In our recent blog, Dr Sam Kim, an exemplary physician, Universal Medicine and the media – Part 1 we examined how the Professional Standards Committee (PSC) that oversees disciplinary cases against medical professionals took an extraordinary four plus years of investigation and an adversarial process to reprimand a dedicated doctor for referring a patient to complementary therapies and, in the PSC’s view, failing to describe to the patient the distinction between medical ‘evidence based’ treatments and complementary treatments.
We suggested that the distinction between conventional medical care and the complementary treatments at issue would have been blindingly obvious to an ordinary patient. The PSC ultimately finding that there was no actual medical harm caused to the patient, a fact that has been swept under the carpet by the media reporting on the case. The only harm that was found to have occurred in practical terms was what was referred to as ‘economic harm’, by way of $70 paid for a massage that was determined to be unhelpful (not harmful).
It was a seemingly inconsequential story if contrasted to the usual fare the media concerns itself with – for instance, the more salacious stories about doctors who have gone astray and actually harmed their patients with terrible consequences, such as sexual molestation, maiming or even death.
In Dr Sam Kim’s case, there was no direct harm to a single patient from medical treatment and the media reporting that followed the PSC decision was out of proportion to the actual findings – where a physician’s quality of medical care in treating a patient’s lung condition was not found to be lacking.
The PSC decision appears to have given a couple of reporters an opportunity to revisit old ground and pursue antipathies that they appear to have fostered over time. Jane Hansen of the Sunday Telegraph and the Northern Star and Joshua Robertson of the Guardian (Australia) took up the story – we suggest not because the case against Dr Kim really fit in any of the usual salacious fare dished up about medicos who have violated their position of trust with patients – since a doctor referring a patient for what was a harmless massage, causing no harm, is hardly exciting.
No, the story was shaped to incite and entice an audience, apparently by making it all about Universal Medicine. It was true that Dr Kim was unapologetic that he attended Universal Medicine courses and trainings and had observed great benefit resulting from the therapies. The PSC found no issue with that. However, the journalists turned the case from one about poor referral practices into a sensationalised ‘Universal Medicine story’.
The journalists exposed their motives behind their fervour in the headlines or key lines of their stories with references to Universal Medicine and Serge Benhayon. One article referred to Universal Medicine 17 times, keyword loading it for greatest effect. The fact that the case was actually about referral practices was lost in the journalists’ pursuit of a topic that gained traction from their previous reporting.
If you are going to report a story, one of the first tenets of journalism must be ‘get your facts right’. This requirement was startlingly absent in Jane Hansen of the Sunday Telegraph’s first offering about the PSC decision.
Jane Hansen for the Sunday Telegraph gets the story gravely wrong
Jane Hansen for the Sunday Telegraph, led the vanguard with what has become a characteristic hatchet job, with the headline ‘Doctor struck–off for lung massage’. Well no Jane, he was not ‘struck off’. Pulmonary lung specialist, Dr Sam Kim, is still providing the exemplary care that he is known for and he was reprimanded, not barred from practice.
Not only was he not ‘struck off’, his reprimand was not for referring his patient for a ‘lung massage’, but for failing to distinguish clearly, for his patient’s benefit, the difference between complementary health care and conventional medical care, and not highlighting that his wife was one of the practitioners he was referring to. Although, as noted previously, ‘blind Freddy’ would be aware that ‘massage’ and no doubt ‘Chakra-puncture’ are complementary modalities.
Far from being ‘struck off’, Dr Kim was required to attend ‘Category C Supervision’. This is a long way from being ‘struck off’, as Jane Hansen falsely reported. It is the lowest level of disciplinary supervision. It does not restrict the practitioner from their ordinary practice of attending patients, on call work, surgical interventions and consultations. What it does require is a monthly meeting with a supervisor. In Dr Sam Kim’s case, this meeting is set up to specifically focus on his practice in referrals regarding complementary health or referrals for clinical conditions that fall outside his area of practice.
Dr Sam Kim’s medical treatment of the patient was not at fault, as the PSC stated,
‘there is no complaint made about Dr Kim’s approach to the conventional medical treatment of Patient A’s lung disease.’
This fact appeared to be inconvenient for the reporters in this case.
Jane Hansen continued her pursuit of Dr Kim with an article in the Northern Star penned with Cathy Adams. Here the journalists made reference to the complaint supposedly made by patient A, including that she had been ‘misdiagnosed’ and ‘put on the lung transplant list.’ These references clearly suggested poor medical care. This was followed by a statement that ‘the complaint was proven’, in other words, suggesting that all the matters suggesting poor medical care mentioned by the reporters had been made out.
