Dr. Stuart Reece: Drug Free Australia’s secret

An interesting story sits hidden away in the June 2003 edition of Focus magazine – a QLD based fundamentalist Christian publication.

On page one we meet Graham Preston who was jailed back in June 2003 for pro-life antics. His sole direction was Proverbs 24, verse 11: “Rescue those being led away to death”. 

The story on page two is about Drug Free Australia member, Dr. Stuart Reece (below). Thinking of the above proverb, it is disturbing to learn that over a period of twenty months, twenty five opioid dependent patients who sought his care, died following insertion of unregistered naltrexone implants.

Story from Focus QLD June 2003

Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist. In a 2013 position statement on naltrexone implants the Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated on page 6:

The World Health Organisation, UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) and UNAIDS (United Nations Program on AIDs/HIV) have endorsed treatment with methadone and buprenorphine. The World Health Organisation has included methadone and buprenorphine in its Essential Medicines List. Naltrexone has not been endorsed by any United Nations organisations nor is it included on the Essential Medicines List. […] The RACP does not support the routine use of sustained release naltrexone formulations (implants or depot injections) while the product is not registered with the TGA.

In 2003 when the Health Practitioners Tribunal adjourned Reece’s case indefinitely, such implants were available through the TGA Special Access Scheme. This 2008 article posing the question of safety, examines implications of the scheme and difficulty in securing sound data. The authors note:

The strong theoretical rationale for the usefulness of naltrexone in treating heroin dependence justifies further rigorous investigations. However, the uncontrolled use of unregistered products of uncertain quality hampers the development of proper clinical trials.

Above, we read that Reece was “deeply hurt” by the investigation that followed. The families of his dead patients are not considered. Incredibly, the above Focus article claims that the charges brought against Reece were “based on false reports by drug addicts”. No evidence is presented in support of this statement. No independent source has confirmed the existence of false reports. Brought by QLD Health, the charges were just and likely saved lives.

There’s a familiar, yet awkward tactic advanced in his defence. The type of logical fallacy that suggests if positive feedback is presented then to suggest otherwise is not only wrong but “false”. Someone has provided the Focus author with decontextualised data designed to be critical of methadone maintenance therapy. This argument is frequently used by the opponents of harm reduction and proponents of naltrexone. We read “590 patients died with methadone in their system”. It’s an underhanded attempt to suggest methadone was the cause of death. Note this doesn’t read, “died because of methadone overdose or complications”. 

We don’t know the cause of death, but I’m certain if methadone was the cause this article would have made it abundantly clear. These figures are pulled from toxicity data in coronial reports. They include hospital patients receiving palliative care, out-patients receiving pain relief, road fatalities, suicides, homicides, poly-drug related deaths and so on. All opioids carry risks and fatalities do occur in the opioid maintenance demographic. Nonetheless, when prescribed by a GP and dispensed in a controlled environment as is the case in treatment of opioid addiction, methadone is a safe option.

I can’t comment much on a reference to a “recently published article” without the source, other than to note that rapid detoxification can pose a significant risk of overdose. Naltrexone has been used orally to block the effects of opioids. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre note in, Mortality related to naltrexone in the treatment of opioid dependence: A comparative analysis;

Because naltrexone blocks the actions of opioids, naltrexone rapidly removes a person’s tolerance to opioids so that a given dose of opioids would have more effect than previously. The lack of naltrexone, not its presence, exposes a naltrexone-maintained patient to risk of opioid overdose. If naltrexone treatment is ceased, individuals may be at risk of opioid overdose if they choose to return to opioid use.

Regarding the safety of naltrexone in comparison to the safety of methadone or buprenorphine in the management of opioid addiction, one reads:

When considering deaths per periods of high and low risk, the mortality related to naltrexone was approximately seven times that of methadone during the period of high risk and three times the rate during the period of low risk. […]

This study also found that the mortality related to oral naltrexone treatment was higher than that for buprenorphine and methadone… whether estimated as deaths per 1000 treatment episodes or per 100 person years of risk, the death rate for naltrexone was higher and we believe the estimate provided here is a conservative one. […]

The mortality rates suggest that oral naltrexone treatment, as it is provided in Australia, can place recipients at significant risk of death, and at higher risk than buprenorphine and methadone. However, it should be noted that naltrexone treatment is a useful option in some well-motivated patient subgroups that form a minority of the opioid-dependent population.

Regarding implant technology:

A number of potential issues also relate to this form of treatment, and rigorous research is certainly required to carefully examine the potential for this delivery system to represent a viable treatment option for opioid-dependent persons. Specifically, these issues are: the lack of randomised controlled trial evidence of naltrexone implant efficacy in the treatment of opioid dependence; considerable inter and intra-subject variability in the blood levels of naltrexone resulting from an implant (and so the level of opioid blockade); the lack of good monitoring of adverse events relating to the use of naltrexone implants; and the acceptability of the naltrexone implant preparation to patients and medical professionals.

The article also identified that an existing lack of systematic data reception by coronial databases, hinders accurate assessment of fatalities related to treatment with naltrexone. In 2008 The Medical Journal of Australia elucidated on this problem when it published a paper identifying twelve hospital admissions, related to implants, to two Sydney hospitals over a 12 month period beginning in August 2006. The Abstract conclusion read:

These severe adverse events challenge the notion that naltrexone implants are a safe procedure and suggest a need for careful case selection and clinical management, and for closer regulatory monitoring to protect this marginalised and vulnerable population.

Thus, in attacking methadone as a treatment modality, Reece raises concerns with this author about his impartiality. A read of Dr. Reece’s articles in the arguably biased Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is revealing. Also, purporting that methadone causes premature ageing and cell death, without presenting a mechanism and correcting for other variables such as smoking, nutrition and other lifestyle habits is poor science. In the above Focus article this is presented, without a source, as “new research suggests”.

The Focus article was in error to claim vindication. The QLD Health Practitioners Tribunal adjourned indefinitely over the twenty five deaths. It was beyond ambitious for Reece to claim, before a Parliamentary inquiry, to “hold the world safety record” in administering this very treatment. Such comments have little to do with supporting evidence, and more to do with misinformation.

By 1999 research indicated naltrexone was potentially unsafe despite seemingly miraculous stories of recovery. As an opiate blocker, it was emerging with the promise of a quick solution. Yet controlled trials were lacking. Wodak and Hall discussed the evidence in an editorial in the MJA, that also briefly noted the role of the media in confusing community attitudes. Under Parliamentary protection Dr. Reece accused Hall of “scientific fraud”. 

In September 1999 the practice of Dr. Stuart Reece was raided following concerns with his approach to addiction treatment. Threatened with closure, he claimed that the QLD government would have blood on itʼs hands if he could not resume practise. Ultimately, he was not closed. Twenty months later, 25 of his patients were dead. ABC 7:30 reported on 4 June 2001.

KERRY O’BRIEN: When the anti-heroin addiction drug Naltrexone was introduced to Australia five years ago, it was hailed as a breakthrough.

