Therapy which was quickly and optimistically cobbled together over half a century ago to try and “manage” addiction rather than to cure it.

He therefore knew before he started his “pilots” that it is totally impossible to bring an addict to long-term abstinence by feeding him daily doses of ANY addictive drug, because he knew beyond doubt that one cannot cure a drug addiction with doses of addictive drugs – as it is a contradiction, not only in terms, but also in science and technology.

But he also wanted to “buy time” for his pharmaceutical O.S.T. suppliers as he also knew before he started that if one cannot bring an addict to lasting abstinence THEN one can never deliver the abstinent result for which “Payment by Results” grants payment.

As the senior U.K. Psychiatric Professor promoting pharmaceutical prescribing above all other forms of treatment, addiction rehabilitation and residential recovery, he knew that his PbR “pilots” had to convince Ministers of the following:

1) THAT SUBSTANCE ADDICTION IS “BASICALLY” INCURABLE, and, that when this LIE is accepted, it can therefore hopefully follow:

2) That “Payment by Results” for the residential recovery of substance addicts to the natural state of lasting relaxed abstinence – should be abandoned as (in his opinion) “basically unworkable”, and that government attention should be focussed on “a more rigorous implementation” of the Opioid Substitution Therapy which he, and other psychiatrists and pharmacologists claim to have “proven over years !”, and,
3) That, whilst he acknowledges that addicion habt "management" by O.S.T methadone, buprenorphine, naloxone, suboxone and other drugs might not be the perfect answer (because they can never support a Payment by Results system of rewarding effective rehabilitation providers) – “they are the best we currently have Rt. Honourable Ministerial Ladies and Gentlemen”, and we must therefore “obviously drop the understandably preferred “Payment by Results” initiative in favour of continuing prescribed O.S.T.

No one seems sure that Tony Blair should be blamed for the Iraq conflict and if David Cameron should be blamed for the dysfunctional state of Libya today.  But, if we are allocating blame solely to individuals, there is no doubt that psychiatric Professor Sir John Strang is the man most responsible for the level of drug addiction and the mounting number of drug poisoning deaths in the United Kingdom today.

Strang did not include the international 50 year proven Narconon® Programme as one of his four year “pilots”, because he well knew, from Narconon's worldwide statistics, that its residential self-help addiction recovery training programme actually helps addicts to lasting relaxed abstinence in approximately 13 weeks, and so is a valid system for the delivery of addiction recovery on a Payment by Results basis – something he also knew NOT ONE OF HIS PET PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG PRESCRIPTION TREATMENTS COULD EVER ATTAIN.

So to allow Narconon to even be mentioned as a possible viable method of curing substance addiction is, for Strang, a “shot-in-his-foot” action AGAINST psychiatric prescribing and pharmaceutical drug sales.

Instead, across all forms of media and the world wide web, deliberate, totally undeserved, scurrilous and untruthful attacks are daily launched against Narconon and its Founder, in an attempt to slow down its escalating success everywhere – a success based on results and increasing government support in more and more countries.

Let's hope that Mrs May, with her sagacious & penetrating view of affairs in general, will see through the black propaganda directed against Narconon and its Founder -  expressly to keep influential politicians from talking to its executives and staff, and thus learning the truth about recovery from addiction.

This deliberate denial of face to face communication with Narconon is continuously perpetrated in every way possible, because the adoption by the U.K. Government of the Narconon Programme would, by virue of its considerable success, result in a truly massive loss of turnover, bonuses, fees, profits and dividends for psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies.  

(And incidentally also result in a similar massive saving for the National Health Service and U.K. Taxpayers.)

If you desire further information or to discuss the above, you may like to phone the writer on (01342) 810151 or 811099 after 11.00am and before 9.00pm on any weekday.

S.A.F.E. Is A Not-For-Profit Community Support Group Formed in 1975.

Sunday, 11 September 2016

A Thank You To Those Who Regularly Follow Our S.A.F.E. Blog Posts.

Since 15th of July this year, we have posted 42 items, which have been viewed nearly 3,300 times by a few hundred fellow bloggers from around the world - but mainly from the USA and Britain.

Whilst we thank you for your interest, I would very much like to have your opinions and input on the various subjects raised.

May I therefore ask you to comment "for" or "against" or on the basis of some alternative, by e-mailing, phoning or making a comment on the blog-post itself.

