DOCTOR DE-REGISTERED AFTER HELPING CANCER
ARE WE GOING TO LET THE REVOLUTION 'ROLL
Before reading the following news of Dr. Eckard Roehrich's
de-registration please give careful thought to your own understanding
of your relationship to the 'state' -- that which now claims
to be the "universal Lord". The power wielders in
the western world are determined to replace the Christian
beliefs with a creed which is more suited to this 'new obedience',
a creed which does not insist on the fact that the individual
is answerable for his soul to God alone, and is not the property
of any earthly master - not even of the state. The Revolution
aims to get rid of the bonds, completely, between the people
and their ancient sanctity, and at the same time to involve
the state, as a 'mystical presence', in all the deepest ties
It is to the Revolution that we can trace the new kind of
"civil marriage", as well as to the idea that children
don't 'belong' to their parents, but to the state."
The following alarming news of Dr. Eckard
Roehrich's de-registration should be of concern to us all.
If the man, as a physician, has performed his duties honourably
and to the best of his abilities; and the parents choose to
have him to advise and care for their daughter - what has
that to do with some bureaucrat? Who gave the bureaucrat the
power to dictate to the parents what type of medical care
they must give their daughter and who should perform it?
The issue is this: Do our children belong to the state as
Marxists would have us believe? Or, do they belong to God
and parents are responsible for them to Him while they are
How far do we go in our obedience to Caesar and where do our
duties to God fit into this whole scenario? Read on:
"Doctors around the world are being
deregistered in droves by their respective medical boards
for doing nothing more than helping their patients with nutritional
and naturally based treatments.
Recent de-registrants include notable pioneers in natural
treatments including Dr. Durrant-Peatfield, a UK doctor specializing
in natural therapies for thyroid, adrenal and chronic fatigue
conditions, and Dr. Serafina Corsello a respected holistic
physician. Among those relentlessly harassed by their medical
boards were: Dr. Revici, an internationally respected pioneer
in the treatment of cancer by nutritional and natural means;
Dr. Warren Levine, who founded the first Holistic Health Centre
in New York having helped thousands of patients during the
nearly 30 years he was in practice; Dr. Nicholas Gonzales,
also deregistered, had been granted a sizeable sum by the
National Cancer Institute to conduct testing on alternative
cancer therapy when the Board's action pulled the plug on
the research. The medical board of New Jersey deregistered
Dr. Eric R. Braverman MD, clinician and author, after authorities
noted his unique research and his success in treating serious
conditions with holistic therapies.
In Australia, Dr. Eckard Roehrich was deregistered on 21 September
2004 after he gave testimony in court on behalf of a family
whose 11 year-old daughter was forced to have chemotherapy
against her wishes and those of her parents. The child's treating
oncologist at the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle contacted
the department of community services which instigated the
forced treatment by way of a court order.
Dr. Roehrich, the family's primary physician practiced integrative
medicine, a combination of orthodox, complementary and evidence-based
alternative approaches to medicine. He had made several attempts
to gain humanitarian concessions for the child who was incarcerated
in the hospital without privileges such as a familiar diet,
nutritional supplements, regular walks out doors and visits
from friends. The hospital oncologist however, would not allow
these concessions. On one occasion, when her parents' visiting
hours were severely restricted by the welfare department,
the girl tried to escape the hospital and was returned to
the ward and put on 24 hour watch.
The New South Wales Medical Board
Not long after his court appearance on behalf of the child
and her family, Dr. Roehrich began to receive letters from
the New South Wales Medical Board. The Board notified him
that its delegates intended entering the doctor's clinic to
inspect his records and premises. When the doctor required
the Board to provide him with a reason for its intended entry
into his clinic without his consent, he was hauled up before
a special committee. After a short deliberation the 3 member
New South Wales Medical Board Committee revoked his licence
to practice medicine on 21 September 2004. The Board allotted
3 days for Dr. Roehrich to wind up his practice leaving his
over 1000 patients without medical care. The doctor's clinic
was located in an area of acute doctor shortage. Many of his
seriously ill patients were in the middle of treatments which
had started to improve their health.
The doctor's deregistration has caused a community backlash
against the Medical Board. Already hundreds of patients have
contacted the doctor's clinic vowing their support for him.
The NSW Medical Board's action against Dr. Roehrich comes
after its decision earlier in the year to clear four doctors
who were investigated for poor practice after 14 deaths occurred
at the Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals west of Sydney. According
to a Sydney Morning Herald article on 23/1/04 the Medical
Board cleared the doctors even before a special inquiry could
complete its investigations into the deaths.