Since then, thousands of addicts have been treated with Naltrexone, successfully breaking their deadly habit.

But despite initial expectations it hasn’t proved to be a universal remedy by any means.

Many addicts have lapsed back into heroin abuse and some have subsequently died from overdose.

In Queensland, an investigation is now under way into the practice of Naltrexone activist Dr Stuart Reece, after the deaths of 25 addicts who had undergone his program.

The investigation has already prompted a ban on the use of experimental Naltrexone implants, designed to take the place of tablets.

All had followed the Reece regimen. He was raided by the QLD Medical Board and again closed down. Rev. Fred Nile, speaking as leader of the Christian Democratic Party said at the time:

The action taken by Queensland Health is heavy handed intimidation against those who show true compassion toward heroin addicts. It would appear, by this move, that Queensland Health would prefer that addicts remain addicted to heroin. I fear that this is another step in the mounting campaign for government provided free heroin

Three months later he claimed twenty five “drug addicts” died as “part of a conspiracy”. In September 2003, The ABC featured Reece on their Sunday Nights programme:

Stuart Reece is a Brisbane doctor who finds himself in a bit of bother some of his fellow medico’s at the moment because of his conviction that faith can be instrumental in curing what ails one… The difference perhaps is that Stuart Reece is a born again Christian believer, and makes no apologies for his direct appeal to the Christian Gospel and the power of Christ.

Clearly, the largely untested naltrexone implants were in this case a problem. Had basic support, such as a contact or counselling been available, the recovering patients would have been more safely monitored. It is regrettable that there was undue faith in naltrexone combined with a moral objection to opiate replacement therapy. This is complicated further, in that had naltrexone been demonstrated as effective, financial rewards would have been significant.

In addition, the November 2009 Health Practitioners Tribunal transcript, Medical Board of QLD vs Albert Stuart Reece makes for compelling reading.  An unrepentant critic of methadone Reece chose to illegally supply opioid dependent patients with morphine. The transcript includes:

It is clear from his evidence before the Tribunal that he is also very passionate about his practice and in strong disagreement about the continued use of Methadone as a treatment for heroin addiction. […]

Particulars of the referral notice in this matter are that the Registrant on 39 separate occasions supplied Morphine intended for use by drug dependent persons without obtaining approval from the Drugs of Dependence Unit in preparation either for Naltrexone treatment or other detoxification treatment. […]

He admits to doing so and to falsifying medical records when doing so and involving third parties in this conduct. […]

But it is also clear from his evidence, and as I’ve already said that he’s a man who has a somewhat evangelical approach to this area of medicine and because of that he does appear to lack a degree of insight and objectivity in relation to the treatment of his patients. Furthermore, he seems to feel that the ends justify the means in terms of treatment of patients.

In October 2005 Christian conservative MP Tony Abbott Liberal (then Federal Health Minister) funded Drug Free Australia to the tune of $600,000. They did not adhere to conditions under which they were awarded the funding, ultimately emerging as right wing lobbyists. They are followers of Swedenʼs zero tolerance policy and the USA hardliners [open letter]. Reece, a supporter of biblically driven abstinence and a Texas trained fundamentalist, was supported by Drug Free Australia.

By April 2007 Dr. Reece was testifying to the Standing Committee on Health and Human Services (see below) that the immoral policies that permitted condoms – the real cause behind AIDS – clean needles, opioid therapy for addicts, non-punitive cannabis laws, harm reduction and general tolerance for ill Aussies would be our doom. The Senate Standing Committee looked on as Reece introduced himself by saying, “I certainly know the science”. He then displayed a photo of “the archaeological site of Sodom” and a tree with snakes instead of branches. [Page 33/FHS 27]. He explained its relevance. “There will be consequences”.

Reece attempted to explain the moral consequences of policies such as Harm Minimisation, by blaming a tsunami on Divine punishment. He added:

I was interested to discover that the actual historical site of Sodom and Gomorrah has recently been found in Israel. On the bottom right of this slide are pictures of sulphur balls that have been found there. So consequences matter, and they can destroy a civilisation quickly, as we saw with yesterday’s tsunami and so on.
This slide shows a tree with snakes, which to my mind is a lot of the stories that you hear from harm minimisation. Methadone, syringe giveaways, injectingrooms, medical cannabis, heroin trials all those are catered for by the same people. But, on the other side of the tree, you have all the downsides, the side effects, which are not talked about in this culture. It is of extreme concern to me that medical science which is known and understood overseas is not understood and not talked about and given no airplay whatsoever in this culture.
These are old slides I made several years ago, charting a lot of these behaviours: this is condoms and the AIDS risk, charting the parallel between condoms and AIDS deaths.
Ms GEORGE (Senate committee member): Sorry, I do not understand. What are you saying – condom protection andAIDS deaths are correlated?
Dr Reece: Yes, condom sales and AIDS deaths. I am saying that there is a statistical association between the two.

As reported in Crikey by Ray Moynihan Reece decided the “disease drugs, sex and rock-n-roll” was the problem. Asked about the safety of naltrexone, Dr. Reece chose instead to attack internationally renowned scientist, Dr. Alex Wodak [Page 59/FHS54], who specialiseʼs in blood born viruses and epidemiology. Put differently, this means Wodak supports condoms, clean syringe access and used syringe collection: dire threats to our very civilisation, contended Reece. Yet Australian communities with dozens of dispensaries and hundreds of clients report no methadone deaths.

How did Committee Chairperson react to this? Bronwyn Bishop abused public health scientists (who had outlined the success of decriminalisation in Europe), yet she gushed in support of Dr. Reece. A pre-determined agenda in what was billed as the most important family-relevant inquiry of Howardʼs government spoke volumes. Bishop’s final report was rejected nationwide by all but religious fundamentalists and Christian lobbyists. Not one publically funded treatment or advocacy agency missed the opportunity to criticise the report. Bishop went on to call for the removal, and adopting out, of the children of parents struggling with addiction. Should parents conquer their addiction there would be no chance of reunion:

Their [Liberal-led House of Representatives] controversial plan – which also includes compulsory treatment for teenage addicts, restrictions on methadone programs and withdrawing funding from drug programs that promote harm minimisation – was dismissed as “a disgrace” and “frightening” by some anti-drug campaigners.

Gordon Moyes, the “Christian voice in politics” is also quoted on rumours in Drug Free Australia’s recent attack upon Lancet authors, of which Reece is a co-author. This involves quoting Moyes, who is quoting drug addicts he happened to speak to. Moyes also praised naltrexone despite the concerns of our medical community about it remaining unregulated. Regrettably, regulators have not prevented its use by the same people year in, year out.

When the Medical Journal of Australia exposed the fact these same prescribers were not reporting adverse reactions, despite TGA requirements under the Special Access Scheme, Drug Free Australia published a rebuttal. It made direct reference to Dr. Stuart Reece himself. Offensively, it reported that Reece “studies” death rates post naltrexone treatment. It was titled, Australia could be the biggest loser.