Best regards,

Ken Eckersley, C.E.O. of S.A.F.E.

S.A.F.E. Is A Not-For-Profit Community Support Group Formed in 1975.


Medical Dispensing. All In The Name Of Help . . . . Yourself !






Those concerned about the “privatisation” of the N.H.S. will have had little difficulty in seeing through the recent offer / proposal of the commercial medicine and drug dispensing industry, to “kindly” take-over ALL dispensing duties from G.P. and local doctor surgeries, in order to “take some of the load off” the shoulders of Doctors' Practice Managers and their staffs.

Patients and other concerned citizens will recognise this as the forging of more or less the last link in the chain of events initiated by Rockefeller and Carnegie for the moving of the world health industry away from the diagnosing of causes and the effecting of lasting cures, and towards the “treating” of all disorders on a palliative basis concerned only with the “managing of symptoms” by chemical prescribing.

Palliative Health Management” - which is the greater part of what we receive from the N.H.S. today, has the advantage of never losing a prescription-using patient by making the mistake of actually curing them when, with “proper management”, they can be retained as taxpayer paid consumers for life.

The ninety-five years ago cash grant supported palliative take-over of the American Medical Association's PHYSICIAN TRAINING PROGRAMMES in U.S. Medical Schools, Colleges, Universities and Teaching Hospitals has now been completed - not just in the U.S.A. - but in every advanced country including the United Kingdom.

As a result, the chemical company production of pharmaceutical drugs (a major proportion of which are addictive and / or hypnotic) is now a massive worldwide industry, with their marketing firmly and, in most cases, unknowingly in the hands of tens of thousands of General Practitioners and local doctors.  “Unknowingly”, because they are merely doing what they have been taught to do by a medical training system today biased towards “prescribing” by an intricate array of cash grants from pharmaceutical companies.

Grants made possible by the gigantic “involuntarily addiction” driven purchases made by the N.H.S. from such companies, of addictive and / or hypnotic drugs which serve no purpose other than to continuously create the unnecessary addictive demand for further supplies of the prescribed drugs upon which the major part of psycho-pharmaceutical turnover, salaries, profits and dividends are built.

An investigation of the massive number of U.K. high street chemists' shops and dispensaries reveals that, over the last decades, more and more of the “independents” have become owned or controlled by chemical or pharmaceutical production companies and / or their subsidiaries, which can then all gain from the massive T.V. and other media advertising they can together thus afford to mount.

Now, to complete their take-over of as many patients as possible and as much N.H.S. budget as possible, they also want to have under their control and in their hands the actual dispensing of the doctors' prescriptions they have so effectively organised for the marketing of their products.

A major proportion of this dispensing is currently in the hands of G.P. practices who effectively “compete” with the pharmaceutically owned chemist's shop dispensaries.

But the pharmaceutical shop owners want those patients to collect ALL their prescriptions from their high street chemists shops, where patients can also be encouraged to buy the ever widening range of “over-the-counter” non-prescription sales of headache powders, cold cures, sedatives, tonics, backache pills, foot balms, creams, lotions, cough mixtures and hair and skin “care” products, etc., etc., etc., along with their beauty products, synthetic vitamins, minerals and ranges of other products for all members of the family from the most senior of citizens to the just newly born.

By “kindly” taking-over the G.P's own dispensing duties, big pharma eliminates their main competitors, and assumes full control of the medicine and drug supply line from production to consumption, from birth to death and in respect of both over-the-counter sales paid for by the consumer, and all prescription drugs paid for by the U.K. Taxpayer via the N.H.S.

In addition, they are apparently seeking to extend their control over the actual prescribing by making it increasingly possible for their High Street shops to issue repeat prescriptions without “bothering” the patient's own doctor !

Unfortunately, the politicians who are supposed to make sensible and informed decisions on the nation's health and medical matters, are today just as much under the control of the psycho-pharmaceutical fraternity as are the prescribing doctors.

A situation which has also been engineered by that same psycho-pharm fraternity with their gradual introduction and infiltration into decision-making Civil Service positions of government Officials who are psychiatrists, pharmacologists and psychologists.

Margaret Thatcher's psycho-pharm prompted policy of “Care in the Community” was mainly responsible for the start of this, when her closing down of mental institutions and asylums was used as an excuse for finding work within government for those psychiatrists rendered unemployed by such closures.

