HOMEOPATHY IN AUSTRALIA. A petition for transparency and honesty in health reports

Please sign this petition, and join this campaign for honesty in health. I am using this material, taken from the launch of this movement.
The public has a right to know that the NHMRC in Australia carried out their review of Homeopathy TWICE, completely BURYING any evidence of the first Report. 
‘Release the First Report’ builds on its sister campaign, ‘Your Health Your Choice’, launched last summer which achieved huge success, generating over 87,000 signatures in Australia. 
Now it’s time to go global!
The stakes could not be higher.
The recent UK High Court ruling to uphold a ban on homeopathic prescriptions is based primarily on the NHMRC report, sets a dangerous precedent. (Conventional medicine will use it in other countries if they feel they can get away with it)
As the formal investigation into NHMRC’s conduct has been going on for almost two years, it is time to show the Australian Government that the world is watching and demands that NHMRC explain themselves.
We need as many people as possible, from as many countries as possible, to sign up to the campaign on releasethefirstreport.com. 
· Sign up at www.releasethefirstreport.com/join-the-campaign
· Connect with the campaign on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. 
There is the option to opt-in to the Your Health Your Choice campaign at the same time.
It will be of major political significance if we can simultaneously push the original YHYC campaign to reach 100,000 signatures.
Numbers are crucial, so please sign up and share widely.
This situation further underlines the fraud and dishonesty that the conventional medical establishment is prepared to use to undermine homeopathy, and to protect their medical monopoly.

Australian Homeopathy Report. The credibility of medical science.

In March 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published an 'Information Paper' on homeopathy. It concluded that “… there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective”.

That is fairly conclusive. After all, the report was backed by medical science, and sponsored by the national government of Australia. Indeed, following the report's publication, headlines around the world heralded that homeopathy just does not work!

Most homeopaths around the world were not surprised at this. We are getting used to it! We just yawned, and got on with curing our next patient! Most homeopathy users just shrugged their shoulders, saying "Well, homeopathy worked for me!"

The pharmaceutical companies, no doubt, clapped their hand in glee. Science has come to their assistance, again! And the mainstream media has danced to their tune, again! Money well spent! Or so they thought.

However, some Australian homeopaths (who may well have yawned initially, like the rest of us) actually spent time examining the report. Now, the Homeopathic Research Institute has reported on the report and its findings.

               "An extensive detailed investigation by the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) into NHMRC’s conduct, combined with an in-depth scientific analysis of the report by HRI, revealed evidence of serious procedural and scientific misconduct in producing this report. FOI (freedom of information) requests have brought to light that two independent experts also raised concerns over the report’s conclusions during peer review, prior to final publication. The Australasian Cochrane Centre commented that for some conditions, "... ‘no reliable evidence’ does not seem an accurate reflection of the body of evidence”; a second expert felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the Report’s conclusions”. NHMRC chose not to act on this feedback and did not amend their conclusions".

So, with this refusal, in August 2016, a complaint was submitted to the Commonwealth Ombudsman by the Complementary Medicines Australia, the Australian Homoeopathic Association and the Australian Traditional Medicine Society. So what exactly has been found about this 'information paper on homeopathy'? Why is it the subject of complaint? This is a summary of what HRI found.

               * The use of an inappropriate scientific method

               * Failure to use standardised, accepted methods

               * Failure to obtain sufficiently accurate data to perform a meaningful review

               * Failure to conduct an effective preliminary and public consultation

               * Significant post-hoc changes to the research protocol

               * Impact of NHMRC’s unusual method on the review results

               * Further evidence of bias and misreporting

               * Poor reporting – lack of clarity, inconsistencies and errors

               * Evidence that this was a case of deliberate bias, not scientific error.

Rachel Roberts, Chief Executive of HRI, made this statement about the Australian report.

               “NHMRC’s review is just bad science. Decision-makers and the scientific community rely on these kinds of reports and need to trust their accuracy. This is not about anyone’s personal opinion as to whether homeopathy works or not. It is about the importance of evidence being reported objectively, whatever it says, and the NHMRC did not do that.”

Indeed, it is not just the homeopathic community that should have a grievance about this report (and many other similar reports).

The Australian Report brings into question both the credibility of medical science, and the honesty and integrity of the Australian government. 

These were not casual, unimportant mistakes, they are serious errors. Moreover, they are serious errors that were not corrected by the NHMRC, or the Australian government, when pointed out to them. There is an agenda here, and the agenda has been laid bare by this report. What is at stake here is not the future of homeopathy, which is entirely secure.

