Positive Health Online

Comment re Reiki as a Clinical Therapy

The Reiki Regulatory Working Group (RRWG) feels an obligation to respond to the recent article – Reiki as a Clinical Therapy, PH Issue 121 March 2006.

Although it is true that Reiki is unregulated at the present time, professional organisations representing Reiki practitioners and Teachers have been working towards Voluntary Self-Regulation (VSR) since 2003. Our proposals for Standards for Education and Accreditation, Codes of Ethics and Practice and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) will be published in the summer and we intend to hold consultation UK road shows in the autumn.

The government did not introduce VSR. In 2000 the House of Lords report was published, which said that complementary therapies needed to work towards VSR. The RRWG was formed as a direct response to this report.

We respect Andrew and Dawn's opinion as to why they are committed to their particular practice of Reiki, as we also respect the commitment of other Reiki practitioners and teachers to their style of Reiki.

In our experience we do not see that Reiki is more likely to be received more favourably by health professionals if limited to one particular style. There are already a number of Reiki practitioners working within the NHS and the interest is growing. The complementary therapy unit at UCLH hospital in London is one example, which has been running for several years and Reiki is one of the therapies offered.

We are pleased to note that the interest in Reiki is growing within the NHS with the expansion of new complementary units and that it does not appear to rely on accepting any one style of Reiki practice. The concern about good standards of practice and the protection of the public is shared by all those wishing to include Reiki within the NHS as well as UK Reiki practitioners of differing styles.

At the present time there are a number of hypotheses put forward by biophysicists as to how energy healing works. While we recognize the importance of full case studies and pilot studies, research based evidence as to the efficacy of Reiki is limited. To rectify this we have commissioned a student from Birmingham University to undertake a systematic review of Reiki research. The report is due out later this year.

It is important that all styles need to agree with the concept of VSR and it has been very heartening to see Reiki practitioners from diverse style of Reiki working together both on Reiki National Occupational Standards (NOS) and within the RRWG.

The diversity of Reiki will continue to offer real choice to the individual, and the establishment of good standards will ensure that Reiki continues to grow as a respected and professional therapy.

Mari Stevenson Chair RRWG
info@reikiregulation.org.uk
www.reikiregulation.org.uk

Reply: Editorial Issue 119 – GP Ignorance

I read your editorial in the January 2006 issue of Positive Health and the dismay that you voiced at the ignorance/ gullibility of GPs regarding knowledge of nutritional supplements and non drug treatment approaches.

It is true that many GPs are either ignorant or unwilling to look at alternative approaches to what is regarded as mainstream 'science', but there is more to it that that.

Apart for the targets for vaccines, cholesterol and blood pressure levels, to mention just a few, there are even less subtle pressures operating.

One doctor, a GP in the Channel Islands for many years, gradually became less enchanted with conventional ways of dealing with illness and introduced other therapies and ways of looking at health and disease into his practice. His patients were happy with this approach but not the people who monitor prescribing. They came to visit him and told him that his drug prescribing total was 40% less than that of GPs with comparable practices, and the cost of his prescriptions was 60% lower. They said that his patients were suffering because of not being prescribed adequate amounts of drugs. He asked them how they could show this because by all indicators – Accident and Emergency visits, hospital admissions, outpatients visits, death rates, patient satisfaction and so on – the patients in his practice were doing very well. "Never mind that," they said, "you need to prescribe more drugs…" This doctor decided that he could not legitimately pursue his profession under such circumstances and voluntarily de-registered himself from the General Medical Council (GMC). He now no longer practises as a doctor.

Another doctor, female this time, who practised on the outskirts of London was visited by the prescribing monitors from the Primary Care Trust. They told her she was not prescribing enough hormone replacement therapy (HRT). She replied that from her previous experience as an oncologist, she knew that taking these hormones must increase the risk of malignancies, so when women consulted her about the menopause she explained this risk and told them about other ways of coping with menopausal symptoms – nutritional, herbal etc. Having explained to them why she thought that HRT was not of alloyed benefit, she never refused it to anyone except when there were strong medical contraindications and, having made a decision to prescribe it, she always monitored her patients carefully.

The prescribing monitors were not impressed. She was sent a very unpleasant letter, charging her with not prescribing 'enough' HRT. On probing the meaning of 'enough' it emerged that 'enough' meant the median of what everyone else was doing, as if this were the definition of good practice. Until the beginning of the last century what everyone else was doing was bleeding, cupping and purging. The monumentally arrogant attitude seemed to be that everyone in the past had everything wrong, but we now have everything right so it should be imposed universally and ruthlessly.

This has already led to enormous bungles like Opren, routine induction of labour, HRT, medically induced benzodiazapine addiction etc, but doctors rely on safety in numbers – that's to say what 'everyone is doing' is nobody's fault.

This good and conscientious doctor was so traumatised by the charges, and their consequences, that she was sick for the next year and then retired early on grounds of ill health. This was, of course, before the Department of Health decided in July 2002 that HRT is bad for you and causes cancer and heart disease. They did not contact her to apologise either. She, however is delighted with life. She now organises music festivals in the Loire area of France and would not work again as a doctor if they offered her a million pounds (her words).

