March 5th, 2012
By: Mike Adams
The hacker community has risen to the challenge of targeting the single most evil corporation in the world — a corporation responsible for countless crimes against humanity and the attempted overthrow of global agriculture. That firm, of course, is Monsanto, which was voted the “Most Evil Corporation in the World” by NaturalNews readers in January of 2011 (http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_Monsanto_evil.html).
AntiSec, which is reportedly affiliated with Anonymous, hacked into Monsanto’s servers, acquired an outdated database of user comments and emails, then dumped it on the web (see link below). While the acquired material was not itself meaningful (and it didn’t reveal any smoking guns), the real news here is that AntiSec has turned its attention on Monsanto and recognizes how incredibly evil that corporation really is.
Hackers have more ethics than government operatives
What’s apparent in all this is that the AntiSec hacker group has ethics. Yes, you heard that right: This group has ethics in the sense that they pick targets who are damaging life on our planet (and driving countless farmers out of business) rather than merely picking targets for their own gain.
Hacking in and of itself, you see, is neither good nor bad. Technology is morally neutral until someone decides to use it for something. From that point, it is the morals and ethics of the user (or group of users) who determines the ethical implications from its use. Government uses technology to secretly surveil all your emails, for example. That’s evil. The military industrial complex uses technology to fire depleted uranium shells at civilian buildings and structures in Afghanistan. That’s evil too (it’s also a violation of UN conventions, but that’s another story).
So what do you call the use of technology to destroy evil? That’s called “good.” Any use of technology to disrupt the operations of evil institutions, or to halt the expansion of an institution that is causing widespread death and destruction, is by definition GOOD.
Monsanto targeted for crimes against humanity
You can’t find a more evil example of a corporation than Monsanto, in my opinion: This company sues farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto’s GM seeds; it fights against the full transparency labeling of GMOs in order to keep consumers in the dark; it conspires with the USDA behind closed doors to legalize experimental GM crops; it unleashes untold destruction on the global environment through genetic pollution; and it has been involved with everything from Agent Orange to aspartame. This is a company with a reputation of death, destruction and irreversible global damage.
“Your continued attack on the worlds food supply, as well as the health of those who eat it, has earned you our full attention,” AntiSec wrote about the firm. “Your crimes against humanity are too many to name on one page.”
That’s true. Even NaturalNews can’t keep up with all the crimes of Monsanto.
“You have put over 9000 small-time farmers out of business by using your enormous legal team to bury them with your malicious patent lawsuits,” AntiSec wrote in its statement. “You have continually introduced harmful, even deadly products into our food supply without warning, without care, all for your own profit.”
See the full AntiSec statement at:
Edible vaccines and more
The data dump acquired by AntiSec reveals what appear to be user-posted comments for an article posted by Monsanto. Some of these comments involve edible vaccines, and they appear to have once been fully public comments.
In one comment with the subject line “Edible HIV Vaccine based on Scrub Typhus”, a Cornell Ag Graduate student named Henry Brown drools over the possibility of feeding the world HIV vaccines by engineering their local food crops to contain the vaccine.
