Christine O'Donnell Investigated

Ms Christine O'Donnell, ex-Republican candidate is now being investigated for misuse of funds.
She became notorious over her sexual hypocrisy in the setting of promoting her evangelical Christianity.
Ms O'Donnell called masturbation sinful, opposed evolution, sex before marriage and abortion, of course.

Click on the photo to read more.

It would be interesting to see if US and other countries do anything about their own collections of hypocrites and fraudsters already in governments. One thing for sure, state organizations can promote as well as prevent prosecution of some individuals more than others.

In UK, people have complained that it can be difficult to get some offenders and institutions investigated, but hopefully, the new government will change that. Otherwise, it will be very much as the Justice Minister said would be.

STEROID ABUSE BY POLICE and others

Use of steroids to enhance/recover sexual power probably occurred thousands of years ago through unsophisticated use of gonads.
However, the first steroid hormone was discovered and isolated in 1930's. In 1931 out of tens of thousands of litres of urine a chemist called Aflred Butenandt isolated anabolic steroid hormone and later synthesized testosterone. During the second world war prisoners in concentration camps had steroid hormones administered to them as part of medical experimentation. Adolf Hitler also received a number of testosterone injections for various of his ailments according to his medical records.
After the war, medicinal use of these hormones was to help those who really needed it.
The abuse of steroids amongst sportsmen and women was to improve their athletic performance which led to unfair advantage when undetected. Various attempts to control steroid abuse through legal measures followed as well as different ways of cheating through the intermittent abuse of steroids in order to avoid detection.
The abuse of steroids spread to those who use it for body building but outside competitive situations. The abuse of steroids by some police officers and amongst fireman is thought to now affect 25% of these professionals in USA. The problem occurs worldwide, but it is not certain to what extent.
The legislation is different in different countries. Punitive measures include imprisonment e.g. for supplying other police officers. This is not the case in all the countries. The doses used in steroid abuse are hundred times higher than what doctors would prescribe. Some people use steroids meant for veterinary practice.
The side effects of steroids can include: aggression, excessive use of force (resulting in deaths of victims), depression, mania, psychotic symptoms, paranoia and wild mood swings.
As these hormones have the effect of causing so called programmed cell death, withdrawal of steroids may not lead to complete psychiatric recovery because dead nerve cells do not regrow.
Thus, one may be seeing a new epidemic of mental health problems of novel causation.
Disciplinary measures in cases of police, firemen and others may now have to include random, compulsory testing for steroids and not just usual illicit drugs.
Unfortunately, the testing for steroids has not been done always in cases of unprovoked aggression e.g. by police. Needless to say, women abuse these hormones as well.
There are other side effects of steroids that can occur in some cases of abuse such as hair loss as well decrease in sexual performance. Some people react to their impotence with violence and aggression. Thus multiple causes of aggression do occur with steroid abuse: physical and psychological.

ENVY

Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts distinguish between envy and jealousy, but most people mix up these complex emotions and actions that follow them which is not surprising as there is some similarity. Envy can be defined as fear of not being able to have something because envious person thinks they lack the ability to achieve it. Jealousy arises when valued relationship is threatened by the emergence of a rival who competes for attention, affection or commitment. Therefore, in jealousy there are at least three people while in envy it can be minimum two up to maximum of billions .
In jealousy the predominant feelings are anger, fear and sadness.
In envy the predominant feelings are of fear, deprivation and malicious joy.
Envy and jealousy can be extremely dangerous, but not always, of course. A person can be more easily recognized as jealous than envious as the latter is usually hidden emotion.
Envy is thought by psychoanalysts to be oral phase of psycho-sexual development of separation/individuation. The aim of envy is to destroy the person (s) with the envied quality. This can be done through rubbishing them or their achievements, smearing their reputations, for example, but there are many ways of harming others. Another way is to deprive them of what they need.
Envy is narcissistic and aggrandizing aspect of self.
Some psychoanalysts like Melanie Klein, who wrote an excellent essay; " Envy and Gratitude", thought envy was constitutional i.e. that some people were born with the tendency to be envious long term.
Psychoanalytic theory is that oral sadistic stage of libidinal development is the one in which destructive impulses towards mother's breast predominate and are not moderated by gratitude towards what good breast provided and if not integrated means that libidinal development is incomplete. It is as if to say if the child is really good breast would not be depriving them. From the feeling of personal badness emerge the acts of not loving others.
There are also professionals who claim that most people experience envy and that recognizing it for what it is can be liberating. If envy is based on false belief of inferiority i.e. that one is not capable of achieving the same as the envied person but one realizes that with work one can, envy can turn into ambition with goals and plans. However, the truth is that not all people are the same and true inferiority exists so one has to learn how to deal with it. One obvious way is to become helpful to those who are successful and become part of that success. Appreciation of other people's talents is one way of dealing successfully with what could become envy. Accepting that everybody including oneself has areas of inadequacy is healthy and not life threatening.
Negative self opinion underlying envy can be further reinforced through own envy and by others who notice envy. However, shame acts as a regulator of envy.
Anything can become the object of envy: success, beauty, friendships, talent, confidence, sexuality, freedom, courage, self -respect, identity, good memory, knowledge, fame and so on.
Envy is poisonous and envious person feels bad. Common way envious people flee that bad feeling is to become sadistic. Sadism is the joy of seeing other person suffer/die.
Envy also causes fear/paranoia of retaliation and leads to avoidance and hostility towards the envied person(s).
Envy has been linked to poor commitment, depression and greed.
Narcissism which accompanies envy is about control over other people but not control for the sake of control. It is about controlling people so that they never get close and find areas of inadequacy in narcissist and expose these inadequacies to him and the rest of the world.
Domination is the key characteristic of narcissistic/envious people who lack empathy for others and surround themselves by co-dependents. In organizations, if they are in position to do it, narcissists appoint people who uphold the image they desire.
Greed and envy go together. In psychoanalytic terms, greed arises when breast is perceived as frustrating and depriving. Greed arises out of the sense of deprivation. One cannot get enough to satisfy one's needs. The working definition of greed for an adult is excessive acquisition of possessions beyond what one needs or deserves. As it is the sense of deprivation that causes greed when the sense of deprivation is severe enough it leads to robbing of others and even destruction of the supply. The greedy person consumes everything in its way.
Some people advocate treatment for envy such as measures that would raise self-esteem, making lists of good things about the envied object as well as self.
Envy is one of the most difficult things to manage. It can come as a shock, out of the blue and from unknown persons one has no control over whatsoever.
Dr Bruce Gregory stated, "... many people have the fantasy that if they try hard, 'do it right,' be reasonable, logical, and have goodwill and a team approach, these factors will generate a positive outcome in interpersonal or group settings. This is about as deep a fantasy as one could possibly have, as it is not based in reality. Why is this? It is... because a narcissist's survival is dependent upon having control, or the perception of control."^Ref When this control is challenged, he feels threatened and responds as though his very survival is at stake.

It is thought that large proportion of human beings are co-dependent on narcissists and have the following characteristics:

avoidance of decision making and of confrontation
lying
lack of trust
over-controlling
perfectionism
checking on outside sources before making decisions
manipulation

The typical psychological defense mechanism used by envious/greedy/narcissistic person (s) is projection and denial of object.

