329 Deja Vu; We’re all Northern Irish now

September, 4, 2019 | 29 Comments


  1. ‘Writer-director Ken Loach has been making movies about the British working class since the mid-60s, and this masterful dramatic feature proves that even after all these years he can still work himself up into righteous, white-hot rage.’

    Winner of the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, the latest from legendary director Ken Loach is a gripping, human tale about the impact one man can make. Gruff but goodhearted, Daniel Blake (Dave Johns) is a man out of time: a widowed woodworker who’s never owned a computer, he lives according to his own common sense moral code. But after a heart attack leaves him unable to work and the state welfare system fails him, the stubbornly self-reliant Daniel must stand up and fight for his dignity, leading a one-man crusade for compassion that will transform the lives of a struggling single mother (Hayley Squires) and her two children. Graced with humor and heart, I, Daniel Blake is a moving, much-needed reminder of the power of empathy from one of the world’s greatest living filmmakers.


    …Rotten Tomatoes

    PM swears in Commons as he demands October election

    Slouching Rees-Mogg under fire

    PM’s advisor Cummings ‘stank of booze’

    …and that’s before you got yourself to the ‘Doctors’, who are equally unedifying but in a rather more subtle and ubiquitous manner – drugs, data, evidence, empathy, heart – the missing links – you are totally alone, you cannot speak to a human being.

    The Royal College of Psychiatrists said it had been concerned for many years about the prescribing of anti-depressants for under 18s and had raised the matter with the Department of Health.


    The Royal College of Psychiatrists welcomed the new advice from the MHRA and said it would ensure it was passed on to its members promptly.
    It said it had been concerned for many years about prescribing of anti-depressants for under 18s and had raised the matter with the Department of Health.


    Press Release

    Royal College of Psychiatrists reacts


    The College has been concerned for many years about ‘off-licence’* prescribing of anti-depressant medication for under 18s and we have raised these concerns with the Department of Health.

    Charity chief slams drug watchdog


    “What they failed to mention – and what I am now making public – is the fact that the regulator had the data on which the basis of this decision was made for well over a decade as part of the original licence application.

    “Either they didn’t understand the full implications of the available medical data at the time or, worse, that data was fully understood and they failed to act.

    “Either way it amounts to extreme negligence and a clear dereliction of the MHRA’s duty to safeguard the well-being of the British public.”
    If Study 329 were in a Court of Law, there is no question that all the above would drive a stake in to the heart of our international health and our international politics and the wedge of I, Daniel Blake’s ‘situation’ would become easier to manage and he might even feel that he didn’t have to do what he did all by himself …

    ‘arresting times’ …

  2. A Tweet has been circulating that compares Brexit to that novel we all had to read in high school … you remember the one?

    “An island ruled by British schoolboys who turn on each other, run short of food, kill the vulnerable and have to be rescued”

    • Oddly enough this coincides with my own first perception of the House of Commons as a schoolboy visitor in 1972 – by coincidence it was the day Ted Heath brought back the agreement from Brussels to admit the U.K. into the Common Market, and what impressed itself on the memory watching the gallery was the tribal bellowing from below (largely Labour against, Conservatives for). This was, of course, years before any radio or TV transmissions and in it was an extraordinary experience.

  3. There are three kinds of lie: damned lies, statistics and algorithms.

    Last December the Office of National Statistics put it about that there were 50,100 excess deaths in England and Wales the previous winter which were largely due to influenza. This was known to be completely untrue and I protested in the columns of BMJ Rapid Responses – even Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, had got round to inviting Hiam and Dorling who first drew attention to the problem of the 2017-18 excess deaths to write about them in her annual review, and they had early on formed the opinion it had nothing to do with flu.


    The actual number of deaths from Public Health England’s own data was 320 for England and the 372 for the United Kingdom as a whole. Some months later I was berated by one Nicola J Oliver (Longevity and Mortality Consultant):

    “Stone states: ‘On this basis, the number of deaths in England and Wales in an admittedly exceptionally bad year would have been only in the region of 335-340 deaths, and the ONS seem to have exaggerated the risk to the public by in the region of 150 times.’

    “It is regrettable that Stone only identified the deaths of patients admitted to ICU/HDU, and did not take into account that the PHE document also publishes total deaths, which were 15,969 (confidence interval 15,125-16,828) for the 2017-2018 season.. This total represents approximately 32% of the excess winter mortality for that season, and certainly not the much smaller sum that Stone claims.”