Dr. Reeceʼs motivation is arguably reflected in his obsession with teenage and childhood sex and sexual assault, murder, violence… all due to “the depraved advertising industry” which catalysed “the disease sex, drugs and rock-n-roll”. Advertising womenʼs nudity, outside of “a strictly medical context” is “incredibly powerful pornography”, he has observed.

Today, a decade plus since this evidence-free pursuit began, Reece is arguably a pin up boy for religious fundamentalism. Five or more years ago he promised Parliament that his results were “statistically powerful” and “revolutionary”. Of course, there are no results. Itʼs the same certainty that only faith can sustain. If prayer cures homosexuality, addiction is a certainty. His latest work “proves” naltrexone is safer than opioid therapy.

As reported on ABCʼs 7:30 Report,  in 2006 multiple disciplinary teams have steadily found naltrexone has a fatality rate over four times that of opioid therapy. Dr. Reece, and others who seek funding and likely lucrative contracts seem to have a formula no others can find. More recent work with implants by his colleague, gynecologist George O’Neil, show ambiguous results, despite claims of success.

Regrettably this work is tainted with poor practice and again, Christian healing. Their biggest problem is the fraud published in the MJA surrounding suppression of negative outcomes – some almost fatal. Failure and coercion to boost sample numbers seems to be the norm. W.A.’s Freshstart clinic observes on its website chaplaincy page:

Our Christian Beliefs

The Nature and Character of God: we believe in one God, who has existed forever as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a community of pure and eternal love.

The Fresh Start Statement of Belief embodies the second of the core commitments of the organisation:

The Creation of Humanity: men and women were created in God’s likeness with God-given dignity and worth in order to know, love and serve him forever.

Sin and Evil: sin came into existence through human rebellion against the good purposes of God. Sin is self-centred opposition to the love of God that separates humans from God and leads to death and eternal lostness.

Etc, etc….

There is no problem with having a strong faith. Yet there’s a difference between faith based welfare and faith based practices. When the supernatural impinges on your objective reasoning in managing the lives of others, no amount of friendly lobbyists can assuage this conflict of interest.

Today, Drug Free Australia bill Reece as “an expert in naltrexone” and in fatalities. Is this a joke? I honestly don’t know. What’s certain however is that his role in the recent DFA misleading outing to attack Vancouver’s Insite and the research backing it is not based upon any skill in harm reduction.

Drug Free Australia have many secrets. This one is quite shameful.

  • Comments posted online from a relative and a friend of Reeceʼs patients.

Just Jules says: June 5, 2010 at 6:01 am Ahhh there is none so blind as those who can not see .. Dr Reece in my eyes is a discusting (sic) human being .. I am the mother of a child he treated .. He also treated my daughter in law and the mother of my first grand child .. If you want to see what his methods leave you with, go see my daughter in law who for the last 11 years has been in a home for the severely brain damaged .. In is own words to me ” they are just reoffending drug addicts”. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and should of been stopped before he started.

Vicki PS says: July 5, 2010 at 12:02 pm I came across this site looking for help for a friend of my daughterʼs. This young woman has been increasingly unhappy with her treatment under Dr Reece. He is treating her addiction with Suboxone, a subutex/naltrexone combination drug. Her big concern is that this unethical, immoral disgrace to the profession reduces her dosage if she has not been to church! This girl is now in early pregnancy and is scared that she could miscarry if this idiot messes around with her medication to suit his pathological world view. I find it frankly incredible that Dr Reece is still permitted to practice.


  2. Unplanned Admissions to two Sydney Public Hospitals after Naltrexone Implants – MJA. (HTML) (PDF)


Last update: 12 February 2023

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎


Vaccination Saves Lives

Stop The AVN Media Release

♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣

Imagine you’re listening to the radio one day and the discussion is on government funding and community education about road fatality and driver education.

A woman is invited to speak. You catch her name as Peryl Clawy. She’s president of The Australian Road Safety Network. Impressive. She claims to be for “informed choice” on your safety as a driver. Her only aim is to educate drivers about driving skill so they can choose what’s best for them and their family. She wants to present both sides of the argument. Sounds great. You pay more attention.

The announcer asks her about the condition of roads and of railway crossings, during peak periods. There’s been a report linking speed, poor road maintenance and traffic jams to accidents on the open road and at crossings. It’s been suggested licencing fees may increase to help cover costs to improve the condition of roads. The woman answers;

“Well, we at the ARSN would take that with a grain of salt. This fee increase – or extortion to keep your licence as we prefer to call it – seems to be just another Big Brother tactic from the government, road authorities and road-way developers to keep drivers under the impression that safer roads save lives. But who did this study, and who paid them? Was it an independent study or by someone associated with road development?

The reality is that study after study shows that dangerous driving on difficult surfaces is an excellent way to improve driving skills, and more to the point we at the ARSN have thousands of reports of people killed and maimed whilst driving on perfect roads, under perfect lighting, in perfect weather conditions whilst under the speed limit. Despite big auto promising to make cars safer we have reports of children decapitated by air bags and adults sustaining crushed ribs and perforated lungs from seat belts, during accidents. The overall effect of all this safety is to deny the body’s natural driving skill from maturing.

Before the road safety industry began these highly lucrative fear campaigns urging people to listen to the police and to these so-called scientists, cars had no seat belts or safety devices and roads were made of dirt and sand. Children were carried on their mothers laps, and windscreens were clean non-toxic glass. Now, we’re trapped behind toxic lamination full of chemicals, that break away and float about the interior of the car causing illness, cancer and failure to thrive in children. They also poison breast milk. Since the baby capsule and booster seat laws came in the number of babies killed in motor vehicle accidents has increased ten fold and babies dying from SIDS in Australia has almost tripled.

I had a mother call me recently saying she picked up her sleeping baby from a capsule one night, placed her in her crib to sleep and the next morning discovered she was dead. Who takes responsibility for this? The baby capsule manufacturers? The road safety authorities? The media who continually hush up these cases? I mean I believe every life lost on the roads is tragic but why are babies who die in a crash whilst sitting on their mother’s laps front page news, and those that die from baby capsule induced SIDS never even reported? Children’s health in all nations with mass production of safer driving practice and so-called better roads is under attack. Chronic disease is at an all time high.

The fatality rate 80 years ago in Australia is a fraction of the total today. When they first made cars they just allowed the public to buy them. Now they fill them with dummies and crash them at full speed recording in detail every bit of damage that can happen to the human body. But do they tell you this when you buy a car? Do they show you a dummy and say, “See. this is what happens when you crash this car wearing all the safety gear”? No, of course not. Back then many drivers didn’t even have licences. More so, look at the percentage of drivers killed on our roads who hold full driving licences. It’s something like 99.99999%. If we look at the rise in licences over the past few generations we also see a steady increase in fatalities. So, it’s clear this licencing system plays a significant role in fatalities. And these aren’t my figures these are the government’s own figures.