My own view is that Theresa May has the potential to prove more perceptive than her female predecessor.

When she has had the time to settle in and start handling Brexit, I expect she will also see the necessity to also handle “The-exit” of psychiatric control from the Civil Service, and the reduction of the pharmaceutical role in the Health Service to appropriate proportions, driven not by taxpayer paid prescribed addiction and hypnosis, but by the more traditional and honourable principles of the British (not American) medical profession.

But more on that in a later post.

S.A.F.E. Is A Not-For-Profit Community Support Group Formed In 1975.


Saturday, 10 September 2016

Good Schools & Good Teachers Are Obviously Better Than Poor Ones.







Especially when starting with the subject of “LEARNING HOW TO LEARN” can make every student (including some of those with a physical or mental disorder) eligible for a fully merited “Grammar School Education”.

Everything Theresa May has recently said on this subject is fundamentally correct. Except for one thing. The same thing that a majority of educationalists get wrong.

They place too much emphasis on “the school” and on “the teacher” instead of on the barriers to study which can confront any and every child irrespective of their family background or wealth.

Barriers to Study” which are developed in the very early weeks and months of their experience of life since birth.

Every family is intent on having the child learn to listen, to speak, to read, to write, to spell, to crawl, to stand, to walk and to learn to add up, subtract, multiply and divide, etc., etc., etc.

And the confusion which granddad, grandma, mum, dad, the brothers and sisters and the rest of the family can unwittingly generate in a child during his or her first and second year is enormous.

On examination one finds that the biggest barriers to learning are initially small unresolved misunderstandings leading to even further non-comprehension and confusion, and that this arises from being given or picking up false, erroneous, misleading or totally wrong and inaccurate data at an earlier point in time, and is very easily done – even perhaps in the womb – or (as many today would have us believe) in some past lifetime.

Be that as it may, when grandma offers a blue coloured plastic cup full of orange juice to her baby grand-daughter, the older lady can give her action “meaning” or “significance” in numerous ways. She can say: “drink” or “cup” or “blue” or “yours” or “orange juice” or “nice” or “this is lovely” or “you'll like this” or “get this down you baby” or “yum-yum” or any of a number of different accompanying words or phrases.

And so also can Dad and Mum, elder sister and brother or baby-sitter, etc., all with the same colour of cup or another colour or shape and with the same contents or another drink, hot or cold, sweet or savoury, etc.

Then they can also all so easily do similar confusing multiple actions and “word noises” with food in a bowl and a spoonful directed towards the baby's mouth.

But contentment lies in certainty.  Very little to do with whether baby likes the food or the drink.  Very much to do with their confidence and understanding.

Are they being told to “eat the cup from the drink”, or more correctly but still somewhat confusingly, to “drink” (verb) the “drink” (noun) from the cup ? etc.

In other words, quite apart from the child's own inherent learning ability, there is the question of how clearly, logically, accurately and coherently is the information being presented, because simple repetition of the same combined action plus the same speech factor provides a far faster learning gradient than a constantly changing choice of words attached to the same actions or items.

In fact from the above, we begin to recognise that, quite apart from the child's own immediate ability to learn, there exist numerous “barriers to study or learning” which derive from the new born child's environment and particularly the people in it.

The first of these barriers we have just looked at.


Learning simple words before you learn the alphabet and its phonics, before you learn longer words, and learning words before you learn sentences, and sentences before paragraphs, chapters, and the full story, etc., can be one type of gradient.

But if you miss out the alphabet, or the phonics or an understanding of the different sorts of words, or get them out of sequence, etc., the whole gradient can soon collapse, and you finish up with no story. No punch-line. No comprehension and feeling foolish or bewildered.

As another example, gradient sequences are involved in safely and efficiently starting and driving a car.  You don't start the engine until you have depressed the clutch or checked that the gear lever is in neutral.   You don't move away from the kerb before you have checked your mirror, made sure the road is clear and signalled your intentions, etc.

And you certainly don't try to swim the English Channel without many months of gradual training, body-building and safety preparations.

The second important barrier is quite different.

It is fairly easy to observe that each piece of “knowledge”, each fact or truth is more comprehensible to the degree that it contains a balance of mass and significance (meaning), rather than either a complete absence of mass or no significance whatsoever.

(i.e. Is the object, idea or action actually with us and observable in the “here and now”, along with a matching significance explaining the existence / purpose of that object, idea or action ?)


