Giving Science A Bad Name

THOSE CHEMICAL GIANTS
 
WHO ARE DICTATING
 
ALL OUR FUTURES.

We are told by the main English language dictionaries and by various academics, that “science” is the study of the nature and behaviour of the “physical universe”, based on observation, experiment and measurement, plus the knowledge obtained and assembled by those methods, as well as the contents of any particular branch of such knowledge (e.g. medical science, physics, biology, cosmology, etc.).

However the term is also applied to any and nearly all other bodies of knowledge which are organised in a manner resembling that of the physical sciences but concerned instead with non-physical subjects (e.g. political science, psychiatry, sociology, economics and theology, etc.).

Arising out of research into the effects of multi-numerous substances on both human and animal bodies, minds and emotions, that major branch of science concerned with the composition, properties and reactions of substances - “Chemistry” - has become probably the most consumer influencing and controlling science of all, impinging as it so often does on the daily lives of nearly every individual, as well as on other sciences.

Food, clothing, shoes, cars, books, entertainment, holidays, furniture, houses, sports and hobbies, etc., etc., all employ marketing, promotion and merchandising, etc., to help them sell often and expensively enough to ensure a worthwhile business for their producers and distributors.

But only chemical based products (inc. alcohol & tobacco) have the power to irresistibly influence people physically, mentally and emotionally in good, but too often unhealthy, controlling and devastating ways.

And these influences arrive with us via a wide variety of routes and for a wide variety of different reasons.

Chemicals help produce very many of our foods, via fertilisers to make plants grow, herbicides to kill weeds and pesticides to kill insects. Unfortunately, because some growth promoting chemicals can also make human bodies grow, and some herbicides and pesticides can also poison and even kill human bodies, there have been, and still are, enough real wide ranging problems to promote continuing fears and arguments about our agricultural products.

These are not limited to plant growing, because chemicals used in rearing pigs, sheep, cattle, eggs, hens and other livestock are also often transmitted to the humans who eat them, so that the chemicals which give us great cuts of meat also too often help to give us great big ladies and gentlemen. So much so, that families and now doctors and politicians are getting worried about our size and weight.

Today, most of our foods and drinks (inc. water) depend on chemical filters, colourings, flavourings, preservatives, purifiers, texture enhancement additives and artificial fragrances and appetising aromas, etc., and these are sufficiently impinging on the health and condition of consumers to require close European and U.K. legislative control and limitation.

But in addition to the thousands of chemicals to found on supermarket shelves and in our drinking water, care must also be taken with other commonplace chemicals to be found in the home, at work, at school, at garages and filling stations, in sports and leisure situations, and a lot of chemistry increasingly dominates our industrial processes and personal and household cleaning procedures, and we even have some such chemicals starting addictive desires and being used to satisfy them.

Then especially, there are the pharmaceutical chemicals we are a thousand times a day on television, radio, hoardings, newspapers and by doctors and psychiatrists, etc., increasingly advised to put into our bodies as a means of enhancing our physical and mental / emotional lives in one way or another.

They are also often advised for pleasure, and we are all well aware of what effect drinking half a pint of whisky, gin or vodka will have on 95+% of the population.

But just a mere thimbleful of one of many common household cleaners, disinfectants, washing powders and even medications, etc., are poisonous enough to make us or our children extremely ill, or even kill, whilst many so-called medical anxiety treatments and physical painkillers can make involuntarily addicted slaves of MILLIONS of NHS patients at taxpayer expense.

Whilst chemistry has given us cleaner homes, smoother running cars, food which stays saleable longer, whiter teeth, better suntans and, via pharmaceuticals, a generally healthier and longer living world population, some pharmacists have also taken advantage of their products to wreak upon mankind some of the most devastating physical and mental conditions in the name of more chemical production, increasing sales, greater profits, bigger bonuses, larger dividends and greater control of individuals, plus their governments and their spending.

Pharmaceutical chemistry is the originating cause of ALL FORMS of substance addiction existing in the world today, whether legal, Illicit, licensed or prescribed – because no individual can ever become addicted to nicotine or an alcoholic or medical drug substance which they never actually take or use !

An addictive substance is the ultimate unique selling proposition available to any commercial operation in the world today, whether used by smugglers, terrorists and criminals to illegally addict juniors, teenagers, other adolescents and adults into daily usage of cannabis, skunk, amphetamines, heroin, alcohol or cocaine, etc., OR, used by pharmaceutical drug companies to ensure that National Health supported patients remain as consumers for life, by daily dosing them with various “symptom managing” addictive medical preparations, including painkillers, anti-psychotics, sedatives, hypnotics and many others.

And in the majority of increasing instances, the “symptoms” that the multi-daily doses of these patients are “treating”, are nothing more nor less than the extremely uncomfortable and unconfrontable “cold turkey” withdrawal effects created by the ever imminent demand for the next dose of their particular addictive substance.

There are various ways by which individuals can be persuaded to use, try or experiment with addictive drugs, but the most effective is to offer them initial “free of charge” dosages in order “to help” the victim solve some problem which they might consider they have.

Even the drug pusher at the school gate does this for the first one or two doses just to get a potential cash paying customer “hooked”. But psychiatrists promoting pharmaceutical drugs do this all the time as they utilise the NHS free prescription service to enrol more and more consumers onto their treatment listings.

They and their pharmaceutical paymasters know full well that any patient can be made into an addicted drug consumer for life, simply by making sure that they daily consume an addictive (and / or hypnotic) drug for a period of under one month.

JUST LIKE THAT ! As one popular comedian used to say - but this is no laughing matter.

It explains why the number of legally prescribed involuntarily addicted drug addicts paid for by the U.K. National Health Service is over six times higher than the number of criminally supplied il-legal addicts.

It explains why the number of NHS patients increases every year, because, whilst symptoms may be getting relieved, the underlying causes of those symptoms are not being cured.

It explains why, whilst NHS annual spending is increasing, there is not enough money available for A&E Services, nursing and doctor staffing, personnel training, beds, equipment, ambulances and buildings, etc., because most of the increased spending goes on the increasing supplies of NONE-CURE symptom management medication being prescribed and daily supplied to more and more involuntarily addicted patients.

MAKE NO MISTAKE.

Although blamed on inattentive, lazy over-prescribing doctors, this is deliberate psycho-pharmaceutical marketing policy, held in place by those organisations' failures to broadly offer and produce dosages of their addictive / hypnotic drugs in small enough units to permit the necessary low level “step-down” doses essential to achieving a relatively relaxed withdrawal from the clutches of daily addiction.

