Another shot at the messenger from the Universal Medicine cult cartel

Painting by Juan Ford

Sticks and stones may break bones, but naming names only hurts if you’re hiding from the facts.

Currently the Universal Medicine cult is planning another damage control embarrassment, dedicating a website to insisting they’re not a cult, and labelling me and a colleague ‘cyber-bullies’. It’s another desperate act following their failed attempts to bully me off the internet en masse with pseudo-legal threats and fanciful complaints of professional misconduct. Their latest shot at assassinating my character to AHPRA exposes the toxic mindset the Esoteric lovers of humanity omit from their publicity. It also reveals how the UniMed cartel professionals have no comprehension of conflicts of interest, disturbing blindness to abuse and corruption, and no idea how silly they look.

In keeping with my promise to post all the cult’s harassment or intimidation attempts, the following is the complaint made to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Authority shortly after the UniMed cult spammed the ACCC with 4,500 pages of whingeing about yours truly. The ACCC assault was quickly dismissed, just as the following was found to be lacking in substance and not in breach of any professional codes. The complaint is led by cult psychologist, Marianna Masiorski, and signed off by a page full of the UniMed brains trust. Their names were removed from the copy I received, but we can safely say it included the top storey of the Naming Names page.

Cult psychologists, including Masiorski, had already made a complaint about me late last year, which was twice dismissed as lacking substance. The following 6000 word diatribe is a second stab at a second complaint making similar claims to the first, and like the password protected Yammer site, it reveals all that emotion underlying the TRUE BEAUTY® of the Brides of Benhayons’ innermost gentleness and divinity. The same emotion Sergio says is the cause of all disease.

It’s a trying read, but it belongs on the internet as a Glorious® demonstration of the lengths apologists will take to reinforce their cognitive dissonance and silence questions. The highlights are the hilariously inconsistent diagnosis of me as a sadistic, Machiavellian narcissistic psychopath, cyber-bully and cyber-troll; no supporting evidence; false attributions to comments I didn’t make; hyperbole, hysteria, misrepresentations, and a bunch of other irrelevant raving that makes no sense. I’ve removed the account of Jane Keep’s deceased mother’s medical history, and the attachment of randomly chosen quotes on cyber-bullying. For readers with the intestinal fortitude, the full document is available to view here (minus the medical history).

The complaint was duly dismissed, but late 2015 Masiorski was placed on conditional registration and ordered to undergo supervision as a result of a two year investigation of a misconduct complaint over her public promotions of UM. In addition, UM was slammed by a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry, partly due to the promotion of its heinous quackery by its religiously invested doctors.

A couple of notes: Bold type is Masiorski’s. I’ve not altered the text except to remove my name. The page long list of signatories was redacted from the copy I received, but I take that to mean UM’s health professionals, including the compromised doctors, put their names to it. Serge and Eunice Minford’s name have also been redacted from the body of the complaint, which would indicate they mucked in.

True integrity.

27 March 2014

Re: Abusive Cyber Bullying Campaign by  ♥ ♥  and Concerns for Public Safety.

You are well aware that  ♥ ♥ has been engaged in an extreme cyberbullying attack against a group of professionals, including myself. I wrote to you initially on the 6th June 2013, to inform you of my concerns regarding the abuse and lies that had been written about me and my colleagues on the internet. At that time, AHPRA deemed that our letter on concern warranted making it an official notification, however decided to pursue no further action.

Since that time, the situation has escalated and we have made you aware of our concerns regarding ♥ ♥’s mental state.

The only escalation has been in the cult’s desperation to shut me down while avoiding mounting a defamation action.

Before I turn to the specifics of ♥ ♥’s escalating behavior, I want to refer to literature studies that indicate ♥ ♥’s psychological profile exhibits socio-pathological features that raise serious questions about her fitness to be registered as a ☺☺ practitioner.