    What Oliver failed to note was that 15,969 deaths from flu in England were not documented deaths but a projection of the number of deaths health officials felt there ought to have been based on the Flumomo algorithm: they knew exact how many deaths from flu there were because it is recorded and there is no need to engage in complex modelling. Obviously, I was a very bad person for pointing out these anomalies but Oliver did not return to the fray:


    Of course, we are arriving at the point where we have a technocratic class which may occasionally engage with reality while the rest of us – the proles – who are simply controlled by lies: it gets to be as simple as Winston Smith discussing razor blade and coffee rations with Syme in “1984”. Even the MSM earlier had earlier in the year had reported the Hiam and Dorling problem but it did not stop them reporting the pack of lies put out by ONS in order to manipulate people.

    Nor, increasingly, does it matter which group of political front-men and women are used to legitimise the lies of the bureaucratic class: in fact we actually had a Supreme Court judgement that politicians are allowed to lie (thanks to the opponents of Boris Johnson) but is nothing compared to what is going on underneath.

    To return to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office has actually had the temerity to conduct a census of ASD cases in it schools – now running at 3.3%, with 1.9% of all children having an education Stage 5 ASD type disability (at Stage 5 it cannot all be fashion). Many weeks ago I wrote to the Office for Budget Responsibility pointing out the costs were many times worse than the figures they had reported for the cost of Brexit and have yet to receive a reply (even a courteous acknowledgement).

    By now we live in a bureaucratic fantasy land supported by various media controlling agencies like Sense About Science and Science Media Centre who spoon feed obsequious mainstream journalists, and probably the biggest onslaught on our liberty and well-being comes through health. Perhaps we also ought to pay attention the the outgoing Chief Medical Officer’s dystopian novel “The Drugs Don’t Work” with antimicrobial resistance the pretext for ever increasing encroachment.


    There is no doubt about the seriousness of of antimicrobial resistance but an out of control bureaucracy is not an answer. We, of course, only have a chance of getting the answers right if we have standards of truth in democratic public discourse, and we don’t.

  4. Menu
    General Privacy Policy
    Version 3.2, updated 7th December 2018

    This privacy notice is designed to help you understand how we use and protect the information obtained from any individual who:
    – contacts UCL by any means
    – provides services to UCL
    – visits or and uses UCL’s website, e.g. http://www.ucl.ac.uk and its subdomains (the “website”)
    – requests information under the information compliance legislation, e.g. data protection or freedom of information
    – provides UCL with unsolicited personal information.
    It applies to personal data provided to us, both by individuals themselves or by third parties and supplements any other UCL privacy notices which may apply, for example the student privacy notice if you apply for a programme of study here.
    This is a General Privacy Notice, and may be superseded by a ‘Local Privacy Notice’ depending on what basis you are contacting UCL and whether you are completing additional web forms, payments or applications.

    About us
    What information you provide to us
    How we will use the information
    Using your information in accordance with data protection laws
    Sharing your personal information
    How we will protect information about you
    Data retention
    Your rights
    Under certain circumstances, you may have the following rights in relation to your personal data:

    Right 1: A right to access personal data held by us about you.

    Right 2: A right to require us to rectify any inaccurate personal data held by us about you.

    Right 3: A right to require us to erase personal data held by us about you. This right will only apply where, for example, we no longer need to use the personal data to achieve the purpose we collected it for; or where you withdraw your consent if we are using your personal data based on your consent; or where you object to the way we process your data (in line with Right 6 below).

    Right 4: A right to restrict our processing of personal data held by us about you. This right will only apply where, for example, you dispute the accuracy of the personal data held by us; or where you would have the right to require us to erase the personal data but would prefer that our processing is restricted instead; or where we no longer need to use the personal data to achieve the purpose we collected it for, but we require the data for the purposes of dealing with legal claims.

    Right 5: A right to receive personal data, which you have provided to us, in a structured, commonly used and machine readable format. You also have the right to require us to transfer this personal data to another organisation.

    Right 6: A right to object to our processing of personal data held by us about you.

    Right 7: A right to withdraw your consent, where we are relying on it to use your personal data.

    Right 8: A right to ask us not to use information about you in a way that allows computers to make decisions about you and ask us to stop.
    If you wish to exercise any of these rights, please contact the Data Protection Officer using data-protection@ucl.ac.uk or +44 (0)20 3108 8726.