If small enough doses were a common part of the medical supply scene, every doctor in the country with patients on say the benzodiazepine ranges, would be able to move them gently and gradually onto smaller and smaller doses until they could totally withdraw with little or no adverse effect.

It might take 3 months or it might take 6, but at the moment a patient on 3 doses a day of 250 milligrams of one of the benzos or an opioid painkiller, would, instead of continuing for life on 750 milligrams a day, after those 3 or 6 months return to an addiction free life simply by changing prescription procedures and doses with the help of the pharmaceutical industry's small size dose offerings – IF AVAILABLE.

If that industry would willingly, urgently and inexpensively make the necessary small step-down dosages of all their addictive and / or hypnotic drugs regularly, widely and easily available, the world would know that they are not the avaricious, couldn't care less, patient damaging drug pushers they currently appear to be.

But to the degree that they continue to procrastinate about helping to solve this problem, politicians and public alike will know that current pharmaceutical policies are not accidental and not co-incidental, BUT are deliberate “enemy action” in the name of turnover and profit, and so respond accordingly.

Introducing legislation to make it illegal to produce a 100 mgm or larger tablet, capsule or other dose offering WITHOUT also equally offering a range of 2.5, 5, 10, and 50 mgm tablets, capsules or dosages at the same or at a proportionally lower cost, would put General Practitioners back in control of their patient's involuntary addictions, via normal prescribing practices.

CHOICE of dose sizes are the tools of effective prescribing, not only for the original medical condition, but also for the curing of involuntary addiction accidentally brought on by over-enthusiastic original prescribing.

Once such small step-down doses are fully available, legislation should also be introduced to penalise GPs who have an involuntarily addicted patient on their books for longer than say 6 or 9 months, because that doctor, WITH THE NECESSARY ADDICTION CURE DOSE SIZES AVAILABLE TO HIM, would be deliberately acting as a local drug pusher of free supplies, paid for by UK Taxpayers via the Exchequer.

All the benefits of abstinence from addiction are available to British GPs and their patients, but only if our politicians wake up to the facts of pharmaceutical life, AND LEGISLATE ACCORDINGLY.

For further info you may wish to phone: 01342 810151 any weekday

between 11.00am & 9.00pm.

Or e-mail keneck@btinternet.com.

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


_________________________________________________________________________________

The True Status of Any Addict

An Addict Is a Victim of Some Drug

Supplier's Greed,

A Victim of the Lies Which Every

Supplier Tells

  

In An Effort to Satisfy that Greed,

 and Thus a Victim of Their Chemically

 Addictive & Hypnotic Drug Supplies.

Surveys over the last 50 years show that there is still a majority of Judges, Magistrates, Ministers, Politicians, Officials, Press and other Media Editors as well as the General Public, who have been well and truly conned into believing that addicts are stupid, criminal and to blame for their condition, when the truth is that addicts are victims of addiction, inflicted on them deliberately and sometimes incidentally – for criminal as well as commercial profit reasons.

We are falsely told by psychiatrists that addicts have “addictive personalities”, are told by alcoholic drinks distributors & pharmaceutical companies that addicts “abuse” alcohol and addicts “misuse” drugs.

Quite ludicrous, evil and misleading when you recognise that it is totally impossible to become addicted to a drug you never ever take, because, with the exception of alcohol, sugar and tobacco, it is the taking of two or more doses of any addictive drug which CREATES addiction !

It is because of their totally incorrect and jaundiced view of addicts that government policies over the last 68 years have mainly been directed against the addicts rather than against the alcoholic drink distributors, the addictive pharmaceutical drug producers & prescribers and the local criminal suppliers of illegal products, all of whose businesses make addiction possible and even certain.

All of these suppliers deliberately use the addictive nature of their products to create a lengthening list of consumers who must irresistibly demand daily or multi-daily doses in order to avoid the devastating cold-turkey aches, pains, vomiting, diarrhoea, anxiety & feelings of impotence which their attempts to “quit using” inevitably inflict upon them.

Adding to the usual commercial goals of the producers, governments see consumers and suppliers of alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical products as vast and vital tax-revenue sources, which governments will do anything to avoid losing – even preferring to see up to 5% of our population hopelessly and expensively addicted (as some 3 million currently are) to the ridiculous point where handling and compensating for those addicts likely costs more than the amounts collected in taxes.

Proof that Parliament is committed to taxing & punishing consumers rather than the suppliers who instigate addiction, lies in the fact that they are about to impose a new tax on addictive sugar, to offset the rising incidence and costs of treating body weight and obesity under the N.H.S.

If Westminster wants to cut sugar consumption, it should legislate against its production and limit its usage in a whole range of products and outlets.

As it should also do with alcohol and pharmaceutical products, where the legal production, distribution and consumption volumes MASSIVELY exceed the distribution and usage of ALL criminal drug supplies. (i.e. addictive pharmaceutical drug supply is 6 times greater than addictive criminal drug supply.)

For example, the U.K. has 2.4 MILLION N.H.S. funded “patients” living in their own homes or in care-homes who are involuntarily addicted to legally but excessively prescribed pharmaceutical drugs, which they take three or four times a day, at an overall cost of at least some £1,095 per patient per year. A total of at least £2.63 BILLION per annum.

But if they are “patients”- WHAT IS THE MEDICAL CONDITION FOR WHICH THEY ARE STILL BEING TREATED ? When they started “treatment” three months, one year or ten years ago, their problem might have been worry, grief, anxiety, depression, stomach-ache, tooth-ache, head-ache or pain from a healing injury, etc., etc.

But in 99 out of a hundred cases those conditions will have cleared up in a few weeks, and what they are now suffering from is not an illness or disorder, but merely “cold turkey” addiction withdrawal symptoms, when they go too long without their continuously addicting daily or 3 times a day prescribed benzodiazepines or opioid based pain-killing drugs, etc.

In addition, 180,000 former heroin addicts now on daily N.H.S. supplied

O.S.T. methadone, are reported by the Government's own National Audit Office to each cost the Exchequer over £47,000 per annum. Currently a total ANNUAL COST of £84.6 BILLION every year for up to 40 years.

On the other hand, it costs a ONCE ONLY fee of £29,000 to £39,000 per addict to bring 69+% of all methadone prescription users to lasting relaxed abstinence (on a guaranteed Payment by Results financing basis) using a residential addiction recovery training service already proven and available for 50 years, and today delivered at nearly one hundred Centres (including prison units) in 49 countries.

But in the U.K. we don't use this half century proven self-help addiction recovery training programme because our legal, political and media establishment have swallowed hook, line and sinker the totally false idea, put out for 65 years by drug producers and their psychiatric marketing arm, that the psycho-pharms are the only experts, that addiction is essentially incurable and that those who claim they can deliver recovery from addiction are ridiculous charlatans, and should not even be listened to or talked with.

So ever since the formation of the National Health Service in 1948, there has never been a year when any form of drug addiction – legal or criminal – actually fell, because the N.H.S. has no idea how to cure drug addiction, and proves this by either commissioning Service Providers to try and “rehabilitate” addicts, OR feeds addictive pharmaceutical drugs to addicts in order to stop them using criminally supplied drugs, a legal addiction for which the NHS also has no cure !

“Restricting Supply”, “Reducing Demand”, “Building Recovery Locally” and “Supporting People to Live A Drug Free Life” are the main over-arching features of the 2010 Drug Strategy, which is still current today. 

To progress in THE RESTRICTION OF SUPPLY, it is essential, that we stop wasting our resources by committing them to fighting the so-called “War on Drugs” outside Great Britain.

The main reason that our local police do not have sufficient resources to handle our local drug-pushers is because we commit to expensively taking actions in Colombia, Afghanistan, Mexico and numerous other distant foreign locations, when the pipeline of supplies which stretches from those countries to our own pubs, school gates and clubs, etc., can be more easily, effectively and inexpensively CUT by taking zero tolerance action much closer to the users being supplied by that pipeline.

By initially in a sense mainly ignoring the foreign supply pipeline up to the local pusher and concentrating on home production suppliers, millions of £pounds plus millions of police, customs & excise hours can be saved and concentrated on the last link in the supply chain. i.e. THE LOCAL PUSHER / DEALER who has to reveal him or her self in order to do business with the addicted user (who is most sensibly, accurately and usefully regarded as the ADDICTION VICTIM who should be rescued rather than criminalised). 

The police target should be anyone producing or growing addictive supplies in the U.K. and anyone who is found in possession of more than one dose or more than a personal supply of one or more drugs.

Possession of a single dose of just one drug usually equals an addicted user who needs rescuing rather than criminalising.

Two or more doses, carried by the individual, or found in his or her car or at home, etc., most often equals “pusher” - the last link in the supply line – and he or she should be hit with every punishment available to the police, the prosecutors and the courts on a Zero Tolerance basis.

It doesn't matter if the supply line is one, ten, one hundred, one thousand or ten thousand miles long, the last link is to be found in every U.K. city, town or village, close to the user AND CLOSE TO A LOCAL BRITISH BOBBY.

Furthermore, that last link can be identified by the user (the pusher's client), and if that user knows the police are not after him or her, it is not going to be all that difficult to get the users' co-operation, especially, if instead of being criminalised, the user is offered anonymity and effective treatment for their addiction – which 70 to 75% want desperately to quit.

Even pushers can be offered an opportunity to be cured if it is clear that he or she is selling drugs solely to support their own habit.

But only if they are prepared to give up their own immediate supplier.

Working back down the supply line from the user towards the initial supplier works effectively only when the user is protected and rescued, and when government resources are diverted away from overseas spending and concentrated on local U.K. situations. 

To progress in REDUCING DEMAND we must stop making the mistake of interpreting demand reduction as the beefing up of “prevention and avoidance” which, although important is aimed at stopping the development of future demand and not at reducing current demand.

ONLY CURRENT ADDICTS DEMAND DRUG SUPPLIES !

Non-users quite obviously don't !

So the only way we can possibly Reduce Demand is by bringing addicts to lasting relaxed abstinence, and for 50 years this has provably been best achieved by withdrawing addicts and training them in self help addiction recovery techniques.

It is not achieved by prescribing expensive addictive substitute pharmaceutical drugs to addicts. It is nowhere near achieved often enough by either residential or local daily 12 Steps groups, although local groups must not be ignored when affordability is a major barrier.

Fifty years of success and expansion confirm that self-help addiction recovery training on a three month residential basis leads to lasting relaxed abstinence in 55 to 69+% of cases.

To cure the approximately half a million U.K. addicts currently on criminal drugs and / or on O.S.T., and using the other two over-arching features of the 2010 Drug Strategy, (SUPPORTING PEOPLE TO LIVE A DRUG FREE LIFE, and BUILDING RECOVERY LOCALLY) is going to take 30 years if, over the next 4 years, we establish 100 addiction recovery training centres (nearly one per major local authority), each with accommodation for 25 students, plus 15 staff and executives.

The present total spending by “all government departments” involved in one or more aspect of addiction spending, reported by the government's National Audit office, is £8.46 BILLION EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

With 100 centres each with 25 or more student beds, turning out some 10,000 recovered addicts per year, the total cost with every centre in full operation would be only some £340 MILLION per annum – which is a ONCE ONLY cost of 4% of the current ANNUAL government reported inter-departmental spending on O.S.T. methadone alone !

But, for up to 40 years, our addiction affected Departmental Ministers between them go on spending EVERY YEAR, many many times the amount they would have to pay ONCE ONLY in order to cure all current U.K. drug addicts !

Even on the above basis it would take 30 years to cure the existing national group of illegal addicts, and of course in that period there would doubtless be new addicts getting hooked every month.

Why don't Ministers know this and do something about it. Are they mad, can't do simple arithmetic or are they themselves taking drugs ?

NO. None of these. Their problem is that they go on listening to and believing the downright lies which government psychiatrists and pharmaceutical company marketing departments tell them, in order to hold on to the millions of profitable “multi-daily-dose” addicts the Government are unwittingly paying the psycho-pharms to keep addicted !

If you really want to know why the National Health Service is financially crippled, you have only to look at the regularly increasing amounts of money being spent on addictive medication which cures nothing, AND SO NEVER REDUCES THE NUMBER OF “PATIENTS”.

And this is NOT because involuntary addiction is incurable. It is because the pharmaceutical companies who recommend small-dose step down gradual withdrawal from addictive prescription drugs, JUST DO NOT MANUFACTURE THE RANGES OF SMALL DOSAGE UNITS needed to apply this viable withdrawal procedure.

