Ivor Catt's Web

This website was set up in mid 1998.




Theory C should play the same role in electromagnetic theory today as did the earth moves in astrophysics in Galileo's time. However, after Theory C, which is a new theory as was the earth moves, had been ignored and suppressed for decades, I backed off to trying to get dialogue in an alleged anomaly in their theory, classical electromagnetism, which they teach regularly.

Thus The Catt Anomaly now plays the same role in electromagnetic theory, in confronting today's instrumentalism, as did the earth moves, which confronted Bellarmine's same instrumentalist dogma in Galileo's time. As Dr. Lucia Turin of U.C.L. says, it should be dealt with on page one of a text book.

Instead of house arrest, Catt is totally ignored, and his Anomaly is ignored, by professionals whose primary responsibility is to deal with such a problem. These include;

Alec Broers, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University (past Professor of Electrical Engineering);
Professor Archie Howie F.R.S., Head of the Cavendish;
Atiyah, then President of the Royal Society, Master of Trinity Cambridge (my College) who made his reputation in String Theory, which is based on Electromagnetic Theory;
Professor Pepper F.R.S. of the Cavendish, Fellow of Trinity College, designated by Atiyah to pontificate on the Catt Anomaly;
McEwan, Reader in Electromagnetism at Bradford University, designated by the Professor of Electrical Engineering to pontificate on the Catt Anomaly;
Professor Secker, the expert in the I.E.E. (Institution of Electrical Engineers) designated to comment on the Catt Anomaly.

The Question posed by the Catt Anomaly is this. Where does the negative charge come from in the lower conductor, to terminate the electric field which appears between the conductors as a TEM wave travels from west to east guided by two conductors?

Some of the listed Punkah-Wallahs state in writing that they are Westerners; the charge comes from the west, down the conductor, and does not have to travel at the speed of light in order to do its job; to terminate the electric field appearing between the wires. Other of the listed Punkah-Wallahs are Southerners, stating in writing that since the charge cannot get there in time from the west, it comes from the south, rising up from inside the conductor to terminate the electric field (flux) which appears between the wires. Others, like Alec Broers, Vice Chancellor, and Atyiah, Master of Trinity and President of the Royal Society, comment not at all, and do nothing whatsoever administratively to deal with the problem, presumably thinking that their role and duties have nothing to do with the pursuit of learning.

Broers was Master of Churchill College, and did nothing when I wrote to him asking him to instruct Howie, who reported to him at the time, to resolve his difference with Pepper, who reported to Howie. Howie had stated in writing that he was a Westerner. Pepper had stated in writing that he was a Southerner. Atiyah did nothing beyond his first instruction to Pepper to pontificate on the Catt Anomaly, when Pepper stated in writing that he was a Southerner. He has ever since remained incommunicado.

Here is a list of attributions; which Punkah-Wallahs are Southerners, and which are Westerners.

Broers. Fifth Amendment.
Atiyah. Fifth Amendment.
Howie F.R.S.. Westerner.
Pepper F.R.S. Southerner.
McEwan. Westerner.

Secker. Southerner, then seven weeks later a Westerner, then self-disqualifying {claiming incompetence. The IEE refuses to replace him with another (hopefully competent) spokesman}.

Professor Pat Brown, Head of Electrical Engineering at Imperial College and then (1975) adjudged a leading expert in electromagnetic theory, has to be dismissed since he is in writing as being both a Southerner and a Westerner. (Called "the Polonius Effect", it took Secker to the top of the I.E.E. and "stinking fish" Brown to the top of Imperial College and GEC. However, like serial monogamy, these gents only cleave to one theory at any one time.)

Clearly, if the above rogues will not even sort out an anomaly in the theory they teach, there would be no chance of moving them forward to address a new theory, Theory C.

It is worth repeating that these gents, bereft as they are of expertise in electromagnetic theory, have only to convene a properly announced meeting and properly publish the resulting discussion. I am not demanding technical competence from them. I am only asking them to enable, rather than obstruct, scientific advance. They have the power to do so, and that is what they are there for. However, they insist in being obstructive. In the nineteenth century, it was understood that it was necessary to find someone who would defend the reigning theory. Otherwise it would be discredited. These punkah-wallahs don't have to have a clue themselves. They only have to put out feelers to find someone willing to defend the theory they continue to teach, or else to publish that such a man does not exist.