    John – You were interested in the response re use of personal information from R F – nothing at all yet. They are as you know linked in with UCL ,my FOI was specifically asking re points 5 6 7 – HOW people are informed that data may be being used including especially by being shared with Google (Previously google deep mind) and how consent is obtained – are individuals given copies of any consent form they may have signed (or agreed to). Is there one? So far they are fudging – information for people is described as being on public notice boards in public areas – There are more ways to obscure the truth than three. PS some while there was an FOI made re google by someone called ‘John’ (?) Anything useful come of it do you know?

    • Susanne

      All fascinating – I didn’t know you were allowed to do FOI requests without disclosing your full name and definitely not me.

  5. Vaccines and immunisation

    Facebook to direct vaccine searches to public health pages

    Facebook moves to stem spread of misinformation online about side-effects of immunisations

    Sarah Boseley Health editor

    4 Sep 2019


    Facebook is to take a stand against vaccine denial by directing people searching for information or using vaccine hashtags to web pages set up by public health bodies.

    People who access Facebook and Instagram pages and groups that discuss vaccines, as well as those searching or using relevant hashtags, will see an educational module about vaccine safety. Links will take them to a page provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States and to the World Health Organization elsewhere in the world.

  6. GP’s have flagged up proposal (again but gaining support in some quarters) to prevent children going to school if haven’t been immunised. At the sale time unprecedented numbers of hildren are being removed from their parents ‘caregivers’ (not specifically tied to vaccination but watch this space).

  7. PubMed
    US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
    Adv Mind Body Med. 2019 Winter;33(1):4-21.

    Treatment Emergent Violence To Self And Others; A Literature Review of Neuropsychiatric Adverse Reactions For Antidepressant And Neuroleptic Psychiatric Drugs And General Medications.
    Clarke C, Evans J, Brogan K.

    This paper reviews the literature linking physical violence, directed towards self or others, to serotonergic and dopaminergic psychiatric drugs and general medications.

  8. John- arrived today from Royal Free. Another fudge I asked to see what documentation is used to record consent and whether a copy is given to the person who consents
    Not sure I can be bothered to take it further – this shows enough how duplicitious they are when seemingly complying with umpteen obligations – lots of us would just get lost in the maze of links No info on how info is provided to those who don’t use the net ..

    FOI, Rf (ROYAL FREE LONDON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST), Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust 12 September 2019

    Dear Ms Stevens

    Thank you for submitting a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please find the response below. This response covers the hospitals and services managed by the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, namely the Royal Free Hospital, Barnet Hospital and Chase Farm Hospital and associated group services.

    Your question

    What is the process, document used to gain ‘permissions’ from individuals for use of their information which is passed to google (previously Google Deep Mind). Are patients given a copy of the ‘permission’ record.

    The response

    The trust does not obtain indidual patients’ consent to process information with thrid parties for patient care. There is information on the trust website via the privacy statement – see https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/patients-vi

    There is also comprehensive information about the trust’s work with DeepMind and the Streams mobile app on the trust’s website at


    This includes the legal framework within which this occurs and in particular:

    “The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust is data controller in relation to the personal data contained in the Streams app. This means we retain control over that personal data at all times and are responsible for deciding how that personal data is used …
    The Streams app itself is provided by DeepMind but they are only a data processor in respect of the personal data on Streams. This means that they can only use that personal data on our instructions for the purpose of providing Streams. DeepMind is not permitted to use that personal data for any other purpose.”

    Your appeal rights

    I hope that this response deals with your enquiry to your satisfaction, however if not you have two options:

    If you do not feel that we have provided you with the information you requested, you may contact us again and state what information you still require. However if you ask for additional and/or different information this will be dealt with as a new request.

    • Obviously a huge conflation with what is being shared for the patient’s benefit, and what for the institution’s benefit.

  9. LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The drugmaker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Wesbecker’s victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago at Standard Gravure, secretly paid the victims $20 million to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company.


    USA Today …

    “In this case, there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court, and there may have been deception, bad-faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud,” the court said. “We cannot tolerate even the possibility of such conduct.”

    Learn More

    Prozac maker paid millions to secure favorable verdict in mass shooting lawsuit, victims say
    Andrew Wolfson Louisville Courier Journal
    Published 4:13 PM EDT Sep 12, 2019
    LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The drugmaker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Wesbecker’s victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago at Standard Gravure, secretly paid the victims $20 million to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company.

    Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the payment for more than two decades, defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed the jury’s verdict.

    Wesbecker began taking Prozac about a month before his murderous spree that killed eight and wounded 12 in the print shop attached to the Courier Journal. All but one of the victims sued Eli Lilly, the company that manufactured the popular but controversial drug.

    ‘We need change’: El Paso mass shooting survivors file lawsuit against Walmart

    On Sept. 14, 1989, Wesbecker, a pressman who had been placed on long-term disability leave for severe mental illness, entered Standard Gravure around 8:30 a.m., carrying a bag full of weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle.

    Over the next 30 minutes, Wesbecker walked through the building, firing more than 40 rounds at those he encountered before shooting himself in the head with a handgun. It is the worst mass shooting in Kentucky’s history.

    In 1994, a fiercely litigated, 11-week trial took place in Louisville in which Wesbecker’s victims and their families said the Prozac he took helped incite his murderous rampage.

    On the eve of the jury’s verdict, which absolved Lilly of liability, the company made the secret payment without telling the judge overseeing the case.

    In exchange for the payment, the plaintiffs – eight estates and 11 survivors – agreed to withhold damaging evidence about the arthritis drug Oraflex that Lilly withdrew from the market. Lilly pleaded guilty to 25 criminal misdemeanor counts for failing to report adverse reactions that patients suffered from the drug, and the drug company feared that the Prozac jury would be more inclined to rule against the drugmaker if it learned of it.

    The plaintiffs agreed that if the jury found Lilly liable, they would not seek damages, nor would they appeal the verdict if they lost.

    America’s first mass shooting: 70 years ago, a WWII veteran killed 13 of his neighbors

    Jefferson Circuit Judge John Potter forced the disclosure of a secret deal between Prozac maker Eli Lilly and company and the plaintiffs
    The Courier Journal
    Jefferson Circuit Judge John Potter exposed the outlines of the deal decades ago, suspecting that money may have changed hands before the verdict. He fought the company for years to disclose the deal’s terms.

    Lilly closely guarded the amount of the payment, and it remained a secret in Louisville.

    Two of the victims recently told the Courier Journal that the payment totaled $20 million, worth about $41 million in today’s dollars, which the plaintiffs divided among themselves after paying their attorneys. The two victims told the Courier Journal they felt compelled to accept the money because they suffered egregious injuries that kept them from working again and they needed it to survive.

    They asked not to be identified because the settlement required them to keep the amount secret, and they said they feared repercussions for revealing it.

    The co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Illinois lawyer Nancy Zettler, told the Courier Journal she was not involved in the agreement but heard the same figure cited by the two plaintiffs.

    ‘Clearly a game.’: Opioid lawsuit settlements arranged to give drug companies a tax break, experts say

    The Indianapolis Star reported the $20 million amount in 2000 and said the company paid an additional $5 million to cover workers’ compensation claims.

    Under the deal, the plaintiffs could have received $15 million more if Prozac had been found 51%-100% liable for Wesbecker’s conduct.

    Attorney Ed Stopher, who defended Lilly at trial, declined to comment and referred questions to the company, whose communication director, Mark Taylor, said it would not comment.

    Lilly used the verdict to tout that Prozac had been proved a safe and effective antidepressant. In 1995, the company reaped a quarter of its $6.5 billion in revenue from Prozac – and faced 160 other suits nationwide over the drug.

    Prozac is still prescribed across the USA and is considered safe if used as directed, although it does have some side effects, according to the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists.

    The company and its lawyers acknowledged the agreement with plaintiffs (but not the amount of the payment), insisting it was legal and ethical.

    They said it was not unusual for adversaries in civil trials to strike so-called high-low agreements, in which the plaintiffs and defense agree to minimum and maximum recoveries – regardless of the verdict – to reduce their respective risks.

    Somerset lawyer Richard Hay said, “If parties use secret agreements to keep out evidence, it’s like taking a dive in a boxing match.”

    ‘Misleading marketing’ leads to landmark judgment: Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million for role in opioid crisis; company says ruling ‘flawed’

    Lilly publicly trashed Potter and his investigation and won an order from the Kentucky Court of Appeals blocking it.

    Potter appealed, and the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled in his favor in 1996, allowing him to press Lilly for details of the deal.