• It is the credibility of medical science. Is it really open, transparent and objective? Is it really science? Or is it 'science for sale'? Will medical science produce any evidence required to support their major paymaster, the pharmaceutical companies? Is this 'cheque-book science' in action? 

• It is the integrity and honesty of national governments. Do they represent the people who elect them, defending them from harm, providing them with good-quality information on which to make important health decisions? Or is the value of pharmaceutical investment, or whatever other incentives they offer, more attractive than the health and safety of their constituents?

The conventional medical establishment is in trouble. Its antibiotics no longer work, and in a few years will be totally ineffective. Its vaccines are coming under heavy criticism as more patients are seriously damaged by them. All its painkillers are now known to be so harmful doctors are being asked not to prescribe them. And so it goes on.

Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry has no answer to the epidemic levels of sickness and disease we are now experiencing. National health services are in crisis around the world, both in terms of vanishing, or non-existent treatment options, and the burgeoning cost health care based on pharmaceutical drugs.

And more and more people are now refusing to risk the dangers of conventional medicine (even though most of the evidence is still largely hidden from view) and instead are turning to homeopathy, and other alternative medical treatments.

So, as usual, we must 'follow the money' in these circumstance. Who stands to profit from the rubbishing of homeopathy? Who loses profits when patients decide to use homeopathy rather than risk taking pharmaceutical drugs? So Big Pharma is under threat, and they are prepared to pay medical science to produce spurious, non-scientific reports (after all, medical science has been telling us that unsafe pharmaceutical drugs are safe, and that ineffective pharmaceutical drugs are effective for many decades now).

And they calculate that it is to their advantage to pay politicians and governments to put their name to such reports. The Australian government is an avid supporter of the pharmaceutical industry. It has been following a policy of forced, or mandatory medication now for several years. I have recently discussed this with an Australian correspondent, and the extent to which parents are being pressurised and forced to vaccinate their children is quite alarming.

This is a serious situation, and I would welcome any Australian citizen, who is concerned about this, to write a blog on the current situation, and the choices that Australian parents and patients are having to make as a consequence of health policy there. I will happily publish any informed article.


Postscript. August 2019
Under duress, the Australian government has now published the first report, and it was withdrawn because it found that homeopathy was "an effective medical therapy". Read an update here.

Health Freedom under threat in Australia

There is a very serious threat to health freedom throughout the world. The big pharmaceutical industries (BigPharma) are seeking to maintain their virtual monopoly in health care in two way, first by preventing anyone speaking out about the serious harm caused by their drugs and vaccines, and secondly, by attacking alternative medical therapies. They are supported in this by the Conventional Medical Establishment, and by governments and politicians throughout the world.

This blog is taken entirely from an email I received recently from Alliance for Health Freedom in Australia (AHFA), and is self-explanatory.

There is a petition to sign, and it is most important that everyone who is interested in Health Freedom signs it. Click on this link - it takes just a few seconds.

The NSW watchdog about to be turned upon an unsuspecting public.

The NSW Parliament is about to make laws that gag freedom of speech. Even China and Russia don’t have laws like this.

If the HCCC has its way, in future, any member of the public that questioned the commonly held medical consensus or gives advice could be gagged and have legal proceedings taken against them. This is a very slippery and dangerous legislative slope.

Please read the terms of reference for this Committee and then read on…
Please also sign the petition to the NSW Parliament

The Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) was originally set up to protect the public from dangerous medical practices They were to be an independent overseer that could adjudicate whenever there was a question of someone being harmed by medical treatments – an all-too common event in Australia. According to their website, they describe themselves as being: “an independent body to deal with complaints about health service providers in NSW.”

Since they were established, however, the HCCC seems to have been perverted into a caricature of its original purpose. Instead of protecting the public from dangerous medical practices, – it apparently wants to protect mainstream medical establishment and drug companies from the public.

Interestingly enough the HCCC don't seem to be too concerned that western drug based medicine makes claims for treatments and therapies with little or no evidence. And lets not mention the falsified studies and ghost written articles.

The BMJ’s website "Clinical Evidence" reports that, of the 3000 treatments they have surveyed, only 11% of medical treatments are rated as beneficial, and 23% likely to be beneficial (they don’t know for sure), while 67% are of unknown or of unlikely effectiveness or harmful.

Yet the HCCC has decided its the mums and dads and the general public that should be regulated and debate shut down and not the medical establishment or drug companies...

The HCCC refused to investigate Graeme Reeves, the Butcher of Bega, despite complaints from more than 500 women he had sexually abused and mutilated. They also refused to investigate the hospital responsible for the death of Don Mackay, a quadriplegic whose horrific death was caused by gross negligence by that facility.