This is not what the Committee decided. The PSC makes no mention of ‘misdiagnosis’ or the ‘lung transplant list’. As noted above, the actual medical treatment provided to patient A for a lung condition was not considered lacking by the Committee.
The journalists surely must have been aware of this, since after carefully insinuating that Dr Sam Kim’s conventional medical treatment of Patient A’s condition was lacking (by way of ‘misdiagnosis’), the two journalists referred to the Committee’s findings – that Patient A’s medical treatment was not at fault, stating that ‘The Committee noted there was no complaint made about Dr Kim’s approach to the conventional medical treatment of Patient A’s lung disease.’
Jane Hansen and Cathy Adam’s reference to the complaint comprising of ‘misdiagnosis’ and ‘lung transplant lists’ and then referring to everything in the complaint being made out is simply false. Plain and simple.
We note that Jane Hansen’s name was hastily removed from the online report after publication:
Putting aside the uninformed headline stating ‘doctor found guilty’, when it was not a criminal trial and there is no ‘guilty’ verdict, only a decision about professional conduct, the removal of attribution begs the question – why did Jane Hansen have her name removed? Was it to step back from a history of questionable and exaggerated reports about Universal Medicine? A careful removal, lest a history, replete with the far-fetched claim that she, a reporter with a million plus readership with the Sunday Telegraph, had been ‘bullied’ by way of a small blog-site with a small readership, that had taken her to task over the reporting of ‘fake news’?
Certainly, a claim that she had been ‘bullied’ was a curious take on the facts, for a journalist whose errors in relaying facts had simply been taken to task in detail. Is that to be considered ‘bullying’ or is it the only way that those maligned by a story could have all the facts aired in public?
Jane Hansen’s history of reporting is arguably one that illustrates a certain bias against her subject.
Jane Hansen got the facts wrong about the PSC decision not just once, but twice.
The Sunday Telegraph article had mashed the findings, claiming that the complaint before the PSC involved misdiagnosis of the patient, it did not. Also, it was unclear where Hansen got her quote about the PSC finding that Dr Kim ‘inappropriately prescribed’ vitamin B12 injections. He had not. The medical evidence was that this was entirely appropriate for Patient A’s condition and there was no finding against the doctor on this count. Jane Hansen, joined in her reprise of the subject by Cathy Adams, for the Northern Star, at least managed to get the fact about the B12 injections correct in that report.
A reference by Jane Hansen in the Sunday Telegraph to Dr Kim ‘inappropriately prescribing’ HRT does reflect that much was made by the Committee of Dr Kim prescribing HRT for the patient. However, if we considered this in context, the PSC noted that the patient was already taking HRT prescribed by their GP.
Generally, a doctor prescribing something that is already being taken by the patient would have passed without question. Many patients will ask a doctor to give them a script so they do not have to go back to their GP. It certainly should not be a hanging offence. Perhaps the media could have looked at context here?
Jane Hansen’s angle was left in no doubt with a couple of loaded references to Serge Benhayon and Universal Medicine, followed by the comment that Dr Kim had ‘sent’ Patient A to receive complementary treatments from that organisation and referred Patient A to see Serge Benhayon. Notably, Patient A never had a session with Serge Benhayon. It is questionable whether a suggestion that someone have a massage and them acceding to that suggestion is the same as being ‘sent’ to have one. But the language has an intended impact to infer the patient had no choice. However, there was no suggestion in the PSC findings that Patient A had not consented to the massage or Chakra-puncture. Any suggestion by Dr Kim that she should see Serge Benhayon was not followed by Patient A, so Patient A clearly was not so influenced by the doctor to have left her own faculties for choice at the door.
Josh Robertson, The Guardian
Josh Robertson, political reporter for The Guardian, also weighed in on the story. The headline, ‘Doctor rebuked over “spiritual healing” group touting “esoteric breast massage”’, exposes Mr Robertson’s tabloid past with the Brisbane Courier Mail, and was well below the standard of what might be expected of The Guardian. Josh Robertson, like Jane Hansen at the Sunday Telegraph, already had pedigree in catapulting bogus claims about Universal Medicine to a wider audience at his old role at the Courier Mail.