Projection is the name given to the behavior exhibited when person denies it to themselves and others what they truly feel because it is unacceptable. Instead these characteristics are ascribed (projected) onto others. Thus envious person would not say their qualifications are inferior but would adopt the approach of criticizing and exaggerating and publicizing the slightest defect of the envied person.
Here is another example: The desire to have sex with lots of other people becomes criticism of the promiscuity of the envied object. Or allegation of infidelity etc.

Denial of Object is another defense mechanism when envious person denies the envied person's qualities so that there would be no recognition of those. Thus the envious person achieves the sense of superiority over their envied object (person).

Narcissists and co-dependents can have the same characteristics as described above.

ENVY MASQUERADING AS SOCIAL JUSTICE

This is an interesting aspect of how envy manipulates the public opinion. In the name of social justice e.g. pretending to address the needs of the poor those who worked hard to gather what they have, suffer envious attacks and are deprived of what they have earned. False allegations are made against the envied person and huge amounts of money can be used to defend one's reputation. In fact, one can lose everything by fighting through the courts of the land in an unfavorable political climate.

Knowing that this is what may happen some people move out of the country when certain parties come into power or are on the way of getting into power. Capital leaves the country.

Also, it is not surprising that thousands of doctors were processed through disciplinary procedures when Labour Party came into power in UK. They were stripped of their authority to raise matters of health concerns. Cut and paste judgments of inability to work in teams became common place. As well as terms such as lack of insight in doctors into their deficiencies. Perfect example of projection by envious projecting their lack of insight onto others.
There has been expectation of subordination by doctors to those who are less qualified as narcissistic people do expect such things.
Some Nurses and Social Workers could diagnose and discharge patients although not qualified and against medical advice.

In order to pay for the persecution of doctors Charity Commission allowed the General Medical Council to become a charity. The government lost about £100 million in taxes over a period of time. The courts of the land already decided in 1920's that General Medical Council could not dodge the tax and was not a charity, but who cares about the legal decisions when the need to destroy is so overwhelming.

Meanwhile, the Solicitors Regulation Authority never became a charity. There is a lot of legally qualified persons in the government so it would appear they did not wish charitable regulation for themselves.


Written by Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist

Anonymous sent in Scientology Report

Anonymous sent to Doctors4Justice a link to Impact a magazine of the International Association of Scientology commemorative issue (26th anniversary):

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=L8WSQJZX

and conversation thread here:

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/ias-impact-magazine-issue-125-dec-2010-a-74956/

FEMINISM v. RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM by Dr Helen Bright

This morning, I have been rather amused with David Rose's article (click on the photo to read it) in Daily Mail: Look away now, Jemima" which pretends amongst other things not to know why feminists have supported Mr Julian Assange, Mega Whistleblower. If Mr Rose really did not know why he would have asked feminists. So here is a bit of education for Mr Rose but not quite sure if he needs or if it would save him from Chief Editor's whipping for a job, not done to a professional journalist' standard.
In the last ten years or so there has been an increase in the strength of religious fundamentalism globally which has been mainly opposed by feminists while many men and many women took it easy and let it be, as if the problem would go away without anything being done about it. Mr Assange's case represents what happens when religious fundamentalists use human rights language to deceive those in power (eg some Swedish politician who would be only too keen to use women to preserve male power structure and undermine woman's authority- Ms Eva Finne's, Public Prosecutor who threw the case out in August). So, feminists are not as Mr Rose pretends them to be. We are perfectly aware where press comes out in support of oppression of women's and men's rights, on the right, or on the left of politics. The fact that religious fundamentalism is very much against journalism and truth, in general, is another point Mr Rose chose to ignore, but knows only too well. Maybe as homework, Chief Editor of Daily Mail could give him an assignment to write about all of the killed journalists who exposed fundamentalism and died as the result.
During fundamentalist religious rule men are forced to reinforce the patriarchal values which are essentially anti-human rights. Boys are made to feel ashamed of their sexuality, women are demonized, controlled and forbidden from entering political arena. The only ones that are allowed are those who subscribe to the inferior role for themselves. Like Mr Assange's accusers, for example. The truth is that some people are so bad at politics that they should not be given any jobs in politics because of the severe damage they cause and it does not matter if they are women who call themselves Christian Feminists or if they are men.
Real feminists politicians (as opposed to pretend Christian Feminists) have been subjected to exclusion from jobs, harassment and in some cases murdered because what they do has to with the effect they have on power structures. The same applies to whistleblowers. Less capable people are promoted simply because they tow the line of ignorance and certainty. Religion provides certainty that feminism lacks. Religion promises control over women in every way and over children too. Both are meant to be servants of man and his wishes, including sexual if one reads fundamentalists. Religion promotes the certainty of life after death, in heaven. Feminism does not do that at all. Weak people make choices that appear easier at the time and in the process blow themselves up and others.
The prime targets of recruitment by religious fundamentalists are children and women. The most vulnerable people are also the likely victims of indoctrination such as mentally ill and poor. The use of women by religious fundamentalist has been called "beating fire with fire". Recruited women are used to attack other women but also men perceived as a threat to religious dogma. Truth is the old enemy of faith. As an atheist and whistleblower Mr Assange would be a legitimate target for religious fundamentalists including so called Christian feminists.
Allegations of rape are very serious and damaging but so are the false allegations of mental illness in healthy doctors who are whistleblowers and whom The General Medical Council in London destroyed and continues to abuse to the present day. I mention this fact as there is plenty of scandal to write about. Daily Mail has remained very silent on this subject of dictatorship on home grounds. I hope not for long.
Ms Jemima Khan is right we should say no to puppet judges and expose them as they deserve to be exposed. So many times, the Royal Courts of Justice judges did not uphold the rule of the law but sexism when it came to female medical whistleblowers. In a building which looks so much a like a church the values are still patriarchal. Guardian had a brilliant photograph on its front page which emphasized architectural detail and had a group of people with Mr Assange and his legal team looking tiny in proportion. The multitalented legal team are Ms Jennifer Robinson, Mr Mark Stephens and Mr Geoffrey Robertson.
Daily Mail has some good journalists and at times it did expose a lot of what was wrong with religious Labour government policies responsible for the loss of so many lives in UK. NHS hospitals have been left in the hands of lying, but brown nose managers and staff who executed Labour policy demands no matter how many thousands had to die and suffer because of the lack of support for good doctors including female whistleblowers.

What we see in feminists coming to Assange's aid is different kind of politics, the kind that David Rose does not want to face up to. I can see why not. Women do have a right to political opinion and do exercise it. Ms Jemima Khan does and so do many other women in the atmosphere of sexist hostility and rejection. Supporting Mr Julian Assange, is not about screwing him, but about politics, Mr Rose. Religious fundamentalism is anti women's right. it is racist, ageist, nationalistic, warmongering, and destructive in other ways too. Do click here to read a feminist report on religious fundamentalism, what strategies fundamentalists use and what strategies feminists use.
It is demeaning to depict Ms Jemima Khan in the way it has been done by Mr David Rose. He does not ask about her political opinions but just presses on with his green eyed view of a man who appears to have more adventure in his life than some people. Really, pathetic. Religious fundamentalism is seductive and if you read the report on the link above you will see also how even secular countries betray their female voters, oppress them, their reproductive rights and choice as well equality in other areas of life: economic and political. Ultimately, men prefer to be in positions of power rather than to stand by the politics that they advertised to the voters initially.