He gives a contact at Cornell who specializes in plant vaccines: Boyce Thompson (firstname.lastname@example.org). He then goes on to brag about his own gene mapping thesis which he conducted as “Los Alamos”, saying: “I did thesis on Computer Assisted Genetic Mapping at Los Alamos, HIV, Genome, Human Genome, Genbank. I am former Peace Corps Volunteer/Cornell Ag. Grad.” – Henry Brown (email@example.com)
In another comment, someone named Michael Katz talks about how Monsanto needs to indoctrinate children with pro-GMO attitudes by influencing the schools. All the typos are his, by the way, not mine:
“It is amazing to me that so many apparantly intelligent people, including close friends of mine, harbor superstitious views of bio-tech and genetically altered foods and plants. They fail to understand that water and arable land supplies are finite and that world population is not. I would also foward these articles to high schoolers and their teachers. The arguement for bio-tech is going to be a long one and we must include bright youngsters and their teachers in our fight.” – Michael E. Katz
The dump of information also includes a comment from a woman named Heather Stouder who admonishes Monsanto people for their blind ignorance and arrogance about GMOs:
“Why do scientists feel that they can solve the world hunger problem with a simple turn of the corner once again, after so many of those turns (deemed miracles of life science at the time) have failed within the last 50 years… It is completely ridiculous to me that “well-educated” (educated and funded by whom, i wonder…) people cannot see the obvious cultural and environmental disasters waiting to happen with these technologies… Obviously, this message won’t reach many of you in agreement, but I encourage you to take a closer look at the reality of the situation, which is completely masked within this web-site filled with propaganda and half-truths…”
One especially lucid commenter posted on the Monsanto website this powerful explanation:
“The notion that technology itself will save humanity is a dubious assertion, but it is a very modern one. Indeed there is a compelling argument to be made that technology is actually paving the way for humanity’s possible demise. Technology without wisdom leads only to opportunists who seek to use their “ownership” of powerful technologies to control the direction, form and destiny of human civilization for the benefit of their self-interests, neglecting the interests of the world’s population. The common people under democracy were supposed to have been promoted to citizens, instead they have been rendered into consumers: faceless and passive receptacles of mass consumption and production. The key to understanding this is by examining how the mass media operates. The mass media is designed to propagandize the common people in emerging and established democracies who constitute the majority of the burgeoning modern human population, into accepting the status quo as the most viable and practical interpretation of reality.”
Ethical hacking targets destructive institutions
Personally, I enjoy seeing the hacker community go after the bad guys like Monsanto. If government regulators won’t hold these groups accountable, and the mainstream (sellout) media won’t ask the tough questions, who is supposed to keep these institutions honest? There is a great sense of social justice in seeing this take place.
Some people counter and ask, “But isn’t hacking illegal?”
Well yeah, technically, but so is half of what the federal government does every single day. Unleashing genetically modified crops upon the landscape is blatantly illegal and violates numerous provisions of federal law, yet the USDA does that every single week, it seems. Reaching down your pants at the airport and fondling your nut sack is illegal, but the TSA does that countless times each day (and that doesn’t even count the number of children they molest or the number of women they strip search, too).
Former MF Global head Jon Corzine, who has powerful connections to the White House, stole a billion dollars (or more) from investors and hasn’t even been arrested. Countless “green energy” companies with ties to the White House blew through billions of dollars of taxpayer money, creating no products whatsoever, went bankrupt, and then nobody gets in trouble for that either. The banks steal your mortgages, the government steals your retirement, the Fed keeps devaluing your dollar, and the government regulators like FDA, USDA, DEA and DHS are operates entirely as criminal gangs, with absolutely no respect for federal law, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Heck, the ATF runs guns into Mexico! (http://www.naturalnews.com/032934_ATF_illegal_firearms.html)
So who’s the real criminal in all this? Government, of course. And the corporations they selectively allow to operate.
A revolution may be brewing…
It is a well-known fact of history that the People will only remain oppressed for a short while, after which they will take matters into their own hands. This targeting of Monsanto by AntiSec is just one sign of many more to come — signs that the People are tired of being poisoned, lied to, exploited and fed an endless stream of corporate B.S. and government lies.
Personally, I think AntiSec is just the beginning of Monsanto’s troubles. I had a weird dream just the other night involving thousands of farmers from across the country physically marching upon Monsanto’s headquarters, conducting citizens’ arrests of all Monsanto employees, then torching the entire complex and watching it burn it to the ground. I didn’t know what to make of it — was this a vision of things to come? Or just my subconscious mind playing out its own creative vision of social justice? My position has always been to avoid violence, of course, so I hope that if such an event does occur, nobody gets hurt.
What I do know is that Monsanto is engaged in the ultimate violence against humankind — the kind of “violence” that is insidious because it happens invisibly, at the microscopic level. Yet it wreaks death and destruction everywhere; not just in the farmer suicides across India (http://www.naturalnews.com/030913_Monsanto_suicides.html), but also in the frustration and despair that inevitably follows a farmer’s decision to plant GM seeds and spray his fields with Roundup. Little does he know that he is destroying his own future and poisoning the land for at least a generation.