As well as having written a couple of hatchet jobs against Universal Medicine for the Courier Mail, Josh Robertson had also attempted to manufacture a story in 2012 by phoning a number of expert speakers who were booked to present at a Real Media Real Change (RMRC)1, conference on cyber-bullying. As a result of Josh Robertson’s phone calls to speakers, which apparently ominously warned the speakers of the (unfounded) threat to their reputation if they appeared at the conference, a number of the speakers then cancelled their appearance. He then had a stringer call one of the organisers at their home to try and prompt a quote, in true ACA tabloid style.
Journalists drumming up stories by their own actions and seemingly personal biases is questionable. But it seems, from the stories that have been published, that both Hansen and Robertson have been allowed by their editors to use their position of power to further their own interests and biases.
The findings against Dr Sam Kim were inflated out of context by Josh Robertson’s report. His agenda perhaps exposed by referencing Universal Medicine 17 times in the piece, and further, his use of the word ‘devotees’ in the teaser providing a dead giveaway for his approach to his subject. Josh Robertson asserted that Dr Sam Kim had ‘inappropriately’ made referrals to ‘devotees’ of Universal Medicine.
This story had nothing to do with so-called ‘devotees’, and the word could only have been intended to convey Robertson’s particular slant on the topic. The use of the word ‘devotee’ also entirely misrepresents what Universal Medicine is about.
Universal Medicine is not about worshipping a ‘guru’. It is essentially an enlightened, progressive way of approaching health and well-being, that helps bridge the traditional, conventional and complementary strands of healing. It is deeply respectful of the individual and hardly devotional; rather it promotes that each person has free will to do as they please. Its philosophy promotes complementary therapies that are only ever complementary to medicine and never an alternative to appropriate medical care.
The headline reference to ‘Esoteric Breast Massage’ also had an agenda to incite and alarm the reader. Notably, the reference to the Esoteric Breast Massage had absolutely nothing to do with the story. Dr Sam Kim had never referred the patient in question to have an Esoteric Breast Massage (EBM), although he had publicly suggested that it could be of benefit to women, not as a medical treatment, but as a way of supporting women to be more caring of themselves. Joshua Robertson used the EBM as an attention-grabbing headline, without context or any real justification for its placement. A modality that has been made controversial only by the media’s puerile and ill-informed treatment of it, the EBM is simply a supportive way for women to reconnect with their deep feminine tenderness in an age of drive and masculinity, and is conducted only by female practitioners. It is not sexualised in any way.
Joshua Robertson’s suggestion that Patient A was treated for two years for no more than a ‘chronic cough’ conveys that the woman was being treated for a minor ailment, this was not the case. It was clear from references to specialist evidence presented to the PSC, that the patient had multiple complex conditions and was in extremely poor health. Even from the PSC decision it was clear Patient A was suffering from more than a ‘mere cough’ and required specialist medical care.
A decision about referrals was morphed into a story about Universal Medicine. Why?
What was the interest here that drew Josh Robertson, a political reporter from The Guardian out of his usual beat? Or Jane Hansen, whose more significant recent contributions to journalism are promoting the importance of vaccination?
Usually a medico being rapped over the knuckles for referring to complementary practitioners where ‘no harm’ was sustained, does not quite match the usual reporting on doctors who have gone astray. The PSC concerns were focussed upon the standards to be applied where referrals were to be made to complementary therapies.
In what might be considered a case of minor importance to the community, the PSC imposed conditions so that Dr Kim could not make referrals to complementary health practitioners unless this was approved by a second opinion from another thoracic physician. If such approval was granted, then Dr Kim would be obliged to ‘discuss with the patient the distinction between conventional and complementary therapies and any personal or professional connection he has with the person to whom the patient is being referred and document those discussions.’
What is apparent is that a decision about a specialist being required to alter their referral practices was morphed by Josh Robertson and other journalists into a supposed exposé of Universal Medicine.
Why was that?
The real agenda
Dr Kim’s predicament appears to have been the opportunity Josh Robertson had been waiting for to reignite a pursuit of Universal Medicine.
Josh Robertson had already marked his approach to Universal Medicine. His previous offerings for the Courier Mail had commenced with the blazing headline ‘New Age Medicine of Serge Benhayon leaves trail of broken families’, with the extraordinary claim that aggrieved ‘family members of devotees’ claimed that Serge Benhayon had a ‘Svengali-like sway’ over members and Universal Medicine had, for unspecified reasons, ‘led to the breakdown of at least 42 relationships.’ The mechanics of this extraordinary ability to hold sway over others was never explained. It was a fiction, plain and simple.