There is a growing body of research based evidence that cyberbullies and internet trolls demonstrate a particularly disturbing psychological profile, including Axis 1 and Axis 2 disorders, sociopathy, hostility, aggression, deception and harmful intent, gaining pleasure from the harm that they cause, with a flagrant disregard for authority and social norms, (Nuccitelli, 2011; Shaughnessy, 2014). The psychological profile of cyberbullies demonstrated by Shaughnessy (2014), Brice (2012) and Lohmann (2014) should be considered with respect to ♥ ♥. Her conduct suggests that she fits such a profile.

Masiorski appears unaware of her conflict of interest. And in their inappropriately offered ‘professional opinions’ the cult psychs first claimed I had an ‘undiagnosed mental illness’, which became ‘psychosis’ when their complaints were first dismissed, and now it’s the ‘Dark Triad’. All based on not liking what I’ve written on the internet about their public promotions of a dangerous scam.

The growing evidence is that bullying behaviour is linked with noxious personality variables known as the Dark Triad of personality – this dark triad reflects sub-clinical narcissism, Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy (Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus, 2014). Further study has added another dimension to the Dark Triad to add the sadistic personality (Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus, 2014).

These terms have specific meanings in the psychological literature:
a) Machiavellianism refers to the tendency to manipulate and deceive others for personal gain, this trait will often be accompanied by cognitive empathy since to manipulate others there is a need to predict and describe the behaviours of others (Baughman et al, 2012).

b) Sub-clinical Narcissism involves feelings of grandiosity, a sense of entitlement and vanity. Often this is actually accompanied by low-self esteem even though they appear egocentric (Baughman et al. 2012). Narcissism is frequently associated with aggression, probably as a mechanism to defend fragile self esteem. Thus threats to self-esteem of the narcissist are likely to give rise to direct aggression (Baughman et al, 2012).

c) Sub-clinical Psychopathy can be described in the statement ‘payback needs to be quick and nasty’ (Buckels et al., 2012). This personality exhibits:

• callous-unemotional traits – interpersonal coldness, including lack of empathy or absence of guilt for their actions (Boughman et al, 2012).
• Impulsivity – an increased response to provoked attacks and disinhibition of social restraints (Boughman et al, 2012).

d) The sadistic personality which refers to the enjoyment of hurting others and also witnessing the pain of others (even if not caused by their own actions) (Buckels et al. 2014).

Generally adults who engage in Bullying exhibit sub-clinical sociopathic personality traits (Baughman et al., 2012). All of the Dark Triad traits were found to be prevalent in trolls however, it was sadism that was a standout feature of the personality feature of trolls. Buckels et al (2014), concluded that “online trolls are prototypical online sadists” and that, “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun….and the Internet is their playground!” 

Certainly, the reported experiences from those who have been targeted by ♥ ♥ indicate the destructive and sadistic nature of the cyber- troll and cyber-bully in her activities.

As people and as practitioners, we have been affected by these attacks, as have our families. We have experienced deep shock, sadness and feelings of confusion. We have felt completely devastated and literally “gutted”. Our families have been very concerned for our wellbeing and safety, saying that what ♥ writes is “brutal”.

As people and as families, UniMed’s many victims have been affected by their abusive practices, their denials and their bullying. Many have required ongoing therapy to help them recover. Many reading here have strong concerns about the wellbeing and safety of those adversely affected, and have made complaints and written to authorities and their local members to voice their concerns.

But SergeCorp will have it that those making the most from this misery are the real victims.

We might question the sadistic and narcissistic tendencies of profiteers who refuse to acknowledge the lives irreparably harmed in the name of Universal Medicine’s brutal ‘self-loving choices’.

We might also question the intelligence of anyone who characterizes my occasional use of humour as ‘sadistic glee’, and that I’ve taken the trouble, the expense and the risks of exposing the wrongdoing of a legion of aggressive zealots for ‘fun’.