AntiSec may very well turn out to be the champion of the People that exposes the lies of biotech and helps end this technological insanity that threatens the future of viable life on our planet. It is my secret hope that they uncover yet more information that may help protect the People and our natural world from exploitation by destructive corporations like Monsanto.
If anyone from AntiSec is reading this, please note that we have a public tip submit system, whereby anyone can send us documents or text that needs to be made public. That URL is: http://www.naturalnews.com/newstips/NewsTips.asp
And for the FBI agents reading this, no I do not know any AntiSec operatives. Their identities are a total mystery to me. But I do believe they are for the most part people of conscience who only resort to hacking as a tool for social justice. And my guess is that they are growing stronger with each insult to freedom and justice that is committed by the federal government working in conspiracy with evil, destructive corporations.
My deepest wish is that we could all coexist in a world of true justice, where even those who claim to be authorities of the law are, themselves, subjected to those same laws. Much of what takes place in government today is outright runaway criminality. I ask: How do We the People stand a chance against runaway tyranny if not for the help of the faceless, nameless, anonymous defenders of justice who put their own freedom at risk to expose the truth that no one else will?
Funding the revolution against genetically engineered poison
By the way, when it comes to social justice, I’m also taking decisive action to expose the truth about Monsanto and its destructive technologies.
Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology needs additional funding to finish the editing of a powerful film about GMOs. This film, once completed, will blow the lid off the GMO cover-up and may in fact finally turn the tides against GMOs once and for all.
The IRT needs funding to finish this film, so on behalf of NaturalNews, I have pledged $10,000 in matching donations to be used in the editing and finalization of this film. Your support is needed! Please consider donating any amount — $10 or more — at this article page:
With NaturalNews readers donating a cumulative total of at least $10,000, plus another $10,000 from NaturalNews, we can raise the $20K necessary to get this film completed! This is a hugely important film, and NaturalNews plans to help release the film and bring it millions of additional viewers.
So please consider supporting this with whatever donation you can. Thank you for your support, and remember that NaturalNews is working hard right alongside you to help Jeffrey get this film completed and released. There is no commercial gain for any of us in doing this. We do this out of a sense of social justice, not personal gain or profit.
For The Full Report Go To Natural News
February 14, 2012
By Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan
Democratic Rep. Laura Richardson instructed taxpayer-funded House aides to work on political redistricting last year, sources familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
Such activities could amount to a violation of prohibitions against lawmakers pressuring aides to do political work, as well as rules against using official resources, including staff, for campaign purposes.
The redistricting work, which has not previously been disclosed, allegedly occurred after it became clear Richardson was under investigation over another set of allegations that she forced House aides to perform political and personal tasks in violation of House rules. Richardson did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Sources told POLITICO that Richardson’s congressional aides collected information about communities outside her district, organized a workshop to train constituents in advance of a public meeting of California’s independent redistricting commission, and wrote talking points for those constituents to deliver during the public-comments portion of the meeting at Long Beach City Hall in April 2011.
The redistricting work was done at Richardson’s direction — rather than on a voluntary basis — these sources said.
A spokesman for the Ethics Committee declined to comment on the Richardson case, but several sources indicated that investigators have expanded the probe and are now looking into the redistricting angle.
March 10th, 2011
By: Kristina Fiore
Sometimes, Dr. Andrew Lieber has to tell his patients that it just isn’t working out.
When parents refuse to vaccinate their children in spite of his efforts to convince them of the benefits of immunity, he reluctantly lets them go.
“By four months, if I can’t help you come to terms with the scientific fact that vaccines are helpful, then I’ve done my job educating you,” Lieber, a pediatrician with Rose Pediatrics in Denver, told MedPage Today.
At that point, he’ll tell them to find another doctor — something he has to do “a couple times a year.”
“I feel like I have a bigger responsibility to all the other kids walking through my waiting room,” Lieber said.
More pediatricians appear to be taking this hard-line approach, especially now that parents are making greater efforts to screen doctors for one whose vaccination philosophy matches their own.
According to a 2001 American Academy of Pediatrics survey, 23 percent of physicians reported that they “always” or “sometimes” tell parents they can no longer be the child’s pediatrician if they won’t get the proper shots.