I myself am slightly more contentious. I said in court, in the capacity of expert witness, that it was reasonable for two mothers not to vaccinate their daughters, as there were other ways of achieving health than vaccination, it is not mandatory in this country and vaccination is associated with many problems. The appeal judge called my evidence 'junk science' and the GMC subsequently accused me of serious professional misconduct. In the 20 months since they made this accusation, however, they have yet to proffer any specific charges. They say that they expect to by May this year with a proposed three week hearing in December 2006.

So if a parent says, "I'm worried about the safety of vaccination," they say, "You don't understand, you're not a doctor. But if a doctor says, "I'm worried about the safety of vaccination," they say, "We're charging you with serious professional misconduct…"

So, GP, if you do educate yourself and look for other more gentle, holistic, less drug-orientated ways of health care – look out!

And if we all leave or are forced out, the only ones left will be the pill pushers.

Dr Jayne LM Donegan, MBBS DRCOG DFFP DCH MRCGP MFHom
GP & Homoeopath. Tel/Fax: 020 -8632 1634
jaynelmdonegan@yahoo.com
www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/

AETNA Loses Major Dental Case in Fed Court – Is This Their Demise?

by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

On January 27th 2006 10th District Federal Court Judge Marcia Krieger handed struggling Aetna Insurance, perhaps the biggest legal loss in Aetna's history. And, it was over a dental issue.

A decision in the 'Cavitat v. Aetna' Federal case was announced by the Judge.

In August of 2004 Cavitat Medical Technologies of Denver, Colorado, a small manufacturer of medical devices, filed suit against Aetna, and named as co-conspirators:

Delicensed MD Stephen Barrett, his dubious website quackwatch.com, Robert S Baratz MD DDS PhD the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), "were and are each employed or associated with an enterprise, and participated and participates in the conduct of the enterprise affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 USAC1962(c) and CRS 18-17-104(3). Said pattern of activity included and includes, but was and is not limited to, the preparation, publication, dissemination and transmittal of information by US Mail and by wire through internet websites by wire and other media which falsely represented the Plaintiff's product and technology, constituting a violation of 18 USC 1341, 1343, 1347 and 1349, and CRS 18-17-103(5)(a)…"

"(1) Publication of an Injurious Falsehood; (2) Tortious interference with a Prospective Business Advantage; (3) Negligent interference with a Prospective Business Advantage' (4) Interference with contract or prospective Contractual Relation' (5) Federal and State RICO (18USCA 1961 et seq. and C.R.S. 18-17-104).

The lawsuit complains that Bob Jones invented a device called CAVITAT which easily finds cavitations in the jawbone long before an X-ray can, got that device properly approved by the FDA, started selling it all over North America, only to have the quackbuster operation bad-mouth it. Aetna Insurance picked up the quackbuster's commentaries and used them to deny claims for its use, and for treatment based upon results of its findings. Scientist Bernard Windham probably explains best why the quackbusters are so eager to kill CAVITAT for their paymasters. Windham says "Cavitations are diseased areas in bone under teeth or extracted teeth usually caused by lack of adequate blood supply to the area. Tests by special equipment (Cavitat) found cavitations in over 90% of areas under root canals or extracted wisdom teeth that have been tested, and toxins such as anerobic bacteria and other toxics which significantly inhibit body enzymatic processes in virtually all cavitations. These toxins have been found to have serious systemic health effects in many cases, and significant health problems to be related such as arthritis, MCS, and CFS. These have been found to be factors along with amalgam in serious chronic conditions such as MS, ALS, Alzheimer's, MCS, CFS, etc. The problem occurs in extractions that are not cleaned out properly after extraction.

War is Not for the Timid

Bob Jones the inventor of Cavitat is certainly not timid. He spent years proving his Cavitat device had merit – so much merit, he scares "big dentistry."

They made the mistake of trying this on Bob Jones. They used their usual "bad-mouthing," bringing in two of their lower-level "testifying pals," Dodes and Schissell, from the ludicrous "dentalwatch.com" infamy. Dodes and Schissell wrote a so-called "scientific paper," which NO peer reviewed JOURNAL would publish, but Barrett put on his website, parading it as though it had merit. Aetna Insurance, for reasons not yet revealed, however, chose to accept this as credible – and chose to republish their statements, with statements of their own, added. So Bob Jones said "Oh yeah?" And down he went, into central Denver, and plopped himself down in front of nationally famous civil rights attorney Walter Gerash, and said "Walter, I need your help on something..." And the war began…

Aetna's Counter-attack…

Aetna had to have been literally stunned at Cavitat's legal assault. For, Cavitat had laid out the situation, in legal, documents, flawlessly. To me, there was no 'out' for Aetna, They'd done exactly what Cavitat said. So, what would their response be?