Instead of saying that they refuse to cut the throats of their own marketing men and their own profitability by helping to cure addiction, they say "small doses are too difficult and too expensive to manufacture and hold in stock."  Especially, they will also say, “because they are not in demand”.

So what is required is legislation to ensure that for every addictive and hypnotic drug a manufacturer makes, he must also produce dose units which are 2.5%, 5%, 10%, 20% and 50% of the size the manufacturer recommends as a “normal” dose.

This will stop 70 year old patients who are trying to withdraw from their addiction, from needing to cut tablets into 2, 4, 8, 16 and even 32 pieces, and also trying to perform similarly impossible daily exercises with the contents of powder or liquid capsules.

With 2.4 Million NHS patients involuntarily addicted to prescription drugs, there is a need for an organised approach to “Addiction Withdrawal Advisory Services and Help (AWASH),” and an organisation of that name, at the same address as the “Society for an Addiction Free Europe (SAFE)”, is able to recommend a plan which can be funded entirely from the savings to be made by reducing the massive over-spending on unnecessary prescription drugs.

Most forms of drug addiction and a majority of drug addicts are curable on a three month self-help residential addiction recovery training programme, costing ONCE ONLY some 60 to 80% of what the U.K. Government EVERY YEAR spends on OST prescribed methadone “therapy”, as a result of which the providers of such programmes have for 50 years been attacked, reviled and abused by criminal and pharmaceutical drug producers in an effort to avoid having their customers taken away by letting someone cure them !

But around the world those self-help recovery training providers go on expanding every year – solely because they deliver what they promise.

To know more, phone +44 (0)1342 810151 or 811099 any weekday between 11.00am and 9.00pm, or e-mail keneck@btinternet.com.

The REAL Reason For Prescribing METHADONE.

Confirmation of Conspiracy From Another Source:

The Prescribed Methadone User:

Confirmation of what? Confirmation that psycho-pharmacological ‘therapies’ based on habit management or “maintenance dosing” reduce neither addiction nor the crime which daily accompanies drug usage in order to finance it.

Confirmation also that current so-called anti-drug strategies are clearly orientated towards making more turnover and more profit for the drug companies instead of being aimed at curing drug addiction.

In August 1999, The BIG ISSUE in the North Trust issued a 48 page A4 report, written by an M.P. and entitled “DRUGS at the Sharp End”, detailing his investigation into the results of psycho-pharmacological treatment – most specifically methadone maintenance – and this was accompanied by the following single page Executive Summary:

THE BIG ISSUE IN THE NORTH

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE DRUGS RESEARCH REPORT.

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE REPORT:

With regard to drug users interviewed:

* A third of the drug users had been in contact with services for more than five years. 12% had been in service for over 10 years.

* A third felt they had been attending drug services for too long. These were split equally between those who felt services were making little effort to help them become drug free and those who felt they weren’t ready to stop using.

* Of those on prescribed methadone, 80% also used street drugs on a weekly basis, particularly heroin. 44% of those on prescribed methadone also used heroin on a daily basis.

* Although a quarter of users said they received counselling, twice as many said it was important.

* The services that users said they received were mainly medical interventions such as methadone prescriptions.

* 17% of those on prescribed methadone are injecting heroin at least occasionally and are not using needle exchanges.

* Only 11% were working, over half (61%) lived in rented accommodation, more than half (54%) had lost regular contact with their children.

* Breakdown in relationships, crime and an inability to gain employment were all prominent features of their lives and were directly related to their drug usage.

* Although half of users wanted more community based drug services, only a third said that G.Ps were the best place to receive drug services.

In addition, service providers felt that services were not adequately meeting the level of demand. In particular, they felt that stimulant users (e.g. crack, cocaine and amphetamines) were not well catered for.

________________________________________________________________

WHAT A TOTAL DENIAL, REJECTION AND CONDEMNATION OF VESTED INTEREST CLAIMS FOR THE SO-CALLED ‘VALUE’ AND EFFICACY OF PSYCHO-PHARMACEUTICAL TREATMENT !

- PARTICULARLY METHADONE -

Let’s take a closer look at those claims and the results which are revealed by the highly respected BIG ISSUE in the North's report.

Methadone was recommended to government by psychiatric and pharmaceutical advisers as definitely procuring abstinence for life via “a methadone reduction programme” - but 55% of those interviewed had been on methadone for from 1 to 5 years, and 45% had been on methadone for from over 5 to more than 10 years !

Methadone was recommended to government by psycho-pharms as stopping heroin usage, but it does so in only 20% of cases and 44% use heroin on a daily basis !

Methadone was recommended to government by psycho-pharms as so-called “harm reduction” - but 17% continue to inject heroin without benefit of needle exchange ! In addition the methadone itself causes a wide range of unhealthy and uncomfortable side-effects and in most cases shortens the user’s life.

Methadone was recommended to government ny psycho-pharms as permitting opiate users to live a “basically normal life” in full time employment – but 89% are not working and so are receiving Unemployment Benefit, Housing Benefit, Income Support, Family Allowances, extra National Health Benefits and other support, all paid for by the U.K. taxpayer.

Methadone was recommended to government by psycho-pharm advisers as helping to restore family relationships - but breakdown in relationships are a prominent feature of their lives, and 54% had lost regular contact with their children.

Methadone was recommended to government by psycho-pharms as reducing crime by stopping heroin usage - but with 44% on daily heroin and 80% on weekly heroin (plus other illicit drugs), the necessity for acquisitive crime to support procurement of such illegal supplies is virtually as high as ever, and many police feel that daily methadone supplies are regarded by users merely as a welcome free opiate supply which gives them more time to plan better crimes with less likelihood of their being caught !

Normally at this point one could expect to think: “Need we say more”, and could assume that government would look at these stark facts and do something about them. But they don’t hear and they don’t see, because for years vested interests have been covering decision-makers’ eyes and ears with fancy PR statements and lying lobbying.

But our government is not blind and neither is it deaf nor stupid nor evil. It is merely deliberately and totally misinformed by those which tradition says they should trust.

It is therefore these blindfolds, ear-plugs and deliberately misleading words which the Society for an Addiction Free Europe (SAFE) strives to remove.

When the above totally independent investigation and report is examined from a societal cost and economic damage viewpoint, we find there are some 180,000 daily prescribed U.K. methadone addicts, and observers estimate the various methadone doses to be costing the NHS some £4.00 to £9,00 a day for each addict depending on the dose size.

