Positive Health Online

More Comment: Tribute to Medical Herbalist Ann Warren Davis

In the case study section of Issue 106 I wrote a tribute to the Medical Herbalist Ann Warren Davis. It is now September 2005 and not one reader of this publication which is titled The UK’s leading Complementary Health Magazine has responded or contributed good or bad to the memory of a woman who did a lot of good for her patients under the umbrella of the herbal medicine world. I have to say that I am truly shocked by the lack of response. I cannot believe that I was the only patient that appreciated and valued her expertise.  This lady literally saved me health wise by turning my life around using dietary changes and herbal medicine. Is this hard for people to believe? Maybe so but this is the truth nevertheless.

I am well aware that today’s modern society and press love to place scorn on herbal and homeopathic treatment. As yet I do not believe that anyone has all the answers to perfect health and someone like Ann Warren Davis did do a lot of research and worked with the medical profession on many issues of health. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Until the medical profession can come up with answers to serious medical conditions without destroying the good to cure the disease they need to at least consider coming together with professionals in the other alternative fields and work together in unison.

Come on, surely I cannot be the only person to have benefited from this lady’s expertise that enabled me to change direction and walk a healthier path. Let us hear from other people like myself.

Cancer: Intravenous Vitamin C Effective Treatment by Sepp Hasslburger
Studies during the 1970s first suggested administration of high doses of ascorbate might provide a clinical benefit for treating cancer, but later studies using the same high doses found no benefit.

However, researchers now say the original studies used intravenous and oral ascorbate, while subsequent studies used only oral administration. Recognizing those differences might account for the disparate clinical outcomes, Mark Levine and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health re-examined intravenous ascorbate therapy in cultured cancer cell lines.

The researchers found ascorbate killed cancer cells at concentrations that would only be achievable through intravenous infusion. Normal cells were not affected by ascorbate at any concentration.

Additionally, the scientists report ascorbate treatment led to the formation of hydrogen peroxide, a chemical that can kill cells, suggesting a potential mechanism for the therapy.

The research appears in this week’s online, early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.[1] See also Web MD Study: Vitamin C May Fight Cancer[2]

Jonathan Campbell wrote, providing further references.[3]

This treatment has been used for several decades at Riordan’s clinic in Wichita, KA, www.brightspot.org. Here are the current links describing the therapies: www.canceraction.org.gg/inext.htm: description of the therapy www.canceraction.org.gg/recnac.htm: actual treatment protocol: administration and preparation details.

I recommend this intravenous therapy as an adjunct to the Rath oral cancer therapy, which is described in general at: www.stopping-cancer-naturally.org and explicitly in my cancer manual, info at www.cqs.com/cancertherapy.htm and available at www.cqs.com/manuals.htm.

We should of course also make a distinction between ascorbic acid (generally called vitamin C) and mineral ascorbates, that is vitamin C bound to a mineral such as calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium which is the form utilized by the human body. Since intravenous vitamin C is always in ascorbate form, perhaps that could explain why there is a difference between the oral and the intravenous route of administering the substance.

References

1.    Phys.org Vitamin C: possible cancer-killing promise: www.physorg.com/news6427.html
2.    my.webmd.com/content/Article/111/110117.htm?pagenumber=1
3.    www.cqs.com/

Source and Further Information

Milk Revealed As Main Cause Of Osteoporosis

It had been thought for many years that calcium in milk makes bones stronger, but new research shows
osteoporosis is caused by a lack of bone-making cells rather than a lack of calcium.

Dairy milk is singled out as the culprit because more than any other food it depletes the finite reserve of bone-making cells in the body. Although milk makes bones stronger in the short term, in the long term it erodes bone-making cells, increasing the risk of osteoporosis. This explains why countries with the highest rates of milk consumption, such as Ireland, Austria and Holland, also have the highest incidence of
osteoporosis.

Growing evidence is showing that far from protecting bones, milk actually causes osteoporosis. For example in a 12-year Harvard study of 78,000 women, those who drank milk three times a day actually broke more bones than women who rarely drank milk. Similarly, a 1994 study in Sydney, Australia, showed that higher dairy product consumption increased fracture risk: those with the highest dairy consumption had double the risk of hip fracture compared to those with the lowest consumption.

