Category Archives: Health

“Getting The Point” – the antivaxxer response to 60 Minutes’ story on their danger to Australia

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, Health by

The Sixty Minutes story on the benefits of vaccines was a conspiracy. Because NineMSN is “a joint venture between Microsoft (yes, Bill Gates – and we know what he thinks about vaccines – they are ‘magic’ according to his latest interview) and PBL whose chairman, James Packer, sits on the board of major vaccine and drug maker, Glaxo Smithkline. Do you REALLY think that a station with their hands in that much dirty money would even THINK about doing a fair story on this issue?” says Meryl Dorey, President of The Australian (anti) Vaccination Network.

Nothing sets off a conspiracy minded anti-vaccination lobbyist like facts.

Below this text is a Sixty Minutes Australia segment, Getting The Point, that aired June 12th 2011. The only irrationality comes from micro-palaeontologist, Viera Scheibner. She is marketed as one of the world’s foremost experts on vaccines, is “sought after as a speaker and expert witness” and worshipped by fellow Bent Spoon winner Meryl Dorey. Scheibner’s claim of being an expert witness and other outright lies are dealt with here splendidly.

“…I am not satisfied that her formal qualifications and professional experience properly equip her to provide a valid professional opinion on the complex subject of immunology…” and
“…one must question her capacity to properly evaluate and interpret the results of others’ scientific experience. I am not prepared therefore to accept her evidence in preference to that of…
 – Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[….]
“I draw attention [to] misleading information provided by Dr Viera Scheibner … who continuously writes against immunisation. In the 9 March edition of the Medical Observer, she submitted a very unusual letter [which] makes claims that are not supported by the documentation she referred to. It is very important for people to realise that the information provided by Dr Scheibner is not accurate.” – NSW Legislative Council

Whilst exploiting white coat syndrome through use of her PhD title of “Doctor” to mislead those seeking advice, Viera defends her lack of qualifications. Sixty Minutes found that she has “a doctorate in the natural sciences”, and “some nursing qualifications”. And whilst all autism cases are caused by vaccines, the absurdity of this claim is dismissed because Viera knows more than any doctor. There is nothing good to be said about vaccines, and immunity is gained best by contracting the disease.

In March 2004 there was some activity in the BMJ defending the scam of one no-longer-a-doctor, Andrew Wakefield. We now know his work was fraudulent. Quite ironic because defence of Wakefield and attacks on Brian Deer, were often themed on the bias of the dastardly pro-vaccine industry publication, the BMJ. Which incidentally allowed Scheibner [Principle Research Scientist (Retired)] to publish a letter that gives one ample insight;

Orthodox medicine is toxic and harmful. It seems accepted that all medications have side (undesirable) effects. However, this is only relevant to orthodox medications. Correctly administered, homoeopathic remedies and natural remedies have no side effects. One has to elaborate here that there could be uncomfortable feelings after homoeopathics but they are desirable effects. Elevated temperature, rashes and vomiting are signs of detoxification and of a desired change of a chronic condition into an acute illness leading to healing.

Which to the lay person means homeopathy does not work. The disease of, say, measles will run it’s course and fevers (convulsions for 1 in 200), rashes, high temperature are symptoms of the infection you will endure until it passes. If you are unfortunate enough to be one of the one in 5,000 who die, sustain encephalitis or one in 8,000 who contract Subacute Sclerosing Panencepahltiis you will not recover. She continues…

Orthodox medicine with its pharmaceutical industry has become a huge money spinner and as such has become vulnerable to political interference. Vaccination is the best example. To make a lot of money, vaccinators want to vaccinate every child. The more children are vaccinated, the more obvious are the serious side (undesirable) effects including brain damage and death. Politically motivated medicine denies or plays down undesirable effects. The word “obvious” has been banished even though it is considered prudent medical practice that when a medication or a procedure is administered and symptoms appear afterwards, then that medication and/or procedure must be considered as the cause of the observed symptoms…..

This rubbish goes on, ultimately ending with a bald faced lie: “No Competing Interests”. But Scheibner’s hoop jumping can be easily matched by her Bent Spoon Award winning pal, Meryl Dorey. The Australian Vaccination Network Facebook page – aka The Twilight Zone – lit up with outrage at the intrusion of evidence. The first “response” was from Meryl Dorey herself and bulging with lies. Meryl was advised not to appear. She didn’t choose not to. Presently in the Supreme Court fighting the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission it was a no brainer.