However, more accurately, the Government's own National Audit Office reports that the cost of the drug alone is only the thin end of government expenditure, and that because of the involvement of psychiatrists, other doctors, hospitals, A&E departments, dispensing centres, police, courts, their officers and officials, and the whole of the benefits system, the average cost to the exchequer of each and every prescribed methadone addict is well in excess of £47,000 per annum.

Unfortunately, as these costs are spread across the budgets of several different government Departments, they are not apparent, as they get hidden amongst similar expenditures on other citizens for other reasons.

This gives departmental Ministers and Officials good excuses to claim or pretend that addiction is “not our problem”, and to refer any concerned electors to the Department of Health.

As a consequence, the average annual spending of £47,000 on each of the 180,000 currently prescribed methadone users costs our taxpayers £8.46 BILLION pounds a year, every year for an average of 40 years.

The only challenge to these figures has been made by the revered Centre for Drug Misuse Research, whose own in-depth investigations calculated average government spending per methadone addict to be closer to £59,000 per annum. The Government's former National Treatment Agency (effectively relaunched as Public Health England) agreed with the National Audit Office's figures in order to minimise that agency's culpability.

All this massive annual spending arises as a result of just two factors:

1) the swallowing by successive governments of psycho-pharm fraternity false claims that heroin addiction is incurable, coupled with,

2) the equally false set of claims (reinforced and spread around by massive black propaganda) that the one major organisation on Earth, which actually can and does cure drug addiction, is comprised of people who are even more weird than psychiatrists !

With 50 years experience at over 100 centres (including prison units) in 49 countries, self-help addiction recovery training expands every year, by helping 55 to 69+% to succeed in recovering from their addiction.

By recovery they mean returning to the natural state of non-criminal lasting relaxed abstinence into which 99% of the population is born.

And whilst (based on government statistics) each prescribed methadone addict will on average cost the U.K. Taxpayer £1,880,000 over the next 40 years, it costs only £29,000 to £39,000 ONCE ONLY to cure an addicted methadone or heroin user – which is an average lifetime saving per cured addict of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX THOUSAND POUNDS PER ADDICT ! Even in the first year, this is an average saving of £13,000, and then an average saving of £47,000 for each year thereafter for an average of 40 years.

And – importantly - the above figures are for “cured addicts”, not just for “treatment”. Because self-help addiction recovery training is offered to groups of four addicts enrolled together at the same time by a Local Authority on a “Payment by Results” basis. i.e. if not still abstinent at the end of 12 months from commencement of their training programme, up to £25,000 of each individual's training fee will be waived.

In other words, whilst (according to the National Audit Office) a prescribed methadone addict costs the U.K. taxpayer at least £11,750 every 3 months, a prescribed methadone addict who (during his or her 13 week residential self-help addiction recovery training programme) fails to reach lasting abstinence, only costs the taxpayer £9,000 plus any family or housing benefits he or she may normally be in receipt of.

And that £9,000 feeds them, provides toiletries and houses them.

Even a child can see the benefit of such Payment by Results self-help addiction recovery training programmes, but psychiatric Professor John Strang preferred to kill off Payment by Results in favour of daily profitable methadone dosing for some 180,000+ prescribed methadone addicts every day for the next 40 years!

THAT'S THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT LEGAL OPIOID SUBSTITUTION (so-called) “THERAPY” BASED ON DAILY METHADONE DOSING !

A Blast From The Past

WITH KIND PERMISSION OF THE EDITOR,

below is an article reprinted from the May 2004 issue of the

Brussels based English language magazine: “THE SPROUT”:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“KILLING THE GOOSE THAT

LAYS THE GOLDEN EGGS.

A mystery memo, leaked to The Sprout has been circulated amongst
selected British politicians, including European Parliamentarians.

The document purports to be from the ‘Joint Strategy Committee
Chair’ of the U.K. Pharmaceutical ‘Cartel’.

It concerns the industry’s approach to drug addiction and

treatment systems which are in fact, a mainline to profit.

THE ALLEGATIONS PAINT an extraordinary picture of conspiracy on the part of Big Pharma.

The conspiracy is best put when it states that a main industry goal is “to become the only authorised suppliers, producers, distributors and purveyors of all drugs entering and consumed in the U.K. drugs marketplace”.

This implies that the industry – already a monopolist in prescription drugs – is intent upon producing and selling those drugs that are currently illegal. Thus avoiding competition from criminal gangs by concentrating supply of all “street” drugs under industry control.

Could it be possible that Big-Pharma backs moves for legalisation ?

Can the huge professional lobby pushing so hard to legalise drugs really be run by the lethargic minority of ‘stoned’ citizens ? The memo suggests not. It takes money and the use of both overt and covert professional PR people to push through such a measure.

TRACES OF OVERT AND COVERT LOBBYING:

The conspiracy theory is amply illustrated by the history of Mike Trace, who is named in the dossier.

Trace was parachuted by the U.K. Labour Government into the position of Deputy Drugs Tsar in 1997 without reference to his boss Keith Hellawell. He went on to produce a policy document in 1998 ‘Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain’. It called for a “harm reduction” approach to addiction, and led to a considerable increase in the number of NHS prescriptions of methadone.

In 2003 he was seconded to the UN as Head of Demand Reduction at the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime. After 8 weeks he was forced to resign after it became public that he had been advising the Soros foundation as to how to undermine the international conventions on drug trafficking.

His hope was to create a way in which the Conventions would allow drug liberalisation measures, such as the decriminalisation of cannabis, heroin prescription, and injecting rooms as a first step towards George Soros’ goal of “a strictly controlled distributor network through which I would make most drugs, excluding the most dangerous ones like crack, legally available”. Trace now runs the Blenheim Project, a heroin project in London.

Other subtle lobbying goes on via front-groups like DrugScope (a quasi-governmental NGO, almost entirely controlled by the industry) the wooing of medical profession and opinion leaders, and the encouragement of libertarians to campaign for legalisation is good tactics for an industry intent on taking over production and sale of “ALL drugs”.

There is huge profit in being the “only” suppliers of amphetamines, cannabis, heroin and cocaine alongside their current turnover in methadone and other tranquillisers.

The allegations also claim that, after legalisation of all drugs, the pharmaceutical industry will seek to continuously expand drug markets “by all possible international, national and local strategies”.

GOOD BUSINESS SENSE:

 

Such expansion makes good business sense. The expansion of behavioural control drugs is already well under way (paid for by taxpayers).