The following are examples of what ♥ ♥ has written:

“I mean, are you that stupid? The only thing that will save you is that the board will no doubt not care one iota, just like all the other government departments whose main job is covering their own arses; , and the other psychologists charged with checking it out will most likely have no idea what a cult is either. But what the hell, we’ll get that notification off at some point.” From Venus Darkly 29 November 2013 https://universalmedicineaccountability.wordpress.com

The above example demonstrates the subclinical Narcissism, Psychopathy and Sadism as mentioned by Baughman et al, (2012). It is again an example of her deep disrespect for AHPRA, qualified authorities and due process set by these governing bodies. Further, it demonstrates ♥ ♥’s flagrant flouting of social norms, which would ordinarily guide someone to keep these matters private and within the scope of the jurisdiction, rather than posting official documents and abusive comments on the internet.

Marianna et al might want to open a newspaper some day. They might be surprised to find most journalism is based on official documents, which is why one needs to make sure anything submitted officially or posted publicly can be backed with evidence. The function of regulators is public accountability – a concept alien to UM. AHPRA’s documents are only private when they contain patients’ private medical information, and at the patients’ discretion.

♥ ♥’s statement is aggressive in style and grandiose in her description of government departments, as though she alone were the authority who knew better than they. She is vicious in her description of other practitioners, stating, “I mean, are you really that stupid”. This comment alone is highly narcissistic and vain. It is clear that this attack is a defense of a fragile self esteem resulting in aggression.

Except I didn’t write it. Falsely attributing the comment to me, and providing a false reference – wrong blog, wrong commenter, wrong date, is another example of Esoteric ‘integrity’. The comment was from You Know Who on the FACTS blog, December 12.

“I wrote back with a message to go fuck herself. A qualified counsellor and psychotherapist who thinks it’s a waste of time to expose a narcissism and death cult that molests sexual abuse survivors? Like I need her approval? Like naming a bunch of damaging parasites is worse than their preying on the vulnerable? If she was ‘qualified’ she would recognize the harm, and if she wasn’t such an entitled arsehole, she’d report the abusers. Anyway, she can stay on the list for another few years, and too bad if she misses out on clients”.

The above comment made by ♥ ♥ is clearly psychopathic and sadistic. Telling someone to “go fuck themselves”, and following this with clear and unremorseful disregard for the damaging consequences of her actions shows that she is extremely callous and unemotional and which completely lacks any empathy or guilt about her actions towards another.

On Planet Serge, telling an apologist who wrote me a snarky email to go fuck themselves is worse than promoting and enabling a predator or participating in abuse.

Her grandiosity in how she makes decisions about others people is again narcissistic.

The reference to “needing approval”, even though it is denied in the above statement by ♥ ♥, gives a clues to the “fragile self esteem” experienced by narcissists, supporting the fact that ♥ does in fact fit the dark triad/cyberbully profile, and that this fact should be given serious consideration in her suitability as a practitioner.

♥ ♥ states in reference to anything that I or others submit to AHPRA;

“Everything you submit that I receive will make its way onto the internet for holiday reading”.

♥ ♥ again demonstrates narcissism and grandiosity and flagrant disregard for due process, social restraints and unchecked impulsivity. In addition, there is again complete disregard and lack of empathy for others in her actions, to do as she pleases.

“Pranic Princess says:
October 31, 2013 at 7:05 pm
They just can’t get the hang of free speech can they?
Here’s the thing, Marianna, [Brendan & Caroline redacted] and the rest of the UM $ales contingent. You write one sided public promotions of the mutant messiah and his pyramid scheme of abuse, we point out the inaccuracies, lies, deceptions, delusions and general stupidity, and we back what we say with research and evidence.
In the free world, attempting to shut us down is not how it works. You get to rebut us publicly, engage in discussion and debate to challenge our criticism and present facts to support your case. If we are slandering you, you are free to take us to court.
But nuh”.