Josh Robertson’s source for his aggrieved ‘family members’ was Lance Martin, with a handful of others, seeking pity and sympathy with sorry tales of broken marriages. There was nothing to verify the figure of 42 relationships. It sounded like a lot – and this was no doubt the intention of suggesting that this was the case… if it were true. This figure has never been verified, it seemed like a figure plucked from the air. In Australia, one in three marriages are likely to end in divorce and if you add to that the demise of de-facto relationships, the figure would be much higher. These marriages end for all kinds of reasons, usually with dissatisfaction on the part of one party or both.
A statistician who looked at the figures pointed out that if the data was properly examined and Universal Medicine participants were to follow the Australian norm, then you would have expected at least 51 marriages to have ended in divorce amongst those who had participated in Universal Medicine over the time the organisation had been operating – this is simply because marriages end as a statistical probability, not because of the influence of any organisation.
Universal Medicine had in fact been bucking the trend. Indeed, there are many couples whose relationships have been enriched and have gone from strength to strength through their participation in all that Universal Medicine has offered over the years. These were the stories that did not fit into the false narrative that journalists have made up about Universal Medicine, and were details that they chose to ignore.
Josh Robertson had interviewed at least two individuals who had told him of their long term and healthy relationships supported by the work of Universal Medicine. They had told him of many more. However, these significant details were omitted from the story he produced, clearly this information did not suit the narrative of a ‘trail of broken families’.
Josh Robertson’s position on Universal Medicine was clearly marked at that point in time, as he chose to champion the account that had been fed to him by a few disgruntled men, and deliberately excluded compelling evidence from the women concerned, that the demise of their marriages had been inevitable for many reasons and none that included Universal Medicine. For instance, Josh Robertson had been told that the relationships had ended in Lance Martin’s case after a long history of break ups and periods apart, fuelled by financial pressures and marital unhappiness, and in another man’s case, that a marriage of many years finally fell apart after years of the man’s alcohol abuse and consequent abusive behaviour.
Like the healthy relationships Josh Robertson ignored in his story, he omitted the women’s side of the story that gave a very different picture than that offered by the men. Josh Robertson set his agenda and, in his latest offering, has apparently continued in the same vein.
It was evident that Josh Robertson was focussed on Universal Medicine and not Dr Sam Kim; not only from the 17 mentions of the organisation in his article and headline grabs, but also in picking up on various angles to bolster his arsenal against his target. One such angle was focusing upon a Parliamentary Inquiry which had adopted material contained in two ill-considered news reports about Universal Medicine as ‘evidence’, after failing to inquire whether the material contained in those reports was true or not.
That a Parliamentary Inquiry cited sensationalised and unverified tabloid offerings as ‘evidence’ behoves our parliamentary system ill, and makes a mockery of standards of evidence and proof. We will return to the Parliamentary Inquiry and the material placed before it in the next instalment to this series of blogs.
Attitudes to healing and medicine
Josh Robertson made passing reference to the respiratory medical expert called by the PSC, who had asserted that Universal Medicine had an attitude towards the origin of illness ‘which conventional medicine abandoned in the 19th century.’ It is not clear what attitudes are being referred to, these are not identified by the PSC or the doctor. It seems an odd conclusion, given that Universal Medicine focusses on lifestyle change as a key factor in promoting wellness, as well as the importance of appropriate medical care in the treatment of illness and disease. Universal Medicine is certainly in line with leading organisations such as the World Health Organisation that has identified lifestyle change as paramount in arresting the rise of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.
Universal Medicine is unequivocally pro-medicine, advocating that any complementary therapy is only that, and should never be considered without appropriate and full medical treatment for any condition where required. Universal Medicine actively promotes the need for and the benefits of conventional medicine to both its clients and practitioners. Universal Medicine therapies are offered as complementary to medicine and never in lieu of it. This approach sits a long way from an archaic and remote attitude to medical care.
Josh Robertson, seemingly intent on finding anything that he could to sling mud, referred to the Committee’s concerns over Dr Kim prescribing ‘bio-identical’ hormones, only made by compounding pharmacists. Bio-identical hormone preparations are medicines that are an exact chemical match to those made in the human body.2 There is anecdotal evidence that some women find these medications more beneficial than traditional HRT, however the medical world is divided on whether there are more benefits, although compounded products may be of greatest assistance where patients are allergic to ingredients of standardised products or need a specific dose to support their bodies.3
Dr Kim agreed that he should not have prescribed this and had acted beyond the scope of his medical practice. However, this has to be considered in context – the client was already taking HRT and was not harmed by the taking of the alternative compound.
Curiously, we are aware that this is something that is an increasingly regular practice for many GPs, and even some specialist endocrinologists. This trend reflects that some patients are savvy consumers and may request that their doctors give them this option. It may be a matter of consumer choice, and, like much of medicine, there is mixed evidence of benefits. These other doctors have not been brought before the PSC… and this leads to the question: why was there a focus on punishing and ‘reprimanding’ Dr Kim for engaging in what is an increasingly accepted practice?
Dr Michael Serafin and AHPRA – all is not what it appears to be
There was also another opportunity to attempt to sully Universal Medicine, by Josh Robertson making a sly reference to Michael Serafin being a compound pharmacist and ‘Universal Medicine participant’ who had been investigated over ‘manufacture of a cocktail of injectable vitamins for use in a Sydney ‘hangover’ clinic that was shut down when a client was hospitalised after an intravenous infusion.’ Referencing that Serafin has been ‘forbidden’ by AHPRA from ‘making or supplying the so-called “Myer’s Cocktail” hangover mixture or products containing ketamine.’
Aside from the fact that what Michael Serafin does in his spare time is irrelevant to any AHPRA investigation, he might belong to a football club, a golf club or attend church services and this would not be noted as significant. His attendance at Universal Medicine events had nothing to do with his registration or AHPRA, but provided a useful red herring for the media to dangle before the public.
A Myer’s cocktail is a blend of vitamins, most often B complex, Vitamin C, Magnesium and Calcium, given intravenously.4 Reported to be ‘effective against acute asthma attacks, migraines, fatigue (including chronic fatigue syndrome), fibromyalgia, acute muscle spasm, upper respiratory tract infections, chronic sinusitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, cardiovascular disease, and other disorders.’ Outside of this medicinal use, it has also been adopted as a ‘hangover cure’ in various party cities.5
Like so many stories that have become the focus of a media circus, getting the facts corrected is very difficult, the media has little interest in correction or following up and correcting the facts. So we can provide some more details here:
During the investigation by NSW State Health, the assumption had been that the injection was contaminated with endotoxins or it was not sterile and that this was what had caused the problems for the patient who had an adverse reaction, and as a consequence AHPRA limited Michael Serafin from producing these. It was an injunction imposed without the regulator having any proof that the product produced by Michael Serafin was faulty. The evidence available did not indicate that the reaction was due to a contamination issue, but AHPRA acted upon mere speculation that this might be the case. The samples subsequently were tested by the TGA and cleared of endotoxins and were found to be sterile, proving that the reaction the woman had to the substance was not due to the substances supplied by Michael Serafin.
It took Michael Serafin months to get a verbal confirmation about these results but AHPRA has refused to give him an official copy of them. The pharmacist has been fighting to have the limitation removed from his registration ever since. It is yet another example of the media and the regulators pointing fingers without the full facts.
PSC had no issue with ‘Dr Kim’s interest or training in Universal Medicine’, but the journalists did
Although Joshua Robertson and Jane Hansen were focussed on condemning Universal Medicine, the PSC concluded that:
‘The Committee is not critical of Dr Kim’s interest or training in Universal Medicine, but is critical of his referrals to Universal Medicine practitioners. It is very unusual for a specialist medical practitioner to refer a patient for non-evidence based treatment, but should this occur, full disclosure and detailed discussion of the treatment is essential. There are difficulties for patients in understanding the boundaries between conventional and complementary medicine and every effort must be made by a medical practitioner to make those boundaries clear and ensure that the patient understands the nature of any treatment that is recommended.’
So the PSC did not take issue with Dr Kim’s ‘interest or training in Universal Medicine’, but was concerned that patients would have ‘difficulties’ discerning ‘boundaries between conventional and complementary medicine.’ The PSC did not have any evidence of the supposed ‘difficulties’ patients might encounter discerning ‘boundaries between conventional and complementary medicine’, it was another matter the PSC were willing to embrace on face value, dispensing with any need for evidence.
Most people who take a vitamin, receive a massage, have acupuncture or hands on healing, or go for a meditation session, would consider it obvious that they are not engaging in ‘conventional treatment.’ What is the boundary that is so difficult to discern?
The medical complaints system should be under examination
The media was content to condemn an otherwise exemplary medical practitioner, without considering the nature of the complaints system, or that it is punitive and fails to protect medical professionals from harassment and vexatious complaints. The AHPRA complaints process has come under escalating scrutiny with doctors identifying the process being used by competitors to nobble colleagues through vexatious complaints or providing an avenue for patients to harass medical professionals with whom they are dissatisfied.
The medical board appeared rather sympathetic to Patient A, whom was suggested was unable to discern the difference between a massage, Chakra-puncture (light needling with needles used for Acupuncture) and Conventional Medicine. Is that credible?
It overlooked the extensive complaints from the patient that were abandoned on the way because there was no fault with her medical care (although these gripes were reported by Jane Hansen), and it also overlooked that Patient A was already prescribed HRT by her GP. What was really being complained about?
The PSC (and the press) ignored the activity of Patient A on hate blog sites that encouraged individuals to make complaints to the HCCC about UM affiliated professionals.
Concessions or ‘confessions’ extracted under pressure
One aspect of the report that must be considered is that Dr Sam Kim made concessions about certain details of the case and, in some parts, was found to contradict himself. Of course, this was read against the doctor. What was not inquired about or considered is, why would this have occurred when Dr Kim is a highly intelligent man who, if you meet him, is like a walking medical textbook on illness and disease?
Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of the complaints system, that mirrors our courts with an adversarial approach ill-suited to the kind of issues before it.
It is likely that fault could be found with the practice of even the best medical practitioners if you are searching for something, and, it is possible to make a ridiculously big deal out of something that could be a discreet conversation with a medical professional to support them to lift their game, or make them aware of unwritten rules, or things they may not have been aware of.
It is predictable that concessions will be offered if you put someone under the microscope for over four years and under huge amounts of pressure. It is not unusual for people to make concessions to bring matters to a conclusion. It doesn’t mean that they are guilty of anything. It just means they elected to bring the situation to an end by making concessions and agreeing to adjust their practice to bring it into line with the demands made.
Four years plus is an enormous amount of pressure where there is an ongoing investigation seeking to find fault. The medical complaints process in this case went on for so long and was arguably taken to a level in gross disproportion to the nature of the complaint.
Over a four-year period Dr Sam Kim had an ongoing threat over his registration, not for having caused any direct harm to a patient, but for referring them to complementary therapies, which also caused no physical harm. These referrals were never offered as an alternative to sound medical care. There was no actual harm other than notional ‘economic harm’ of $70 paid for a massage.
What would you do?
The medical regulation system is well known to be an inquisitional one. It is archaic and harmful beyond its time. It appears to protect some doctors in circumstances where the risk to patients could be considered very real6, yet has apparently sought to publicly humiliate others, where the risk is at most nominal. This is perhaps what could be investigated and considered by our national press.
The media treatment of Dr Sam Kim provided opportunity for Jane Hansen and Josh Robertson to offer a reprise to their previous offerings. The story provided a vehicle to vilify Universal Medicine, yet the focus was misplaced, it was a small story about referral practices, with no harm caused to a patient, since the medical care offered for Patient A’s condition was not lacking. In their eagerness to pillory their target, the journalists lost sight of Dr Sam Kim, a dedicated doctor who is deeply committed to the health and well-being of his patients and bringing specialist medical services to a rural community.
In the case of Universal Medicine, journalists have created a false narrative about the organisation that has been rehashed and repeated until those very stories replete with extensive inaccuracies and, in some instances, outright falsehoods, have been used as ‘proof’ of so-called facts within them. False ‘evidence’ has been created by the repetition of those reports, with fictions perpetuated, rather than the truth that should have been established through proper investigations. It is to this we turn in Part 3.
1. An organisation that researches and reports upon the impact of the media in everyday life. http://www.realmediarealchange.org
2. Hitti, M. (2009, January 12). Oprah and Bio-identical hormones: FAQ. WebMD. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20090115/oprah-and-bioidentical-hormones-faq#1
3. Hitti, .M (2009, January 12).
4. Gaby, A.R. (2002). Intravenous Nutrient Therapy: The “Myers’ Cocktail”. Alternative Medical Journal, 7:5. Retrieved from:http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/7/5/389.pdf
5. Everything you want to know about a Myers Cocktail https://resquaredmedical.com/everything-you-want-to-know-about-myers-cocktail/
6. See for example, the suppression of the name of the doctor referred to in Gardiner, S. (2017, June 28). Neurosurgeon suspended for drug use, after fatal overdose of doctor friend. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/neurosurgeon-suspended-for-drug-use-after-fatal-overdose-of-doctor-friend-20170628-gx0jep.html