Yet they spent an entire year and, we conservatively estimate, several million dollars, illegally ‘investigating’ the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN).

The AVN vs the HCCC – David vs Goliath

The AVN is a group of parents and other members of the public who question the science used to market and promote the effectiveness and safety of vaccination as well as champion informed consent. They also use scientific studies and data to support their claims.

In 2010 the HCCC took aim at the AVN, and demanded they put a disclaimer on their website stating that their information was not to be used as medical advice (a disclaimer the AVN had always had on their webpage) and that their information was solely anti-vaccine – a statement which was not true and did not represent the AVN’s position. The AVN took action against this attempt to silence them and brought the case against them to the Supreme Court of NSW. The AVN prevailed. The AVN were able to prove that the HCCC’s actions were illegal. They proved that the HCCC had also acted arrogantly and at great cost to the public purse in their relentless pursuit of this small, community-based group.

A great deal of intelligent legal advice had clearly demonstrated that the HCCC were acting outside of their jurisdiction in either investigating or citing the AVN. The fact that the HCCC continued to pursue this course of action is indicative of the way in which they have operated for at least the past decade. The law does not seem to be any obstacle to the HCCC.

It was a huge embarrassment for those wanting the AVN silenced to lose this case. A well-funded government behemoth going against a tiny parent-run support group and losing. Such an uneven battle might be expected to go the other way, but in this case justice was served and the AVN won.

Perhaps egos were damaged by the AVN victory because, since that time, the HCCC has been trying its hardest to finish what they started – forcing the AVN and any other organisation discussing the problems with vaccination to close down and stop talking about these issues. In addition, they now seek to stop anyone, anywhere from disseminating information which is in any way critical of mainstream medicine.

Can you imagine what would happen if the HCCC had such future powers of censorship that it is seeking now, in the days of Thalidomide that created birth defects in babies, or the recent VIOXX scandal in which over 50,000 people died world-wide from taking the rheumatoid arthritis drug. The dangers of VIOXX were well known by members of the public long before the drug companies and governments acted, and this information was promulgated by the public. The HCCC would have powers to stop the dissemination of this information.

We may not be able to make any claims for Homeopathy even if two Nobel Scientists do make these claims and scientific studies do confirm some effectiveness, because medical consensus says that there is no evidence.

And will the HCCC close down websites and create internet filters so people in NSW do not have access to health information around the globe? The AVN is not the only website that questions vaccination safely and effectiveness, there are a multitude of websites asking the same questions and presenting the opposing scientific arguments. Here are over 300 scientific studies that question the effectiveness and safety of vaccination. How will the HCCC stop internet traffic to this site or others?

Will the HCCC stop independent film makers from making documentary films that question such topics as vaccines or other related topics.

New powers for the HCCC would allow them to shut down any public debate with regards to the recent scientific controversy relative to Statin drugs and Cholesterol. The ABC Catalyst program ran a two part series questioning the cholesterol-heart disease myth. The medical establishment have already blamed the Catalyst program for possibly causing death and injury by reporting the issue

ABC Catalyst - Heart of the Matter Part 1 - Cholesterol Drug War

ABC Catalyst - Heart of the Matter Part 2 - Cholesterol Drug War

If the HCCC has its way, in future, any member of the public that questioned the commonly held medical consensus or gives advice otherwise could be gagged and have legal proceedings taken against them. This is a very slippery and dangerous legislative slope.

Nearly limitless powers
The HCCC can truly be said to be above the law in NSW. To the best of our knowledge, they are one of only two bodies in the country which are not subject to subpoena (a court order to produce documentation) or Freedom of Information (GIPA in NSW) claims (the other is the Australian Crimes Commission), so they are able to operate in secret should they wish to do so.

But these powers were obviously not enough for them because after their loss in 2012, they appealed to the NSW Parliament for a virtual blank cheque to investigate, cite and punish the AVN and any other organisation or individual who goes against government health policy. Now, not only can they choose to investigate any complaint from anyone about the AVN or others, even if they have never dealt with or been harmed in any way by these organisations – the HCCC can also file their own complaints and then, investigate and adjudicate them. Judge, jury and executioner – that is the power Parliament granted to the HCCC – all to ‘get’ the AVN

But it STILL wasn’t enough

Several days ago, we became aware that the Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is once more considering increasing the already ludicrous level of powers the HCCC possesses.

According to the Medical Observer:
“Meanwhile, a NSW parliamentary committee has launched an inquiry into the HCCC’s powers in relation to unregistered health groups. That inquiry is also a response to the HCCC’s conflict with the AVN.”