Meryl Dorey comment on facebook

But worse is her claim that a.) she offered them the names of reputable doctors and b.) that reporters actually contacted her to make excuses for not interviewing them. Then follows the ranting about Bill Gates and James Packer, who “… don’t care about your children or my children. They don’t care if they live or die. So long as they can make money doing what they are doing and protect their financial interests in the meantime…”.

Conspiracy rant - Meryl DoreyOther comments included, “What a crap biased report, no surprise. Immunization rates must need a boost.” “Pathetic piece of reporting. One can only hope that people see it for what it was.” “Why weren’t the parents of Ashley Epapara and Saba Button interviewed? For the exact reason that MD mentions above. Not good for business.” “Isn’t this a live vaccine … can’t the reporter pass on the virus to the baby if she just had her booster shot???” “When will reporters actually read Dr Andrew Wakefield‘s study and report on it accurately? Are they incompetent reporters who don’t check their facts, or are they outright liars? And if they are incompetent reporters, how to they get to be on a prime time program like 60 minutes? Ugh. So glad you didn’t lower yourself Meryl Dorey. Disgusting and irresponsible reporting by 60 minutes.”

And on it goes with feverish “liking” of each twilight zone observation.

“Diet-aid firm’s law suit halts review of it’s ‘outlandish’ ads”

Posted in Big Placebo, Health, Scam by

© Louise Hall at Fairfax writes:

An academic who complained to health authorities about a company that marketed a herbal spray as ”the most effective slimming solution available in the world today” has failed to have an $800,000 defamation case thrown out.
Ken Harvey, an adjunct senior lecturer at La Trobe University in Melbourne and a regular campaigner against non-scientific products and services, has accused SensaSlim of stymying an investigation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration into its weight-loss product by launching legal action in the NSW Supreme Court.
The TGA’s complaints resolution panel had received a number of complaints about the product, including those from Dr Harvey and Professor Lesley Campbell, from the St Vincent’s Hospital diabetes centre, alleging that SensaSlim has made outlandish claims without scientifically acceptable evidence.
However, the panel is restrained from investigating the product while legal proceedings are under way.
”By having a legal case, they have totally stopped the complaint panel for at least a year but they can continue promoting and selling it and they are laughing all the way to the bank,” Dr Harvey said.
Terry Harrison, SensaSlim’s legal adviser, denied it was designed to ”gag” Dr Harvey, and said it was a response to his complaint on http://www.auspharmacist .net.au. ”He’s trying to suggest this is some sort of gag order. Nothing can be further from the truth,” Mr Harrison said.
But in a newsletter to SensaSlim franchisees obtained by the Herald, a company spokesman, Adam Adams, said its lawyers had ”found a way to defend the company”.
”This defamation action, which could be in the courts for a year or two or even longer, basically gives an iron-clad protection that nobody can raise a complaint against SensaSlim to the [complaints resolution panel] and hurt us,” Mr Adams said.

Continue reading →

Beware The Lure Of New Treatments

Posted in Big Placebo, Health, Scam by

Originally published, June 14th © MJA Insight by John Dixon.

Associate Professor John Dixon is an NHMRC Senior Research Fellow in obesity research at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, and head of the obesity research unit, Department of General Practice, Monash University, Melbourne.