Ah, Princess. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The above comment can only be described as inflammatory, seeking to aggravate and disturb, harm and upset other people, again, fitting the psychological profile of a troll and cyberbully as sadistic and a sociopathic tendency to harm with no concern for the consequences to others.

♥ ♥ uses a number of disturbing pseudonyms, which is typical of cyberbullies and trolls, who seek the cover of anonymity for their actions. This false cover of anonymity is said to be a psychological removal, dissociation or defense for the perpetrator, depersonalizing their actions and their victims. It is also a mode of operating that trolls use to legally distance themselves from their harmful actions, (Brice. 2012, Chambers. 2013).

Anonymity? The cult, the regulators, police, the media and a heap of state and federal representatives have known who I am for a year and half. My name is on official complaints received by Serge soon after it was supplied by dropkick journalist, Hamish Broome.

Against this background, we would like you to consider further evidence of an escalation of ♥ ♥’s conduct and when considered in the context of the extreme trolling and cyberbullying presented to you, we suggest clearly demonstrates psychopathology. We have further evidence of ♥ ♥’s trolling behavior, (outlined below), showing cause for an immediate and full investigation of the matter.

Dr Jane Keep is an employee of the Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom and works within senior management positions in that organisation. We believe that she came to Ms. ♥’s attention because of her involvement with the Sound Foundation Charity in the United Kingdom and her association with Universal Medicine. Ms. ♥ has targeted the charitable activities of the Sound Foundation because of a false belief that that organisation is somehow funding Universal Medicine. Indeed this latter belief has no foundation in fact, but Ms. ♥ has pursued this claim and made complaints to the UK Charities Commission as well. So in pursuit of Universal Medicine, Ms. ♥ has targeted Dr Jane Keep, whose crime, according to ♥ ♥ is to be associated with Universal Medicine. Wherever ♥  ♥ perceives there is a link to Universal Medicine she appears to consider this an unbridled license to do whatever she can to hurt the target of her ire – in this case Dr Keep.

♥ ♥ wrote to Dr Jane Keep’s employer in England on the 23rd February 2014, making claims of conflicts of interest and a strange conspiracy theory. ♥  ♥, relying only on an online date of birth typographical error with regard to Ms. Keep concocted a story that Jane Keep’s mother was also named Jane Keep and that Jane Keep junior had somehow used her own mother’s name to hide associations with certain organisations. We attach an outline of the lengths Ms. ♥ went to in order to harm Dr Keep in her professional capacity (see Attachment A)…

(See below about how I recommended the NHS trust investigate Ms Keep’s conflict of interest in recruiting NHS personnel, including her boss, to promote the Sound Foundation/UM.)

…It should be noted that Dr Keep has no reason to seek to hide her association with Universal Medicine in the first place since all the things that ♥ ♥ claims Universal Medicine to be are a figment of ♥ ♥’s imagination.

It is important to note in this instance that Dr Keep’s mother had recently died from a long and serious illness, yet this did not deter these outrageous claims (see Attachment A). What is disturbing is that Ms. ♥ actually appears to believe this conspiracy theory, and would use information about Dr Keep’s recently deceased mother with impunity. It is of note that Ms. ♥ makes such attacks (and this is not an isolated incidence), with no regard as to the harm her false claims will have on her targets. Indeed she appears to relish the harm and in this regard exhibits the sadistic tendencies that have been identified in the recent psychological profiling of cyberbullies (Buckels, Tapness and Paulhaus, 2014).

What is of even greater concern is that the response by the NHS to Ms. ♥ which explained that they had no concerns about any conflict of interests and were not going to entertain such approaches was published on Ms. ♥’s blogsite and ridiculed.

Private Eye magazine, however, had some very strong concerns about conflicts of interest with the NHS, and the Great Western Trust haven’t explained why Jane Keep’s boss spoke at the conference after I’d informed her of the UKCC investigation into the Sound Foundation and its connection to UM. At that point, the UKCC had already issued the Sound Foundation with a compliance plan over trustee conflicts of interest and issues of public benefit.