Even though the impetus for this inquiry seems to have been the HCCC’s loss to the AVN, The Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices (Inquiry) goes far beyond anything this organisation has previously asked for or been granted and targets anyone who speaks about, researches or uses any form of natural therapy instead of mainstream medicine or disseminates information to friends, family or public, contrary to the commonly accepted medical dogma.

Hypothetically, you might know a friend or member of the public who is considering chemotherapy for cancer. You might tell them that ascientific study in 2004 shows that chemotherapy is only 2.3% effective. Yet this persons doctor tells them that they should have chemotherapy. You may then be prosecuted by the HCCC.

It is a medical establishment and pharmaceutical drug company’s dream come true and this should be a grave concern to anyone in Australia who either uses or dispenses holistic treatments or other treatments that do not conform to the established medical paradigm.

It is also crossing well over the line of the constitutionally-guaranteed right to politically free speech since the recommendations discussed appear to be seeking punishment for and sanctions against any individual or organisation that even talks about these issues.

Terms of Reference (ToR)
The terms of reference (ToR) can be reached at this link. They are only one page long and I urge everyone to read them carefully as it is chilling that any government body can even consider these sorts of restrictions to our basic and inalienable freedoms. China and Russia do not have legislation that makes freedom of speech illegal in regards to medical practices, research and debate yet the NSW Parliament don’t seem to see a problem with this.

They describe information that is critical of or would make others question mainstream medical treatments as being ‘false and misleading’ and therefore a punishable offence. The ToR state that people should not be allowed to give out information which could make people question accepted medical practice nor should anyone be allowed to discourage another from using medical therapies in favour of any natural treatments or other treatment.

The ToR covers the powers the HCCC currently has to cite and punish individuals they consider to be promoters of ‘false or misleading health-related information’ and how these powers can be used to take action against these individuals or organisations. Remember, this does not appear to be motivated by any harm to the public by natural therapies or any other treatments – as the Bain report in NZ showed, there is little to no harm being caused by natural therapies and a great deal by government-approved Western-medical practices. Instead, this committee is simply discussing how to stop people and organisations from being allowed to discuss health topics freely.

Submissions to the Committee
Submissions from the public are due by the 13th of December – that is less than 1 month from now. And whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your submission could do an awful lot to show the NSW Parliament that people in the community support health rights, and oppose suppression.

We cannot tell you what you should say, nor are we allowed to share any submission with you (that is not allowed per the terms of this inquiry), but you can read submissions from an earlier HCCC Inquiry here to give you an idea of the format and types of information others have presented and to give you a head start in making your own contribution to this important debate.

In addition, you can download a document from the Parliament website here that will instruct you on the necessary procedures for submissions to Parliamentary committees.

Why you should make a submission
It will take all of us writing in to prevent this grave injustice from going forward. The intention of this inquiry is very clear – putting a stop to information which is not sanctioned by the current drug and allopathic medical model.

If you are a non-medical health practitioner, you need to make a submission soon, or you may face serious problems if you wish to practice in Australia. If your peak body (ATMS, ANTA, AHA, CAA, COCA, etc) is not making submissions, you need to alert them to this dangerous situation. They can help protect your business, your livelihood and the rights of your patients.

If you use any form of natural therapies (and over 2/3 of the Australian populace does), then you must also be making a submission – it does not need to be long – giving the Committee your opinion of these proposed new powers for the HCCC.

Everyone should be doing this and everyone should be forwarding this information to all and sundry.

Contact your own Member of Parliament in NSW (you can find their contact details at this link) and ask them where they stand on freedom of speech and health rights.

Write to your local newspaper (anywhere in the country) and ask when they will be doing a story on these efforts to penalise those who use and practice natural therapies. Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are expecting a balanced story too!

Call talkback radio programs and tell them about this inquiry and ask them to let others know about it too. Do anything and everything you can to spread information about this inquiry and to stop these changes in legislation from going ahead.

Because the truth is – if you don’t do this today – you won’t have the right to do it tomorrow.

Contact details for the Committee:
chccc@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Address for written correspondence:
Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission
Parliament House
Macquarie St
Sydney NSW 2000
Fax: (02) 9230 3309

Written submissions can be uploaded via the Parliament website by clicking on this link or sent to (remember, the deadline is December 13th, 2013):

Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission
Parliament House
Macquarie St
Sydney NSW 2000
Fax: (02) 9230 3309
And the website can be found at this link – information will be updated as the inquiry progresses.

Please also sign the petition to the NSW Parliament