We also have thousands of licence induced injuries on record. Humans are born with natural driving skills, just the way we’re born with the ability to walk, but these are trained out of us when we sit for a drivers licence. Now, we’ve been asking the government to run a trial of licenced vs unlicenced drivers with natural driving skills for years now to see whether artificial – or “learned” as they call it – skills are really better than those with natural or “unlearned” skills. But they don’t care. The government just doesn’t care.

So licencing and the teaching of driving skills has never been tested properly. The gold standard of science is the randomised control trial. Yet no studies actually exist that compare unlicenced driver skills in dangerous conditions, vs licenced driver skills in dangerous conditions. People are just expected to follow along and listen to road traffic authorities, ignoring their own instincts along the way. What’s worse is not only is there no evidence licencing doesn’t kill drivers, but they hold off allowing the unlearning of natural skills and the learning of unnatural skills until the late teens.

So the normal skills and curiosity all toddlers and children show as they’re growing is suppressed when it comes to driving a car, when study after study shows that children learn so much from interacting with their environment. We’ve also asked the government to run trials comparing toddlers and children who are allowed to play-drive for a few years with adults who have been forced into the artificially taught skill set, but again the government just doesn’t listen. They obviously just don’t care.

When I arrived in Australia almost 30 years ago there were no boom gates or lights at railway crossings and all the roads were unmade and full of pot holes. But since the bitumen has gone down and crossings have been developed fatalities have slowly increased. Now, we have all these scientists saying if you drive over the speed limit without a seat belt or drive through a railway crossing with flashing lights without looking you could die from it. Well, you didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you’re not going to die from it today.

Plus there’s now hate groups who insist we don’t have the right to say these things, to tell the other side of the story. The Australian skeptics, they set up a group call Stop The Australian Road Safety Network and they say that we don’t have free speech in Australia and that you have no right to get access to both sides of the story. They don’t want you to have this information, despite the risks of not knowing. They say you aren’t allowed to ask questions about driving or what might be best for you.

They just argue that it’s better to seek out “reputable” information and do what your driver instructor tells you or what your advanced driving skills instructor tells you. You know, um… pay attention to road conditions, adjust your driving for lighting and weather, observe the speed limits, take care in unknown areas, ensure your car is road worthy and has good tyres. Don’t think for yourself or follow what you think is best for your children – despite the carnage and the licence induced injuries.

So, it’s all about suppressing free speech and free choice. Just like in a communist country. Science doesn’t have all the answers so why we should trust science with something as valuable and potentially dangerous as driving is a mystery. Not one car is 100% safe and even the manufacturers admit this. But they don’t tell you up front. It’s time Australians stood up and raised their voice about these Licences Of Death, forced acceptance of so-called safety standards and returned to the old ways of doing things naturally. Free from interference and free from the lies of big auto backed by big government.”

The announcer quietly says thank you and hangs up.

You wouldn’t listen to this rubbish, so why bother when “safe driving” is swapped for “vaccination”?

Drug Free Australia’s attack on Insite really an attack on individual scientists

A close look at Drug Free Australia’s recent attack on research supporting Vancouver’s Safe Injecting Facility, Insite, suggests a long planned attack on individual authors, not evidence.

Recently I wrote a piece on Drug Free Australia’s selective and misleading use of peer reviewed publications, government reports and pseudoscience to mislead readers with the claim of academic fraud and professional misconduct in the Lancet.

Their target was Insite, Vancouver’s Supervised Injecting Facility. Yet more specifically three authors of the Lancet piece, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr have earned the retributive ire of Drug Free Australia’s parent body, Drug Free America Foundation. DFAF’s “division”, the Institute on Global Drug Policy fund the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which is not a journal but a vehicle for lobbying against progressive drug policy primarily that which targets HIV control. The JGDPP was initially funded by the US Department of Justice, presently under investigation for corruption.

One of the co-authors of the paper was Robert DuPont. Present DFAF board member, past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, DuPont’s history is “impressive” but shamefully controversial. A champion of drug war tactics, the long debunked random drug testing of kids in schools and suppression of individual rights suggest he’d be better suited to the role of a cat-stroking super villain in a Bond movie.

The scale of human rights abuses and the litany of egregious conduct orchestrated by the ultra-conservatives drawn toward DFAF and the morally bankrupt satellite groups they inspire, is impressive indeed. DFAF was founded by Betty Sembler. Betty and husband Mel, both lacking any qualifications founded Straight Incorporated in 1976. Over 15 years this “coercive” rehabilitation programme, based upon the infamous and crime riddled Church of Synanon‘s approach, racked up hundreds of accounts of abuse of clients and their families. Synanon called it a day in 1989, by which time tax evasion, civil suits and attempted murder cases had eventually outshone their claims of Divine Detoxification.

Neither Drug Free America Foundation nor it’s pretend “Institute” on Global Drug Policy is a scientific organisation. The purpose of the IGDP is spelled out on the DFAF website:

The Institute is charged with creating and strengthening international laws that hold drug users and dealers criminally accountable for their actions. It will vigorously promote treaties and agreements that provide clear penalties to individuals who buy, sell or use harmful drugs. […] The institute supports efforts to oppose policies based on the concept of harm reduction.

Over recent years some rather spectacular junk science was produced by Dr. Colin Mangham, (then) president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. Whilst harm reduction initiatives save countless lives per year Mangham’s DPNC claims it “leads to terror, degradation and the eventual death of the addict”. Consequently Mangham writes accordingly and publishes in the discredited Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. In volume 1, issue 2; Summer 2007, Mangham wrote a critique of Insite’s “parent philosophy”.

In a stunning display of self sabotage he churned through 20 peer reviewed articles from journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet and The British Medical Journal. All articles had published positively on Insite’s potential. Primarily Mangham used largely belief, irrelevance, moral outrage and assumption to mount his criticisms. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (at that time opposed to Insite) had commissioned the review and later dismissed it themselves because it “did not meet conventional academic standards”.

It’s impossible to miss Mangham’s primary evaluation targets on his self-annointed meandering journey to Super Scientific Autonomy. Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr.

Conservative health minister, Tony Clement, desperate for even a hint of science to uphold the government’s case against Insite seized upon it as validation. In Canada’s National Review of Medicine, September 2007, Clement is quoted as saying to the Canadian Medical Association:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite.

The article continued:

But extensive research has shown Insite is successful at reducing crime and overdoses, getting addicts into treatment and saving money.

Asked what research Mr Clement still needs to see in order to make his decision, Erik Waddell, a spokesman for Mr Clement, answers, “To see if Insite is getting people to programs to help them get off drugs.” However, the NEJM study, published June 9, 2006, concluded that Insite increased admissions into detoxification programs and addiction treatment.

The piece, written by Colin Mangham, PhD, argues that the studies carried out by researchers from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and elsewhere have been flawed and misleading. Questions about the article’s trustworthiness have arisen. Dr Mangham is the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, an organization run by former Conservative MP Randy White, and has previously written commentaries criticizing the philosophy of harm reduction….