If drugs like cannabis, heroin and cocaine, etc., were to be legalised, the companies would seek to “maximise the financial contribution of government towards the costs of supplying drugs to a majority of the using population”. If the manufacturers had to rely on the drug users for payment, they would be very unlikely to receive it.

So without the government’s continued willingness to fund supplies to users, there would be no incentive for the industry.

Furthermore industry will ensure that all those organisations and programmes likely to impede:

          a)    their taking total control of all drugs,

          b)    their continued turnover expansion by legalisation

                 and

          c)    their expansion of government financial support,

                 will be “effectively immobilised or side-lined”.

Herbal and alternative medical practices are a competitive ‘nuisance‘, which pharmaceutical marketing chiefs have been trying to get around for years.

They know that highly successful vitamin based and other abstinence therapies are a threat, so to retain control of treatment, such alternative programmes and therapies must be obstructed not only by black media campaigns, but also through legislation.

E.U. LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT FOR DRUGS:

The plan is that the vitamin based and other abstinence therapies will eventually be side-lined by the National Treatment Agency (NTA) Models of Care plan which essentially authorises only psycho-pharmacological treatments. Thus vitamin based treatments will be deprived of official funding.

It goes on to say that “additionally, the work already underway in Brussels and Strasbourg, for outlawing large dose format natural vitamin supplies, will not only soon start bringing these ‘non-conforming’ treatments to a halt, but will also put the European and U.K. supply of vitamins into “pharmaceutical hands on a small dose, high-priced profitable daily supply basis retailed only by established high street chemists and other allied or controlled pharmaceutical outlets”.

The legalisation is not about medicine or health, but is unadulterated commercial tactics of the type used by the same companies in the drug ‘treatment’ field, and it takes only a cursory glance at that legislation to recognise the truth of the memo’s warnings.

However, the memo makes it clear that the real truth is that the pharmaceutical lobbyists are intent only on the killing off of successful competition and, in view of the fact that the internal workings of the E.U. did not allow this legislation to be presented for full and proper discussion or amendment by a wholly representative group, it looks as if the memo is again correct.

It explains how the political environment has been convinced of Pharma’s position.

The self-proclaimed and politically perceived “experts” on drugs have considerable influence over almost all interested agencies.

It also gives credit to DrugScope for building significant influence within the above organisations and particularly to Roger Howard and ‘friends’ as well as well as psychiatric colleagues.

The writer mentions indirect pharmaceutical influence over the Drug Education Practitioners Forum, the Police Foundation, Liberty, the National Children’s Forum, Release, Transform and more numerous groups.

He (or she) also points out that DrugScope now virtually controls the All Party Parliamentary Drugs Misuse Group, the National Drugs Help-Line and even some Ministers.

All of this is backed by facts.

TAXES PAY THE INDUSTRY £300 M PER YEAR:

It doesn’t take an expert to calculate that lifetime prescribing of a pharmaceutical drug for every heroin / methadone addict in the country is a costly business. Each prescription methadone user receives at least one dose per day = 365 doses per year. The U.K. population is some 60 million of which about 10% depend on drugs – mainly cannabis. If only 5% of these drug users are on opiates, then some 300,000 are on heroin / methadone, and this is borne out by Home Office statistics.

Two-thirds are estimated to be on prescription methadone, so 200,000 supplied each day. 200,000 x 365 = 73 million doses per year. A dose costs £4.00. The total cost is nearly £300 million per year, 70% of which is paid to pharmacists and pharmaceutical companies.

This is confirmed by the fact that nearly £2 billion is spent on drugs interventions in the U.K. alone.

It might include the extra NHS attention which most drug users need, plus the hugely time and money wasting (jobs for the boys) psychiatric screening, assessing, referring and re-assessing which goes on before an addict receives actual treatment.

This does not include the benefits which a majority of prescription methadone users receive. In addition, 80% of prescription methadone recipients use another drug once a week and 44% use heroin once a day.

As a result, many continue to commit acquisitive crime to fund their continuing heroin habit – another burden for the taxpayer and the society at large.

INFORMED CHOICE FOR CHILDREN, “JUST SAY YES”:

The memo writer claims that the industry will continue to reinforce their marketing operations directed at youth, and states that ‘harm reduction’, ‘informed CHOICE’, ‘responsible drug USE’ and ‘safe drug USE’ will thus remain the main planks in schools PR campaigns.

It is clear to anyone, who takes the trouble to investigate, that this ‘drug education’ agenda promotes drug usage as basically inevitable, and so essentially permits it on an apparently controlled basis.

The conclusions which the memo draws regarding deliberate and calculated action against real prevention training are therefore clearly justifiable.

There is a reference to DrugScope’s covert development of the NTA, and we are told that by having a senior DrugScope employee appointed as that agency’s first Director of Personnel, they were able to appoint the rest of the NTA senior staff and so finished up with an influential government agency staffed exclusively by psycho-pharmaceutical protagonists and allies.

This seems to be Annette Dale-Perera who, after completing her staff establishment work, now heads up the team installing the Models of Care ‘framework’ which seems intended to maintain and reinforce the status-quo psycho-pharmacological treatment monopoly.

DrugScope has responded by announcing that the document is “laughable” and threatening legal action in their latest magazine DrugLink, against whom they of course do not know.

The memo makes no claims of illegal actions and is obviously a hard-hitting satire but in light of the pharmaceutical industry’s reputed heavy handed past handling of its critics, the memo writer has been rather brave to have mounted such a comprehensive and wide ranging attack against that industry.

As it stands almost all its statements are demonstrably true and its conclusions make sense.

But will it be enough to wake up the public to what is going on behind their backs?

Is what is suggested the result of deliberate planning or is it all just pure coincidence ?”

------------------------------------------------------------

(End of The Sprout Article)

Hereunder is the memo the subject of that article, with the content,
but not the layout, just as we received it:

------------------------------------–-------------------------------

I don’t know who sent this to me, and of course I didn’t copy it to you ! J.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

                                                             (N.B. ‘G.T.L.G.’ likely means:
                                                           “Goose That Lays Golden”)

FROM:     THE JOINT STRATEGY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

TO:         U.K. CARTEL MEMBER CEOs ONLY

SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE ‘G.T.L.G. EGGS’ PLAN REVISIONS

                                                                         DATE:      December 2003


Dear Friends and Colleagues,

        The following summarises the present status of the above plan after
        incorporation of the revisions agreed upon by the Committee at the end
        of our recent week-end conference. 