For example, if, in the hope of recruiting workers for a jungle clearance project, you helicopter-drop a bright yellow JCB excavator into the centre of an Amazonian native village, with no explanation or other significance, the likelihood of their worshipping it as some new God from heaven is overwhelming.   No Significance.   All Mass.  And so generation of a false significance.

But if you send a knowledgeable and well trained engineering professor to do the recruiting, with all his technical books and explanations about JCBs, but no machine and not even a picture or drawing, the likelihood is that the professor will finish up in the cooking pot.   All Significance.  No Mass.  No common reality.

There are lots of minor barriers to learning, such as very bad handwriting or very different pronunciation.  Try putting a Glaswegian Scot together with an Essex Englishman and they each will tell you that the other cannot speak English.

Or try and speak with the ladies of certain religious sects, and you will not only be ignored but likely even attacked and thrown out by their menfolk.


It can be misspelt & / or mispronounced, it can have been assigned a totally wrong meaning, been assigned no meaning, have an incomplete definition, have numerous meanings all spelt and pronounced the same (e.g. catch, feel & see, etc.), be pronounced in two different ways with quite different meanings (e.g. project and project), be pronounced the same although spelt differently, (rein, rain & reign), etc.

And misunderstood words work both ways.  You can spread them around yourself, passing on your misunderstood words to others and, you can quite unknowingly pull them in from other people – even teachers, the radio, television and those professionals who like to blind their listeners with science, to prove their own education and your lack thereof.

The teacher, lecturer, trainer, commentator, presenter or professor who starts his discourse with: “Tonight our subject is “X, Y & Z”, and then fails to provide a definition and examples ensuring his title is understood, has not only given his audience a nice new misunderstood word, he has also just LOST his audience – as I might also have done at this point !    For the same reason.

Words are the building blocks of all languages and, whether written or spoken, it takes only one Mis-Understood word (M/U) in a sentence to interrupt the flow of understanding and to completely suppress comprehension of that whole sentence, as well as the paragraph and often the page – particularly if that lack of understanding is not immediately corrected.  And that's only the first problem M/Us create.

Where M/Us are undetected and uncorrected, we find the source of stupidity, failing exam results, damaging errors, derisory and harmful arguments, abandonment of study subjects and jobs, as well as friends and even family.

LEARNING HOW TO LEARN.  Knowing and handling the main barriers to study are the key to progress, proficiency, friendship and happiness – in many ways the key to life.

And once you've invested a relatively small amount of study-time into learning how to learn, you soon start to earn it back a thousand times over in every facet of not just your other studies, but also your whole life and well-being.


Blessed is the child whose family members are wise enough NOT to confuse him or her with misunderstood words or either of the other two main barriers to study, which can lead to further non-comprehension and apparent lack of intelligence.   But even in the most coherent of families, some M/Us can still creep in.

Dyslexia is one of the more serious problems which can be handled by removing the barriers to study with the application of Study Technology.

And, have you noticed that a lot of English humour and jokes actually depend on deliberate misunderstanding of some word or phrase.

But it's no laughing matter when misunderstandings and non-comprehension are totally unrecognised by you.  Because they can keep you out of Grammar School - even if Dad drives a Rolls-Royce to work.  And equally “Learning FIRST How to Learn” can gain you a merited Grammar School place - even if Dad drives a wheelbarrow at work!

If you would like to be introduced to a trained and experienced “Study Technology” professional who will give you a free introduction to “HOW TO LEARN”, with no further obligation, phone 01342 810151 any weekday between 11.00am & 9.00pm.

S.A.F.E. Is A Not-For-Profit Community Support Group Formed in 1975.


Friday, 9 September 2016

Dictating Social Attitudes.



Newspaper and magazine editors, along with Facebook, Linked-In, Twitter and You-Tube, etc., have some influence on many but not all of our lives.  And most of them permit (and even encourage) meaningful input from the general public.

But of all the media available to the great British public, the output of the British Broadcasting Corporation via both Radio and T.V. clearly has by far the greatest influence, but seldom permits more than a modicum of input from its listeners and watchers – most often under rather carefully controlled circumstances.

I personally love and admire the B.B.C. and most of what it achieves both Radio and T.V-wise, but am disturbed to find it claiming to be “unbiased” and “independent” of government and other influences, whilst at the same time manifesting deeply entrenched and damaging positions on a few vital subjects.