♥ ♥’s recent letter regarding Dr Jane Keep and her subsequent conduct, is an extension of the trolling activities demonstrated above, and clearly constitutes cyberbullying. As we have outlined, this behaviour can be regarded as indicating psychopathology, indeed our professional opinion is that this is so.

Cyberbullying has not been recognised as a crime in Australia, although there are criminal provisions that cover such conduct for misuse of a carrier service provider, but the law in this area is intended to preserve the integrity of the communications systems, not the individual or our communities from cybercrime. In this sense our legal system has not kept up with the harms that now need to be addressed. In other jurisdictions anti-trolling and cyberstalking laws have been enacted and this focus on this conduct has meant that criminal proceedings and arrests have been made (National Conference of State Legislatures 2013; Brice, 2012). We do not need a criminal conviction to draw the conclusion that this conduct is harmful and that the conduct itself indicates someone falling well below expected norms of behavior, especially that of a registered practitioner.

Harmful to UM’s cashflow.

In another example ♥ ♥ wrote to the employer of Irish General Surgeon [Eunice Minford redacted] claiming that [she] was on a ‘death drive’ and unfit to be a surgeon. Her claims were based on being associated with Universal Medicine and strangely on an article written by Dr [Minford redacted] titled, “Assisted suicide –is it really the end?“ with claims that this article shows [Minford] to be pro euthanasia notwithstanding that when you read [Minford’s] article it is actually an ‘anti assisted suicide’ piece.

That glorifies suffering, death and Benhayonism.

It is important to consider that ♥ ♥ has escalated her conduct, taking her conduct outside the online environment to encroach upon her victim’s lives. In the case of Dr Keep, ♥ ♥ has targeted Dr Keep in online hate blogs, made approaches to her employer with fictitious and fantastical claims, not the least that Jane Keep had used her deceased mother’s identity to commit fraud, was engaged in activities that conflicted with her work with the NHS, made false timelines to suggest impropriety on the part of Dr Keep and basically provided fictitious material as if it had some foundation in fact.

This conduct should be considered in the context of the literature on cyberbullying that clearly points to psychopathology on the part of participants. In this regard ♥ ♥’s engagement is extensive and relentless. It would appear that the greater the participation, the greater the risk. The anonymity of the online environment also provides a place for this conduct to flourish and Ms. ♥ appears to relish the fact that she is, in her own view, above the law. What is more, in what could be considered an example of the extreme narcissism that she has developed she actually considers that her activities are above the law…

Within the law…

…because they are, (she believes), of service, she writes on her public blog on March 2, 2014 (addressing yet another of her targets for abuse):

“AHPRA, the ACCC and the police won’t act against me, because exposing abuse is not a crime.”

There is no abuse to be exposed, except in Ms. ♥’s deluded beliefs. Her conduct needs to be addressed, since currently she is behaving with the deluded belief that she is above the law, above regulation and that she is on a crusade to expose non-existent abuse. There has to be at least a pause to consider what this woman is doing.

AHPRA have a duty of care to ensure that registered practitioners are able to provide appropriate services, in this case we would suggest that it cannot be a proper exercise of this duty to allow Ms. ♥ to continue a health care practice when her conduct evidences the presence of significant psychopathology.

Again we emphasise that she is unable to see that her personal issues are interfering in her judgment. Her letters to Dr and Dr Jane Keep’s employer with complete disregard for the impact of this conduct and lack of empathy reflects sociopathic tendencies, and her delusion that she is performing a significant task calls us to consider Narcissism is a trait that may be interfering with Ms. ♥’s sense of reality. In these circumstances is AHPRA exercising its duty of care to allow this practitioner continued registration?

But Serge teaches empathy is an emotion, and ‘Emotions are poisonous to our physical body, for they are indulgent energies that help the spirit individualise’ (Benhayon, 2011, p. 283). He describes compassion as ‘taking on the poison of another’.