“Dairy milk does increase bone density in the short term, but this comes at a terrible price,” said author Russell Eaton. “Every time you consume milk you erode bone-making cells, increasing the risk of osteoporosis. The latest research also shows that people with osteoporosis also have a much higher incidence of heart disease and cancer, and the evidence is pointing at milk as the common factor. For example, it was thought that prostate cancer was caused by harmful fats in the diet, but it turns out that calcium in milk is the culprit because it feeds nanobacteria, and this in turn causes calcification and cancer in the prostate.”

Research shows that harmful calcification, caused by nanobacteria in the body, is at the root of many diseases such as arthritis, kidney stones, heart disease and stroke. These microscopic organisms, which are present in virtually everybody, get fed calcium and phosphorus from the bloodstream and then secrete calcium phosphate to cause harmful calcification. The book explains how dairy milk is the main food source for nanobacteria, thus causing many serious diseases.

“The Milk Imperative breaks new ground by bringing together the latest findings on dairy milk that turn many pre-conceptions on their head – by simply switching from dairy to non-dairy milk we will make a dramatic and long-lasting improvement to our health,” said Dr Amy Lanou, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, United States.

Published August 20, 2005, The Milk Imperative. (ISBN 1-903339-16-2) is now available from book stores or from www.milkimperative.com.

Further Information

Russell Eaton
Deliveredonline.com
Tel: 118.9796120
milkimperative@milkimperative.com
www.milkimperative.com
Copyright 2004 Eworldwire, All rights reserved.

Source and Further Information

Persecution of Alternative Practitioners Treating Cancer in the UK
In depth conversation with Roy MacKinnon

by Louise Mclean
Roy MacKinnon had been successfully treating patients in Wales, UK, using the Dr Hulda Clark protocol until he was investigated under the 1939 Cancer Act and the 1968 Trades Description Act. He was taken to Court over a two year period accused of breaching the 1968 Trade Descriptions Act, and charged with claiming he could cure cancer, HIV and MS.

When did you first decide to become a natural health practitioner?
Around 20 years ago I decided on a career change and I got myself a qualification in counselling but later noticed that sometimes people who were depressed were not getting better as rapidly as I hoped. This caused me to look further at things like allergies, flower essence remedies, etc. to see whether the whole process could be accelerated, and I began looking in a rather more detailed way at herbs and supplements to see if they would help people.

When I became ill with ME/CFS, I had found all of this information really quite helpful. I had received Chinese medicine, acupuncture and then Shiatsu. In the early 1990s I went to the Bristol School of Shiatsu and did my 3 years there as a student. Then I practised the Shiatsu method that had helped me.

It was only after this that I discovered the work of Dr. Hulda Clark1 which I then added to the work I was already doing.

I believe you used the Hulda Clark methods to help people with cancer? Can you describe her protocol?
Basically the approach of Dr Clark is to understand the individual as somebody who once had a very well functioning immune system but became ill because a build up of pathogens and toxins had been too great for their immune system to handle. It follows therefore, that if you remove those pathogens and toxins, you are taking the burden off the back of the immune system and allowing it to recover so the individual can get well again.

I think the important point here is that Dr Clark encourages individuals to look for the root cause of illness. She’s not interested in treating individual symptoms, although symptoms are obviously part of an overall picture. Orthodox medicine treats symptoms, so it’s not surprising that they don’t really have any cures. Our interest is trying to get to the root cause of whatever really triggers and allows subsequent chronic illness to develop. You cannot really sort that out unless you can get to what has caused that malaise. I am not denying that maybe an inherited or psychological factor is involved. There is something that has bothered the immune system to cause it to collapse, and if it can be identified and removed, the individual starts to become well again.

The other thing of course is diet. If you are not giving the body the right nutrition, it cannot repair itself, it cannot recover and you have to re-educate people regarding their eating habits.

The whole thing with the food angle is very, very important – not only food but also water. The bottom line in our society is money, not health. As a result people are tempted by what looks and tastes better rather than what does them good. You have all sorts of chemicals and pesticides that facilitate the market driven economy and it’s often at the expense of health. What looks best and is cheapest is not going to maintain your health because it can be toxin-laden and sometimes pathogen-laden as well. That applies to water as much as it does to food. The quality of our water is deteriorating almost on a daily basis. Since we all have to drink, it becomes quite central to our health. You can go into a supermarket or health food shop and buy organic food, what you can’t do is buy organic water. There can be up to 500 different toxins in drinking water.

Did you have success with your methods of healing?
Oh yes. This was one of the very helpful factors when the case came to trial. I was able to draw on a number of cases that were very positively helped by using the Hulda Clark toxin/pathogen removal process. There were very happy people whose health had improved who were delighted to come to court to support me.