The Academy doesn’t have more recent survey data, but physicians say that they see plenty of their colleagues joining the ranks.
Lieber will sometimes work with parents to adjust the vaccination schedule — “I’m willing to separate some vaccines by two weeks, whatever I can do to increase vaccination rates is good” — but if an interviewer comes along wanting to cross all vaccines off the list, Lieber will show them the door.
Few physicians find that this practice challenges their ethics, especially in light of recent outbreaks such as pertussis in California and in certain communities within Brooklyn. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics has in the past deemed it ethical to dismiss patients who refuse to get their children vaccinated, and offers a clinical guideline as well as an online toolkit on how to handle the pertinent issues.
“Physicians, like their patients, are moral agents,” says Felicia Cohn, PhD, director of bioethics for Kaiser Permanente in Irvine, Calif. “Any physician may refuse an individual for moral reasons or may conscientiously object to providing particular treatments.”
David Cronin, MD, a pediatrician with Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, says it’s “entirely appropriate for a physician to refuse elective treatment to any patient. Being a physician does not obligate one to provide care to ‘all comers.’”
Today, Kevin gives you even more proof that drug companies have absolutely no interest in making you healthy. Plus, find out why 1979 was such a historic year in Kevin’s life.
Super Bowl Loss Increases Cardiac Death in Fans
EPA to Regulate Rocket Fuel Chemical In Drinking Water
Organic Milk Beats Conventional Milk For Nutrition
The Burning Question: Are Food Dyes Safe?
Swine Flu Shot Linked To Narcolepsy Risk
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Today, Kevin explains how the Wikileaks documents prove that aliens are here on earth and that we are heading towards a new world order and one world currency.
Ethics Committee Recommends Censure for Charlie Rangel
Jack Camp Stripped of Judgeship for Helping Stripper Buy Cocaine, Pot
FDA Is Criticized for Training Deals
Watchdog Says FDA Risked Integrity
U.S. Reviews FDA Scientists’ Complaints
Duke Cancer Researcher Quits as Papers Questioned
I Am Julian Assange
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
July 14, 2010
By Kim Carollo
Many professional medical organizations ethically require doctors to report other doctors who are incompetent or impaired by substance abuse or mental health problems, but as one recent survey found, more than a third of doctors don’t turn in their colleagues.
Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed nearly 3,000 doctors across multiple specialties, and of the almost 2,000 who responded, 31 percent objected to the idea that they should have a responsibility to report physicians who are incompetent or impaired.
The survey also found that 17 percent of doctors had encountered an impaired or incompetent colleague over the past three years, but only two-thirds of them actually turned those doctors in. Only 69 percent of doctors said they know how to go about reporting a compromised colleague.
Lead study author Catherine DesRoches of the Mongan Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital told ABC News the fact that more than a third of physicians don’t agree that they have a responsibility to report doctors with problems is a “signifcant number” she finds troubling.
“Self-regulation is the primary mechanism we use to make sure doctors that shouldn’t be practicing are not practicing,” said DesRoches. “That’s a key to protecting patients.”
“This is a very important study, because it reminds us that we’re probably not doing what we should be doing,” said Dr. Virginia Hood, president-elect of the American College of Physicians and professor of medicine at The University of Vermont School of Medicine.
“Our primary responsibility is always patient safety and what’s in the best interest of the patient, and when it appears that we’re not doing what we should be doing, it’s a matter of great concern,” she added.
Doctors who are members of underrepresented minority groups, graduates of foreign medical schools and doctors in smaller practices were less likely to report an impaired or incompetent fellow doctor.
There were three main reasons many doctors did not turn in their colleagues.
“Twenty-three percent believed someone else was taking care of the problem, 15 percent didn’t think anything would happen and 12 percent feared retribution,” said DesRoches.
Finding is Interesting, but Survey Has Flaws, Say Some Experts
The 36 percent of doctors who did not subscribe to reporting their colleagues included those who said they only “somewhat agreed” with their professional obligation to report compromised colleagues and also those who disagreed either somewhat or completely.
“We just took ‘completely agrees’ and lumped everyone else into a ‘don’t completely agree’ group,” said DesRoches.
