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

BUT FOR WHOM . . . . ?

AND ONLY IF YOU REALLY DID

INTEND A 39% INCREASE IN DRUG

POISONING DEATHS, WHEN YOU

SET OUT TO KILL OFF THE LAST

GOVERNMENT'S SUPERB 2010

DRUGS STRATEGY WITH YOUR 

PAYMENT by RESULTS “PILOTS” !

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.

And the desperate and expensive measures the psycho-pharms have persuaded the Government to adopt are: TO TAKE THE ADDICTS OFF THEIR ILLICIT DRUGS AND TO PUT THEM INSTEAD ON TO LEGAL DRUGS PAID FOR BY OUR TAXPAYERS AND PROFITABLY SUPPLIED BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES !

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 YEAR – EVERY 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.

___________________________________________________________________

Handling Addiction in the Workplace.

RECOGNISING THE EFFECTIVE AND

  INEXPENSIVE SOLUTION TO

EMPLOYERS' ADDICTION PROBLEMS.

Because for centuries alcoholism has been a worldwide problem and because for 90 years psychiatric and pharmaceutical marketing has been falsely proclaiming that drug addiction is basically incurable, consultancy advice to employers has been increasingly focussed on and limited to the employer's “legal vulnerability” under employment law, rather than on any realistic and compassionate solution capable of procuring an economic eradication of the firm's and the employee's own joint addiction problems.

Of course all employers should know their relevant Health and Safety requirements as well as the legal arguments for protecting their organisation against claims from employees, unions and officialdom, so that the first step is to have clearly stated unassailable addiction policies in place which are known to all by virtue of being part of each and every employment contract.

Guidance into the basics of what goes into employment contracts is available from the Chartered Management Institute, the Institute of Directors and other similar employer organisations, but, because of the aforementioned circulation of false information about the “non-curability” of addiction, many otherwise valuable information sources are devoid of accurate and viable information on U.K. based addiction recovery TRAINING programmes, so that many addiction policy statements throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to handling a skilled and valuable employee who may have become a victim of addiction.

The first action choice varies from one industry to another, but is most often the attitude made famous by Trump and Sugar: “you're fired”. However, if this route is followed, it is essential to handle the matter in a fair and professional manner, with adequate proofs of addiction allegations, in order to avoid claims of unfair or contrived dismissal and resultant compensation claims or even union action.

The second action choice is usually seen as disciplinary, combined with offering guidance on where rehabilitation may be obtained and even granting a suitable period of leave of absence in which to undertake the rehabilitation. This can work in some cases of early discovery, but not often if the employee is already a dedicated addict – simply because the addictive substance is now controlling that employee's life – not him or her self, AND because few addicts have the financial resources available for the 11 to 13 weeks required to procure a satisfactory result.

However, the modern employer action choice in enlightened countries and businesses is (at employer cost) to send the addicted individual for residential self-help addiction recovery training - especially if the skills and experience of the particular employee are considered of value to the firm's future productivity and success.

And fortunately it is now clear that, IN A MAJORITY OF CASES, this can be the employer's most economical action choice – provided he chooses the right sort of addiction recovery self-help training programme rather than one of the bog standard “treatment” rehabs offered and priced on a short term attendance basis of 8 to 10 weeks at anything from £1,500 to £3,800 per week. (i.e. from £12,000 to £38,000).

With the cost of recruiting and training the average new or replacement staff member reported by Oxford Economics as approaching £31,000 and with the cost of replacing a diector or senior manager much higher, successful addiction recovery training at £25,000 (which in 70+% of cases delivers a lasting return to the natural state of relaxed abstinence into which 99% of the population is born) is clearly a bargain solution, especially when a fully supportive employer soon discovers there is no more grateful, loyal and productive worker than an employee rescued from addiction by his boss.

50 years of delivering residential self-help addiction recovery training in 49 countries at nearly 100 training centres (including prison units) demonstrates that this is the only regularly viable route to lasting relaxed abstinence available to all employees, both salaried and wage earning.

Furthermore, some residential self-help addiction recovery training centres will even accept addicts on a “Payment by Results” basis.

Although likely to be some 15% higher priced, PbR has the advantage of costing the employer only as little as £9,000 in the event that the addict fails to fully recover from his or her addiction.

To arrange an inspection visit to an East Sussex addiction recovery training centre with an opportunity to meet staff as well as students:

you may wish to phone (01342) 810151 or 811099

between 11.00am and 10.00pm

most days of the week except Sundays,

or e-mail keneck@btinternet.com any time.


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


__________________________________________________________________________