Writing in Open Medicine on September 7th, 2007 Thomas Wood noted the unscientific nature and discredited status of Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. He further highlighted that the non scientific conservative lobby group Drug Free America Foundation and it’s ill disguised front shop (the so-called Institute on Global Drug Policy) were behind this ambitiously named “new research”. Wood calmly observed:

We stand by the published findings from the evaluation and believe that the limitations of the research are well described in these published reports. We agree with Colin Mangham, however, that there are many instances where media reports go beyond what is described in scientific studies. A colourful example of this is the large amount of media attention given to Mr. Mangham’s recent essay in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice which was funded by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As scientists, we are strongly in favour of scientific debate and academic critique, but we believe what is contained in Mr. Mangham’s essay falls well short of this. The paper is fraught with a host of outright factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, which we would be happy to list should the readers of Open Medicine wish. We strongly encourage the readers of Open Medicine to read Mr. Mangham’s essay alongside the various reports examining Insite’s impacts and to judge for themselves the state of the science in this area.

Yet Dr. Colin Mangham was beyond saving. None would come to his aid. From mountain top to valley floor, from deep blue sea to desert sand, from darkened ghetto to opulent penthouse from… okay, you get the idea – his demise was complete.

By September 30th, 2007 Wood, Montaner, Kerr and Mark Tyndall had submitted to The Global Journal on Drug Policy, an article questioning the conservative Canadian government’s treatment of the scientific process and evidence. The abstract includes [bold mine]:

Although the recommendations of scientific review bodies have traditionally been free of political interference in Canada, there have recently been growing concerns raised about Canada’s new federal government’s treatment of scientific processes and evidence. This concern is relevant to the scientific evaluation of Canada’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility… […]

This commentary describes what may be a serious breach of international scientific standards relating to the Canadian government’s handling of the SIF’s scientific evaluation, and the circumstances which eventually led to a moratorium on SIF trials in other Canadian cities.

The genesis of such striking criticism was the government’s observance of a single cancer in illicit drug policy. One that had metastasised into Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, DFAF’s unscientific Institute of Global Drug Policy and the dumping ground for all conspiracy pieces by those opposed to progressive HIV control and human rights observance, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. The Australian arm of DFAF is Drug Free Australia.

Added to this was a petition signed by over 130 physicians and scientists. Released the day after Clement’s speech noted above, it condemned the government’s “potentially deadly” misrepresentation of evidence for harm reduction programs. This misrepresentation encompassed “the overwhelmingly positive evidence” of Vancouver’s Insite safe-injection site.

In September 2008 The Lancet Infectious Diseases, published Illicit Drug Addiction, Infectious Disease Spread and the need for an evidence based response, by Wood, Montaner and Kerr. It included:

To our knowledge, this is the first time a lobby group such as the Drug Free America Foundation has created for itself a venue for the dissemination of opinion essays, which to the untrained eye could easily be mistaken for a scientific journal

There is no doubt that in just a couple of years, Montaner, Wood and Kerr continually exposed and dismantled a politically driven, pseudoscientific ideology and it’s masters simply by addressing the evidence at hand. One could be forgiven for thinking these chaps might be upsetting a certain group of fundamentalists.

By this time a suit had been filed with the BC Supreme Court arguing closure of Insite would violate the Charter right of Insite patrons regarding “security of the person.” As late as May 2011 the federal government was still claiming indecision of whether to keep Insite open or not. As this was in contrast to Clement’s previous statements everybody had heard enough from the government. On May 12th the Supreme Court reserved it’s decision on whether the government could close Insite or not. On September 29th, 2011 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold Insite’s exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, allowing indefinite operation.

A win for human rights, humane disposition and indeed for evidence based public health.

Almost certainly planning revenge for months prior was a team under Drug Free Australia’s Secretary, Gary Christian. Consisting of three Aussies of biblical repute: Joe Santamaria, Stuart Reece and Gregory Pike. Also included was present DFAF board member yet past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, Robert DuPont. Finally, none other than one disgraced PhD holder, Colin Mangham.

The Lancet reportReduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study published in April 2011 was compelling evidence on reduced overdoses in a vicinity around Insite, and accepted by the Supreme Court. The problem for DFAF was that three of the five authors were Kerr, Montaner and Wood. The same three who had demolished so much of the amateur ideologists and DFAF’s non scientific lobby groups.

On September 13th hoping to besmirch the reputations of these men, the team struck. They released a collection of misleading claims cobbled together in a free range “analysis” enveloped in thunderously accusatory tone. It was designed to rebuke harm reduction in general and injecting facilities specifically. In this light it inexplicably republished many of Mangham’s already debunked criticisms as if new, misrepresented existing reputable studies by comparing unrelated data sets and publishing outright falsehoods.

If we dig up Clement referring to Mangham, from the National Review of Medicine September 2007, we can almost hear the echo:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite

Fortunately history did not repeat. This re-choreographed material has been addressed more than once and found to be entirely baseless on each occasion. Despite the pollution of the material by Colin Mangham’s unprofessional accounts it becomes stranger when we note the “analysis” was conducted for Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada and REAL Women of Canada (the only supporting interveners for the government during the Supreme Court hearing).

Predictably published in the DFAF funded opinion rag Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, it’s accompanying media release included:

Three Australian doctors are part of an international team which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility, errors which nullify the study’s claim that it has demonstrably reduced overdoses in its immediate surrounding area.  The international team’s analysis has been sent by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada to the Ethics Committee of the agency which funded the Lancet study with questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.

The article was influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings of May 12 this year, where the court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian Government is rightfully able to close the facility.  The Canadian government has been trying to close Insite since 2006, but has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists.

A full two more paragraphs are spent attacking the individual researchers for acting dishonestly, much of which relies on the already debunked material from Mangham 2007. Using bitterly crude figures to inflate “overdose” deaths – including suicides and homicides – they maintain the authors “knew” they were acting dishonestly. They challenge the findings by increasing the sample area by a factor of 10, and hold this against the original sample area.

Christian’s team selectively quote the Lancet authors earlier work on displacement of users from the area due to an increase in policing. This would be a splendid point were it not that “this policing initiative ended within weeks of Insite’s opening and was not ongoing throughout the study period”. This claim was also a resurrection of Mangham’s still unpublished and disgraced 2007 academic corpse. The vicious “media release” finished:

Drug Free Australia’s Research Coordinator, Gary Christian, said, “…. Inexplicable errors and memory lapses is the price the Canadian government has paid for entrusting injecting facility lobbyists with its scientific evaluation. Activists are never likely to provide objective science and there are dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result.”

A complaint was lodged with the University of British Columbia by Mr. Christian. This and the JGDPP piece were independently reviewed and found to be “without merit”.