Some of us feminists have taken a big hit in the last ten years when merely trying to do our jobs properly as professionals because of the religious fundamentalism that took hold of British institutions as forced by the previous Labour Government under Mr Blair's leadership. Daily Mail did expose some senseless harassment of professionals, but in the context of party politics without always getting into the core causes such as anti women, anti children warfare being part of religious fundamentalism. It was just too scary to tell the whole truth to their readers in case it offends them, I guess.

Women can buy as many condoms as they like: male or female. So it is obvious that women that accused Mr Assange were not the particularly responsible and independent lot. In fact, they exhibit classic hostile dependency on men.

Also if Mr Rose did think about it, women who oppose abortion as A.A., accuser does, they also often oppose contraception. So when we really examine allegations against Mr Assange we find a lot of lies. Feminists can see through all of the deception, not because they are more clever but because they do not have the attitudinal problems like some sexist people on the right or the left do.

The report to which I have provided the link is by Ms Cassandra Balchin : Towards a Future without Fundamentalisms

Julian Assange freed on bail by Justice Ouseley in High Court by Dr Helen Bright

I am delighted that Mr Assange is freed on bail, but unhappy that his freedom is limited because of the severe conditions imposed. He should not be on any bail at all. He should be a free man. Full stop.

Well, that is the life of the whistleblower being persecuted and damaged. Most people do not whistleblow even though majority of people do notice what is wrong. About one third of those who do expose wrongdoing suffer severe damage and the determining factor in their survival is how much support they get.

Justice Ouseley is hardly the risk taker and not great in emergencies injunctions type of situation either (I know from personal experience), but his judgment would be useful to me. I like the way he said: "The history of the way it has been dealt with by the Swedish prosecutors would give Mr Assange some basis that he might be acquitted following a trial".

So what was Justice Duncan Ouseley thinking when he had the evidence before him how General Medical Council repeatedly stitched me up with their religious and biased tribunals? Well, he thought the case was weak. He did not think much of the fact that General Medical Council had to apologize to me for defamation either.

I would say some more Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is needed for British judges on whistleblowing. With their 16 hours a year for lawyers of compulsory CPD, I wonder if ignorance is an unspoken requirement for the job.

Yes, support matters a lot to how whistleblowers survive and men do have an advantage over woman in some areas but clearly there is no justice for either sex if you are a whistleblower and what has been disclosed offends/threatens the establishment. In my case it was, and it still is, that religion is forced on mentally ill. Of course, it is forced on children too. In fact, anyone who is vulnerable. Human Rights? Well anyone can read about it, some can write about it but not many have the ability to enforce them.

I notice that there has been some speculation about Mr Assange's personality by a psychiatrist at Fox media. This is so typical for whistleblowers. If Mr Assange was a doctor he would have been sent to some nasty forensic psychiatrist paid for by medical regulator like the General Medical Council in London.
It seems that having integrity as whistleblowers do is both illegal and unhealthy according to the establishment.

President Obama's response to UPR on whistle-blowing By Dr Janet Parker MS, DVM

Dr Janet Parker wrote to Dr Helen Bright:

I hope things are going well for you. I did want to let you know the progress I had bringing my concerns for the human rights of medical whistleblowers. On Friday, November 5, the United States underwent its first-ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. The UPR was a rigorous examination of U.S. human rights policy, and demonstrated that the U.S. has a long way to go to fulfill its human rights obligations.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and that they are “endowed with reason and conscience.”

You will see that many of the issues presented by the Medical Whistleblower Advocacy Network have been included in the report by the President. I was much honored to be asked to give direct testimony and to have the proposed language read to me by the Office of the Secretary of State over the phone prior to submission to the United Nations. Medical Whistleblowers need to have their human rights protected especially their rights to freedom, equality, and dignity. I was especially pleased that the President included the signing of the CRPD and the Tribal Indian Law Act; Medical Whistleblower supported both with active efforts this past year. I am also happy about the tone of the Presidents' message on many issues.

I have actively advocated for abolishing torture as a means of interrogation and asked the President to issue an executive order forbidding torture. I, as Executive Director of Medical Whistleblower, attended training in New Orleans with experts from the Physicians for Human Rights on the issue of torture evaluation. I, in person, discussed our challenges of torture evaluation of US citizens with important leaders in human rights such as the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis and the Canadian Center for Victims of Torture in Toronto Canada.

We also did discuss the death penalty - my state senator Marci Francisco helped present that issue to the President and I am grateful for her experience and knowledge of that issue here in my home state. As you know I did provide advocacy in regards to the possible death penalty for Dr. Lishan Wang MD who stands criminally accused of murdering Dr. Vanjinder Toor MD.

The issue of homelessness which I have actively worked on for 3 years also made the report - I appreciated the work of Attorney Eric Tars JD, Attorney Maria Foscarinis JD and other staff at the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

I have been happy in the responsiveness of our President on many fronts and over so many issues. We still need a greater acknowledgment of the concerns of the Mandated Reporters, Medical Fraud Whistleblowers, Defenders of Human Rights and Patient Advocates.
Greater consideration must be taken to assure proper criminal investigation of whistleblower complaints and protection of medical whistleblowers. US policies that are inconsistent with international human rights standards must be changed and political, economic and social rights need to be enforced effectively within our legal system.

Still, while the U.S. evaded some crucial questions, its participation in the process is a step in the right direction and I believe that the report is an excellent start.


Dr. Janet Parker DVM
Executive Director, Medical Whistleblower
Director of the working board Medical Whistleblower Advocacy Network
P.O. Box C
Lawrence, KS 66044


Comments from Dr Helen Bright:

Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/8/25 , 23rd May 2008) Report of the Working Group for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland identified a number of serious breaches of Human Rights in UK.
It made various recommendations and many have not been implemented up to date. There was nothing specific in UPR about medical whistleblowers or whistleblowers in general although recommendation No: 7 did say that the rights of individual protesters to exercise their freedom of expression and opinion was not reflected in UK legislation which had not been harmonized with Human Rights Act 1998.
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/136/44/PDF/G0813644.pdf?OpenElement

And here is what UK agreed to:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/161/51/PDF/G0816151.pdf?OpenElement
UK is quite complacent as it seems very happy that freedom of speech is fully protected.

Medical institutions in UK have been ineffective in protecting medical whistleblowers and have opted for the appearance of cohesion of medical profession by sacrificing of talented whistleblower doctors through its sham medical reviews at the General Medical Council and general means of harassment over many years.

Julian Assange Granted Bail by Dr Helen Bright

Julian Assange, Mega Whistle-blower star, has been granted bail following successful campaign by his international supporters (including D4J) and the legal representation including Mr Mark Stephens and Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC, barrister well known for his work in the area of freedom of speech.

We are grateful to feminist groups and individual women who came forward and this strategy has been most useful considering allegations against him and the absence of formal charges from Sweden.

D4J helped in another case of a male whistle blower accused of sexual assault and wrote to CPS who responded promptly.

However, I expect, defending male whistle-blowers is an easier task than defending female whistle-blowers as sexual politics is somewhat different. Women are expected to be even more subordinate than men when it comes to freedom of speech.

Secondly, whistle blowers are tortured mentally for years and attempts to completely destroy their reputations and life are relentless. For Mr Assange this is not news and he, as well as his lawyers, know only too well, the whole process will take years. While he may be struggling for his survival others will be making their way into comfortable retirements.