The excitement of being able to participate or even lead in the development of new treatments in difficult areas such as obesity, cancer prevention and treatment, arthritis and back pain is enticing.
Unfortunately for medical practitioners, there are business entrepreneurs ready to trade on their genuine enthusiasm and – dare I say – naivety. A recent example involves weight loss. It’s not easy to lose weight and even harder to keep it off. Motivation, willpower, energy in and energy out – it sounds so simple but it isn’t.
We now know weight and fat stores are carefully regulated by powerful physiological mechanisms that actually defend against permanent weight loss – all understandable when we consider that our body computes weight loss as a signal of starvation, famine and death.
With the failure of the pharmaceutical companies to develop acceptably safe medications in this difficult area, we are left with an enormous vacuum and a huge untapped market of people who want to lose weight. The field is fertile for the “scam” professionals and complementary medicines are an easy target.
As medical practitioners we can become unwittingly entrapped in these scams. We too want to believe someone has finally developed an effective remedy.
A recent example involved a mouth spray, launched onto the Australian market with great fanfare. There were statements of massive randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with exceptional results – results that those of us in the know would think were “too good to be true”.
How could this large, multicentre RCT involving thousands of people globally have not come to our attention? A prominent European weight loss physician was engaged as a consultant by the manufacturers/promoters with the promise of the trial data being supplied.
In the meantime, this physician’s name was widely used to support the claims, giving the appearance of expert validation, which aided promotion. However, the data to support the claims was never supplied, leaving the physician high and dry with his reputation damaged.
By the time the penny finally dropped he was in an uncomfortable position as the promoters had changed from being soft and appreciative to being aggressive, confrontational and threatening. This particular matter is heading for a legal resolution.
An Australian medical practitioner, concerned about the extraordinary claims being made about this product, openly questioned the results and advised the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration of his concerns. He was also met with aggressive, confrontational behaviour and legal action by the same promoters.
This intimidatory modus operandi is often used by the unscrupulous to suppress the squeaky wheel and delay the appropriate assessment by regulators. Meanwhile, the income rolls in and by the time the dust settles the original product has had its day and the next scam is already up and running.
This practice is not restricted to weight loss. Wherever there are regulatory grey zones, for example complementary and traditional medicines, and cosmetics, unwary consumers and medical practitioners are at risk of being exposed to unscrupulous operators.
Beware the company that delays provision of quality data, or becomes defensive or aggressive, or attempts to turn the table of blame back on practitioners who push for answers and evidence.
It takes a very strong practitioner to weather this storm but protecting the wellbeing of Australian health consumers from expensive and potentially dangerous scams makes it worthwhile.

