I should make this clear. Ian R Crane has been providing updates on a regular basis, not just the one time. His latest was recorded at 4pm this afternoon and is called: “On the Cusp of Jail: David Noakes Court update”
So google “You tube Ian R Crane” please. He will be continuing to cover the matter after the trial when I have the feeling having, spoken to him today, he will be saying things after sentence has been passed which will prove to be quite revealing.
I have ascertained that the case will continue into next week, probably for two days.
Meanwhile a quick word on today’s fake news in the Guernsey Press. In the very first sentence, and elsewhere, they contend once again that GcMaf is a drug. Elsewhere they state that there was a secret laboratory in Cambridge. That has surely to be a false claim unless the definition of secret is “that which is not known by the Guernsey Press”!!
As for the effects (for some reason also referred to as side effects) of medical products across the spectrum, it’s worth remembering that there are far more conditions, diseases, allergies and medications than there are symptoms which the body is capable of producing (headaches, rashes, nausea, dizziness etc). So who exactly, and on what basis, determined that the patient mentioned’s symptoms were down to “toxic shock”. These are symptoms of detoxification for example
And the prosecution has steered clear of challenging the efficacy of the product.
And whiklst the prosecution are accusing David of living the high life, as IRC points out, Bet 365 founder (and how many peopl ehave sufferedas a result of gambling) paid herself $279m in 2017, so things should be kept in perspective.
Just as an aside I’ve just started reading a book on Salvestrols. Zytiga took 22 years to go through the process of approval. How many people died in the meantime?
And as for Guernsey, if the States were right to ban GcMaf then they must have been wrong to allow it in the first place, and vice versa.
Finally let’s not forget the evidence supporting the claims of David Noakes and many many others about the MHRA.
(ADJ – I sent the link below before, but had to modify it as, curiously, it is blocked! Re-assemble it if you wish!)
From: Matt Waterman <mattwaterman4@hotmai…>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 7:50 PM
To: Matt Waterman
Subject: GCMAF hearing live updates/guilty plea explained
These are available on Ian R Crane’s youtube site throughout the hearing. Latest one here but the prior ones are accessible.
I spoke to David tonight – hearing could go on into next week.
For anyone who still doesn’t know what Codex Alimentarius is or who Ian Crane is, here is is talk on the subject below.
At the bottom of this email is my circular of 12th March 2015 which it is probably worth reminding many of you of.
From: Matt Waterman <mattwaterman4@hotmai…>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 7:33 PM
To: Matt Waterman
Subject: Fw: GcMaf: People are going missing
From: Matt Waterman <mattwaterman4@hotmai…>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:15 PM
To: Matt Waterman
Subject: GcMaf: People are going missing
Before getting to the matter related to the subject title, I’d like to comment on the letter in today’s Press by the GP’s most prolific correspondent: "Name and address withheld" querying -and apparently disproving – the claims on one of the websites I quoted in my much butchered (by the editors of mass destruction) letter of 9/3/15.
Quite a few of us have been running with the FDA’s claim that pharmaceutical drugs are the number 4 killer of people and kill more people than motor cars.
Today’s writer refers to this as "a link" or "a website", neglecting to mention that it is the official website of the FDA –the food and drugs regulator of the USA.
Today’s letter uses the US National Library of Medicine to seemingly disprove this:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov… claims that there are 292 deaths per annum from pharmaceutical drugs. This is a bit of a difference from the FDA’s which states that there are 100,000 deaths per year
Which begs the question, where is the US National Library of Medicine getting its information from?
And if the FDA has got it so hopelessly wrong, what else has it got so hopelessly wrong?
Unsurprisingly the anonymous writer has no appetite for a thorough argument, quote: "I have no intention of engaging in any protracted argument about these figures, I have other things that require my time".
Enough of that. Now to the business of the missing people:
Following my email below about the extraordinary claims and major new developments contained within the HSSD’s fact sheet released on 9th March, especially that the MHRA has tested the samples, that a Border Agency civil servant made a policy decision to ban the product, and that the MHRA has advised HSSD that the product poses a risk to the public. These are all major and highly significant new developments.
So where the hell are the media?
You’d think that not only should the public be informed and the pro-GcMaf lobby be given the opportunity to respond to HSSD’s new claims, but also HSSD would have been on at the media to publicise their fact sheet. Indeed HSSD took the opportunity to mention the link in a response to a letter in the GP from correspondent Jo Spinks.
Extraordinarily, whilst unwilling to probe or at least report the above gamechanging claims, the Guernsey Press yesterday ran a column reporting a bland holding comment from HSSD and along the lines of “we’re still investigating with the MHRA and will get back to you”.
There’s another small piece in today in which the Chief Pharmacist is quoted. So again, reliance on pharmacy’s take on the matter is to the fore. The pharmacist are the only people we’re hearing from. Why are pharmacists the only people in the health industry who think they are the whole industry? Pharmacy has nothing to do with GcMaf. The only reason there is confusion on this point is because the pharmacists have been left in charge of what constitutes a medicine.
Why haven’t we heard from the following people – where are they?
1) The other States’pharmacists who Ed Freestone must be Chief of in order to have the title “Chief pharmacist?”
2) The States’ chief and other aromatherapists?
3) The States’ chief and other biologists?
4) The States’ chief and other dieticians?
5) The States’ chief and other health officers?
6) The States’ chief and other herbalists?
7) The States’ chief and other homeopaths?
8) The States’ chief and other hypnotists?
9) The States’ chief and other spiritual healers?
10) The States’ chief and other surgeons?
11) The States’ chief and other therapists?
And if, as I suspect, these people do not exist, then the question is "why not?" and it shows that the States has given control of our health exclusively to pharmacists.
Even Mike Hadley gives credibility to the placebo effect. If someone wants to cure themselves, or try to cure themselves through non-scientifically based or proven means that is surely their prerogative.
I had a character on the phone at the weekend saying “we’ve got to make “freedom of health choice" an issue at the next election”. I said to him: “some of us tried that last time and it fell on deaf ears.” Even in spring 2011, ahead of the key debates on adopting EU directives for defining food supplements and alternative remedies, our lobby group were shaking our heads saying “this really is the eleventh hour”
So the majority of the electorate is also missing – perhaps not surprising if the media’s lack of coverage to the sort of major revelations and claims made by HSSD on March 9th is anything to go by.
Ian R Crane’s latest tour is called "Apathy Kills", incidentally.
Thanks for your time
GcMAF: HSSD’S ASTOUNDING REVELATIONS OF 9TH MARCH
“…..MHRA has tested seized samples…Ban is Policy Decision of Border Agency…. First Immune GcMaf an inherent danger to the public….”
Whilst I was spitting feathers over the Guernsey Press’ blatant butchering of my letter which appeared on 9/3, HSSD were releasing the following fact sheet:
Let’s consider HSSD’s action. For ease of reference, my comments are in blue.
Are the following frequently asked the following questions, which I for one have been asking Ed Freestone for weeks without reply, included on the fact sheet?
Would you please provide details of the “the trail of command" to show how the decision was made and implemented to stop GcMaf imports from the facility in Cambridge?
For example, details of the decision and communication to you which led to you contacting the MHRA. And then having contacted the MHRA details of the decision to ban imports and the chain of events involving contacting the Border Agency–did you for example instruct the border agency yourself or did that instruction come from an HSSD Board decision, or was it the Home Department’s decision [that they would seize imports]? How and when did you receive confirmation from the Border Agency that they would seize imports?
Who decided to ban GcMaf following the raid, how and when?
Did you (or the GBA) not have to make public the decision to ban GcMaf ahead of actually stopping its importation?
And have the Border Agency notified you that they have seized any attempted imports, after the Ban was implemented?
And what of the timing between the various events – please provide exact dates.
In my view, HSSD have omitted or cherry picked and fudged these and other questions which are on their fact sheet so that they can answer them within their own parameters. For example, the question: “What authority does the MHRA have to regulate the health of Guernsey people in Guernsey?” has become (see A3) below
A3 What is the States of Guernsey’s relationship with the MHRA?
In order to regulate medicines effectively there is a need to have a properly resourced and qualified regulatory body. As a small jurisdiction Guernsey does not have the resources to establish its own regulatory body in its own right. Guernsey’s primary relationship is with the UK for the supply of medicines and for the regulation of healthcare generally. The HSSD established a relationship with the UK’s regulator, the MHRA for these purposes. This relationship is underpinned with a requirement in the Medicines Law to consult with the MHRA and by a Memorandum of Understanding between the HSSD and the MHRA.
How can the MHRA be “properly qualified”? It is too highly conflicted. What does the “memorandum of Understanding” actually say?
A4 What is the definition of a drug and the definition of a medicinal product?
From A1: “……The Medicines Law implements the relevant EU Medicinal Products Directive in the Bailiwick of Guernsey. This ensures the islands meet the required standards and obligations with regard to the relationship Guernsey has with the EU under Protocol 3 to the UK Treaty of Accession.”
From A4: “The legal definition of ‘medicinal product’ does not rule out proteins extracted from the human body being classed as medicines. The definition of a medicinal product under the Medicines Law is:….”
According to Robert Verkerk (ANH) speaking in 2011 during debate on adopting Eu Directives, Ed Freestone decided that we should follow the EU/MHRA definition of a medicine and that we could have made our own definition
B5 Why is GcMAF banned?
“…This policy decision to stop granting such licences was made by the relevant officer of the Guernsey Border Agency, under advice from the Chief Pharmacist and the Chief Inspector under the Medicines Law. This policy decision was made following advice received from the MHRA warning that there is a risk to public health posed by GcMAF products labelled as ‘First Immune’.”
This is a clear illustration of buck passing. HSSD are saying that the MHRA warned that there is a risk to public health, and elsewhere in the factsheet have tried to explain why their hands are tied as a result of that view. (Did the MHRA actually say that anyway?)
More than that, according to this statement (reiterated in A6) by HSSD the First Immune ban is a Policy Decision of the “relevant officer of the Guernsey Border Agency”. Who is that? Aren’t policy decisions supposed to be made by politicians? Furthermore, according to Tony Veron, (GcMaf Users Steering Group) Peter Knee (Guernsey Border Agency) has told representatives of the Users Group that the GBA would release the impounded vials upon instruction from HSSD. So the GBA is saying its HSSD’s decision, HSSD are saying it’s the GBA’s.
Ed Freestone is quoted as follows: “This decision taken by the authorities in Guernsey is based firmly in the knowledge that the standards of production of GcMAF, at a location of production in the UK recently visited by the MHRA, falls well short of the requirements for the appropriate standards of production of a medicine for human use. Whilst the action that we are taking in Guernsey may give rise to some differing views amongst the local patients who feel that they are benefiting personally from the effects of GcMAF, the significant concerns raised by the recognised UK regulator, the MHRA, cannot be overlooked or ignored. Our action is very clearly in the interests of patient safety and the protection of the public in Guernsey. ”
Where does he get: “Firmly in the knowledge that the standards of production of GcMAF, at a location of production in the UK recently visited by the MHRA, falls well short of the requirements for the appropriate standards of production of a medicine for human use” or “This policy decision was made following advice received from the MHRA warning that there is a risk to public health posed by GcMAF products labelled as ‘First Immune’" from?
EF knows full well that Immuno Biotech are disputing the MHRA’s claims and are preparing legal action. It is for the courts to establish the validity or otherwise of MHRA’s claims. No firm knowledge as far as I can see.
Where does the MHRA statement say there is a risk to public health? The MHRA statement is full of woolly language like “there are concerns” and “may pose a risk”.
B9 Why is GOleic banned?
“The HSSD understands that GOleic is a substance containing Oleic acid and vitamin D. Samples of GOleic tested by the MHRA however indicate that this also contains GcMAF meaning that it has the same inherent risk to public health identified by the MHRA.
Accordingly, the HSSD treat GOleic the same as GcMAF in terms of its classification and regulation and for the purpose of advising on import controls.”
This is amazing – almost hidden away, way down on page 7, is the announcement that the MHRA has after all tested the samples it seized. Where are the MHRA’s test results? Are they publicly available? What inherent risk to public health identified bt the MHRA? I have little doubt that had any samples proven to be non sterile, the HSSD statement would have said so and this would have been higher up the list. In my view this also explains why question B10 has been included in the fact sheet, the answer to which if nothing else, indicates the hoops that have to be jumped through to follow the bureaucratic channels. This as we know, means that only the ridiculously well resourced (Big Pharma) can successfully operate within the existing regulatory framework
B11 “Furthermore, the MHRA has advised the HSSD that the manufacturing process behind ‘First Immune’ GcMAF means that it is a risk to public health. This is the basis of the current policy decision on importation.”
Again – HSSD have not, as far as I can see, evidenced their claim that the MHRA has stated there is a risk to public health. And even if the MHRA have said that, Immuno Biotech would be challenging it through the courts. Also if the Policy decision is the Border Agency’s as HSSD claim, shouldn’t such a quote be coming from the Home Department, not HSSD?
GcMaf and politics
I am sure that I and many of you will think of many other questions arising from HSSD’s quite remarkable document, (for example they continue to make a big deal out of the “not fit for human consumption” label, but as I have said before there is milk at the Dairy which isn’t fit for human comsumption, which is why the Dairy is there – to process it so that it is fit for human consumption) but summing up for now:
Shortly after the election I exchanged views with Paul Luxon about the way Government should operate. He sees it appropriate to adopt a corporate model, whilst I do not. He is now the HSSD Minister. Corporations exist to make profits and there is nothing democratic about them. His department is now telling us that we can’t take GcMaf because of the alleged findings of a corporately funded department of the Uk Government. If you go to HSSD’s building, and this dates back before PL took over, you will see the words “Corporate Headquarters” over the door. The corporate mindset is of course, all about money and profit, and that speaks volumes to me.
In between describing parts of the immune system as drugs and butchering my letters, the Guernsey Press has described Peter Knee as “manager of the Guernsey Border Agency, Guernsey Branch” (lest we should confuse him with all the other Peter Knees who run branches of the Guernsey Border Agency throughout the world.)
“Branch Manager” indeed. If the Press is right about PK’s job title which the BBC confirms www.bbc.co.uk/news/w… then in my opinion this is indication that the Police too have a corporate mind set, which aligns with Patrick Rice (Chief of the Guernsey Border Agency as well as the Police) being tasked and praised for streamlining the force (whilst spending money on militarising it) This could be paving the way for a police force which is willing and able to prioritise raising money (fines) rather than a democracy and justice minded socially motivated one.
And have you noticed in the UK how the dangers of radicalisation are being rammed down our throats even more than the supposed dangers of terrorism? Relatives of the three schoolgirls who ran off to join the latest unseen bogeyman ISIS (who are so radically Islamic they have an English name and own a country the size of Ireland which has sprung up unannounced overnight,) were given considerable airtime to blame the Police and schools for not informing them what their daughters and cousins were becoming involved with. Cameron of course jumped on the bandwagon. It seems to me that the groundwork is being laid for the state regulation of the running of families. So the restriction on ability to take Immuno Biotech’s GcMaf, allegedly at the behest of a corporately funded Department of the UK Government, is potentially, just the tip of the iceberg.
thank you for watching….