The humiliation of having to wear the electronic tag is only too familiar. Doctors who are whistle-blowers are forced by their medical regulators to accept unbearable conditions on their practice and are monitored beyond endurance across the world.

Whistle-blowers are also the victims of envy as those who speak up are brave and good people. Many powerful and not so powerful people do not feel good about themselves and once a whistle-blower is known not to be favored by authorities, a lot more new allegations could be made.

For me as a psychiatrist, it is fascinating to analyze the allegations as these tend to be of the projective nature. In other words false allegations really disclose what the accuser really thinks about themselves.

The more whistle-blowers are oppressed the more they speak up and this is their typical personality trait. Thus draconian authorities always lose this battle.

AGEISM and DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS against Solicitors

When I looked at the numbers of solicitors being investigated by Solicitors Regulatory Authority, I noticed that the majority of investigations affected people above the age of 41. This phenomenon of middle aged professionals being attacked with increased ferocity occurs in other fields such as medicine too.
Social prejudices have been well described in numerous publications, but are there any physiological aspects of aging that could be addressed? While social attitudes of ageism could take a long time to change are there any quick fixes?
The decline in the production of sexual hormones is more obvious in women, but in men it may be more subtle and over prolonged period of time. Many women take hormone replacement therapy, but what about men?
Symptoms of male "menopause" are decreased energy, drive, sweating, back pains and health problems. Click here to read more. These sort of symptoms such as decreased energy and motivation make one less likely to defend one self vigorously, effectively and before the complaints go any further e.g. to the regulator.
I know there are male lawyers who would rather let their spine crumble than consider hormone replacement therapy. To make the matters worse men do not have regular health screening like a woman of reproductive age may do. There is a lack of awareness as well amongst health professionals.
Interpreting some hormonal data can be difficult as it is not just the blood hormonal levels but also receptor sensitivity that matters. Furthermore, in the absence of base blood levels of hormones how can one say that there has been a significant decline?
One approach would be pragmatic and to ask different questions: Does it matter if one supplements without having all the scientific evidence?
Social prejudice is that as professionals get older they are out of touch and incapable. This makes us all more vulnerable to attacks as we get older.
Decrease in sexual appeal is equated with decrease in power in general: physical in particular.
While some organizations have policies against ageism at workplace these are often no more than several paragraphs saying the same thing all over again i.e. that ageism is prohibited.
These policies do not protect professionals from attacks by clients (patients) who could not care less for such policies. And if they read them, it is highly unlikely there would be any admission of guilt.
Stress has influence on a number of hormones such as corticosteroids and sex hormones. The effects on the body are, actually, widespread. Losing cases in court I would expect would lead to a drop in sex hormone levels. Football supporters get a rise in testosterone levels when their team wins. Bankers have higher testosterone levels when their investments are performing well. Yes, it is quite amazing what turns out to be sexy.
It could be argued that sometimes as we get older we have more responsibilities and are made to answer for other people's deficiencies (juniors, administrative errors etc) in a rather dysfunctional manner. As if they should not take responsibility for their own action or omission.
Repeatedly, women are described as professionals who are more caring and more risk averse. There are less women appearing before disciplinary tribunals than men overall.
However, those that do appear may be more severely punished for their transgressions of socially imposed sexual boundaries which expect women to be nice i.e. agreeable and not professionally assertive when they need to be.
Without risk taking how does one take the necessary professional actions?
When one examines the situation amongst doctors one finds there are no surprises as it is psychiatrists and obstetricians who have the most complaints made against them. Client factors matter too, one may observe, as well as the popular public expectations that professionals should be prepared to risk everything to get the job done for them but there are no client responsibilities. Should all patients/clients have to sign a document which places obligations on them to be decent to those providing professional services?
Taking into consideration that some people are totally incapable of acting responsibly (emergencies, lack of insight, mental incapacity) should a document be produced (and witnessed) at the time to such an effect for professionals' protection?
I have been unable to obtain the number of male and the number of female solicitors found guilty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in London when I asked them for this data. They told me they do not collect this sort of information. Ooops!
Unfortunately, professions will loose the privilege of self-regulation by exhibiting this sort of secrecy and power abuse.
High standards must be protected and expected and not punished by regulators as it has happened in a number of cases already.

GMC decided their Fitness to Practice Hearings are in keeping with Article 6 of Human Rights Act 1998 by Dr Helen Bright

General Medical Council has decided that their adjudication processes are in keeping with Article 6 of Human Rights Act 1998 ( the right to a fair hearing). Reasons given: not many doctors appeal against their Fitness to Practice determinations.
Surely, that must be true, as there are some doctors who are having such good times in bed with their patients that they are too happy to appeal GMC decisions that allow them to do so.
On the other hand if a doctor appearing before GMC Fitness to Practice Committee is a woman who asserted her authority during the course of her work and told some male colleagues off, GMC will put" hundreds" of conditions on her medical practice to make it impossible for her to find any work, earn any money and pay lawyers to work on the appeal. So again, GMC wins as no appeals here either.
Medical defense organizations are run by doctors who fear for their own registration if they upset GMC. My experience is that they sabotage appeal requests.
MPS refused to protect women doctors who are defamed because in the words of one of their directors: "Women do not earn as much as men and are not as often in the newspapers". And when they are, MPS hides barristers advice from their membership fee paying member. Wicked.
Medical Defense Organizations can choose to drop the doctor at any stage from their books as the indemnity cover is actually discretionary.
Another reason why some people do not appeal GMC Fitness to Practice Decisions is because they kill themselves instead.
The third reason is discouragement given to doctors by depressed barristers who already know how useless the High Court in London is when it comes to appeals against the tyrannical, sexist and racist medical regulator. So, some people figured out it is just not worth the effort.
Fourthly, British law itself is incompatible with Human Rights Act 1998, so appealing to British Courts may be really silly. I wrote before about some Statutory Instruments. Now, new Statutory Instrument 2010/474 out this year further reinforces bad law. GMC FTP determinations are valid despite any defect in the appointment of any panelist. In fact, one does not even have to be appointed to sit there and judge a doctor. Any obnoxious individual holding obnoxious prejudices can get paid to sit at FTP.
Please, click here to read 2010/474 and you will notice that even wrong word found a way there. They appear to have intended to put in a word "hearing" but put "appeal" instead in Rule 7 (2). Yes, it is a big difference.
It is just GMC trying to prevent appeals against its stitch ups, but getting its pants around its ankles instead.
What a Freudian slip.
And yes, those boys at GMC think they can do it all by themselves. It sure did not take them long.

TOP GENERAL PHYSICIAN BLOGS AWARD for Doctors4Justice

Top General Physicians Blogs Ward for Doctors4Justice has been gratefully received.

We are one of the winners of this award given by Nursing Schools Online.

It is nice to finish this year with an award especially for some of us who have been punished most severely just because we dared to communicate some unpleasant facts about the practice of medicine to the relevant authorities.

Sexual Hypocrisy and Religion by Dr Helen Bright

It appears to me that there has not been enough exposure of sexual hypocrisy secondary to religion. Prohibition of sexual activity outside marriage is just too much to cope with for many men and women. Both sexes employ psychological defenses to deal with the wide gap between what they say and what they do.
Only a very small number of women who are also active in politics received recent media exposure of their sexual hypocrisy.
The dysfunctional tendency to avoid conflict has also led to the silence on the subject eg in the case of Mr Julian Assange whose appeal against the international warrant issued by a Swedish court to summon him to answer allegations of sexual coercion has caught my attention.
In his case he appears to have had sex with some female Christian political activists.

Men can also make false allegations of sexual coercion. It happened to me years ago when a man claimed I seduced him against his will. I dumped him after telling him exactly what I thought about it. He cried but preferred to keep his victim status ever so popular in Christianity and in other religions. Taking responsibility for own beliefs is not something religious people rush to do.

Some men run a high risk of all sorts of allegations which are more likely to lead to court proceedings because there is a sexist attitude to men who can be perceived as more aggressive compared to women and therefore more likely to commit crimes. Even greater suicide rate in men is explained by some as being due to men taking violent means to do it with. The higher rate of suicide in men, actually, could be due to the neglect that men suffer. Mental anguish is dismissed as weakness of character and depression is not diagnosed or treated as it should be due to gender bias in diagnosis.

Excessive investments made for the purpose of controlling female sexuality as in many of the dying religions even today is reflected in the institutional bias towards religion (schools, courts, commercial enterprises) which have failed to act in keeping with the new values and laws of equality.

It may be hard to accept it but there is a price for everything. With more women in all professions including law one will now have to be on the look out for sexist attitudes from women. I can foresee that tests would have to be designed to screen out those who have attitudinal problems based on gender and religion before they are given any judicial position.
The obvious question is how many judges would be left in their jobs if they were tested, and found to be deficient?

Sexual hypocrisy is common and not always obvious either. It can appear as cultural values such as excessive tolerance towards the expression of religious values (confusion) no matter how much suffering it causes to the victims. People tend to avoid attacking religious sexual hypocrisy in fear that somehow they will be perceived as intolerant or that the conflict would enlarge beyond the ability to handle it. However, one has to tackle those issues as there is no other option.

CHRISTIAN FEMINISTS by Dr Helen Bright

There are people who call themselves Christian Feminists. It does not require too much knowledge to realize that Feminism and Christianity are not compatible at all.
Feminism as a political force has been hijacked by some political groups which present themselves as on the left but are actually what some would call on the right.
For thousands of years some of the major religions practiced today including Christianity have discriminated against women and this is very easy to see in the Bible, for example, as well as in historical records. Christian Feminists assume that they have special powers to interpret what God really intended for women and men and that in fact, it was some kind of equality. That way they assure themselves that they can keep God as well as some respect for themselves for choosing allegedly non-discriminatory God.
Absurd.
Responsibility and accountability for the beliefs is not required. And neither is responsibility and accountability required for their own actions that follow from the set of those beliefs and values.
Ms Anna Ardin (picture ABOVE) made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder. She claims to be a Christian Feminist and belongs to Brotherhood and yes, not Sisterhood, a little point she missed along all other points. Brotherhood is an organization affiliated to Swedish Social Democrats and they engaged anti-Semitic speakers for their conferences.
This is what Ms Ardin thinks of herself:

My feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, Swedish politics and Cuba from a political scientist, Christian left and long distance runner will from now on be published at http://annaardin.wordpress.com“

Fascinating that Ms Ardin thinks of herself as a scientist at all. I would think it is actually Mr Assange who is a scientist (physicist and mathematician).

I wonder if she considers human beings as animals who also have rights not to be harassed by false allegations.

I also wonder how her long distance running will help her when she has to confront real feminists.

Unfortunately, narcissistic people are dangerous particularly when they feel slighted in any way. I still remember some of them from the forensic psychiatric unit where I worked.

Another fascinating aspect of Christianity is its love of victimhood. Well, that is not compatible with feminism either but is both destructive and self-destructive.

Some Internet blogs report that AA has now gone on Christian mission to Palestine to make peace amongst Jews and Arabs. Is the idea that they will be united when they see her in fear of false allegations?

Whistleblowing may lead to false allegations of sexual assault

Whistleblowing is a high risk activity which is beneficial to public but can be extremely dangerous for the whistleblower. Mr Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks was issued with a warrant for his arrest because of the allegations of rape made by two women in Sweden. He was giving a public lecture there and was approached by the women. He had sex with them because these women were interested in him which is not surprising. However, it would appear that they felt he did not give them sufficient attention and subsequently the allegations have been made.
WikiLeaks has fought over 100 legal actions against them so far, and won.
WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of classified material such as war logs in Iraq and Afghanistan recently.
There have been attempts to destroy WikiLeaks financially (one example: attempted withdrawal of PayPal facilities for donations to WikiLeak website) and to forbid international travel to Mr Julian Assange.
His lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig appealed to Swedish Court to remove the arrest warrant as Mr Assange efforts to assist investigations have been refused by the Swedish authorities. He won in August.

Interestingly, Mr Assange was seeking residence in Sweden in the belief that laws there would protect him. But there is another sort of politics that has to be considered such as attempts to eliminate sexual bias from court proceedings. It is well known that conviction rate is low for rape and that various governments would be keen to improve the appearances because the overwhelming majority of victims are women who are also the majority of voters. One quick way of improving conviction figures is finding suitable scapegoats. Those who are different e.g. foreign are always more likely to be attacked, generally speaking. Mr Julian Assange is Australian.
Male Whistleblowers, especially are likely to be attacked in this manner.
While the Assange case is happening in a very public way there are other cases I know of where the accused experience a great deal of distress, public humiliations of court case against them, regulatory persecution (for example, by the General Medical Council) as well thrown in when the accused man is a doctor. The psychological torture does not end at the end of the court hearing as it may be repeated as in cases of hung jury. Thus the wrongly accused man has to go through all the stress once more.
British Medical Association has failed to protect many whistleblowers over the years but following the election the new government has decided to introduce policies in keeping with the law.
Women whistleblowers are more likely to be subjected to allegations of mental illness than rape and in addition suffer like men from sham peer review, restrictions on their license to practice which may include restrictions to working abroad.
Perhaps, British lawyers should learn something from Bjorn Hurtig so that all the wrongly accused men still waiting for their trials are spared too.
I wonder for how long will Swedish prosecutor who ordered arrest warrant for Mr Assange keep her job.
Dr Frederic Whitehurst is an FBI whistleblower who saved some men already in jail when he blew the whistle on police presenting false DNA evidence.

More allegations have been made and in the light of so called new evidence a warrant has been issued again. It is as if in Sweden they never heard of teleconferencing. Surely if any of the prosecutors wanted to speak with Mr Assange this could have been arranged without the warrant. This disproportionate measure should have been appealed straight in the European Court.

DR SHEILA MATHEWS TRIBUNAL by Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist

Dr Sheila Mathews' Employment Tribunal hearing against Northamptonshire Council starts today in Leicester. She is a Community Consultant Paediatrician who was employed as a medical adviser to their adoption panel. Dr Mathews objected to adoption of children by same sex parents and abstained from voting when same sex parents were considered by the adoption panel. Initially, Dr Sheila Mathews was replaced by the Northampton Council on the panel and after that she resigned.

Mr Paul Diamond is representing her human rights issues and is paid by Christian Legal Center. Surprise, surprise.