The twin goals of the plan remain unchanged. Namely: 

i) that our industry and its allies will be the only authorised suppliers, producers, distributors and purveyors of all drugs entering and consumed in the U.K. drugs marketplace, and

ii) that the market is to be continuously expanded by all possible international, national and local strategies.

1) The main aims of the plan are therefore confirmed as:

a) To take total control of the supply, production, distribution, marketing and sale of all drugs consumed in the U.K. drugs marketplace.

b) To maintain current turnover levels whilst working towards a continuing expansion of the main forms of drug use – medical, behavioural control and recreational.

c) To maximise the financial contribution of government towards the costs of supplying drugs to a majority of the using population, and,

d) To ensure that all those organisations and programmes, likely to impede a), b) & c) above, are effectively immobilised or side-lined.

2) Because 1a) & b) above include all currently illicit drugs, then the legalisation of all illicit drugs is a primary target of our policies. This will not only avoid competition from illegal suppliers by placing the supplying of all drugs under our ethical control, but will also expand usage of such drugs at competitive prices.

3) Because 1a) above also includes those legally licensed and / or prescribed drugs over which we already exercise control, every effort is being made to avoid the entry and / or expansion into the marketplace of alternative natural or nutritional substances from non-pharmaceutical producers. At the same time research on less controversial replacements for the flagging benzo ranges also continues.

4) The requirement under 1a) above, for us to take total control of the U.K. drugs marketplace, has of course resulted in a necessity for us to be able to equally control or strongly influence the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society amongst others.

This in turn has given us considerable influence over the National Health Service, H.M.Prison Service, the Probationary Service, the National Treatment Agency, the AdvisoryCouncil on the Misuse of Drugs, and the Drug Prevention Advisory Service.

Much of the credit for this good work must go to the amalgamation and re-organisingof DrugScope by Roger Howard which, combined with the influence of our friends at Alcohol Concern (who share offices with DrugScope), and our psychiatric colleaguesat Denmark Hill, is now achieving very significant influence over all those sectors of U.K establishment decision-making directly or indirectly concerned with the control or usage of drugs of all types. The Drug Education Practitioners Forum, the PoliceFoundation, Liberty, the National Children’s Forum, Release and Transform are but a few excellent examples of our indirect influence over more numerous groups.
        
         Amongst other successes, DrugScope now virtually controls the All Party Parliamentary Drugs Misuse Group, the National Drugs Help-Line and various Ministers, and because of these allies and other contacts was able to be by far the biggest contributor of evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

5) Because 1b) above includes the maintenance of current turnover levels, all forms of cure or rehabilitation treatment (other than those based on the use of habit management drugs) must eventually be legislated out of operation.

Civil servants and successive UK governments have been fully convinced, by our psychiatric colleagues and our expanding DrugScope PR operation, that drug addiction is an incurable congenital mental condition which ‘fortunately’ psychiatrists and other physicians can manage in the community with pharmacological treatments.

As a consequence we will continue to use our psychiatric and government departmental connections to ensure that all treatment must be on a maintenance basis prescribing regular doses (normally daily) of habit management drugs – mainly paid for by the taxpayer via the NHS.

6) Because 1b) above also includes expansion, in order to maintain the flow of new users entering the marketplace, all efforts at effective prevention training by other organisations continue to be ridiculed, ‘exposed’ and generally side-lined by DrugScope and their libertarian allies so as to rob them of funding. The main aim of our strategy will continue to be our development of youth and child drug use by all means possible. The young are much easier to influence and of course have a longer ’customer life’ than adults.

We will therefore continue to reinforce those of our marketing operations directed at UK youth and their parents. ‘Harm reduction’, ‘informed choice’, ‘responsible drug use’ and ‘safe drug use’ will thus remain the main planks in school PR campaigns. This drug education agenda promotes drug usage as basically inevitable, and so essentially permits it on an apparently controlled basis. Some members expressed concern that ‘prevention’ training was again expanding in the schools system, but a recent DrugScope report to the Committee described the start (in DrugScope’s Associated DrugLink magazine) of a successful media attack on two main prevention organisations – NDPA and NN. Details of further funding for this work were also agreed. (See financial report attached.)

7) Because of the demand for expansion and government financial contribution expressed in both 1b) and 1c) above, there must also be a reinforcement of direct psychiatric medical intervention in UK schools, based on the prescription of Prozac, Ritalin and other behavioural control drugs to suitably selected children.

New psychiatric illnesses recently developed and published in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are paving the way to the introduction of further drugs into our schools prescription programme.

Steps are also being taken to introduce the same new psychiatrically sponsored conditions into the Mental and Behavioural Disorders Section of the next edition of the World Health Organisation ICD (the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems).

Distribution of behavioural control drugs by prescription to selected groups is possibly our most valuable programme currently running. We avoid the costly and fragmented process of marketing to individuals, each newly enrolled education authority or school bringing us worthwhile numbers of new patients for which government pays. And because we start at the bottom of the age range, each user has the maximum customer life ahead of him, whilst up to the age of 16 within the schools system we enjoy direct control over each patient.

8) Because 1c) above requires the maximisation of the financial contribution of government towards the cost of supplying drugs to a majority of the using population, the treatment of existing and new problem drug users must be kept in psycho-pharmaceutical hands in order to ensure maximum turnover of addiction management drugs such as methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone, etc.

As a result, funds for recent plans by the government to increase the number of places for rehabilitation of drug users must be kept in the hands of those providers of treatment based exclusively on the administration of habit management drugs. As these were essentially Trace contacts and as he could still be useful, the idea is being fostered amongst them and elsewhere that he was given a very raw deal.

In addition our PR people will continue to cultivate Drug Action Team Co-ordinators and Chairmen, to ensure that the DAT funds are not misdirected into other non psycho-pharmacological channels.

In this regard, the National Treatment Agency’s nearly completed “Models of Care” plan intended to eliminate (officially) all non-pharmacological treatments – is about to start achieving this second stage of what we expected from DrugScope’s covert development of this agency.

By having as the first stage a senior DrugScope employee appointed as the Agency’s establishment-phase Director of Personnel, the goal of having a government agency staffed nearly exclusively by allies was fully achieved.

Fortunately, the Mike Trace fiasco has done little to upset our plans for the NTA as he was already destined for the international scene.

However it is clear that something must be done about MP and SD at the Mail, who must be brought into line with their other press colleagues.