What I am really interested to know about is how it all started – when you first encountered the difficulties with the authorities over treating people.
The troubles really started when I came to Swansea in 1999. In the last few years since coming, I have been attacked by the BBC no less than 3 times.

What happened exactly?
What happens is that your work comes to their attention and they try to find a disgruntled patient or somebody like that. It seems they contact or are contacted by this organisation, formerly the Campaign Against Health Fraud (CAHF) – now called HealthWatch, which appears to be effectively just a branch of the pharmaceutical multinationals. This is a quackbuster organization and there is another one in the US called QuackWatch. They are out to discredit alternative health practitioners.

The programme that ruined my reputation was Week In, Week Out, a Welsh programme which features anything that is happening in Wales. A feature about my practice was also shown on a national programme, CrimeSquad. I have had two attacks from BBC Wales and one from BBC nationally. I think CrimeSquad was the first one which could have been seen by 8 or 9 million people.

The problem is the reporting of the BBC. The person they are busy investigating is not being investigated at all, because the conclusion has already been arrived at before they ask you any questions whatsoever. It doesn’t much matter what sort of answers you give, as they will be edited out.

Did they come and speak to you? Did they interview you?
Well firstly they tried to surreptitiously do this under cover. On one occasion they posed as a patient with a friend and one of the reporters had a buttonhole camera. Another had a tape recorder inside her handbag. On another occasion there was a telephone conversation which was simply tape-recorded without me being informed. So there is a lack of honesty, uprightness, forthrightness in this. They tried to sneak information from me which would benefit their programme-making and the truth goes out the window.

So you had somebody who posed as a patient who wasn’t really a patient? How many times did that happen?
Three times.

Three times people came to you as patients? Could you sense that they were a bit bogus, that they didn’t seem to have anything much wrong with them?
On one occasion they came to my house. On the two other occasions it was done by telephone.

So do you treat people at your house?
Not these days. I stopped after the first occasion when the BBC sent the reporters under disguise and I worked simply by telephone, but then they just sit and record your telephone messages. Then of course, they can edit them and do whatever they like. I did not get a fair investigation.

And how long did that go on for?
It all happened within a 2 to 3 week period, when they were producing a programme. But typical of paparazzi, they will follow you all over the place in order to try and get an interview. I can remember on one occasion they waited for hours and hours around the corner from my house and then chased me across Swansea. I had to go into a friend’s house in order to get away from them.

And you say you were on television three times?
That’s right. They actually inferred on one occasion that they expect most people to crack up after one such event and to stop their line of business as a result of the way in which they treat their victims. They were somewhat surprised that I was still on the go after two of these incidents, let alone three.

On the third occasion, what they did was to take their files and present them to the local Trading Standards office. Regardless of how trading standards operate, you have to understand that this was political. When the BBC is making such a request, trading standards have to investigate. So Trading Standards haul you in for an interview.

So you had to go?
Yes, and it’s costing you money because you have to then get hold of a solicitor because you cannot get Legal Aid until you are formally charged. You are hauled in for a really quite dreadful interview. It’s almost Gestapo-like. After that they make a formal charge. If you are not well off, you are entitled to Legal Aid, so at least you get legal bills paid but the idea is to ruin you wherever possible. It’s not the Trading Standards people who were to blame, it is the BBC, in my opinion, because they were putting pressure  on the Trading Standards. The Trading Standards know that if they are not seen to investigate, then obviously the BBC can give that local Trading Standards office a very bad name.

But who was behind the BBC investigations – the so called Health Watch, do you think?
Yes, it appears so. In my opinion they are backed by the pharmaceutical multinationals.

And you were charged with saying you could treat cancer?
Cure cancer. Under the 1939 Cancer Act, you are not allowed to advertise that you can cure cancer. They said I was making a claim to cure cancer – something which I could not and would not do. So they said I was making a false claim in terms of the services I was offering the public. Well as I’ve explained, I don’t offer to cure cancer. I offer to use the protocol of Dr Hulda Clark in order to unburden the immune system of its toxins and pathogens and thereby help the body to recover. I don’t go out to say I’m going to cure you of this particular chronic illness, let alone cancer, multiple sclerosis or whatever. But attempts were made to trick me into saying that. Therefore your freedom of speech is denied as well. But nevertheless they charged me with claiming to cure cancer, HIV and MS under the 1968 Trades Descriptions Act.