A health product activist in court and a regulatory body in question

Posted in Big Placebo, Health, Scam by
As Ken Harvey’s defamation hearing has begun it’s quite proper to ask questions about the impotent regulations that led to this point.
Source of article, “Prominent Activist In Court Dispute” – © Pharmainfocus July 13th, 2011 (ABC links added)
By Niamh Mullen
A defamation action against prominent activist Ken Harvey relating to a TGA complaint he made about a complementary product is scheduled for a hearing the Supreme Court of NSW today [Monday 13th].
Dr Harvey, a lecturer at La Trobe University in Melbourne, hopes to have the case taken by SensaSlim Australia thrown out. In March he submitted a complaint about the promotion of the weight-loss spray SensaSlim to the Complaints Resolution Panel, the TGA, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
In April, the defamation action was launched. The defamatory imputations concern details of the complaint he lodged with the TGA and a report of the complaint that was published on the pharmacy news website
Auspharmacist.net.au. A Therapeutic Goods Regulation, called 42ZCAJ, means the TGA has had to stop all investigation of the complaint until the court proceedings have been finalised.
Dr Harvey has said this regulation provides an incentive to a sponsor that is being complained about to initiate a legal action. “They can drag out a court complaint; it can be very expensive for a complainant and often the complainants roll over because they can’t afford to continue the litigation. It’s a very fraught area and it’s not surprising that there aren’t many complaints,” he said on the ABC Radio National show, The Health Report. [MP3 here]. Dr Harvey said it illustrated the failings of the current regulatory system for complementary products. He pointed out that four months after a first complaint was submitted, promotion of the product continued. He said the regulators appeared to be “paper tigers”. He also said the case showed that making complaints to the appropriate authorities was not without risk.
Ken Harvey’s observations with problems about current legislation were;
Some sponsors have actually sued people who have put in complaints with what we call slap writs, strategic litigation against public participation. This can be a litigation which asks for example a stay of a report into these problems or into complaints on the grounds that this information is alleged to be defamatory. In practice what happens is that that stops the complaint resolution panel from hearing complaints because there is an obscure therapeutic goods regulation which says that if after a complaint has been made to a panel a proceeding begins in a court about the subject matter of a complaint the panel cannot deal with the complaint until the proceeding is finally disposed of.
Now that provides a lovely incentive to a sponsor that is being complained about to initiate a legal action which then stops the complaint, lets them continue to market and away they go. And of course they can drag out a court complaint; it can be very expensive for a complainant and often the complainant’s role over because they can’t afford to continue the litigation. It’s a very fraught area and it’s not surprising that there aren’t many complaints.
More so, a survey by the National Prescribing Service showed that 50% of Aussies assume complimentary medicines are independently tested. That means by a third party serving only to provide impartial results. Results that would rightly influence TGA decisions on what makes it to market in a lucrative multi-billion dollar industry. 70% of Aussies use a complimentary medicine at some point. That’s a large number but it’s a static figure. What concerns me is that some people use certain Complimentary and Alternative Medicines – CAM’s – regularly. Some of these, ensconced in the false believe that “natural” medicines are incapable of causing serious harm – if any – consume excessive amounts.
Interestingly, as can be seen below, the TGA does require, and reinforce, that manufacturers clearly label what is in the packaging. To list components of CAM’s. This satisfies TGA requirements that only ingredients on a TGA approved list are present, and accounted for. Some manufacturers go to great lengths to add some pizzazz by ambitiously qualifying what each ingredient supposedly does. You may have read these: “Each tablet/capsule/spoonful/dose contains 30 mg of xxx for added vitality, 43mg of diddlie dee to promote rapid wound healing, 12 mg of trala trala to assist in quality sleep… strong tissues, healthy bones, optimal nutrient uptake, sustained energy, immune integrity”, and so on. They do not have to advise that no independent clinical tests exist.
That means manufacturers of CAM can legally fail to inform the 50% of consumers under the impression of safe and effective testing that they are mistaken. As I’ve mentioned before, in such situations consumers are placing trust in the equivalent of a slogan.
In this light one may reasonably ask what is required to bring a product to market. In other words, how does a company successfully register their product on the Australian register of therapeutic goods to the satisfaction of the TGA prior to selling under the above conditions? Ken Harvey told ABC’s Joel Werner;
They’ve got to show that they are producing them in terms of good manufacturing practice standards. Secondly they’ve got to choose their ingredients from what is a relatively limited list held by the Therapeutic Goods Administration of ingredients they regard as relatively safe. Some sponsors regard this as a bit of a game, so if the ingredients for example in their product don’t happen to be on the list of the TGA you can happily tick whatever you find on a drop down list that you think is similar and the product will get up. And indeed recent audits from the TGA have found that up to 90% of violations when they actually sit down and get a human being to look at what’s been put into the automated system, the advantages from the manufacturers’ or sponsors’ point of view it is very easy to get these products to market.