Dr. Roehrich maintains he was intensively targeted by the
Medical Board shortly after he testified for the family that
was besieged by the department of community services. He maintains
when the welfare department forced the child to have chemotherapy,
he felt it was his duty to help the family to reclaim their
right to choose any valid treatment options for their child.
The Medical Board has not provided Dr. Roehrich with specific
reasons for its suspension of his licence. He has written
to the Board and telephoned them to request this information.
Editor's note: The full story of this
Christian family's battle with the state authorities is on the League's
website www.alor.org/ under the section Australian
Women on Line, Australian
Women on Line 2, Australian
Women on Line 3, Australian
Women on Line 4
We are advised: Interviews about the issue are available on
request . Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
THE 'LEFT' THE 'RIGHT' AND THE TRUTH
by Betty Luks
It appears Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) journalist,
Margo Kingston, is in the 'bad books' with the Jewish journal
"The Review" Sept. 2004, for comments she
made in, "Not Happy, John" and on the SMH website,
in relation to the fundamentalist Zionist lobby's control
of politics and the media in the US and Australia" (July
From the thrust of the article, it would seem she is smarting
from the backlash she has received.
"The Review" journal states
"She wrote, "I did not mean what many people believed
I meant. I am not antisemitic, and I thought what I wrote
was a statement of fact." Later, after explaining she
only meant the "fundamentalist Zionist" subset,
she said, "As to my belief that powerful members of this
subset control politics and the media, I thought this was
stating a fact. I thought it was well known that in the US
no politician wanting re-election would speak out about the
excesses of current Israeli policy. I thought the relentless
intimidation of the media by Australia's AIJAC was commonly
accepted." Finally, she wrote to a critical correspondent,
"I admit I'm at a loss to understand the antisemitic
charge...I'd really appreciate your advice on this - it seemed
so uncontroversial when I wrote it - I suppose because I mix
largely with left wing Jewish Australians."
Margo Kingston found herself on the receiving end of an attack;
not unlike that which many an individual has suffered after
daring to lift his head above the parapet and publicly express
what many talk about in private. Those brave enough to speak
out are branded with the usual psycho-political swear words
intended to frighten and intimidate, e.g., 'anti-semitic',
'extreme right-wing', and now 'extreme left-wing'.
The political 'horseshoe'
But it was the analogy used which interested me. It seems
presidential candidate Ralph Nader has also lifted his head
above the parapet and received a barrage of politically-correct
"The Review" wrote of what Nader said: "The
days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United
States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then
proceeds to capital hill where he meets with hundreds of other
puppets, should be replaced." When the Anti-Defamation
League wrote to Nader and asked him to reconsider, he wrote
back refusing and adding, "As for the metaphors -- puppeteer
and puppets -- the Romans had a phrase for the obvious --
res ipsa loquitor [the thing speaks for itself]"
and "The Israelis have a joke for the obvious -- that
the United States is the second state of Israel."
The Washington Post took 'left-winger' Ralph Nader
to task for his remarks and claimed they were "virtually
indistinguishable from statements" made by 'right-wing'
white supremacists - thus linking the 'left-wing' up with
the 'right-wing' of politics.
A false analogy
But the analogy of the 'left' and the 'right' of politics
now forming a horseshoe presents a false concept in people's
minds. A far better analogy - and nearer to the truth is the
Imagine a straight line rather than the 'curved horseshoe'
Constitutional Government kept in place by a free
and enterprising people--
Communist or Super Capitalist
At the left is anarchy or lawlessness;
law and order has broken down altogether. Some would say that
is also a tyranny - without law and order people also fear
for their lives.
Then a little to the right is Limited government; government
is bound by a system of rules -- a Constitution.
Then as we proceed further and further to the right we see
a people progressively bound and controlled, more and more,
by a tyrannical government - no matter what name it is given.
Finally, on the right hand side of the straight line we have
a complete tyranny.
Didn't Shakespeare remind us, "a rose is still a rose"
by any other name?
Modern party-politics sets out to divide truth and set the
citizens one against the other - to divide and rule. It is
time the Australian people woke up to the fact and refused
to let venal politicians use them as vehicles for control
and power over them.
ANOTHER SIX MONTHS FOR ERNST ZUNDEL
from Paul Fromm, Canada For Canadian
Association for Free Expression Inc.
"Welcome to the Northern Banana
Republic, Absurdistan, where an autocratic regime keeps political
dissidents in jail. With Irwin Cotler, a militant Zionist
as Justice Minister, and federal politicians massively lobbied
by outspoken Zionist groups that are sworn enemies of free
speech, Canada is increasingly a place where political dissent
can land you in prison.
It's no surprise. Although he had promised his decision a
week earlier, on September 22, Mr. Justice Pierre Blais announced
that Canada's most famous political prisoner Ernst Zundel
must spend another six months in solitary confinement. You
see, the lifelong pacifist who has never been charged, much
less convicted of a crime of violence in Canada or anywhere
else, is accused by Canada's corrupt Canadian Security and
Intelligence Service (CSIS) of being a "terrorist"
and, therefore, a threat to national security.
Judge Blais has been so hopelessly hostile to Mr. Zundel and
his several lawyers that the decision was a foregone conclusion.
After all, he had said, during Mr. Zundel's testimony in July
2003, that he didn't believe him. On January 21, he had concluded
that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr.
Zundel continues to be a danger to national security or to
the safety of any person" and, therefore, ordered his
continued incarceration. Mr. Zundel has not, of course, been
charged with any crime.
In his January 21 decision, Mr. Justice
Blais had, in fact, ruled on the substance of the case: whether
it was "reasonable" for the ministers to sign the
CSIS national security certificate last May 1. Well, if there
are reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Zundel is a danger to
national security, it would seem that the judge has already
made up his mind.
None of this is surprising. Pierre Blais was the former boss
of CSIS. In 1989, as Solicitor-General in the Mulroney government,
he was in charge of CSIS, interestingly, at the very time
they were knee deep in dirty tricks spying on the fledgling
Reform Party and the Heritage Front. In November. Mr. Zundel's
then lead counsel Douglas H,. Christie made a motion calling
on Judge Blais to recuse himself. he refused. More recently,
on September 14, Peter Lindsay, Mr. Zundel's current lead
counsel, made a similar motion now based on a ponderous record
of biased decisions against Mr. Zundel.
Guilt by association
Judge Blais's decision consigning the 65-year-old German publisher
to another six months in jail -- a form of indefinite detention
-- is a masterpiece of deception. Judge Blais criticized Mr.
Zundel and Mr. Lindsay for not clarifying Mr. Zundel's relationship
with a host of people, linked to him by guilt-by-association
in the report filed with the certificate. Mr. Zundel, in testimony
in July 2003 and this spring did clarify these relationships,
such as they were.
Now Judge Blais seems to suggest that Mr. Zundel should be
further punished for his criticism of CSIS's hostility toward
him: "Mr. Zundel decided not to address these issued
and not to clarify his relationship with those individuals
and organizations. Mr. Zundel decided to demonstrate that
he is more or less a victim of a vendetta by CSIS against
him." (12) One wonders whether Judge Blais was sleeping
on July 27, August 30 and 31. In dramatic testimony, Douglas
Christie, the "Battling Barrister" from Victoria
gave his observations of nearly 20 years of representing Ernst
Zundel, including an aggregate of 18 months spent over the
years living at Zundelhaus in Toronto.
Mr. Christie was emphatic about Mr. Zundel's
outspoken contempt for people who resort to violence or talk
about violence. He specifically addressed Mr. Zundel's relationship
to all the persons mentioned in the report. His conclusion
was that Mr. Zundel was admired by many people, but that young
people, far from looking to him as a guru, thought he was
out of touch and tended to ignore his advice. Mr. Christie
characterized Mr. Zundel's supporters as largely German and
Anglo, ageing, and extremely law-abiding.
Mr. Christie is, of course, a gentleman and an officer of
the Court. One might think that his testimony might count
Once again, former CSIS boss Mr. Justice
Pierre Blais upholds the preposterous. "I would agree
with counsel for the Ministers that, even though counsel for
Mr. Zundel has shown dissatisfaction with the disclosure of
the evidence, Mr. Zundel has received adequate disclosure
in this case. " (27) Despite numerous secret hearings,
including one at noon the day Mr. John Farrell, former CSIS
operative and mail thief testified, Mr. Justice Blais has
not revealed a single extra scrap of information to the defence.
The fiction is that secret evidence is given to the judge
in camera and he must assess whether divulging this information
would be injurious to national security. It beggars belief
that not a single piece of information fails to meet this
test. However, Judge Blais's understanding of a threat to
national security is so broad that he refuses to tell the
defence even how many days of secret evidence have been heard.
Can't tell us: "National security!""
WHAT A BOMBSHELL! PUTIN ACCUSES US AND
by Webster Griffin Tarpley, Washington
DC, 14 September, 2004:
From INN World Report, http://inn.globalfreepress.com/article.php?storyid=793
"In the wake of the terrorist atrocity
at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, in the Russian Federation,
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made remarks to the western
press which expose the key role of the US and British governments
in backing Chechen terrorism.
Whatever Putin's previous role in events regarding Chechnya,
his current political posture is one which sharply undercuts
the legitimacy of the supposed Anglo-American "war on
terror," and which points up the hypocrisy of the Bush
regime's pledge that it will make no distinction between the
terrorists and those who harbour them -- since Washington
and London are currently harbouring Chechens implicated in
All in all, Putin's response to Chechen events has, with the
third anniversary of 9/11, brought the collapse of the official
9/11 myth measurably closer. The hypocritical terror demagogy
of Bush and Blair has now been undercut by the head of state
of another permanent member of the UN Security Council...
Accounts published in various newspapers
On Monday September 6, Putin spoke for three and one half
hours with a group of some 30 western correspondents and Russia
experts at his dacha near Novo Ogarevo outside Moscow. There
is no official transcript so far, but accounts have been published
in The Guardian, The Independent, and Le Monde.
The Washington Post waited until Friday, September
10 to publish an article, but left out the most significant
remarks. There are now signs that the Anglo-American press
is beginning a new campaign against Putin as a dictator, stressing
the obvious in order to silence his attacks on the US-UK sponsorship
of Chechen terror.
Putin, a KGB veteran who knows whereof he speaks, told the
gathering that the school massacre showed that "certain
western circles would like to weaken Russia, just as the Romans
wanted to destroy Carthage." He thus suggested that the
US and UK, not content with having bested Russia in the Cold
War, now wanted to proceed to the dismemberment and total
destruction of Russia - a Carthaginian peace like the one
the Romans finally imposed at the end of the Punic Wars in
146 BC, when they poured salt into the land of Carthage so
nothing would every grow there again. (Le Monde, 8/904)
"There is no link between Russian
policy in Chechnya and the hostage-taking in Beslan,"
said Putin, meaning that the terrorists were using the Chechen
situation as a pretext to attack Russia. According to a paraphrase
in Le Monde:
"The aim of that international terrorism, supported more
or less openly by foreign states, whose names the Russian
president didn't want to name, is to weaken Russia from the
inside, by criminalizing its economy, by provoking its disintegration
through propagating separatism in the Caucasus and the transformation
of the region into a staging ground for actions directed against
the Russian Federation."
"Mr. Putin," continues Le Monde, "reiterated
the accusation he had launched in a veiled form against western
countries which appear to use double-talk. On the one side,
their leaders assure the Russian President of their solidarity
in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, the intelligence
services and the military - 'who have not abandoned their
Cold War prejudices,' in Putin's words -- entertain contacts
with those the international press calls the 'rebels.
'Why are those who emulate Bin Laden called terrorists and
the people who kill children, rebels? Where is the logic?'
asked Vladimir Putin, and then gave the answer: 'Because certain
political circles in the West want to weaken Russia just like
the Romans wanted to destroy Carthage.' 'But, continued Putin,
"we will not allow this scenario to come to pass.'"
Le Monde continues
"This is, according to [Putin] a bad calculation, because
Russia is a factor of stability. By weakening it, the Cold
War nostalgics are clearly acting against the interests of
their own country." In Putin's words: "We are the
sincere champions of this co-operation [against terrorism],
we are open and loyal partners. But if foreign services have
contacts with the 'rebels,' they cannot be treated as reliable
allies, as Russia is for them." (Le Monde, 8/9/04)
As Michel Chossudovsky pointed out some years back, the Chechen
leaders Basayev and Al Khattab were trained in the CIA-run
camps for Islamic fighters in Afghanistan.
In 1999, Putin rode to power on a backlash against Chechen
terror which he had in all probability staged himself - thus
just doing a long-standing US-UK capability. The key point
is that the Russian press is now openly denouncing London
and Washington as centres for terrorist control. This can
blow the lid off the 9-11 hoax.
On Saturday, September 4, Putin had delivered a national television
address to the Russian people on the Beslan tragedy, which
had left more than 300 dead, over half of them children. The
main thrust was that terrorism constitutes international proxy
warfare against Russia. Among other things Putin said:
"In general, we need to admit that we did not fully understand
the complexity and the dangers of the processes at work in
our own country and in the world. In any case, we proved unable
to react adequately. We showed ourselves to be weak, and the
weak get beaten."
"Some people would like to tear from us a tasty morsel.
Others are helping them. They are helping, reasoning that
Russia still remains one of the world's major nuclear powers,
and as such still represents a threat to them. And so they
reason that this threat should be removed. Terrorism, of course,
is just an instrument to achieve these gains."
"What we are dealing with, are not isolated acts intended
to frighten us, not isolated terrorist attacks. What we are
facing is direct intervention of international terror directed
against Russia. This is a total, cruel and full-scale war
that again and again is taking the lives of our fellow citizens."
(Kremlin.ru, September 6, 2004)
Recruitment in London
Around the time of 9/11, Putin had pointed to open recruitment
of Chechen terrorists going on in London, telling a German
"In London, there is a recruitment station for people
wanting to join combat in Chechnya. Today -- not officially,
but effectively in the open -- they are talking there about
recruiting volunteers to go to Afghanistan." (Focus --
German weekly newsmagazine, September 2001) In addition, it
is generally known in well-informed European circles that
the leaders of the Chechen rebels were trained by the CIA,
and that the Chechens were backed by US-sponsored anti-Russian
fighters from Afghanistan. In recent months, US-UK backed
Chechens have destroyed two Russian airliners and attacked
a Moscow subway station, in addition to the school atrocity.
Some aspects of Putin's thinking were
further explained by a press interview given by Aslambek Aslakhanov,
the Chechen politician who is one of Putin's official advisors.
A dispatch from RIA Novosti reported Aslakhanov's comments
"The terrorists who seized the school in Beslan, North
Ossetia, took their orders from abroad. 'They were talking
with people not from Russia, but from abroad. They were being
directed,' said Aslambek Aslakhanov, advisor to the President
of the Russian Federation. 'It is the desire of our "friends"
- in quotation marks -- who have probably for more than a
decade been carrying out enormous, titanic work, aimed at
dismembering Russia. These people have worked very hard, and
the fact that the financing comes from there and that they
are the puppet masters, is also clear."
Aslakhanov, who was named by the terrorists as one of the
people they were going to hold talks with, also told RIA Novosti
that the bid for such "talks" was completely phony.
He said that the hostage-takers were not Chechens. When he
talked to them, by phone, in Chechen, they demanded that he
talk Russian, and the ones he spoke with had the accents of
other North Caucasus ethnic groups. (RIA Novosti, September
BAGHDAD YEAR ZERO
Last week we published a portion of Naomi Klein's account
of what is the real intention behind the war in Iraq by the
'One Worlders', the 'Neocons' -- call them what you will.
For those who would like to read the article in full, please
send for it to: P.O. Box 27, Happy Valley S.A. 5159 enclosing
$5 to help cover costs of photocopying and postage.
A WAL-MART CAN TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY
Naomi Klein, Common Dreams Centre. Published in the September,
2004 issue of Harper's Magazine, September 26, 2004.
Some people were paying attention, of course.
That autumn was awash in "rebuilding Iraq" trade
shows, in Washington, London, Madrid, and Amman.
The Economist described Iraq under Bremer as "a capitalist
dream," and a flurry of new consulting firms were launched
promising to help companies get access to the Iraqi market,
their boards of directors stacked with well-connected Republicans.
The most prominent was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe
Allbaugh, former Bush-Cheney campaign manager.
"Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble
products can be a gold mine," one of the company's partners
enthused. "One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out
thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."
Soon there were rumours that a McDonald's would be opening
up in downtown Baghdad, funding was almost in place for a
Starwood luxury hotel, and General Motors was planning to
build an auto plant. On the financial side, HSBC would have
branches all over the country, Citigroup was preparing to
offer substantial loans guaranteed against future sales of
Iraqi oil, and the bell was going to ring on a New York -
style stock exchange in Baghdad any day.
In only a few months, the postwar plan to turn Iraq into a
laboratory for the neocons had been realized. Leo Strauss
may have provided the intellectual framework for invading
Iraq pre-emptively, but it was that other University of Chicago
professor, Milton Friedman, author of the anti-government
manifesto Capitalism and Freedom, who supplied the manual
for what to do once the country was safely in America's hands.
This represented an enormous victory for the most ideological
wing of the Bush Administration. But it was also something
The culmination of two interlinked power struggles, one among
Iraqi exiles advising the White House on its postwar strategy,
the other within the White House itself.