Considering that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that children raised by the same sex parents are any worse off than those raised by heterosexuals, I have great difficulty seeing how one can make a claim that her professional opinion would be enough to help her win her Employment Tribunal claim. After all, we are responsible for our professional opinions and accountable to a number of people. It is against Good Medical Practice to discriminate on the grounds of gender. Is our medical regulator asleep, or just rejoicing at the fact that there are still women doctors around who just do not get the power politics of religion? Most religions are patriarchal and why would any woman support it is well known. Some people just never grow up enough to pick up the sweets on the top shelf and in my opinion, Dr Mathews is one of those. Supporting those already in power (religiously biased establishment) may seem easier in the short term but ultimately one must not betray one's true values (in Dr Mathews case one would reasonably expect those to be the interests of children).

This conflict between religious belief and adoption needs has occurred in a number of countries associated with UK e.g. Australia. In Sydney there were about 120, 000 children waiting for adoption but only about 50,000 children found homes. There too, the same issues arose with Christian right putting themselves first and social welfare of children second. Again this suggest that something is wrong with a system which really should make a firm commitment to secularism.

Dr Mathews will claim that her career has been damaged beyond repair. I doubt it.
The religious bias is present in so many medical institutions in this world today that she would have no problems finding work. There are Christian medical foundations why would they reject Dr Mathews?

With respect to her hair style, I am not in position to say if Dr Mathews has a hairdresser. However, if there is one, I would like to add that hairdressers too, have the right to reject being forced to cut the hair in the way which the client demands and which would misrepresent their true artistic ability.

One way or another it is another bad hair day for Dr Mathews.

I, guess pink oboe chamber music is not to Dr Mathews liking either. Here is Mozart's Oboe Quartet.

Walk the Talk on Suicide Prevention by Dee Spears

In 2008, Andrew Lansley said in a speech to The Mental Health Network Conference……

“Mental illness is one of the greatest causes of misery in our society. It is possible to be physically ill, but still be generally happy. It is very hard to be happy and to be mentally ill. So there can be no fundamental wellbeing without good mental health. Perhaps the ultimate "no fault" illness – it can affect any one of us at any time, however talented, fortunate or careful. Just as the recession we are now facing is no respecter of social groups, mental health also touches individuals and families across Britain indiscriminately.

Matters relating to Stigma can be found on:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/MHP%20lo-res%20Press%20Release%20version%2015_07_08.pdf

There are a multitude of reports and speeches I could refer to and meanwhile people are dying and families are left bereft and unsupported by a system which puts undue pressure on them at a time when restorative care is needed.

There are many concerns being expressed regarding the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman process. CBT is running late and DH state it cannot be fully accessed. LINks provision is sporadic and the Health Select Committee has launched an inquiry into the sharp rise in complaints against the NHS and the reasons behind the inflation of litigation costs in recent years.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4854%3Amps-launch-inquiry-into-nhs-complaints-and-litigation&catid=174%3Ahealthcare&q=&Itemid=99

Its Walk the Talk time…… can we now fully address this please!

Image: Japanese calligraphy Determination

Common Mistakes in Understanding Human Rights Law in UK by Alexander D. Winterton LLB(Hons) LLM

There is much confusion about the impact of the European Convention of Human Rights in the UK. Yes we did pass the Human Rights Act 1998 but that was not first time human rights has been recognized as law. In actual fact we can trace back human rights for centuries, Lord Ellenborough CJ commented in R v Inhabitants of Eastbourne that “ the law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them relief….”

The European Convention, before the Human Rights Act , is a treaty which binds the UK as a matter of international law. Treaty obligations binding on the UK under international law can only be directly enforced as law in the UK if they are given legislative effect – The Parliament Belge (1879) 4 PD 129 at 154, and it is true to say that prior to the Human Rights Act there was no such measure. But that is not the end of the matter. Domestic courts are increasingly having regard to the norms of international law.

Lord Hoffmann noted in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex, p Simms [2000] AC 115 at 131G-132B;-

“much of the Convention reflects the common law… That is why the UK government felt able in 1950 to accede to the Convention without domestic legislative change.”

Between 1964 & 1999 the Convention although unincorporated was referred to in over 650 English cases – M Hunt – Using Human Rights Law in English Courts, Oxford, Hart Publishing 1997.

There are a number of omitted Articles but they have been omitted as a result of not being necessary. For Example Article 1 has been omitted. If for example another Contracting State believed that the UK was in breach of its obligations it would make a referral of that matter to the European Court of Human Rights and not to UK domestic Courts.

Also a noticeable omission is Article 13 which provides “Right to an effective remedy - Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”.

Looking at the Human Rights Act itself, both section 6 and 8 set out in detail remedies available although attempts were made during the passage of the Bill to include Article 13. The Government argued (Hansard HC Vol 312 Col 979 20 May 1998) that it was unnecessary as section 8 gave the courts the widest scope to provide effective remedies and that the addition of Article 13 might simply confuse the courts into developing remedies which they were unable to grant, although interestingly no examples could be given!

Lord Bingham notes in Al-Skeini and others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) Al-Skeini and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals) [2007] UKHL 26 “The Convention provides in article 1 that "The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention". The Secretary of State points out that article 1 is not one of the articles to which domestic effect is given by section 1 of and Schedule 1 to the HRA. Therefore, he argues, the scope of the Act is to be found in construction of the Act and not construction of article 1 of the Convention. The claimants reject this argument, pointing out that article 1 confers and defines no right, like the other articles specified in section 1 of the Act and the Schedule. Article 1 of the Convention is omitted because, like article 13 (also omitted), it is provided for in the Act…. Thus there was no need to include article 1 in section 1 of the Act and the Schedule, nor article 13 since the Act contains its own provisions as to remedies in sections 4 and 8.”

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry concludes

56. “ By this somewhat circuitous route, I arrive at what is surely the crucial argument in favour of the wider interpretation of section 6. The Secretary of State accepts that "the central purpose" of Parliament in enacting sections 6 and 7 was "to provide a remedial structure in domestic law for the rights guaranteed by the Convention": Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2004] 1 AC 546, 564, para 44, per Lord Hope of Craighead. In other words, claimants were to be able to obtain remedies in United Kingdom courts, rather than having to go to Strasbourg. The Secretary of State also accepts that, while the jurisdiction of states for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention is essentially territorial, in exceptional cases, "acts of the contracting states performed, or producing effects, outside their territories can constitute an exercise of jurisdiction by them within the meaning of article 1 of the convention": Bankovic v Belgium (2001) 11 BHRC 435, 450, para 67. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State says that sections 6 and 7 are to be interpreted in such a way that, in these exceptional cases, a victim is left remediless in the British courts. Contrary to the central policy of the Act, the victim must resort to Strasbourg.

57. My Lords, I am unable to accept that submission. It involves reading into sections 6 and 7 a qualification which the words do not contain and which runs counter to the central purpose of the Act. That would be to offend against the most elementary canons of statutory construction which indicate that, in case of doubt, the Act should be read so as to promote, not so as to defeat or impair, its central purpose. If anything, this approach is even more desirable in interpreting human rights legislation. As Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood points out, this interpretation also ensures that, in these exceptional cases, the United Kingdom is not in breach of its article 13 obligation to afford an effective remedy before its courts to anyone whose human rights have been violated within its jurisdiction”.

The House of Lords has therefore communicated the clearest message to the lower courts that they can and must have regard to Article 13 rights even though it is not expressly set out in the Act itself.

A New Legal Ombudsman by Alexander Winterton and Dr Helen Bright

From 6th of October 2010 UK has a new Legal Ombudsman. Alan Sampson is Chief Ombudsman who will on 24th November 2010 answer online your questions as how this new body will function. Their telephone number is 03005550333. The Office of Legal Services Ombudsman (tel: 0161 839 7262) is closing down. They used to take up complaints against Solicitors Regulation Authority, for example, when a complaint against a solicitor was rejected. Contrary, to some peoples expectations (and confirmed to D4J by the Ombudsman Office) the advice provided by The Office of Legal Service Ombudsman were not legally binding on Solicitors Regulation Authority, and it is of interest, when SRA did take up the complaints that went to The Office of Legal Services Ombudsman. We know of at least one malicious complaint made to SRA and The Office of Legal Service Ombudsman. A complaint against a solicitor was initially rejected by SRA and following the decision by The Office of Legal Service Ombudsman and a change in leadership of SRA, the malicious complaint was accepted only to be rejected again by Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. D4J have researched this point and it is interesting to note that the Ombudsman doesn’t appear to know the extent of its own powers – a worrying issue for any consumer using them as a body of last resort to deal with complaints. Section 49(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 specifically provided powers for the Ombudsman to make Orders by inserting a section 2A into the Courts & Legal Services Act 1990 as follows: “(2A) If after completing any investigation under this Act the Ombudsman considers that, rather than recommending the taking of any action by any person or professional body under paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2), he should make an order requiring the taking of that action by the person or body— (a) he shall afford the person or body, and the person who made the allegation, a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations; and (b) having considered any representations from them, he may, in reporting his conclusions, make the order.” Malicious complaints were made by a doctor who was expert witness for a solicitor but changed his tune when asked to act as a joint witness. She complained about him to The General Medical Council and he took successful revenge against her at SRA. Even though she was found innocent the pain of professional investigation by regulatory body should never be underestimated. SRA remains free from obligations under Freedom of Information Act (due to the fact that it operates as a sub-committee and does not [unlike for example the GMC] have its own separate legal status) and hangs onto any evidence that shows weakness in the thinking of the prosecuting lawyers working at SRA. One would expect regulatory bodies to co-operate in extinguishing professional misconduct, but what gets in the way is the personal pride and conflict of interests. Police have also colluded in cover ups of perjury (stating in writing that the SRA could not commit a criminal offence!) and can be easily influenced by the solicitors working for SRA, no doubt as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by it & the Law Society and that the Metropolitan Police's Director of Legal Services, Edward Solomons, is also on the SRA's board. That's a serious conflict of interest. As a simple matter of law one must question how such appointments sits with the Police Conduct Regulations requiring them to avoid being beholden to any institution - “1. It is of paramount importance that the public has faith in the honesty and integrity of police officers. Officers should therefore be open and truthful in their dealings; avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity.” Schedule 1 – The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 Statutory Instrument 2004 No 645. At present members of one tribunal also sit at another regulatory body and the fixing of panels has become legendary. The Courts have dodged this issue of independence and fair trial by concluding if you could appeal to the High Court then your rights under Article 6 to a fair trial have not been breached. However this misses the point. In the 21st Century we have a right and expectation to believe that tribunals should be fair and independent especially when they publish their findings to the public at large, in one single blow ruining the excellent reputation of those honest doctors in their patient community. So where to go? The Independent Police Complaints Commission is effective and free. Where allegations are not properly or consistently investigated, the law-enforcement authorities run the risk of sowing the seeds for a cycle of impunity for perpetrators of inhuman treatment. Where such impunity exists, an administrative practice or policy of toleration of violations of Article 3 could be said to exist. In the first in a series of cases from Northern Ireland in the 1970s, individuals had claimed that they were not only victims of individual acts of torture, but that they were victims of a practice in violation of the Convention. Donnelly and others v. the United Kingdom, 4 DR 4.The elements that constitute a practice are repetition of acts and official tolerance. Repetition of acts means a substantial number of acts which are the expression of a general situation. Official tolerance means that, though acts are clearly illegal, they are tolerated in the sense that the superiors of those immediately responsible, though cognisant of such acts, take no action to punish them or to prevent their repetition; or that a higher authority, in the face of numerous allegations, manifests indifference by refusing any adequate investigation of their truth or falsity; or that in judicial Proceedings a fair hearing of such complaints is denied. - Greek case, Report, pp. 195- 196. Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention place a number of positive obligations on states designed to prevent, and provide redress for, torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria the Court held that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other agents of the state unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the state’s general duty under Article 1of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in…[the] Convention”, requires that there should be an effective official investigation. The investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. So we conclude that the Police are the only real independent organ of state to investigate. Next stop ECHR ….

Effects of Pulsed Microwave Radiation by Velma Lyrae

The research on microwaves for use in cooking was initially done by German scientists in order to feed the army faster than would be possible using the conventional methods. The research was picked by both American and Russian scientists after the war. The latter did research which alarmed them and they prohibited the use of microwaves because of its harmful effects. The controversy continue to present day.

Here is an article by Velma Lyrae on the Effects on Pulsed Microwave Radiation.

Lately I have become an avid listener to LBC Radio. If anyone is not familiar to the programme, the Host gives out the latest discussion topic and people of all walks of life offer differing opinions by telephoning in to bring real conversations to the table.

The latest topic on offer was ADHD – a scientific breakthrough had revealed it was caused by a genetic breakage. Very quickly the phone lines jammed, people ringing in to disagree with the findings, but because I was used to the challenging opinions, I wasn't particularly startled by the response.

I don't have ADHD, so why is this of any interest to me? Well, I'm electrosensitive and because my condition isn't recognized in the UK (much like the position ADHD held), I have spent the past five years trying to find the research for the possible mechanism/link to my symptoms and how it could be damaging my health. Thus because Authorities will not decide on the link, the mechanism, the condition is immediately thrown back, like a fish back to the sea, without even examining it. There's no proof how the fish got onto the line, therefore we don't see the fish, throw it back. So I have been trying for the past 5 years to show them the rod, the bite, to pass on the Anglers' expertise, bringing fishermen to them, but to no avail.

In my attempts at bringing research into the light, I have just finished dissecting the ICNIRP Report – a collection of Scientific tests of effects from mobile signals which revealed amongst other things, DNA breaks and effects on gene expression. So when the subject of gene breakage came up both in the mobile tests and with ADHD, my antennae went up. I followed this up by an online search for ADHD and mobiles......and there is was...sitting there, like a shiny sparkly jewel “ADHD connected to mobile phones”. The Author? Sanjay Gupta, Neurosurgeon, Chief Medical Officer. In fact held in such high esteem, Barrack Obama offered him the position of Surgeon General. What higher credentials can you reach?

So later that day when I struck up a conversation with a lady in Sainsbury's, and the talk turned to the latest headline of ADHD, I couldn't wait to share my newly found jewel with her. Mr Gupta's opinion, a Neurosurgeon no less “oh no” she said “I just think they're lazy”. I had to check myself, I thought she had misheard, so I proffered again, a Chief Medical Officer, he's a Brain Surgeon I said earnestly “oh no” she insisted “I don't believe that, they're just lazy”. I was floored. So what just happened there? I mean what can you say to a person who clings so doggedly to an opinion that clearly has no substance. I pictured a juror who has the evidence before them, they could choose to hear the Chief Medical Officer's opinion, Neurological experience, qualifications, intelligence, or their own “Mary Fairy” opinion, with no experience of brain surgery, no qualifications of the sort. So what is her opinion based on? A stubbornness to cling to a once held belief? Is it a need to dump our infallibilities somewhere else, with someone else. Someone else is lazy, someone else is flawed, not us, not I.