One particular subject which screams bias, and even prejudice, is the field of “mental health”, where psychiatry has been failing us for nearly two centuries.

Regular programmes such as: “All In The Mind” still peddle the ancient ideas of well over a century ago, based on Wundt 1832, Pavlov 1849, Freud 1856, Adler 1870 Jung 1875, Ellis and others, all of whom have majorly contributed to the views and practices of clinical psychology, psycho-therapy and psychiatry as we know them today – and as psychiatrists damagingly still practise every day.

It is interesting however, that more recent giants of psychiatric theory and practice – such as Emeritus Professor Thomas Szasz, former holder of the Chair of Psychiatry at New York State University and Dr Peter Breggin, author of “Toxic Psychiatry” and Chairman of Wales ‘MIND’, have together with many other enlightened and internationally revered psychiatrists, spent a major part of their professional lives condemning the status-quo psychiatry of Wundt, Pavlov and Freud, etc., as being not only out-of-date, but also ineffective and even in fact a downright dangerous threat to the lives of a majority of mental patients undergoing such treatments.

However, even without these expert denunciations, psychiatry’s lack of successful results have themselves been increasingly condemning psychiatrists and their work for well over a century, with repeated treatment failures screaming out for something safe and effective to take psychiatry’s place.

And in 1950, with the publishing of the revolutionary book: “DIANETICS: The Modern Science of Mental Health(a true and proper science of the mind, based on non-damaging, straightforward and basically simple procedures for handling mental and emotional problems) was launched, and since then has, in 66 years, become by far the most widely used and successful mental health study and therapy across the whole world.

Yet “psychiatry” and “psychology”, both of which amazingly still offer no agreed upon definition for “mind”, and of which several psych schools actually deny the mind's existence, continue to be “authoritatively” featured by the BBC on a regular basis.

Which apparently mean that the BBC, which stands on the very crossroads of the world's news channels, astonishingly evidences no knowledge of the battle for scientific veracity which has been going on between psychiatry and Dianetics for the last 66 years !

Instead, “the BEEB” goes on pushing totally disproven, mainly corrupt, dangerous and scientifically implausible ancient psychiatry, whilst on PANORAMA condemning the modern and effective true science of DIANETICS® and its originator.


Namely, that at least part of the BBC is riddled with psychologists and psychiatric “advisors” busily protecting their jobs and their income and the whole tottering edifice of psychiatry's version of “mental health” in this country.

In this endeavour, psychiatrists are backed by the pharmaceutical purveyors of addictive medication, for whom psychiatry acts as that industry's main “drug-pushers” by prescribing (and advocating the prescribing by G.Ps and other doctors) of addictive, and sometimes also hypnotic, drugs on a palliative basis intended to temporarily relieve symptoms rather than procuring permanent and complete cures.

Why would our really quite Beautiful Broadcasting Corporation lean over to protect the failing and damaging psychiatric version of “Mental Health” and descend to lambasting and totally falsely condemning psychiatry's vastly superior opponent "DIANETICS: The Modern Science of Mental Health", IF the relevant production and programming departments were NOT staffed at decision-making level with psych fifth-columnists bent on their own survival rather than on what is best for the rest of humanity and the BBC's veracity ?

One way to go is to remove all programmes promoting psychiatry as well as all condemnations of L. Ron Hubbard's work.  Another way to go would be to devote as much honest production and programme time to DIANETICS as is currently assigned to “psychiatry”.

But the obvious way to go is to do as we all sensibly do with our cars, fridges, computers and gas boilers, etc.

When they get too old, too dangerous, too expensive and obviously out of date, we change them for a newer, safer and more efficient and effective model.

In the field of Mental Health that modern model is: DIANETICS – available in all of the world's major languages and taught and practised in most of the major towns and cities of the world.

DIANETICS: The Modern Science of Mental Health” is also the Number ONE “New York TIMES” Best-Seller of the last 66 years, and is available from most high street book-shops, or can be borrowed from your local lending library.   It is also available in audio-book form.

If you would like further information on Psychiatry, go to the website of C.C.H.R. (The Citizen's Commission on Human Rights), and for further honest and accurate information on DIANETICS, you may like to contact S.A.F.E. for discussion on (01342) 810151, any weekday between 11.00am and 9.00pm.

S.A.F.E. Is A Not-For-Profit Community Support Group Formed in 1975.