Yet so many questions arise as to why this apparently devastating material was not presented in court. When I first asked Mr. Christian on December 2nd he took a superior tone claiming that they could not because they did not have it available until September 2011. “It would have been a good point but for you not checking your facts”, he replied. Let’s review these facts I supposedly failed to check.

On June 8th, 2011, the (new) President for Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, Gwendolyn Landolt insisted that data supporting Insite is flawed. In an extraordinary claim (for June) she asserted in a letter to Canada’s National Post that OD’s had actually increased around Insite in most years since it had opened and thus, Thomas Kerr was in error for accusing DPNC as presenting misinformation (as he had earlier done):

Mr. Kerr tried to discredit a report from the B.C. government — which stated that since the site opened, the area has seen an increase in drug-induced deaths every year — by claiming that it included deaths unrelated to drug use

I say! That claim seems to be lifted straight from Christian’s September debacle. The one they didn’t have… until, er… September. And what do we read on page 2 of Christian’s piece about “a report from the B.C. government”, also mentioned above?

The claims of this article are very curious from the outset, simply because a review of the statistics by the British Columbia Coroner’s Service, found at clearly indicates the contrary – since Insite commenced operations on 21 September 2003 illicit drug deaths have very clearly and unmistakably increased, not decreased.

Okay, the same claim. So they had access to this data 2 1/2 years before the Supreme Court sitting in May 2011. Every other accusation – the impact of policing, the supply of drugs, criticisms from Mangham go back to 2007. Other papers and studies used are also well before 2011. That the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada is shooting off unpublished material in response to a May 30th statement by Kerr suggests they were keeping their powder dry.

I put this to Mr. Christian on the same day he dismissed my poor fact checking (December 2nd). He replied on December 10th as follows:

I have received an e-mail back from Gwen Landolt of Real Women of Canada explaining that Colin Mangham’s work was not admissable to the Supreme Court because it was not available for lower court hearing. The truth, Paul, is that there were court-imposed limitations on evidence which have nothing to do with your fanciful fabrications here.

Okay. So the material was available (despite his earlier claims it wasn’t), but could not be submitted due to “court-imposed limitations on evidence”. My “inability to check facts” had disappeared in a puff of reality, but was now replaced with my “fanciful fabrications”. Oh dear!

Of course before the Court in May, the government was armed with the figures mentioned, but had stated it had “no evidence” to submit. So, a day later on December 11th, 2011 I replied in part to Mr. Christian:

The time to strike was in the Supreme Court. Exactly why information from 2007 (Mangham) and 2008 (BC report on OD’s) was not admissible for lower court hearing in 2011 is a question best answered by your colleagues, Mangham and Landolt. If there is a genuine technical reason I would be grateful if you could provide it.

Otherwise it must remain possible, indeed probable, that it was excluded due to a.) the paucity of evidence presented by Mangham in attempting to debunk 20 peer reviewed studies from esteemed journals, and b.) that the BC report on OD’s was irrelevant as a variable effecting the efficacy of Insite and thus the SC sitting itself.

If so, this renders Landolt’s comments to the media and your own use of both sources impotent.

Failing this, you must explain… exactly why it was unavailable given 4 and 3 years respectively to craft an effective rebuttal of Insite’s success with these figures.

What were those “court imposed limitations” and why were they not mentioned in your article or your media release which explicitly referred to the [Supreme Court] decision as influenced by the Lancet article and “harm reduction activists”?

As one may expect those points have never been addressed. No-one is any more the wiser as to why this apparently cutting edge demolition of the court accepted Lancet article, was not itself either in total or in substance, presented to the Supreme Court. Are we to believe an ambiguous and unmentioned “court imposed limitation” prevented the exposing of “research fraud and professional misconduct” by five authors in one of the world’s most prestigious journals, the Lancet? That these supposed academic crimes were overlooked by the Supreme Court of Canada, as they examined the material in question itself?

Or shall we accept the demonstrable trend and tone exercised throughout the ideological attempts to sabotage Insite, is now manifestly clear as an attempt to smear researchers and their work? As the media release claimed, “dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result”.

The anti-drug brigade may be cruel but they are not stupid. I point this out to Mr. Christian very clearly above, and still await a cogent reply. An academic mirage supposedly good enough to undermine the work of five authors. But not offered in objection to their work. What then was it’s purpose?

It was clear any such opinion from known offenders would have no bearing against over 30 papers in 15 peer reviewed journals. The singular attack upon Kerr, Wood and Montaner is striking. Christian has never answered my queries, preferring to accuse me of “imaginations and suppositions” without facts. Exactly why this argument was not published anywhere until after the Supreme Court hearing has never been made clear.

Why it was not raised by DPNC or REAL Women of Canada (both for whom the final “analysis” was supposedly written) in court is unknown. “No evidence”, was the official position.

Yet Gary Christian gives the game away himself. On November 30th, 2011 I had written in response to his refusal to accept his ploy was found to be “without merit”:

You write as if Montaner and Kerr are under scrutiny. You had your chance. It and the complaint have been found to be without foundation.

He replied on December 19th suggesting conflicts of interest assumed on his part override the independent analysis of his attack. He offered two mundane sources and extraordinarily suggests intentional favouritism on the part of the University of British Columbia and independent reviewer, Dr. Mark Wainberg toward the Lancet authors:

Of course our complaint to the University of British Columbia was not progressed because Dr Mark Wainberg absolved Dr Montaner, Dr Kerr and Dr Wood of any errors in their Lancet article, claiming that it was exemplary science.

However, if you look at the relationship between Wainberg and Montaner, I think that you will find that the relationship breaches the most liberal guidelines in the corporate or political world as to who is qualified to conduct an independent inquiry. […]

Now tell me that the University of Britush Columbia’s ‘Independent Advice’ was absolutely according to the common understanding of independence.

More accusations of corruption. More suggestion of conspiracies. More of the same junk.

What were these devastating pieces of insight? At a meeting of the International AIDS society, 2009 Julio Montaner congratulates, “my friend and colleague, the esteemed Dr Mark Wainberg” on getting the conference to Durban in his capacity as IAS president. The other is a humdrum op-ed piece written with Stephen Lewis on urging the Canadian government to ensure HIV/AIDS therapies remain central topics.

To this day Gary Christian remains unapologetic and impervious to volumes of criticism and questions generated by his single opinion piece. There has been no apology, no explanation nor any correction of demonstrable falsehoods.

Attacks on Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr however, continue apace.

The “drug free” ideology is as free from compassion and evidence as it ever was.

Second ABC complaint upheld: Meryl Dorey “distorted and selectively presented information” on pertussis vaccination

Unfortunately, she (Meryl Dorey) added little and took the opportunity to promote a case against the use of the pertussis vaccine based on distorted and selectively presented information.

 ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs, December 19th, 2011

Readers of musings and mumblings here may remember a look at one Meryl Wynn Dorey’s “ABC of immunisation lies“, following Nicola Roxon’s Immunisation Incentive announcement.