You might ask, why it matters anyway, what Mary Fairy thinks? We've heard the facts you say, we know what's right. Well this is the kind of opposition I encounter everyday as an Electrosensitive. That we Electrosensitives encounter every day, all 1.6 million of us, trying to justify our condition to people and to Government &Health Authorities – to people who should know better, who will not even consider the Scientific evidence, and I struggle like most Electrosensitives to present ever more evidence and after years & years, I am left wondering like my conversation with Mary, what is going on, why we are not being listened to. It seems no amount of Scientific evidence presented to the Government or the Health Authorities is enough. I wonder if it is because like Mary, we cannot get through the first film, the first layer of belief, and so no amount of scientific evidence will ever be enough. The fish that came from the sea cannot be a fish because we cannot see the rod, and no matter how many fish we throw up on shore and how many times we point to the thin translucent strand of the rod, the belief like the sun shining too brightly will block the viewer from seeing what is there before them. Or perhaps it is to inconvenient to see the thread.

What of the point I was making to Mary about ADHD and mobiles, somehow this had become lost. Was it too destructive to the world she had built around her, so that her mind pushed it out? She might have to consider “lazy” might not be located with teenagers. Where will the notion reside now? Who would take the “lazy” crown? If it couldn't be found in the world around her, would it have to be located within, within her, within i. Until this barrier, the film of belief is broken, stripped away, she will not be able to hear the next stage of the argument – the possibility that mobile phones are causing ADHD.

What would it mean if she began to consider this? That the Government are lying, covering up, conspiring with Corporations, to either harm us, kill us, destroy communities or could it be a clever plan to cover up their incompetency or perhaps they are just plain stupid, neglectful and have no regard for our health. Perhaps an experiment gone wrong, now it's out of hand. Her world would come crumbling down.

For Mary's own conscience, I would suspect she would have to confront feelings of guilt, that she had misjudged the children & teenagers with ADHD, it wasn't their fault. She would have to retract her venom, she would have to take the blame, the guilt for wrongly accusing them.

This feeds very nicely into early mobile phone neurolinguistic programming, subliminal messaging, which Mark Thomas revealed Coca Cola used to sell their product. I remember in particular a mobile ad where young man was caught supposedly in the middle of an act, on the bed, box of tissues by his side, you get the picture. In walks the maid and he throws a cover on.....his old outdated mobile phone. By clever association, they had managed to reprogram the psyche, shifting the psyche's Guilt and Shame onto not having the latest mobile phone, all guilt, shame can be lifted if you buy the new model. Who doesn't want to rid themselves of existential shame and guilt? Add to this the concept of 'i' Who doesn't feel the supremacy of I, it is a survival trait, inbuilt. Next in the mix, the concept of “connection” and the bond is cemented. The newly created psyche is further developed with the new generations of technology - Wii – WE, allows for that connection. SMART – who doesn't want to be clever? It's no mistake these names and associations have been picked. Even new Kindle book reminds us of kinder (German for children) and kind, kind children – how can the pulsating microwave radiation from Kind Children be harmful to us? What if we had a new gadget, the same gadget and called it “RADPULSE” would it hold the same appeal?

Does it mean we have been conned? Sold down the river? Frederick Jameson noted that when we buy a product we don't buy it for it's physical qualities, we buy an idea, a concept. We don't buy Coca cola - a brown fizzy phosphorus liquid sold in a bottle, we buy Unity - I want to teach the world to sing, multiculturalism, a free world, happiness, nature.....freedom, spontaneity, Life. We buy a bottle of Life. Kruger explores this notion with her Art. Effectively, with a mobile phone, we have been sold a bomb, slow releasing, wrapped up in novelty, sugary shiny wrapping paper, add on a name we intrinsically know as us, “i” and what's to argue with? What's not to like? Have we been sold down the river? I'm afraid so. But at what point do we hand back the bomb? About turn, about face? Or do we like Mary stick to our guns, our outmoded beliefs that “i” radiation phone must be safe because it's called “I” and “Wii” radiation must be alright because its you and me, us and we need each other, we all need to connect. Of course we do, that's why they sold it to us. You don't need pulsed radiation to connect, Speaking on even just a technological need to connect, there are wires, underground that will do the job perfectly well. Yes, we have been sold down the river, but there's still time to jump out of the boat and swim to shore.

But can we jump ship, cash in the chips? What do we lose when we do this? We will have to retract, take back, renew our beliefs. Well if you believe in Science and have a scientific mind, you do this all the time, you refresh the Truth page with the latest evidence, you accept there is no resting ground for Truth, it is always developing, changing, moving forward to reveal a greater clarity – that is the nature of science. If you don't do this, it becomes fixed – like a Religion, a dogma, never changing, and yet this is what appears to be happening now to our Scientific evidence of electromagnetic frequencies. No sooner does a report come out showing Emfs effect on the human body, mind, the Government brings in an “Expert” to refute it, to say “no, this isn't so, I don't believe that”, throw in a few Newtonian scientific facts of protons and atoms, and bob's your uncle, no layperson has an idea of what is being said. The experts have moved on from Newton to Quantum Physics, so the discussion ends. Our Experts in the field, Andrew Goldsworthy retired lecturer at Imperial College London has not been called in to give his opinion. We have not called in the Experts in other countries, Specialists who have devoted their careers to this area, Olle Johanssen of Karolinska Institute, Magda Havas of Trent University.

As a species, how is our knowledge of Science to develop if we block these discoveries? What if we considered them? If we considered them, would our consciousness shift so that suddenly we would be able to see the thread? The invisible thread. Our Government, our Health Authorities are blocking off the possibility of mankind learning about frequencies, about resonance and what this could mean to us as a human race. Sound (frequencies) often heralded as the key to the entire universe. How many people know about Cymatics Are they really rejecting the model builder's approach upon which many of our Scientific Discoveries have been built upon? Are they blocking any research in this area because it wouldn't benefit them financially, not only that but in the fear this could see the collapse of our financial world built on Mobile Phone revenue? Perhaps resonance could replace the pharmaceutical industry. If we had no mobile revenue it could destroy our financial institutions, media sponsorship and of course there is the infrastructure to pay for. Where would the tax money come from, oh the horror, the horror – first the cigarette tax, now the mobile phone tax. It's no wonder they are fighting so hard not to acknowledge people like us who are affected by these microwave frequencies. But at what price? For me there is no question, Our Human Rights not be experimented upon with these aggressive frequency signals should be the prime concern. For an intelligent society we should make the development of our Scientific understanding, our spiritual evolution, philosophy & wisdom major concerns. For the Government – there is only one concern – money. Oh sorry, two....Power.

For us as individuals, consumers, mobile phone users, do we refuse to budge, convincing ourselves we are “safe” within our “i” radiation phones? Do we stop listening, considering the evidence, like on a desert island, I see no ships, I do not believe in ships. The ship sails away. Do we stop moving forward, refreshing the page, in the midst of our evolution, Do we stop still?

Velma Lyrae