9) Because 1d) calls for the immobilisation of organisations and programmes likely to impede 1a), b) & c) above, and because the most likely threats will come

          i) from prevention based training programmes and

          ii) from vitamin based and other abstinence therapies, such programmes and therapies must be obstructed not only by black media campaigns, but also by appropriate UK and European legislation.

Prevention based training programmes for schoolchildren (as well as PTAs) will soon be handled into obscurity by the ‘Blueprint’ plan, which is being developed by a regional director of the Home Office Drug Prevention Advisory service. Here again we are fortunate to have a DrugScope trained ally in a sensitive and influential post, so that drug education in ‘harm reduction’, ‘informed choice’, ‘responsible drug use’ and ‘safe drug use’ will; soon become an integral and unassailable part of DfES curricula. At the same time, our continuing derision of ‘prevention training’ will again ensure that such prevention programmes receive no official funding and that they will also be looked upon as politically incorrect by charitable and other fund providers.

The vitamin based and other abstinence therapies are being handled in two ways. The NTA Models of Care plan will essentially authorise only our psycho-pharmacological treatments. Those treatments which do not base themselves on the dispensing of habit management and / or other drugs will thus be deprived of official funding.

Additionally the work already under way in Brussels and Strasbourg, for outlawing large dose format natural vitamin supplies, will not only soon start bringing these non-conforming treatments to a halt, but will also put the European and UK supplying of vitamins into our hands on a small dose profitable daily supply basis retailed only by established high street chemists and other allied or controlled pharmaceutical outlets.

10) The National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS) being carried out by our Denmark Hill psychiatric colleagues has of course been proving successful at holding political curiosity at bay for a considerable time, and the final fifth year report is now due for publication – if it is not already circulating as a confidential pre-release briefing to our various allies in the bureaucracy.

Whilst from a technical viewpoint it is expected to have a mixed reception in certain quarters, along with CARAT and DT&TOs, it has achieved its basic PR objectives and provided the time necessary to develop the NTA and to see our further entrenchment in the Drug Action Team (DAT) network. This has been made even more vital by the recent government channelling of new and additional drug treatment finance via the various DATS, and DrugScope have outlined their plans for maximising control of this spending via the NTA.

11) Payments to physicians for prescribing drugs possibly harmful to the patient (such as methadone) are still needed to persuade reluctant G.Ps to ‘assess’ the value of these products to their local community. Members should therefore ensure that their local NHS and political contacts are fully aware that these payments are vital to current drug treatment modalities, even though item 12) below may eventually be helpful in this regard.

12) The project for the public to be able to purchase prescription drugs – without need of a prescription – over the internet is going according to plan, with these new sales now beginning to escalate, and thus far there has been no government protest or action from any of the countries being reached.

Members wishing to examine the excellent prices this method of distribution can command may do so by visiting the outlet at pharmulnimbsy@ox.ac.uk. They should also bear in mind that because such supplies are direct to the public, all the mark-ups and margins on this distribution line accrue directly to the manufacturing companies supplying the products.

Clearly a new form of distribution which also gives greater consumer control, as a result of which reports on such trading will now be issued monthly to members.

13) For those interested, transcripts of the main papers presented at the conference are available to Committee Members, as follows:

*       A) Liberalisation, Decriminalisation and Legalisation Plans and Progress.

*       B) The DrugScope Annual Progress Report and Update.

*       C) Plans to Take Advantage of the Impending NTORS Completion (and for a parallel long-                    term follow-up campaign in the drug education sector).

*       D) The Latest from the Denmark Hill Diary and Other Psychiatric Allies.

*       E) Networking Within the WHO, the NGOs and Europe.

*       F) New Product Design Directions & Opportunities Amongst the Young.

*       G) Beyond the Benzos. Opportunities Amongst Adults and the Elderly.

*       H) Improving Political and Media Control – U.K. Ally Entertaining Plans.

*       I) Covert Conference Support Plans – Current & Future Financing.

*       J) Useful Individuals and Organisations – Who to Contact for What.

*       K) Mergers – Is Inter Company Co-operation Now Making them Obsolete?

*       L) The Magic Bullet – Why a Search for Addiction Cures is Not Advised.

*       M) Financing Our Fifth Column Allies. (Mike Trace and Co’s New Roles.)

*       N) The UK’s Role in Europe and Vice Versa – Plans for Vienna.

*       O) Raw Material Supplies: Is buying from the Drug Barons the Answer?

*       P) The NHS and the NTA – Can the Tail Wag the Dog?

*       Q) Security: Recent Threats and Proposals for their Handling.

14)    I would respectfully remind Members that the current quarter’s ‘Protection and Expansion Fund’ donations are due with me not later than the last day of this month and year, and I would in any event like to report that these are all to hand at the next scheduled meeting with GS’s Open Society Institute.

15)     Finally: Our Next Committee Meeting:

The suggested venue is again Berchtesgaden, and the month is March.  As agreed at the conference, I await lists of two acceptable March weekends from each Member to enable me to finalise a date convenient to a majority.

J. S. C. Chairman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(end of memo received by The Sprout, ourselves and numerous others)

 
        Bearing in mind that, contrary to what their PR says, pharmaceutical companies are not charities . . . . what is your verdict?

1) Can this “confidential” memo really be some form of practical joke?  Jokers love an audience and usually stay around for the laughs and for their applause, so why has the writer not made him or her self known and claimed the credit?

2) Can this “confidential” memo perhaps be a hoax perpetrated by someone with a genuine grudge against the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatry?  We know that many involuntary addicts (and others like “The Prozac Victims Group”) who were prescribed into addiction, do hold rather large grudges - with what they consider to be good reason - against the psycho-pharmaceutical fraternity. But these are most often quite elderly ladies on tranquillisers, benzos, etc., who would not normally have the intimate knowledge of the drug scene demonstrated by the writer of that memo.

3) Can this “confidential” memo be a fictitious document written by some anonymous senior employee experienced in, but disillusioned with, the psycho-pharm industry, who feels that the guilt of his employers can no longer be hidden and that it must be exposed so that something humanely effective can be done about it?

4) Or can this “confidential” memo perhaps be a copy of a real inter-committee memo the contents of which some such employee felt had to be “whistle-blown” for the greater good of the community at large.

Most observers feel it came from the third or fourth possible source indicated above but that more importantly, it does reveal a genuine state of affairs which must be addressed !


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


______________________________________________________________________