    “In this case, there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court, and there may have been deception, bad-faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud,” the court said. “We cannot tolerate even the possibility of such conduct.”

    Potter set a hearing at which he intended to require attorneys for both sides to testify under oath. Lilly accused him of conducting a vendetta, and he recused himself.

    The judge who inherited the case let the matter drop, and Potter’s questions were never answered.

    Potter, 76, who retired in 2002 after 20 years on the bench, declined to comment for this story.

    Read: The 25 most dangerous drugs

    Andrew Pointer and other shooting victims of Joseph Wesbecker hold hands as the verdict is read on Dec. 12, 1994, in their suit against Prozac maker Eli Lilly and Co. Pointer died in April.
    The Courier Journal
    Published 4:13 PM EDT Sep 12, 2019

  11. Eli Lilly Paid Mass Shooting Victims Hush Money in Prozac Lawsuit

    The “norm and practice” of Pharmaceutical companies is to vehemently deny the most serious adverse side effects of their products. This industry’s success in concealing the truth about the serious harm caused by their drugs and vaccines has been aided and abetted by government officials in the FDA and the CDC.

    In the case of Prozac, and the other drugs in the SSRI antidepressant family of drugs, the worst adverse effects include uncharacteristic violent outbursts in the form of suicide and homicide — including mass shooting sprees.

    Manufacturers of these drugs have committed multiple serious crimes to cover-up the deadly side-effects of these drugs.


    Prozac side effects emerge

    By 1990, three years after Prozac hit the U.S market, the antidepressant was linked to serious side effects. One of the biggest risks was of suicide ideation—or suicidal thoughts—and violent behavior. Violent events included self-harm, as well as aggressive behavior toward others. By 2010, Eli Lilly had reportedly paid more than $50 million in over 30 Prozac lawsuit settlements and jury verdicts to settle cases of suicide and murder.


    Successful attorneys will review all of the previous Paxil cases and winning verdicts to identify trends that lead to favorable trial outcomes.

  12. Happy drug Prozac can bring on impulse to suicide, study says

    As best-selling pill is prescribed by GPs for ever more sufferers from mild depression, research brings disturbing evidence to light

    Sarah Boseley, health correspondent

    Mon 22 May 2000


    In one of a series of memos, dated August 27, 1990, a UK-based clinician tells Eli Lilly management in Indianapolis that critics will be suspicious of the fact that not all the trials were included and concludes that it gives “the impression that the question of whether fluoxetine provokes suicidal thoughts or not has not been properly considered.”

    What Did Eli Lilly Know About Prozac Induced Violence & Suicidality?

    Below the law firm Baum Hedlund reproduces the time-line presented to the jury in the Forsyth v. Eli Lilly Trial during closing arguments by the plaintiffs. The time-linei emerges from Lilly’s internal documents. The plaintiffs alleged that the documents show that Lilly knew about Prozac-induced suicidality and violence (even before Prozac was approved for marketing in the United States) and that this vital information was withheld from clinicians and the public. 


     1     Aug. 1978 – Team Meeting Minutes – “There have been a fairly large number of reports of adverse reactions . . . Another depressed patient developed psychosis . . . Akathisia and restlessness were reported in some patients.” Exhibit 30 (2nd page, end of 2nd paragraph)

    • Society

      Seroxat and Prozac ‘can make people homicidal’

      Doctor who found suicide risk says experts ignoring danger

      Sarah Boseley, health editor

      Tue 21 Sep 2004

      Evidence that antidepressant drugs like Seroxat and Prozac could make people homicidal is being ignored by the body responsible for regulating medicines in the UK, a leading expert said yesterday.


      A number of cases where people have argued their aggressive acts were due to one of the SSRI antidepressants have come to court. In the most dramatic, a US jury in 2001 found that GlaxoSmithKline’s drug was partly responsible for the murders committed by Donald Schell. After two days on Paxil (as Seroxat is named in the USA), Schell killed his wife, his daughter and his baby granddaughter before shooting himself dead. GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $8m (£4.5m) to the remaining family members.

      GlaxoSmithKline last night denied that its drug caused adults to become hostile,

      “The review of adult data is ongoing,” it said.


      The Man in the White Hat…WATCH

  13. Eileen

    first-ever World Patient Safety Day September 17, 2019



    What is Patient Safety?

