BBC to investigate people being denied effective drugs on the basis of cost

Well, it seems that we managed to swing the vote. Thanks to everyone who put their vote in.

I'm a little disappointed that the page says Nick will soon be publishing his findings (or words to that effect). I just hope he takes long enough to uncover the issues.

11 Replies

  • Let's hope that Nick will be publishing his 'findings' soon - meaning after going through the comments, then, of course, a series will be forthcoming? :)

  • Oh dear ...... It's far worse than I could ever have expected. He has already written his answer, and there is no mention of people being denied effective treatments. He has just written about why the NHS pays for homeopathy.

    What a waste of time, and so disappointing. Perhaps we need to give the BBC some feedback?

  • I think we've been taken for a bunch of mugs. Bah!

  • Well, I've just sent off a long email to:

    Perhaps lots of us could do this?

    I described why the missing part of Nick's answer is so important to people like us, and I highlighted the way the NHS wastes money by letting us get ill because we lack T3, when it could pay a proper price for T3, keep us well, and not waste money on all the other treatments we need.

    I suggested that perhaps Panorama would be an ideal programme to investigate this.

    One day, maybe someone will listen????

  • Maybe send a copy of your email to Nick?

    It may not still work but it was his email address in 2008. Worth a shot...

  • Well found, I'll send him a copy now.

  • I'm not surprised by his cynical dishing of dirt on homeopathy &/or any other alternative, complementary or integrative treatments (inc nutritional/herbal supplements).

    I no longer watch BBC news; I stopped ages ago. I also deleted the BBC news app from my smartphone as it was frequently biased. 😕

    I just rang BBC radio. And the radio producer hung up on me after I asked why the BBC are so biased, because the producer is only wanting to put people on air who will talk about Trump's negative or sexual comments about women. The producer doesn't want people to talk about Wikileaks publishing thousands of emails in the last couple of days that show Hillary Clinton and the DNC in a very bad light. The producer also does not want Bill Clinton's sexual activities at the White House mentioned - even though he'll be back in the White House to potentially continue if Mrs Clinton is President. The producer also does not want the allegations (that have been published in multiple books) about the former President allegedly assaulting several women. No, the BBC only wants callers to talk about Trump's remarks - and not to mention any of Hillary &/or Bill Clinton's shenanigans.

    The BBC always claim to be balanced and unbiased when, in truth, they are anything but. 😕

    Here's Ken Loach re the BBC: 😕

  • Do you mean the British brainwashing company by any chance?

  • Yes Busterboy. 😕

  • I agree with you Londinion . I also believe they are biased in all their reporting.

    I too, have stopped viewing, listening to the BBC. As for the American elections, the reporting is gutter talk.

    Whatever your views are of Trump I admit to saying things I regret at a later date. What choice would I make if there, God only knows.

  • Thankyou GCart.

    It is now proven through the leaked emails and communications which were published by Wikileaks (and Guccifer 2.0) that the DNC encouraged their media cronies to promote Trump more so that they could then tell the public to vote for Clinton as she is the lesser evil.

    It is a pantomime. Most of mainstream media, even in this country as you've witnessed, are in with Clinton. She is the establishment's choice. When Bernie Sanders was running against her, although he had the biggest following (out of Trump, Clinton and himself), C4 made a documentary about Trump, but not about Sanders. Every channel has focussed on Clinton and Trump. They hardly reported and gave coverage to Bernie Sanders. He was the real threat to the establishment, so they starved him of the oxygen of coverage, and any coverage they gave about him was negative.

    You have to worry when the entire Bush family and Henry Kissinger and many neocons are backing Clinton, as is the case. Why? Because she has been pro every war and has even recently talked about "military action" (aka war) against Russia under her presidency. Furthermore, she did not genuinely win the democratic nomination. Sanders did. Election Fraud (Rigged) experts and attorneys Prof./Dr. Robert/Bob Fitrakis and Clifford/Cliff Arnebeck have emphatically stated this, as have some other university academics who have statistically proven it.

    Trump and Clinton are both bad news for the USA and the world. 😕

    Ps. Wikileaks has said it will be publish more revelations every week in the run up to the presidency, to provide knowledge to those voters who want to know what's really going. You can visit Wikileaks on Twitter; they have 3.59 million followers.

You may also like...