Well, they did what every multi-billion dollar corporation does when sued by a 'little guy'. They went out of their way to make the case too expensive for Cavitat to litigate. Here's what they did:

1. First, they assigned the case to five separate BIG law firms, all of which began to file massive amounts of legal paperwork designed to deluge Cavitat's attorneys with work, distracting them from pursuing their own case against Aetna;

2. They subpoenaed every item they could think of, including Cavitat's trade secrets, their bank accounts, personal and corporate – and even though the court ordered those documents to be 'confidential', they turned all of that information over to Stephen Barrett, who put all of it on his dubious website quackwatch.com;

3. Then they went to every State licensing board and filed formal charges against ALL of Cavitat's backers, and expert witnesses, pressuring those witnesses to "not testify." This action, of course, was designed to cost those Cavitat "expert witnesses" a fortune in personal legal fees, and exert stress in their lives. The so-called "expert witness" Aetna used against all of these people was Robert S Baratz MD DDS PhD – the current president of the legally defunct National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). Baratz was named as a co-conspirator in Cavitat's original lawsuit;

4. Then Aetna filed their counter-claim (a counter-lawsuit) stating that Cavitat, all of its users, all of its expert witnesses, etc, in essence, were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud Aetna insurance, blah, blah, blah... Their claim, although poorly written and hard to understand seems to be saying that NICO (Neuralgia Induced Cavitational Osteonecrosis) doesn't actually exist – and is a "fake diagnosis designed to defraud Aetna insurance, blah, blah, blah";
In that complaint they listed some of the who's who of American Dentistry, and science, as "conspirators" against them – top people from the University system, including the Universities of Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Arizona, etc. The complaint went on and on – even naming one of the top authors of Dental textbooks in the US as a "conspirator..";

5. Using the "fake" counter-suit described above, Aetna used its billions of dollars, its hundreds of attorneys, and its connections with State and Federal authorities to begin to harass, en-masse, with subpoenas, demands for depositions and personal information, anyone, and everyone connected to Cavitat. Of course, Aetna bragged in court that it had listed all of these victims on the so-called "independent computer 'health fraud' list";

a. They even began to harass me, Tim Bolen, claiming that I was somehow a "conspirator" against them. They gave me fifteen (15) paragraphs in the writing of their cross-complaint. Using that, they sent thugs to my daughter's apartment building, physically threatened my neighbours, and I've just found out – "subpoenaed my telephone bills" without me knowing it. So, if I've called you on the phone within the last seven years, and your cat has disappeared recently, your dog has been poisoned, there is a bad smell in your yard, or there is someone who looks suspiciously like a vampire peering in your windows – call Aetna's Customer Service line, and complain;

6. Bob Jones, Cavitat's founder and CEO, believes that Aetna has been illegally wiretapping his telephone. I tend to agree with him – they are, and here's why I think so. Bob and I, in a telephone conversation we knew, for certain, couldn't be wiretapped by Aetna, set a trap for Aetna – and they walked right into it. We "invented" information, a non-existent bank account, supposedly in the "Bank of Laredo." Bob Jones then briefly discussed, with his own attorney, that account in the "Bank of Laredo" as though it actually existed. Only a few weeks later, Aetna sent a new set of "interrogatories" in which was a demand for "all information about the accounts in the Bank of Laredo…";

7. Aetna then took their "fake" cross-complaint story to the media.

First they put the whole thing on Stephen Barrett's quackwatch.com website. It's still there today – with Barrett's arrogant commentary.

But then the Federal Judge Stepped In…

10th District Federal Court Judge Marcia Krieger just didn't see the amusement in Aetna's tactics, I guess. She took the opportunity to take a close look at Aetna's cross-complaint – and decided, last Friday, January 27th, 2006, to put an end to Aetna's overbearing ploy.

I read a lot of Court documents. So, let me read between the lines, and tell you my interpretation of what the Judge really said in her decision:

She said:

1. I don't appreciate principals in a case filing "fake" complaints. I expect, in my court, to have documentation that substantiates claims, attached to court cases;

2. I do not approve of "fake" complaints being filed in my Court, obviously using my Court as a tool to defame someone under the guise of a legal action;

The American health care system is rated by the World Health Organization (WHO) as seventy-second (72) in quality, worldwide. Many third-world counties rate higher. That same system, the most expensive in the world, is rated as the "Number one killer of Americans." Recently, I began seriously investigating the health insurance industry's role in the American health care system. I've found that they, far worse than the pharmaceutical industry (which is bad enough) are responsible for the decline in American health care. Initial reports, not yet backed up by government data, show me that out of every dollar spent on health insurance premiums, only nine (9) percent of that premium goes to paying claims.

You can't run a health care system on nine (9) percent. Understand, the Judge only dismissed Aetna's counter-claim against Cavitat – Cavitat's case against Aetna is going to trial in a few months – with guns blazing, so to speak.

Stay Tuned…

Tim Bolen – Health Freedom Advocate, Copyright 2005 by Bolen Report
www.bolenreport.net/

Source:

Millions of Health Freedom Fighters – Newsletter
timbolen-one@northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org