    Patient Safety is a health care discipline that emerged with the evolving complexity in health care systems and the resulting rise of patient harm in health care facilities. It aims to prevent and reduce risks, errors and harm that occur to patients during provision of health care. A cornerstone of the discipline is continuous improvement based on learning from errors and adverse events.
    Key facts

    Adverse events due to unsafe care is likely one of the 10 leading causes of death and disability in the world (1).
    In high-income countries, it is estimated that one in every 10 patients is harmed while receiving hospital care (2). The harm can be caused by a range of adverse events, with nearly 50% of them being preventable (3).
    134 million adverse events occur each year in hospitals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), resulting in 2.6 million deaths annually due to unsafe care (4).
    Another study has estimated that around two-thirds of all adverse events resulting from unsafe care, and the years lost to disability and death (known as disability adjusted life years, or DALYs) occur in LMICs (5).
    Globally, as many as 4 in 10 patients are harmed in primary and outpatient health care. Up to 80% of harm is preventable. The most detrimental errors are related to diagnosis, prescription and the use of medicines (6).
    15% of total hospital activity and expenditure in OECD countries is a direct result of adverse events (2).
    Investments in reducing patient harm can lead to significant financial savings, and more importantly better patient outcomes (2). An example of prevention is engaging patients, if done well, it can reduce the burden of harm by up to 15% (6).

    • Hi Eileen,

      Yes I have two comments about this in BMJ Rapid Responses:-


      SPEAKING UP FOR PATIENT SAFETY: World Health Organization Patient Safety Day and Vaccines
      Re: Vaccination uptake: access is still biggest barrier, experts warn Elisabeth Mahase. 366:doi 10.1136/bmj.l5576
      By an ironic coincidence this article [1] is published on 17 September 2019 which is World Health Organization Patient Safety Day in which we are told that ” No one should be harmed in healthcare” and citizens of the world are enjoined to “Speak up for patient safety!” [2]. This is something I have been doing for two decades, yet those who speak up over vaccine safety are relentlessly met with hostility and even persecution by the WHO, the mainstream media and the governments of the world – notably the British government, its politicians and its officials. While the evidence base for vaccine safety is highly problematic [3,4] there can also be no presumption that the people who speak up daily and in large numbers on social media are not telling the truth.

      In all probability tens of millions of vaccine products are presently administered in the UK every year, yet to the best of my knowledge not a single instance of harm has ever been spontaneously acknowledged by the National Health Service or the British government. This is neither credible or conscionable.

      It is World Health Organization Patient Safety Day and I am speaking up for patient safety. When people speak up for patient safety over vaccines as with anything else they surely deserve respect. There is no difference: why should there be?

      [1] Elisabeth Mahase, ‘Vaccination uptake: access is still biggest barrier, experts warn’, BMJ 2019; 366 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5576 (Published 17 September 2019)

      [2] WHO, ‘World Patient Safety Day 2017’, https://www.who.int/campaigns/world-patient-safety-day/2019

      [3] John Stone, ‘Re: Response to John Stone (2019 Jul 24)’, 29 July 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l4291/rr-37

      [4] John Stone, ‘Refusing public dialogue is not (a) sign of strength’, 2 September 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5219/rr-2

      Re: SPEAKING UP FOR PATIENT SAFETY: World Health Organization Patient Safety Day and Vaccines
      Re: Vaccination uptake: access is still biggest barrier, experts warn Elisabeth Mahase. 366:doi 10.1136/bmj.l5576
      One thing health officials urgently need to attend to is Christopher Exley’s new paper ‘An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium’ which uses as an example the aluminium exposure from Infanrix Hexa vaccine [1].

      [1] Christopher Exley, ‘An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium’, Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, Available on-line 18 September 2019,

  14. https://www.change.org/p/the-royal-melbourne-hospital-john-cade-adult-acute-inpatient-unit-level-1-fiona-smith-demands-the-right2refuse-psychiatrists-products-procedures-programs-beds/c/766087592?recruiter=60741362&utm_source=comment_share&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook


    Doctor Bronwyn Cook says that Fiona Lacks competence and capacity while she is capable of reading and understanding Australian Healthcare Law and make arguments to ‘the treating team” about assault, battery, false imprisonment. Doctor Bronwyn Cook makes statements about Fiona’s “perceived harm”, “strong advocacy skills” but will not desist while making statements about Fiona’s “distress”. The team stress that “compliance” is required.

Leave a Reply