♥ ♥ continues to be a public menace because she is increasingly posing a threat to public safety and the personal safety of the individuals she is targeting. She continues to make online threats to individuals and people they know.

What threats?

I see lots of accusations in the notification, Marianna and clones. But no evidence.

Not that my blogging or activism were ever matters under AHPRA’S authority.

AHPRA’s very mandate is to protect the public from unsafe practitioners. Not only that, it is to ensure that the quality of health services that are delivered to the Australian public are of a high standard.
If even one practitioner is permitted to behave in a manner that is pathological and harmful, it becomes a reflection of the lack of true care and integrity our entire healthcare system.

Which is why Marianna Masiorski was investigated – in response to evidence of misconduct. She won’t be the last UM promoter to be duly disciplined by AHPRA either.

If AHPRA allows this cyberbullying and trolling behaviour to go on unchecked in even one practitioner, this sets the standard for all practitioners, nationally. It sets the standard of care that patients receive across all professions. It is yet another step towards general acceptance (or normalization) of such conduct. We do not accept the standard of behaviour that ♥ ♥ is engaging in.

Health care is a major issue in Australia and if AHPRA and our governing bodies truly want to address the growing epidemic of mental and chronic illness in this country, it must address the health, conduct and suitability of the practitioner.

We hope that you address what appears to be a pervasive and pathological pattern of behaviour with an escalating intensity.

We the undersigned agree with what has been written and agree with professional opinion of experts in the field regarding the pathological psychological profile of ♥ ♥.

Sincerely

Marianna Masiorski

[Redacted list of signatories totalling one page]

What ‘experts in the field’ diagnosed my ‘pathological psychological profile’ without ever meeting with me?

The following is the notification to Jane Keep’s employers at the NHS Great Western Trust I made in my own name, providing my contact details. It’s what the cult calls ‘cyber-bullying’ and ‘trolling’.

APPENDIX A

On the 23rd of February, 2014, ♥ ♥ wrote to the Directors of the Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in England, where Dr Jane Keep works, (below).

From: ♥ ♥ [mailto: ]
Sent: 23 February 2014 05:41
To: Vaughan, Nerissa; Troughton, Alf; Fitzgerald, Oonagh; Mcnamara, Kevin
Subject: Jane Keep – possible conflict of Interest

To the GWH Directors,

I would like to draw the hospital trust’s attention to employee, Jane Keep, who works at GWH as Staff Engagement Manager and some possible conflicts of interest regarding the controversial Australian based complementary medicine enterprise, Universal Medicine.

In its February 7 edition on page 33, UK current affairs publication Private Eye reported on a link between the NHS initiative, the Self Care Forum, and an event held in conjunction with The Sound Foundation Charitable Trust, based in Frome, Somerset. A flyer for the event is attached. Private Eye followed the article with another on February 21, p.31, mentioning Jane Keep.

Ms. Keep is a trustee of the Sound Foundation charity. http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/search-for-a- charity/?txt=1021566

In October last year, the UK Charity Commission issued the Sound Foundation with a compliance plan over trustee conflicts of interest in relation to their connections with Universal Medicine, and issues of public benefit, following a six month investigation. The action was reported in the Third Sector in November: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1222011/charity-commission-hands-action-plan-health-charity/

Universal Medicine UK Pty Ltd lists a Jane Anne Keep, born 1940, as a company director until November last year. http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/jane-anne-keep

I believe this is the Sound Foundation trustee’s deceased mother – who passed away in late May or early June last year. She is listed as company director since 2008, however none of our contacts in the UK are aware of the elder Jane Keep having any involvement with UM activities, events or business operations. All other associates of Universal Medicine in the UK have been publicly active in their promotions and support of the group, with the younger Ms. Keep particularly so.