The sponsor is meant to tick a box to say they hold evidence that the products work. When one checks up and looks at the scientific evidence it’s often very lacking for the claims that are made. The TGA do a limited amount of post-marketing surveillance in which they randomly look at products that have been listed. Those are the ones that they’ve been finding up to 90% violations. The only other constraint is people who put in complaints about complementary medicines and that system has got problems also.
Back to Niamh Mullen;
Also speaking on The Health Report, [a week later – MP3 here] the TGA’s National Manager, Rohan Hammett, said he was not aware that any individual had ever been subject to court action as a result of simply complaining through the usual complaints resolution processes. He also said it was normal practice for administrative proceedings to be put on hold when a higher court was considering a matter.
“Many of the complaints that actually arise about therapeutic products arise between commercial competitors. So one company may complain about another company’s advertising to seek to gain commercial advantage from that and hence there are processes in place that lay out clearly the steps for making an effective complaint. But also, where there are matters for courts to decide, they allow those courts to make those decisions and I think that’s actually an appropriate way for our legal system to operate,” Dr Hammett said.
That particular episode of The Health Report opens with a comment on TGA figures showing 9 out of 10 CAM products breach regulations in some way, with 22% unable to provide the evidence of efficacy they claimed existed. TGA national manager, Rohan Hammett sounded quite the apologist in saying;
Well Joel the data that we released on Friday is the sort of data that we’re hoping to make more available in the future to people about the compliance activities that the TGA undertakes. And these data do raise significant concerns about the current rates of compliance amongst the complementary medicine sector. I have to say though Joel, just to perhaps provide some context to that, many of the breaches in the compliance are of a relatively minor nature, people may for instance be using the wrong size font on a package of their complementary medicines in breach of a guideline that says the font has to be a certain size.
Or they may in fact have a document missing from their application. That is technically a breach but actually doesn’t affect the quality of the product in any way.
Somehow I don’t think consumers are worried that boasts of Xmg of diddlie dee providing strong bones or an aid to concentration may be written (aptly I might add) in large Comic Sans and not properly sized Ariel font. No, I’m pretty sure the 22% evidence vacuum trumps not having to fumble for ones glasses to read bollocks.
To put that in perspective, a large warehouse type chemist I visited had a CAM aisle easily 25 metres long. With shelves on both sides that’s 5 metres of products that do not have evidence backing the claims adorning their labels. In major suburban pharmacies one in five of those splendidly displayed products cannot be trusted.
There are demonstrably many benefits to Ken Harvey taking the actions he has over this unusual failure to regulate in the interests of community safety. To get a feel for the apathy and impotence of the TGA compare these two comments from different Health Report episodes. On May 16th Ken Harvey stated;
….. Why hasn’t anything happened? Well clearly I think there are two reasons. Firstly the complementary medicine industry is very reluctant to have anything happen because they are making good money doing what they’re doing. And the second problem I think is the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It’s a risk-based organisation, it can only put its limited resources where it thinks the big problems are and it would regard ripping off consumers as less of a problem than for example some prescription medicines which have really nasty side effects which can kill you.
However, not concentrating at all on the problem of complementary medicines has let the problem blow out. I might say there’s one other problem that people have perceived and that is that the TGA is 100% funded now by industry fees and again some people have unkindly suggested that if you’ve got an organisation 100% funded by industry that it may be more reluctant to take measures that would impact on industry profitability and indeed on the TGA’s own finances.
The following week this was brought to the attention of Rohan Hammett. He responded with spin;
Well Joel with respect to Dr Harvey those claims are absolute nonsense. The TGA is an organisation established by the Australian government to fulfil a public health role. I get up every day as do the other 600 employees here to improve public health in this country by making sure that people have access to safe and effective therapeutic products in a timely manner.
The fact that the industry has to pay fees to recover the cost of that regulation is a common practice across Commonwealth regulatory agencies. That removes the burden of the costs of that regulation from the tax payer. Why should the tax payer have to fund the regulatory costs for a commercial sector that is then going to generate profits from that regulation?
So just to emphasise that the TGA’s key stakeholders are clearly the Australian people and that is who we work for and our role is very much to provide public health benefits for them.
So to be clear, the TGA is most certainly 100% funded by the industry that’s failing to adhere to regulations. What Hammett thinks is nonsense is that this situation influences the capacity of the TGA to act with impartial conviction. He perhaps should have stopped there. The rest of his commentary appears to be special pleading.
In fact, the burden of proof is of course on the TGA to show that it’s present funding source is not a conflict of interest. That in my mind has not been done.

