[MG]

Note the description here of the way UNUM said it had cleaned up its act after being fined millions of $$$ for systemically shafting claimants. Note the scepticism of the Judges towards UNUM's assertions. Note that ACC continues to use the same tactics to shaft claimants in NZ. Note that UNUM is paid to "advise" the UK government on how to shaft beneficiaries in that country. Note that much of the medical "evidence" relied upon by ACC and WINZ to shaft people in NZ is funded by UNUM.  Meyer v UNUM USDC 2015.pdf (168.05K)
Number of downloads: 12

[BLURB]

They were allegedly associated with AON NZ Ltd between 1998 and 2004 and possibly later.

Between 1998 and 2004ish AON NZ Ltd provided Case Management/injury file management to ACC, and between 2001 and 2004 provided their services to Catalyst by way of 3rd party provider.

Between 1998 and 2004 up to 1400 long term claimants were exited from their injury compensation entitlements.

Some have been instated, many are still fighting for their rights.

There are even some that just gave up with everything because of what ACC and AON did.

There is loads of stuff here about Unum, AON, Catalyst. Using the forum's search engine will find most of it.

[Marc]

Yes, science by cheque book is the modern day science policy by governments and private enterprises, who are keen to get the "science" that suits them. It comes in sneakily through the backdoor, and it has already become more of the "normal" in many overseas countries (particularly the USA and UK), and it is coming here too.

There was an interesting interview on Nine to Noon on Radio NZ National on 10 April 2015, where Kathryn Ryan spoke with Nicola Gaston, President of the Association of Scientists. She and many of her colleagues are very worried about what is happening in the science and research departments, funded by government and/or private enterprise. We hear more and more about public private partnerships, and it seems that is becoming the norm in science funding.

What it means is, we get science that is deemed to be "useful", and less science that is independent. Also are scientists more often given the message, that they better hold back with their expert opinions, where it may not be so welcome.

Anyway, that is exactly what UNUM were doing, when they went into partnership with the UK government, to fund the UNUM Provident Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, headed by our well known "expert" professor, Mansel Aylward. Science on order, so to say, to serve the interests of the DWP and UK government, to achieve more slashing and cost savings, by declaring more sick, injured and disabled persons "fit" for some forms of work, no matter whether there would be any realistic prospects to get true, lasting and sufficiently paid jobs on the market.

Sadly they achieved that the medical profession has largely adopted the "new approach", and Aylward et al even managed to bring their "science" into NZ, where Paula Bennett and Bill English licked it up like ice cream, the welcome new "findings".

Here is the RNZ audio for that interview with Nicola Gaston, found via this link:

"Scientists speak out about fears of attacks on freedom"

http://www.radionz.c...acks-on-freedom


And here is a good summary of what UNUM was involved in in the UK, for years, playing their role in "welfare reforms", at least giving "advice" on it:

"A Tale of two Models: Disabled People vs Unum, Atos, Government and Disability Charities :Debbie Jolly"

http://dpac.uk.net/2...s-debbie-jolly/


And while the reforms took place, UNUM did there - by supposedly "pure coincidence" - bring new insurance products onto the market, hoping that more people would insure themselves privately, as reliance on state support would in future be discouraged!

These forces - such as UNUM and vested interest parties, they are hard to beat, as they have immense amounts of funding to their avail, and a lot of "allies" all over the place. I am saddened that there is not more awareness out there, about what is really going on. But then, we know, it is not encouraged to read about it. As we can more often observe, even the media are becoming more "mindful" of what to report and what not, and they seem to be complicit in spreading the propaganda for selectively conducted, interpreted and used science.