The reason for that, she said, is because only complete agreement is considered to be consistent with ethical reporting standards set by professional medical societies.
She also acknowledged that if these doctors were lumped into the “agree” grouping, many more of them would have been in agreement with their ethical obligation to report an incompetent or impaired colleague.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Matthew Wynia of the American Medical Association’s Institute for Ethics argued that the authors see the glass as half-empty.
“A solid majority of physicians (64 percent) ‘completely’ agreed that they are obliged to report all significantly impaired or incompetent colleagues and, presumably, some number of those who did not agree completely would have agreed ‘somewhat,’” he wrote.
DesRoches also notes some of the survey’s limitations, including the effect nonresponders could have on the results.
“We did weight our results, but these adjustments are not perfect,” she said.
She also acknowledged that evaluating incompetence is very subjective.
At least one other doctor agreed, saying that incompetence is not easy to judge.
“It’s rare that you see a doctor who is completely incompetent,” said Dr. Rick May, vice president for clinical consulting at HealthGrades, an independent group that rates health care practitioners and institutions. “What’s more common is that you see a physician who’s incompetent when it comes to using a certain medication or performing a certain procedure.”
Doctors who do encounter these situations may take steps to address the problem, but will stop short of reporting a colleague. This, May said, could contribute to the researchers’ findings about doctors failing to turn in other doctors.
“If I see a doctor who’s incompetent with a drug or a procedure, I’m more likely to pull the colleague aside and talk to that person about using that drug or procedure,” he said.
June 25, 2010
By: Timothy P. Carney
Maybe a $150 billion company with 21,000 employees and 20 percent profit margins doesn’t count as big business or a special interest if it talks about “changing the world from the bottom up, not from the top down,” as President Obama put it.
Maybe a millionaire who spends his days leaning on policymakers to benefit his company isn’t a lobbyist if he calls himself an “Internet evangelist.”
Or maybe Google’s cozy relationship with the White House — exposed more clearly by e-mails recently made public through the Freedom of Information Act — is just one more instance of the administration’s actions contradicting Obama’s reformer rhetoric about battling the special interests and freeing Washington from lobbyist influence.
Consumer Watchdog, a liberal nonprofit, used FOIA to obtain e-mails between White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin and his former colleagues at Google. McLaughlin was Google’s head of global public policy and government affairs, up until he joined the White House.
Despite the job title, McLaughlin wasn’t a registered lobbyist. Still, ethics rules created by an Obama executive order prohibit McLaughlin from “participat[ing] in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to” Google. But the e-mails show McLaughlin has been involved with formulating policy that directly affects Google, regularly trading e-mails with Google’s “evangelist,” and lobbyist.
The topic of net neutrality — where the Obama administration and Google share a pro-regulation position that would profit Google — appears repeatedly in McLaughlin-Google e-mails.
When one news report suggested the White House was backing away from the pro-Google regulations, Google Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf wrote a worried note to McLaughlin, asking, “Has there been so much flack from the Hill that you guys feel a need to back away?”
McLaughlin reassured his former colleague, “Don’t be silly. No one’s backed away from anything.”
Later, when McLaughlin took heat in the media for publicly comparing AT&T — Google’s rival in the net neutrality debate — to the communist Chinese government, Google lobbyist Alan Davidson sent McLaughlin a heads up that a reporter had called Google about it. Davidson assured McLaughlin that he would get the Open Internet Coalition — a pro-net-neutrality lobby headed by Google — to “have your back.”
“Thanks,” McLaughlin wrote back. Davidson followed up the next day, taking credit for killing the story.
McLaughlin knew he was barred from dealing with Google, the e-mails show. When Cerf passed him an e-mail about Google Earth and an issue regarding a border dispute in Cambodia, McLaughlin responded, “in my current position, I’m recused from anything having to do with Google.”
When I asked the White House about McLaughlin’s e-mails, Rick Weiss, a spokesman at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, responded that McLaughlin’s “e-mails to Vint did not run afoul of the pledge since Vint is a federal advisory committee member with whom Andrew is allowed to communicate on matters of relevance to that committee.”
But Cerf was using a Google.com e-mail address and writing about regulations Google was aggressively backing.
And only when I followed up with a question about the e-mails with lobbyist Davidson did Weiss admit “they did violate the President’s Ethics Pledge,” and note that McLaughlin had been reprimanded.
But what else is McLaughlin working on that directly affects his former colleagues with whom he is in regular contact? It’s hard to imagine many tech issues that don’t directly affect Google, and so it’s hard to imagine very many issues McLaughlin could work on that don’t clash with Obama’s ethics rules.
McLaughlin’s role is only one strand in the web of Google-Obama connections.
Google trailed only Goldman Sachs and Microsoft as a source of funds for Obama in 2008, providing $803,000 — 40 times what Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain raised from the company. Google chief executive Eric Schmidt was a fundraiser and adviser for Obama’s campaign.
Obama speaks a lot about battling the special interests. But, evidently, his friends don’t count.
March 3, 2010
Rep. Charles Rangel stepped aside as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee Wednesday, saying he was temporarily giving up the gavel because he didn’t want his ethics controversy to jeopardize election prospects for fellow Democrats.
The 20-term Harlem congressman held a news conference on short notice, telling reporters, “My chairmanship is bringing so much attention to the press, and in order to avoid my colleagues having to defend me during their elections, I have this morning sent a letter” asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “to grant me a leave of absence until such time as the ethics committee completes its work.”
Rangel’s return is far from assured with the House ethics committee is still investigating serious allegations of wrongdoing.
The 79-year-old Rangel’s predicament was another jarring setback for President Barack Obama and majority Democrats in Congress, coming at a time when the party is scrambling to save sweeping health care overhaul legislation while still assessing a surging anti-incumbent fervor among the voters. Congress must also address billions of dollars in tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, an issue that could be greatly influenced by the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
Pelosi issued a statement Wednesday acknowledging Rangel’s request for a leave. “I commend Chairman Rangel for his decades of leadership on jobs, health care, and the most significant economic issues of the day,” she said…
Today, Kevin explains how corporations are scamming you and exposes the real person behind that politician. Plus, find out why someone would take a drug that has a common side effect of cancer.
Plus, author & fitness guru, Jennifer Nicole Lee, stopped by to explain how the Law of Attraction helped her get the perfect body. Click here to purchase her new book, The Mind, Body & Soul Diet.
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to hear The Kevin Trudeau Show RIGHT NOW!!!
February 26, 2010
By David Rose
Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.
An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.
The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.
Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.
The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Mr. Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”
A system of professional accreditation for senior managers would be considered and the Mid Staffordshire trust might lose its foundation status.
Some NHS chief executives have received six-figure redundancy packages or moved to other trusts despite poor performance. Martin Yeates, the former chief executive at Mid Staffordshire, received pay rises that took his annual salary to £180,000, while standards at the trust deteriorated.
The Liberal Democrats claimed that he had also received a payoff of more than £400,000 after stepping down last March, though Mr Burnham said he had received “no more than his contractual entitlement”.
The Care Quality Commission, the NHS regulator, said that the trust under its new management was now “safe to provide services”. But it still had concerns about staffing, patient welfare, the availability and suitability of equipment at the trust, and how it monitored and dealt with complaints. The inquiry made 18 recommendations for the trust and the wider health service, which the Government accepted in full. They include a new review of how regulators and regional health authorities monitor NHS hospitals and a report on “early-warning systems” to identify failing trusts.
But the families of those who died or suffered poor care branded the inquiry a “whitewash” and repeated calls for a full public investigation. The Conservatives accused ministers of trying to blame managers rather than taking responsibility for problems with national targets.
Julie Bailey, who founded the victims’ campaign group Cure the NHS after her mother died at Stafford Hospital, said that the handling of the scandal was disgraceful and unacceptable.
“It is time that the public were told the truth about the very large number of excess deaths in NHS care and the very large number of avoidable but deadly errors that occur every day.”
The NHS Confederation, which represents health trusts, said: “The responsibility for the way this hospital was run rests with its board, management and staff but, as the report says, the framework of targets, regulatory systems and policy priorities it worked within are also very important.”