So do you think that they picked on you because there have been attempts to try and close down Dr Clark’s work in Mexico and they found out you were using her methods?
I think so and also there aren’t too many therapists in this country that will take on chronically sick people as patients and assist them if they wish to pursue the Dr Clark approach. You can number them on one hand. So therefore by hitting out at me, they are striking a great blow against alternative medicine because very clearly, no pharmaceutical company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a supposed cancer cure wants the public to get to hear of a natural approach, which would therefore undermine their investment.

The problem is that the number of people getting cancer these days is on the increase. Therefore, a practitioner might be quite innocently treating a cancer patient with nutritional supplements for example and then could be unfairly charged with saying they can cure cancer.
Absolutely, if the patient has made the therapist aware of the presence of a chronic illness, then there is an obligation on the part of the therapist to describe their therapy as something other than ‘curing’ the ‘chronic illness’, even though effectively that might be exactly what the therapist is doing. The therapist has to be very careful how he phrases the aims of his therapy and why.

And tell me about the charges in the Court cases and how they proceeded.
Well the charges against me were originally four. Two were in connection with cancer, one was in connection with HIV and one was in connection with multiple sclerosis. Three of them were supposedly coming from a telephone call, a telephone message by a BBC reporter posing as a patient. The fourth charge came from somebody who had started using the Clark method, and actually I think I spoke to her twice or three times in all. She had some sort of heart problem and decided to discontinue because she was finding the lights of the electronic zapper, which is part of Dr Clark’s approach to clear parasites, was not agreeing with her heart. Whether or not the zapper was the cause of the complaint is another matter.

Subsequent to seeing the Week In, Week Out programme when it was televised, she decided that I had to be a charlatan so she wrote in to the BBC and the BBC passed her letter and correspondence on to the local trading standards and they formed a fourth charge around that.

But was she the trigger do you think?
No, the trigger I think came from a previous patient who had died, who had come to me probably with only a matter of weeks to live and asked me what to do. I told her what Dr Clark would do. This included dental work, and she came to Swansea for this work with a local first class dentist. But her husband was totally against the whole approach and when this poor soul died, he then became very, very bitter and I think it was he who in the first instance triggered the Quackbuster connection that resulted in the BBC creating the Week In, Week Out programme.

The reality is that this particular patient I think would have died anyway. She really was suffering very badly from a brain tumour and when she actually approached me, I believed she had only about 8 weeks left to live. Remember, she had already been through the orthodox protocols and they’d given up on her. Yes, she died. The dentist and I – we do what we can for such people who come and ask us for our help but her husband was very bitter. He is obviously understandably grief-stricken but what he did was to display misplaced anger because it wasn’t either the dentist or I who had robbed him of his wife. The whole set up from the word go and the poverty of orthodox treatment was what had failed his wife. The dentist and I became the butt of misdirected anger. And that’s how these cases are instigated in the first instance.

Yes… And tell me how the court case went exactly because you must have had a reasonably sympathetic judge for the charges to be dropped.
I went backwards and forwards to court for two and a half years. I don’t know how many times I appeared. About fifteen times.

Really?!
It starts off in the magistrate’s court and if you think you will get a better hearing, you can elect to be tried by jury and that takes it to the Crown Court. But there are all these little bits and bobs where the process of law has to be pursued with an absolutely monotonous routine and your case will come up for mention for something to be done, for it to be committed or other stages in the proceedings to be advanced and so on and so forth.

As regards the Prosecuting counsel for the Crown, I’ve never seen a more dilatory mob in all my life. If ever I had an insight into the legal system, this was it. Everybody else goes out and works for a living. They were lazy, they were slow. We would get a situation where the prosecuting barrister would actually stand before the judge and say, ‘Well, no your Honour, I have not done this’ or ‘No, your Honour, I have not done that’. The Judge would get more and more annoyed and would defer the proceedings for another two weeks in order for the prosecuting barrister to do what was required. But he’d come back the next time and say no, he had not done it again.

Oh no! Just dragging it out deliberately do you think?
No, I just think laziness.

Gosh and they’re being paid so much for that.
Whenever a solicitor or a barrister goes to court, as far as I’m aware, they get a fee for their appearance. So therefore it’s in their interests…

To go as often as possible. So you had to go back so many times?
Absolutely, and it was not just to Swansea. I had to go to Carmarthen on a couple of occasions because they have circuit judges and they don’t necessarily always convene court in one locality. You can understand too that if you were not on Legal Aid, each time the case had a hearing attached to it, you would be involved in further expenditure.

Taking time off and probably a whole day to get there and back.

I actually asked my solicitor at the end of the trial that if I had not qualified for Legal Aid, exactly what sort of a total bill would I be facing and he said in the order of £30,000 or something! Now that is absolutely horrendous.

But eventually what happened was that the three immediate BBC telephone recorded charges were dropped because the prosecution was so dilatory that they ran out of time. They had been unaware that there was a one year proscription on some of these charges being brought to committal. My solicitor, who was conversant with this, was aware the time limit was coming up. He therefore encouraged the barrister who now represented me, to put it to the circuit judge that these three charges should be dropped and they were.

The prosecution then wanted to have the charges reinstated and you have to have a high court judge that operates in a Crown Court to reinstate them. The judge behaved very well. This happened prior to the Christmas recess last year and he went away and mulled it over his Christmas dinner and came back in January saying he felt that my barrister’s claim that the charges should remain dropped was absolutely in order and that these charges should not be reinstated. So that left me with just the one charge.

Which was what?
That was where this lady had been involved who had decided, having seen the BBC programme, Week In, Week Out, that I was a charlatan, that I had presented myself as somebody who purported to operate the Clark system. The way it’s recorded in the charge was that it was a falsehood.

The actual charge read: FOR THAT, you Roy Duncan MacKinnon did in the course of trade or business on the 7th. January, 2003 recklessly make a statement as to the provision of a service which was false, namely that you could cure cancer by means of a particular therapy when that was not the case. SUCH THEREFORE, being contrary to Section 24(b) (ii) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

What this implies is that only orthodox medicine can be used to ‘cure’ a chronic illness – according to medical experts who wouldn’t recognize parsley if it was put in their soup and yet shout they are experts in alternative medicine which they have never studied.

She was a patient – the lady with the heart problem?
As I said, probably on two or maybe, three occasions, I had spoken to her on the phone and she was the lady with the heart problem. She did not complain at the time, please note. She registered the complaint with the BBC only after watching the televised programme Week In, Week Out. I doubt if she would have done it had she not seen that totally bigoted programme.

Tell me more about how the final court case went.
When I appeared at the trial, the Judge was quite upset because when the Prosecuting Counsel stood up to open the proceedings, he advised the Judge that his three witnesses could not be produced together on that day and he wanted to bring the other two into court on the next two consecutive days.

So the Judge immediately said, ‘Well we’re going to start now. If you’ve got no witnesses then I’m afraid you’re going to have to present no witnesses. And the prosecution case will then rest.’

Anyway a recess was called at that point. Remember the jury was not yet sworn in. But in that recess the Prosecuting Barrister then came back and asked for the charge to be amended slightly. Instead of saying ‘cure cancer’ which was the supposed lie, it was changed ‘to treat cancer’.

And the Judge would have none of it. He could see that this was just time-wasting on the part of the Prosecuting Barrister. There was then another recess, prior to which the Judge had said: ‘You should understand that I cannot see where the complainant has actually levelled a direct charge against Mr MacKinnon and in view of this, when it gets to half time, you know what the outcome will be’. And he took his glasses off and he looked the Prosecuting Barrister in the eye. Well it was perfectly obvious that what he was meaning was that the case would collapse, you see.

So this further recess was then granted and when the Prosecuting Barrister then came back in and the Judge entered the Court, the Prosecuting Barrister said that he would not be moving forward with the case and even before he sat down the judge turned to me and said: ‘Mr. MacKinnon, you are a free man. I will record a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

Oh fantastic...!
It all happened so quickly in a matter of about 5 seconds. It was quite amazing! So that was at the end of July 2005 I believe? After two years of going back and forth to Court! So now, do you feel that you can carry on with your work?

I’ve lost a very large proportion of my business. I’ve not been able to advertise – not knowing exactly what I am allowed to advertise. The damage to my health has been quite considerable through the stress of the whole thing and I’m going to have to take some time to get back to where I was.

I am very fortunate that I had really good loyal patients to help me but other people may not have that. They may not have been in business long enough. What do they do? What you really need to do is tackle the expert witness and the only way you can do that is by having a specialist barrister. If there is any reader out there who knows of good solicitors or barristers capable of tackling the bigotry of so-called expert witnesses, please, it is very important that you contact me. roymackinn@aol.com

References

1.    See: www.drclark.net; www.drhuldaclark.org; www.drclark.org

Source: