Making sense out of nonsense - very long post

[cjbrooksjc]

Xrn: I looked at the site once more and have nothing new to add. The dark Bg overlayed with light script is easy on the eyes, your verbiage, where inserted, is, as always, quite effective, and the navigation is quite simple to manage. So far it looks great. But, as you've mentioned, the really hard work has just begun, and the more complete (or should I say complicated) it gets, the more difficult it will be to contain with certainty. I'll pray for you

Regards,

Brooks

[xrn]

Many thanks for taking the time out to look for me, Brooks. :) I have not found a great way to make references to different pages in the same document, especially where the document only has a single URL. What do you think about listing the document once and then including all of the page numbers that appear in the text? I have just not found a neat way to make it simple.

Kind regards,
xrn

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: OK. I've thought about this some more and I have a recommendation on how we might organise some of the information: If you think of the audience in terms of customers, and then, of what they would most like to read/learn, and at what speed, you might come up with a list of sub-topics something like this:


1. What are the symptoms of "Statin illness"
a)Neurological symptomology
b)Physiological symptomology

2. How did Statins affect my body to cause this?

3. Is the damage recoverable, i.e.
a) can I stop the progression of these symptoms
b) will my cells continue to replicate non-functioning copies?
c) are the answers the same for both 1.a) and 1.b) above?

4. What do I do to begin recovery, i.e.
a) what do I take to heal; in what amounts
b) should I exercise or not?

5. What do I tell or show my Doctors to inform them of my condition?

This is; of course, only a suggested topic list and could be framed differently and certainly must be expanded. We just need to think of the questions we had when we found out about OUR "Statin illness"; then, offer the simple answers first before going into Apoptosis and things of that sort... a sort of growing dialog that assumes one has digested what went before.

I better quit now. I'm pulling up to the table, and this is a meal I think must be eaten in small bites.

I almost feel we should carry this conversation to our email links so as not to impede real-time info dissemination on this site, but, on the other hand... What are your thoughts (y'all)?

Regards,

Brooks

[cjbrooksjc]

Xrn: Hmmm... you posted your last response as I was typing mine; to answer your most current question, I think anything that is indexed is good. It gives the audience a chance to go from topic to topic as they become comfortable with the subject matter. The only thing I would caution is: always do it the same way; so the pages of your site have a 'Common User Interface' and, like going from page to page in M'Soft, the 'road signs' all look familiar. That way they can always navigate comfortably thru the data.
I hope I made this understandable without making my remarks sound more instructive than constructive.

Regards,

Brooks

[xrn]

Hi Brooks. I have read the last two posts and tend to agree about taking the issues to e-mail that are not strictlly relevant to this thread.

e-mail sent. :cool:

Kind regards,
xrn

[xrn]

The latest response from the Department of Heath was rather unhelpful. The responses suggest that the officials are doing everything in their power to avoid alerting the minister for public health about the dangers of statins.

The final response from the DoH...

Thank you for your comments, received here by email, following your formal complaint of 20 March about how the Department handled your correspondence.

Thank you for drawing the Department’s attention to your concerns about statin use. The policy lead is aware of your concerns and your comments have been noted. I have also alerted the National Library for Health.


I can also confirm that Mr A correctly gave the most up-to-date account of the Government’s current position on the use of statins, checking his response with the relevant policy specialists. I would like to apologise again for of his exchanges with Mr T.

I have responded thus...

Dear Ms F,
Thank you for your letter dated 10 May 2007.

I am truly staggered by your response. I see no evidence that my concerns are being dealt with. My original communication to Caroline Flint has become subsumed into this all-consuming obfuscation and prevarication by various individuals within the Department of Health (DoH). The minister has clearly not been informed of my wish to communicate with her. Let me deal with your response on a point by point basis.

1. The department has been aware of my concerns about statins since day 1 or January 21 to be more precise. Are you now thanking me for drawing the department's attention to a problem that you were previously unaware of, until my original letter, or are you now thanking me for bringing the matter to the department's attention because of my persistence and your new awareness of my concerns?

2. What action, specifically, has the 'policy lead' taken about my concerns... as opposed to just noting them? Heaven forfend, if the policy lead is the very same Mr T that Mr A was supposed to be have had a discussion with.

3. Where you have stated that you have alerted the National Library of Health, please enlighten me as to the precise purpose and impact of that alert. Please tell me what form the alert has taken and what action you expect to ensue from alerting the National Library of Health. More specifically... is the alert that you have caused to be sent, to the National Library of Health, going to have any impact on the prescribing habits of clinicians in the UK?

It is now abundantly clear that I am not being taken seriously. I am not sure if I have exhausted your complaints procedure so please tell me if that is the case. I can then escalate this issue by complaining to the Information Commissioner's Office.

In the meantime I wish to advise you that my complaint under the Freedom of Information act has not been answered by Ms M, and as you had stated it was being dealt with separately, I am at a loss as to understand what has taken place to prevent the communication from Ms M to me.

My requests follow...
1. Please tell me if your complaints procedure is exhausted.
2. Please pass the details of your line manager to me so that I may take the matter further.
3. Please notify Ms M of the current unsatisfactory position and tell me the date when she will deign to reply.
4. Under the Freedom of Information act 2000, I wish to see your communications with the policy lead, and the National Library of Health. I also require to see the responses from both parties. I further require to see the communications that have passed between yourself and Ms M and I need to see all of the documentation pertinent to, and relevant to, this further issue of complaint, including any communications you have had with either Mr T and Mr A.

Under article 2 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, (HRA) Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

I have a right to life. Article 2(1) places a positive obligation on the Department of Health to safeguard my life. The current policy with regard to statins is wrongheaded and ill-conceived. There is abundant peer-reviewed medical evidence to demonstrate that statins are seriously harmful to health. The policy of paying GP's QOF points in order to force compliance and statinise the population to meet government targets that are based on little more than mythology, is a breach of the HRA by the Department of Health.

The failure to listen to me is another clear breach of my human rights under article 6 (1) of the HRA 1998 which provides for the conduct of the DoH to be ruled unlawful, because as a public authority, the DoH must not act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. I am trying to ensure that my right to live (along with the identical right for all UK citizens) is not compromised by the actions and policies of the DoH.

Article 8 (1) HRA 1998 provides for me to have my private and family life respected. If I were to become ill with statin induced sickness, then my family life will have been disrupted. There is no justification in a democratic society for crippling me with statins. It follows that there can be no justification for crippling any other citizen of the UK, under the same provision.

Article 17 HRA 1998 prevents the state from engaging in any activity that is destructive of my rights or the rights of every other citizen

Under article 1 of the First Protocol HRA 1998, I am entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of my possessions. It is not in the public interest to deprive me of my possessions and my good health (without statins) is one of my most valued possessions. There is no law enacted that has determined that I must surrender my good health to the government or its agents.

Given the considerable number of HRA breaches documented within this letter, it is incumbent upon the Department of Health to put matters to rights, failing which, the appropriate action will ensue.

I request that my original letter should be delivered to the appropriate minister for health, Caroline Flint. I further request that a copy is delivered to the secretary of state for health, Patricia Hewitt. Evidence of my claim against statins will be delivered by me to these two named people.

It is a travesty that JBS2 was formulated by bodies funded by the statin manufacturing companies. The charity, Heart UK, continues to receive funding from Schering-Plough and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and it is clear that both of these pharmaceutical companies have a huge stake in selling statins. To say that the probity of JBS2 must be more than a little suspect, is to stretch the boundaries of English usage. JBS2 was thoroughly undermined while the drug barons were sitting in the wings and dictating precisely what the national policy on statin prescribing ought to be. Where was the demonstrable arm's length relationship between Heart UK and the pharmaceutical industry which funds its very existence?

By now you will see that I am serious about the breach of my human rights, the moral turpitude of having pharmaceutical industry funded organisations having a say in the national prescribing policy for statins and the cavalier disregard for the safety of the citizenry of the UK, as amply demonstrated by the Department of Health.

I had originally written to the Minister for Public Health on January 21st 2007. You now have seven full working days within which to respond.

Kind regards
xrn

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: I admire your talent for the use of verbal thumbscrews; oddly, I also admire your Gov't's willingness to correspond. Its not something we might expect here in the US. Written exchange with our Gov't officials is often measured in light years. The replys are just as bland as those you revceive only fewer in number. Maybe its because there are about 300 million of us and we're ALL pissed at Gov't about one thing or another. In any case, keep the press on!

Regards,

Brooks

[xrn]

I am only just beginning to get a little bit disgruntled, Brooks. Me being pissed is not something the Department are going to want to see.

I believe that the civil service operates best when you give them the fuel that they are trained to deal with... paper and the more the merrier. Underneath my letters are some points of moment and substance. I suspect that my method is an inborn cultural acceptance of hoops to jump through. I don't mind standing in line to jump through the next futile hoop because each hoop I navigate gets me closer to the objective. Eventually someone will say "this guy is not going away and he has jumped through all of our hoops twice... perhaps he will go away if we see him".

That is the theory, for now but I am not welded to any particular approach. I may have a journal that will publish something fairly soon. It may also give me more leverage to engage the attention of an investigative journalist. Onwards... > > > > > >

Kind regards,
xrn

[Brian C.]

As a lad I remember reading a fanciful article, most probably in Mechanix Illustrated, of a huge, tank-like weapon that would inexorably find its way to its target and detonate its nuclear payload after surmounting all conceivable obstacles and withstanding all conceivable assaults with its thick carapace.

Truly xrn is the human embodiment of that weapon :D

Brian.

[xrn]

Zowie! Kapow! Kaboom! and such like... Thanks for the imagery, Brian. :cool: