Winds were not in favour for the British fleet which had been divided in attempts to out-manoeuvre the enemy forces.
The then Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson was ordered to retreat but he realised that the channel through which they had passed during the night would not enable him to do so and his force was already seriously depleted by the loss of ships which had been unable to pass through the shallow waters.
The battle had raged for almost two hours when the position of the British fleet looked hopeless and Nelson was ordered to retreat by means of signal flags from the commander's vessel.
Famously Nelson put the telescope to his blind eye and declared that he could not see the signal and, despite receiving confirmation of the signal by row-boat, within the hour his negotiations with the Danes after destroying many of their ships resulted in the cessation of hostilities. Many lives were saved and the hostilities with Russia soon ended after tsar Alexander 1 made treaty with the British.
Nelson turned "a blind eye" in order to save lives - our leaders today do the same thing but as a result ever increasing numbers of our people are harmed.
It is repeatedly stated by Government and its supporting "scientists" that
they have been "unable to find" evidence which supports those who have been
poisoned by pesticides. It is hard to believe that this can be true when
science has advanced so much since the Government itself first established
the Industrial Disease legislation which recognised such poisonings in 1958.
However the fact remains that this is precisely the line that the scientists
choose to promote and we should perhaps examine how this can be happening.
Whenever an individual is poisoned the first approach will be either to his GP for the general symptoms or it will be admission to hospital as an emergency case. Either way the victim is entitled to expect the best testing procedures and treatment available.
Why then does this not happen in the majority of cases?
One well documented case took some 18 months before admission for the testing
procedures and even then it had taken pressure from the medical profession
and the Member of Parliament before the admission was arranged.
Another case was an emergency admission and the doctors refused to do the
required tests. The victim rang the Health and Safety doctors in desperation and had the telephone slammed down on him twice by those who should have
offered their assistance. He then went to his General Practitioner, taking
urine samples with him, but his GP destroyed them.
Is this the result of lack of training, of ignorance, of the false assurances given by Government and others that the chemicals present no risk - or is there a deeper and more sinister problem?
Could it be true that the medical profession knows very well how dangerous these chemicals are and that they have been instructed not to find the evidence in order to protect the chemical companies who supply their drugs and the Government who pays them?
From the following sheet which explains the blood tests used to determine poisoning at a leading Hospital it is very clear that there are specific tests already known for various toxins from the deadly Organophosphorus pesticides to the caffeine in coffee.
Given that the above shows that tests are available we must ask why it is that they are not performed properly - not even by specialist units which have been specifically established to diagnose and treat poisoned people.
As has been seen, for example, the tests required for organophosphorus poisoning include both blood and urine tests. They are listed as code numbers 6e and 6d under Group 5 Agrochemicals in the paper illustrated above.
Why then did no less a body than the National Poisons Unit, Guy's
Hospital, London perform the test for Lindane, 6c in the code list, when the
patient had been referred as having been poisoned by organophosphorus
pesticides which required specific and named tests?
Why did they fail to test the urine?
Why did they fail to compare the results with the admitted reference
sample taken months earlier?
How did they manage to find no trace of Lindane when the patient had worked with the chemical many times and it is known that the majority of the population carry a burden of the chemical?
Why have they refused to release the copies of that reference sample?
It is clear that the pharmaceutical industry has a very good understanding of
toxicology and that the information required for proper diagnosis is widely
available and yet it remains almost impossible for the chronically poisoned
to obtain the proper tests and diagnosis.
There is for example what is known as the "Jitter Test" which can determine damage to the nervous system caused by exposures to organophosphorus chemicals even some 18 months after the exposure.
Rarely are the poisoned individuals given that test and if they are it is unlikely that any positive findings will be released to them in their medical records.
Similary it is known that the OPs can adversely affect the electrical control systems in the heart causing "delays" which are said to be diagnostic of the condition but again results are ofen hidden behind medical jargon to the detriment of the interests of the patient.
After a review of Saku Disease in the USA it was suggested that specific diagnostic tests of the vision of poisoned patients should be a routine part of the tesingt procedures in poisoning. Instead of careful manually operated and specific tests the poisoned victim is often subjected to less accurate and automated procedures which are not designed to demonstrate the harm caused by the chemicals.
Information readily available indicates that chemicals such as organophosphates are irreversible poisons which have adverse effects on a wide range of bodily functions including adverse effects on the heart, respiratory system, circulation, the nervous systems and mental processes and yet with all the scientific knowledge available to modern medicine even the diagnosis of the occupationally exposed is apparently impossible.
What is impossible to understand is how any professional worthy of the name
can fail to admit exposure when they are provided with detailed work history
and evidence of adverse health effects linked to those exposures.
Of greater concern is the ability of some "experts" in toxicology to deny
that the symptoms presented before them are known to be those of poisoning
when their own published papers refer to those very symptoms.
Can it really be that these people are incompetent or even simply dishonest?
Go to top
Return to Front Page;
Return to contents file;
Return to OPs file;