We suspect the younger Ms. Keep installed her mother as a proxy company director of UM UK in order to conceal a conflict of interest with her employer, and that her conflict of interest warrants investigation, particularly since Ms. Keep has had a long employment history with the NHS as a management consultant.

Universal Medicine has been at the centre of controversy in Australia over issues of public funding, including through an AUD$700K grant through the YWCA organization. http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/government-blocks- ywca-documents

From the article:
THE federal government has refused to release documents explaining the link, if any, between a $709,493 Commonwealth grant to the YWCA and six public lectures it hired controversial alternative therapy group Universal Medicine (UM) to conduct.
UM, under investigation by AHPRA, is accused by former members and families of existing members of being a cult that discourages people from eating some food and doing most exercise and claiming to prevent cancer, with scientifically untested methods like ‘esoteric breast massage’. UM denies the allegations…
In an email, UM founder said: “If you have questions regarding the funding of the YWCA and how it was spent you will need to refer those questions to the organisation who the funding concerns (YWCA). They chose to spend their money as they did. We provided the services.”

Ms. Keep is a vocal public promoter of Universal Medicine, regularly contributing to the organization’s publicity, particularly promoting ‘Esoteric Women’s Health’ services, including the abusive practice of Esoteric Breast Massage: http://womeninlivingness.com/?s=jane+keep&submit=Search

Ms. Keep’s paper ‘Self-Care at Work’ (attached) states on p.103 it was inspired by the work of [ Serge Benhayon] and Universal Medicine, as was her PhD study.

Her Linked In page states her involvement with UM since 2004, and her brief career as an Esoteric healer, including as a practitioner of Esoteric Healing, http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/jane- keep/1/302/599 and as an Esoteric Breast Massage practitioner: http://www.infobel.com/en/uk/inner_heart/bristol/48833706201/ businessdetails.aspx

http://web.archive.org/web/20090223050524/http://www.esoteric-breast-massage.com/practitioners-uk

Links to all news reports about Universal Medicine can be found on this page. https://universalmedicineaccountability.wordpress.com/about/

UM fits all definitions of a cult, and a News Ltd article reports that Melbourne based agency, Cult Counselling Australia has assisted followers in exiting the group. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/esoteric-healer-serge-benhayon-plans-college-of-universal-medicine-in- goonellabah/story-fndo45r1-1226474375480

Those of us activist against this harmful group are highly concerned that they actively recruit health professionals to give the organization a veneer of respectability. It’s also our concern that they seek to expand their commercial activities by rorting the charity system and accessing public money. Under the influence of [Benhayon redacted], Ms. Keep is likely abusing her position within the NHS to help achieve those ends.

Yours sincerely,

♥ ♥

In the above letter ♥ ♥:

A. Produces a link to what is a completely erroneous document. Dr. Jane Keep states that this “check” contains numerous errors, too numerous in fact to make it believable. The number and nature of the errors leads us to believe that the company check has been used by cybercriminals to their own advantage, without checking the veracity of their sources.

LOL!

Dr Jane Keep states the following,

“I’m not sure when this check was done but I no longer hold this position – not sure when it was taken off the register – I signed the forms in mid December that [ ] was dealing with to take me off of being a director of Unimed UK being a director is not currently accurate”.

“I was born in 1961 – and not 1940”
“My postcode is actually BS10 7XB and not BS10 7CB”

“To my knowledge there is no other Jane Anne Keep in UK – nor has there ever been”.

“I was never ‘employed’ by Unimed UK and I am no longer a director of Unimed UK – it is not a current appointment. ♥ ♥ fraudulently states that “Universal Medicine UK Pty Ltd lists a Jane Anne Keep, born 1940, as a company director until November last year”.

Strangely, the Company Director Check website consulted is accurate in every other detail we’ve checked (on a variety of UK investors) apart from Jane Anne Keep’s date of birth and postcode. Regardless of whether Ms Keep installed her mother as a company director or ‘cybercriminals’ used the company check ‘to their own advantage’ (?), Jane Keep was still a UM UK company director, is currently a Sound Foundation trustee and still has a conflict of interest with the NHS.