Progressive policy and fundamentalist resistence

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Denialism, Drug Free Australia, Illicit Drug Policy by
A close look at the rejection of evidence and application of religious belief as guiding principles for members of the Negative team, in debating if drugs should be legalised. Jade Lewis, Greg Pike and Paul Sheehan.
Last post we looked at the debate All drugs should be legalised held by Intelligence Squared. One of the greatest moral, social and human rights based questions today is: Should illicit drugs be legalised?
We ask this question because the harm caused at the community and personal level by prohibition is irrefutable. To this we can add the devastating effects of The War On Drugs – crafted initially by Nixon on the back of the Vietnam war. Few realise the first head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration had his office in Saigon. Returning veterans had to produce clean urine to show they were not using heroin.
Once begun, this foreign policy bonanza worked much like Dr. Whoʼs “psychic paper” pass. Flash it at a sentry and they read whatever convinces them of ones legitimacy. But more so was the USAʼs powerful control over the UNODCP and hence, UN drug policy. Most in the Western world have knowledge of Harm Reduction. The acceptance that punitive measures for drug users ultimately inflicts personal, monetary and social cost on the wider community, and accepting use whilst minimising harm reaps benefits for all.
For this reason nations who focus on evidence and the international right to health provide clean needles through NSPʼs – needle and syringe programmeʼs. Safe injecting facilities are provided increasingly in Europe and elsewhere. Australia has over 1,000 NSPʼs and one Medically Supervised Injecting Facility – MSIC – in Kings Cross, Sydney.
These programmeʼs and facilities serve to manage high risk behaviour, control the spread of blood borne viruses, motivate/provide for users to seek treatment, and they meet community discontent arising from obvious illicit drug use. Most users can return to work, pay taxes, raise a family and remain healthy. But what of intractable addiction? More recently several heroin on prescription schemes in Europe have shown dramatic results in reducing crime, death/illness, uptake of heroin use and length of heroin addiction. Portugal has full decriminalisation and demonstrates a resounding success to date.
Once world leaders in harm reduction, Australia was ready to be the first nation since the War On Drugs began to introduce a heroin on prescription trial in 1997. Despite State government sanction of 6-3, John Howard personally intervened to stop this, and weʼve been backsliding ever since. The rise of Christian Evangelical lobbyists has caused bemusement, angst and disgust.
Australiaʼs full policy is Harm Minimisation – HM. Supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction. Zero Tolerance has only ever been rhetoric. Harm reduction is the least funded, with the struggle to repel supply and the education and (usually failed) advertisements thrust at young Australianʼs taking the two highest shares respectively.
Those who resist drug legalisation seek to distort the argument by misrepresenting the success of harm minimisation. Indeed despite overall reduction in drug use they fraudulently and falsely argue that HM encourages, condones, increases or has no positive effect on use. Attacks on successful initiatives with peacock terminology and weasel worded opinion pieces are common. Published as “research” these are brought up time and again.
In the case of Drug Free Australiaʼs Case For Closure [PDF] against the MSIC, written during itʼs trial status, it is simply rehashed, republished and recirculated. One speaker, Greg Pike is co-author and “statistical analyst”. Greg is best known from his role as Director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, which presently promotes his part in the upcoming debate. Another co-author is the infamous “naltrexone fatality” doctor, Stuart Reece. Embattled DFA secretary Gary Christian is another.
You may wonder why, if supply and demand reduction are funded more than harm reduction, that such groups attack harm reduction – HR. My psychological profiling days may be behind me, but this is clear. HR already attracts right wing condemnation and is easy to misrepresent. The evil druggie and his/her filthy lifestyle is a false pop culture phenomenon. However, conservative Christians cast HR in pop culture format usually in the context of blaming HM. Enter the suggestion of why we need demand reduction. Young Aussies take drugs. Kids from all walks of life. From all faith backgrounds.
For the religiously conservative mind this is an affront. An insult to parenting skills, the instillation of Christian values and indeed, Godʼs work. God “cures” addiction. He does not leave vacuums of vulnerability, in the mind of the fundamentalist. Thus HM in totality is an affront to conservative Christians. Overlaying this is the fear of the success of HR education. An analogue of sex education and condom availability, no proper child would fail to just say no to sex and drugs – or rock n roll for that matter. With two down, supply reduction must be increased along with punitive measures for users. And DFA are adamant they speak for “all Australians”, promoting behaviour control: Harm Prevention.
Another speaker and DFA identity – whose intentions I kind of understand – Jade Lewis wants a drug free Australia, [surprise!] through application of biblical values and the never ending sale of her “story” on DVD. Not your story, or the story of drug policy, or evidence based material – her amazing religious conversion. Jade is ruthlessly exploited by DFA. The excessively priced, only-seen-if-you-buy-it DVD, “Golden Haze” earned Jade the title “The goose that laid the golden haze” – (more on Jade later).

Greg Pike
Greg is co-author of the Case for Closure and a crusader against humane or progressive policy and free choice. His “bioethics institute” gig is a misleading peacock in some of today’s most pressing health issues. Abortion to him is of course, murder and at one time he claimed – as a research outcome – most women do not want choice. His argument against euthanasia once included the appalling claim that a patient travelled to Switzerland – with others – to die with dignity, as “… a case of someone wanting to pursue death under activist like circumstances.” [ABC 7:30 Report Feb. 2007].

Greg Pike

The right to die for the terminally ill is supported by as many as 85% of Aussies according to some polls. The reluctance of politicians shows the grip of the Australian Christian Lobby on vote wary parties. Prior to the above debacle, Pike wrote “Once the killing starts, there’s no stopping it” in January 2007. It included;

Continue reading →