Ms. Dorey kicked off deceiving Terri Begley’s audience on Mornings, November 25th on ABC 612. As covered by reasonablehank in ABC Complaint upheld – Meryl Dorey “disingenuous” and “added little” with “unsubstantiated claims”, a complaint was lodged and upheld by ABC Corporate Affairs.

In the afternoon Dorey popped up again on ABC 666 Drive speaking with Louise Maher. Again she seized the opportunity to launch into rapid fire fiction on pertussis infection and vaccine efficacy. This trick has been picked apart a few times here. So, I shot off a long complaint with references, tables and tactics laid out. To my delight the dedicated folk at ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs waded through it and the complaint was upheld. With their permission I’ve copied the response below.

The only other point (related to media correspondence) I’d like to cover is that I also sent a synopsis of Dorey’s pertussis and autism tricks to Tiga Bayles prior to her appearance on his Let’s Talk show. It had my name, phone number and email address. He didn’t raise any of the points as Dorey recited exactly what I’d warned him she would, choosing to feign surprise and smooth her path. He did however mention “the haters” and “sad small-minded people” who “hide behind anonymity too”.

Dorey agreed that her opponents were “cowards”, members of a “hate group” and guilty of a range of lousy transgressions, primarily around suppressing free speech. Without sounding too small minded, I did feel this was most unhelpful on Tiga’s part. Others also wrote openly to him and still more had articles published on widely read publications, such as The Drum and Mamamia. Meryl Dorey’s critics are not anonymous.

With that out of the way, we can enjoy knowing that both of Dorey’s appearances on ABC on November 25th have resulted in upheld complaints.

Reprinted with permission of ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs.

Dear Mr. Gallagher,

Thank you for your email of November 27 concerning the interview of Meryl Dorey conducted by Louise Maher on radio 666.

As your correspondence raised concerns of misleading and inaccurate content, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC’s editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in section 2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC radio.

On Thursday November 24 Louise Maher spoke to the ACT Chief Health Officer Dr Paul Kelly about a measles outbreak at a Steiner school in the ACT.  The following day she looked at the government’s announcement that day that from July 2012 up to $2100 of the family tax benefit per child will be conditional on a child being immunised, and spoke to Dr Julie Leask, from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and senior lecturer at the School of Public Health at Sydney University and Meryl Dorey from the Australian Vaccination Network.

The program team believed that Ms Dorey would have something to add to the discussion about the Government’s initiative. Unfortunately, she added little and took the opportunity to promote a case against the use of the pertussis vaccine based on distorted and selectively presented information. As this was not anticipated, the presenter was not in a position to effectively challenge Ms Dorey’s assertions. To her credit, Ms Maher recognised this and acted to get expert advice to air from the Chief Medical Officer of the ACT.

That interview was ultimately aired on the following Monday. The effect of that delay was to potentially mislead listeners about the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine. This was exacerbated by the fact that the introduction to Ms Dorey did not adequately contextualise Ms Dorey’s comments by informing listeners that she is a campaigner against vaccination who has no medical qualifications and her organisation has been the subject of a warning by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission for providing misleading information to the public.

Notwithstanding the team’s efforts to address claims made by Ms Dorey, it is our view that she wasn’t introduced with sufficient context to ensure listeners were not misled by her unsubstantiated claims.

Radio management apologises for this lapse. It advises that it will again communicate to radio staff the importance of providing listeners with all relevant context and information when presenting controversial and potentially dangerous viewpoints – particularly if they propose to interview Ms Dorey again.

Accordingly, Audience and Consumer Affairs conclude the broadcast was not in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy as outlined in section 2.1 of the ABC’s Editorial Polices. Please be assured that your comments and this decision have been conveyed to ABC Radio management and the producers of the program.

Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated.

For your reference, the ABC Editorial Policies are available online at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf

Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, http://www.acma.gov.au.

Yours sincerely


Audience & Consumer Affairs

  • Louise Maher receiving “distorted and selectively presented information” on the use of the pertussis vaccine:

MP3 file for download here.

All I want for Christmas…

Shopping for Christmas presents is always a challenge. Particularly if you’re one of those kill joy skeptics, kneeling before the alter of Science.

With your calloused knees of course, goes that huge blackened heart that beats with excitement at the chance to “advise consumers” about the wonders your tiny minds can’t appreciate. Wonders that Quanto-kinetic physicists are labouring to explain this very minute. So out of tune is your harmonic resonance from complaining about cancer cures that don’t cure, power bands with no power, SensaSlim with no sense… or even slim for that matter, or Angelic Reiki with no… no… Angelic Reikism, that you greet each Christmas a sad and sorry critter.

Well I hoped you took your skeptic issue sensible clothes or grey beard and pot belly and walked yourself into a state of present hunting exhaustion in your optimal coefficient of friction shoes, you blinkered twat! Or whatever party pooping, fashion free, sensibly comfortable hoof covering stompers we enlightened ones may have the misfortune to look at. I suppose there’s even a coefficient of friction App. Just hold your phone up to some goofy shoe sole and Hey Presto! Evidence! Yeah well I hope you’re looking down at that geeky evidence when they spray neurotoxic chemtrails above poisoning our God given air and suppressing the inherent scalar energised enlightenment of mother nature.

Keeping us enslaved as fluoride drinking, vaccine shooting, TV zombie, medically drugged up cattle, fed lies about the aliens in control, the disease cures hidden away with the AIDS generator and the satellites tracking our every move. Frying our brains and destroying mood enhancing negative ions with full-on EMF pulses from so-called mobile “phone towers”. Oh, yeah idiot! Sure. If they pulled off Building 7, then they’ll try anything. Like the 7 signs of ageing that suppress immortality. The seven seals in the Book of Revelations, building seven and the seven signs of ageing, ya dumb skeptic! Coincidence? I think not.

You’re not even real skeptics. Real skeptics doubt everything! One minute you say science can’t explain everything in the universe. The next ya using science to explain something. Something in the universe! Wow. I mean… just wow. Pathetic. You should hear yourselves. Well I hope you kept funding Big Pharma to suppress the truth and keep us sick. Took your poor children to those allopaths with their mind controlling drugs and vaccines cut with iron filings that they shoot into the bloodstream straight into the brain.

I on the other hand, cannot be fooled. To prove it, here’s some of the presents I got for my friends and family for when they’re out of quarantine for diphtheria.

Past Life Regression Christmas Gift Voucher

For a mere $270 Australian each of these are a total bargain. It’s worth it because you can’t mess with this stuff. It says so right on the site. But best is that even you drop kick skeptics could benefit from it:

Past Life Regression is a highly specialised area and should not be attempted with anyone other than a trained therapist.

More recently, I have also completed training in Past Life and Quantum Healing with the ‘Grand Dame’ of Past Life Regression. Experience has shown that Past Life Therapy can be an extremely valuable form of healing – even if the subject does not believe in reincarnation.

I’ve seen it work many, many times and for me, seeing is believing.