Not that the matter or the notification are anything AHPRA has authority to deal with.

How can it be that an “official document” contain such inaccurate information? The validity of the source of ♥  ♥’s documents is questionable as is the motive for using this questionable source. The official source of these kinds of documents can be found at Companies House, http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk

B. Intentionally and deceptively names a person who is deceased as having active involvement as a company director in Universal Medicine in the UK. Jane Keep’s mother, name, [ ] then [ ] 1970’s she remarried and was called [further personal history and medical history removed]

How on earth could Jane Keep use this frail old woman as a proxy?

C. ♥ makes the delusional claim that Dr. Jane Keep was trying to hide a conflict of interest from the hospital board of directors. Dr. Jane Keep did not start with her employer at the Hospital until July 2012. During Dr. Keep’s recruitment process rigorous background checks were undertaken, including references. In the management position that Dr. Keep is in, she is required to work with full integrity, and at this time any conflict of interest would have come to the fore. Prior to this time she was wholly self employed.

The board of the Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust have responded by saying that Dr. Jane Keep is a highly valued and implicitly trusted employee and that there has never been any evidence of any conflict of interest. Moreover, Dr Keep is regularly supervised and managed by one of the Directors who ♥  ♥ sent the letter to – and if at any time during her 18 months of employment there was cause for concern this would have been picked up at one of these supervision meetings.

The same director spoke at the Sound Foundation conference.

Attachment A continued

Excerpt from ♥ ♥’s internet post under the pseudonym “Darkly Venus”, ridiculing the NHS response regarding Dr Jane Keep.

Private Eye follows up on Universal Medicine’s links with the NHS

Posted on March 9, 2014 by Darkly Venus

But, apart from Eunice’s participation in Benhayon’s death drive, for us, its her long winded sexual abuse outrage that’s most offensive, particularly when we’ve repeatedly asked her to stop promoting a sexual predator. She’s aware unqualified Benhayon touches the genitals of sexual abuse victims and calls it ‘healing’, I’ve sent her the workshop manual images. We’ve also asked her to justify her assent to Benhayon having young girls stay unaccompanied in his home and the inappropriate touching taught to Esoteric students. We’d also like her to defend Benhayon’s victim blaming teachings that sexual abuse victims are experiencing karma from being a sex offender in some past life or another.

As for Sound Foundation trustee and long term cult promoter, Jane Keep, the Great Western Hospital, including her boss Oonagh Fitzgerald, were informed of the Sound Foundation’s backing and its problems with UK Charity Commission before the Self Care conference in November. A recent letter from Fitzgerald states:

‘The Trust does not have any concerns in relation to the role Ms Keep undertakes within the organisation and we do not consider there to be a conflict of interest in relation to this role and the personal outside interests you have set out in your letter. The role of Staff Engagement Manager within the Trust has no budgetary responsibility and priorities at work are set in discussion with an Executive Director. The Trust is clear with all staff of the need to avoid any conflicts of interest which may call into question the role of this organisation as an NHS provider.

‘We are unable to comment on your allegations regarding the various organisations you list in your email as they fall outside of our remit, but we can confirm that at a Trust level we have no formal relationships with the groups you have listed.’

Jane Keep might have no budgetary responsibility, but what about her personnel responsibilities? Is the NHS going to ensure Ms Keep doesn’t recruit NHS staff to the UM cult – who are then deployed to recruit patients. Will the NHS ensure Keep does not persuade more personnel to promote Sound Foundation or other UM events? How did Ms Fitzgerald and other NHS employees come to be speaking at the Sound Foundation conference? Particularly after the connection was pointed out to them?

Attachment B
Bibliography and Articles profiling Cyberbullies and Trolls. (can be viewed on original document)