Psychic Reading Gift Vouchers

One of the reasons the enlightened never listen to skeptics is because we already know what going to happen. Psychic reading is not limited by distance. Don’t believe me? Just ask any Psychic Reader goofy. For an absolute bargain again I could choose from $20, $50 or the most economical $95 vouchers.

Thetahealing – Scientifically Explained

Just to prove that science – at least real science – isn’t limited to people with access to laboratories or brain washing libraries I booked early and got 25% off for Christmas. If you aren’t convinced by the “scientific evidence” heading, or the Theta Tree which clearly shows a brain and neuronal axons for roots (I mean wow), here’s more explanation, that only a fool could doubt:

An overly simple explanation of the science behind ThetaHealing is to say that it is a method of applied quantum mechanics engineering. Despite how miraculous and mystical it may sound, the ThetaHealing alternative healing modalities are grounded in hard science – namely quantum physics and cutting edge consciousness research.
ThetaHealing produces measurable results, but the mechanism by which it works is at the present being uncovered by physicists.

Further more, there are collaborations being presently arranged to provide scientific analysis and study of the ThetaHealing technique to prove in solid, scientific terms how and why it workings. After all, there is a great quantity of anecdotes with supporting medical confirmation from ThetaHealing clients who have experienced dramatic healing from this Holistic Therapy Medicine.

Christmas Homeopathic Survival Kit

This baby speaks for itself. I’m sure you’d have to agree. But specifically you’re missing out on toxin and side effect free cures for Over-indulgence, Stress and Anxiety, Sleep problems, Anger and resentment and Colds. You miserable sods could benefit from just anger and resentment remedies.

Long Distance Animal Theta Healing and Reading

Again this one speaks for itself. Jesus was born in a stable surrounded by animals. It makes absolute sense that Christmas is the time to boost your animals happiness and wellbeing through long distance theta healing and aura reading. As we read above this is “grounded in hard science… quantum physics and cutting edge consciousness research”. It’s bordering on animal cruelty to not seize this opportunity. While there you might feel like a treat yourself. You missed the $162 saving at only $243, but at a mere $405 you can’t go past:

Theta Weight Loss Tactics Program. Release weight without changing your diet.

Long distance Skype sessions or in person in Sydney.

Japanese acupuncture, herbs, nutrition, massage & chiropractic

If ever there was a one stop shop this has gotta be it! Recovering from cancer treatment, poor sexual performance or just that nagging urge to induce labour? Wholistic Natural Medicine can treat it all. Here’s their list with their own emphasis:

  • headaches & migraines, lower back pain & sciatica, rheumatoid arthritis & osteoarthritis, fatigue, fibromyalgia, neuralgia
  • sprains & RSI (e.g. tennis elbow), TMJ dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, effects of stroke, Bell’s palsy, Meniere’s disease, earache & tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
  • cancer pain & side effects of cancer treatment, depression & anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, stress & stress related conditions, menstrual & menopausal problems
  • premenstrual syndrome & period pain, polycystic ovarian syndrome, female infertility & male sexual dysfunction, low sexual vitality
  • morning sickness, foetal malposition, inducing labour, insufficient lactation, gastritis, nausea & vomiting, weight issues, peptic ulcer, heartburn, diarrhoea & constipation
  • irritable bowel syndrome, chronic ulcerative colitis, liver & gallbladder disorders, bronchial asthma, sinusitis & hayfever, whooping cough, chronic cough, upper respiratory tract infections
  • sore throat & tonsillitis, prostatitis, cystitis & recurrent urinary tract infection, urinary retention, acne, eczema, dermatitis & psoriasis, herpes zoster

Scalar Energy Pendants provide Quantum Energy & Negative Ion Production

I know. You were thinking surely there couldn’t be any more incredible life changing bargains. Skeptics are like that. Hanging round with miserable deniers of the Unseen they rarely get to see just how generous and gifted human beings are. But just imagine you’re too busy enjoying all this vitality, health, happiness and well being? Well Quantum Pendant Australia understands, and their pendants have “clinically proven benefits”. Lay it down, brother:

Western medicine even tends to downplay the efficacy of time and clinically tested herbal medicines that work as well as if not better than the more expensive synthetic solutions we’ve come up with. There’s not a lot of money in herbs, but there’s tons of money in man-made synthetic patentable drugs.

It’s really no wonder that the pharmaceutical industry wants us to rely on their drugs; it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. It’s an industry that comes out with a new allergy pill every time the patent runs out that isn’t necessarily any better than the old one, it’s just new and more profitable. The same thing happens with acid reflux and depression medications.

The negative ions that quantum pendants produce are shown to increase mood and well-being in just one hour. The best depression medication requires six weeks before any effects are seen and the success rate with a first antidepressant is under 20%.

Wow! People still fall for that money making pill industry. I hope you skeptics can see just how much you contribute to humankind’s pain. Half an hour to improve mood with a pendant vs 20% success with toxic, expensive, synthetic chemical containing drugs. These guys even wrote Unusual Christmas Gifts For Men 2011. Through sheer generosity they reveal:

The earth radiates scalar energy; therefore, a person would need to be outdoors either in a forest, beach or near a waterfall very frequently in order to gain the necessary exposure. Since this is just not possible, the Quantum Scalar Energy Pendant is a very valuable commodity. Some of the benefits that one would notice almost immediately are:
• An instant energy boost, Improved immunity, Protection from the harmful EMF’s, Better sleep patterns, Improved memory, Enhanced concentration

In addition to these benefits, there are also many illnesses and afflictions that are helped by the Quantum Scalar Energy Pendant. This is just a few since there are too many to list.

• Circulatory problems, Arthritis, Sprains and strains, Back pain, Inflammation, Muscular aches and pains, Breathing problems such as Asthma or COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), Sports injuries, Pain associated with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

The Anti-Radiation cell phone stickers and the Bio-energy cards both provide comparable results as the pendant. They both contain the necessary minerals found within the pendant and for this reason, they function similarly. The cell phone stickers work to reduce EMF’s from not only a cell phone, but various other devices as well…..

These guys are awesome. All that packed into just one pendant. No doctors appointments, no repeat prescriptions, no annoying follow up. Just pay once and you get exactly what you paid for. Rock on!

Of course there’s more. Angelic Reiki Christmas card designs. Christmas Crystals for calmness, love, healing, memory, pregnancy, vitality, sleep and paper weights. Santa themed aromatherapy for calmness, love, healing, memory, pregnancy, vitality, sleep and more. Reflexology for conditions you’ve never heard of nor knew you had. Don’t delay visiting one. Chiropractors will have a crack (no pun intended) at pretty much anything these days. Get the kids in early and make a booking for your pet ferret.

Well that’s about all from me. I’d wish you a Happy Skeptimas or whatever but we all know you haters are never happy without trying to shut down the truth and suppress free speech. So, with all that pure healing and zest above, I can only ask from all of us on the alternative side:

Who looks stupid now then?