What is Cambridge University for? I must say, I love dining at Trinity High Table. They live very well indeed. Afterwards, upstairs, nightly, when the special Trinity Madeira, the Port and the Claret go round and round, one feels well satisfied with life, and electromagnetism seems far away on alien shore. (The protocol for ordering a second flagon is a fascinating part of Trinity's ancient traditions; well worth preserving and celebrating.) I am only allowed four free visits a year, whereas the Punkah-Wallahs listed above can dine and drink every night. (Trinity is the richest college in Britain, and recently bailed out the University when it hit hard times. You need good trenchermen who can hold their liquor to maintain Trinity's traditions and keep its financial assets down to manageable proportions; less than the Queen's but more than the Church of England's. [In 1999, at least one of these worthy Fellows of Trinity, while in his 50's, drank himself to death. - IC jan00] )

What are the Royal Society and the I.E.E. for? Again, the dinner at the I.E.E., when I was guest, was finest cuisine. I sat opposite Professor Secker, which did not help his digestion. We talked platitudes. After all, the poor man, designated e-m expert by the I.E.E., had already asserted his incompetence in writing.
Topof page

Ivor Catt. 24may99

..Genetic Engineering.. Quakers sidestep the issue.

..The Politics of Fatherhood. Lecture by Stephen Baskerville, 23 March 1999

..The way forward.. My letter to Baskerville

Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools.

. .Cools in March 1999. .




 Top of page
A child has no right of access to its parent.

More than eight years ago, I pointed out that nowhere in national or international law or in any Declaration on Human Rights is a child's right of access to its parent enshrined. This has met with total indifference on all sides.

More and more evidence of disastrous outcome for the child following parentectomy leaks out through a highly censoring media. I wonder at this indifference by all parties to the root problem. By default, that is what UNO, the European Court, our own laws and practice, and so on through the whole many layered ranges of 'protections' for the English child, validate. If Saudi Arabia routinely cut off her children from every divorced wife, they would remain fully able to endorse all UNO (and European and British) laws and declarations.

When we want to enable or stop anything else, we discuss legislating on the matter, or adding it to a UNO Declaration. In the one case of parentectomy, we become increasingly concerned about its effects, but are totally indifferent to its root cause.

Anyone who is active 'on my side'; that is, who wants every child to have the right of access to its parent, but is indifferent to my discovery, is actually against me and against possibly the most fundamental right of every child. You cannot do good with your brain switched off; you only get in the way.

Ivor Catt 12feb99

[I see no sign of interest in this matter. I.C. 6feb00]

Both sexes equally likely to suffer domestic violence. File z006

Both sexes equally likely to suffer domestic violence. The Guardian, 22jan99.
Top of page

Family Breakdown.

Then comes my fit again. The CSA is being rejigged to cause a further increase during the next fifteen years in the suicide rates among fathers harassed by the CSA and by young men. The Government Consultative Document "Children First" dated mid 1998 www.dss.gov.uk/hq/csgp/welcome.htm from www.dss.gov.uk/hq/csgp/main/index.htm clearly shows that virtually nothing has been learned, and we are heading for greater damage to our children in the next fifteen years. (After a few conciliatory platitudes early on about the importance of fatherhood, "Children first" settles down to the old paradigm which did all the CSA damage; that a father is merely a cheque book, and absolutely nothing else. After the first few pages, he only figures as a source of funds.) CSA forms filled out by mothers incite mothers to make allegations of violence against the father. File z006 "Children First" also drags in the issue of violence inappropriately. It is obvious from reading it that the anti-family axis remains firmly in place in the dept. which set up the CSA and now has put out the document. They still have no idea that their problem includes the information in the next item;

The traditional family faces a minority role. Daily Telegraph, 9jan99. It seems to me that most of the authors of "Children First" still think that this is a good thing. Another generation of our children is doomed. The suicide rates and other dire outcomes of cutting off children from their fathers will get much worse during the next fifteen years, and then these ignorant, bigoted, destructive people will be ousted from policy making.

As a "consultative document", "Children first" did not have to retain the de facto principle (in defiance of Parliament's intentions) that a father is only a cheque book, nothing more. It firmly keeps to the total uncoupling of maintenance from contact, after a few concessionaly platitudes in its first few pages. This feeds directly into this section of the Daily Telegraph article; "…. the increasing 'disengagement' of men from family life." The total secrecy of the process, coupled with the pretence that only children with violent fathers are cut off from them, has delayed the reaction of young men. Now they begin to learn the danger they are in, the inexorable process is unstoppable. It will take decades of openness and reform to turn it round.

Robert Whiston comments on family violence discussed on TV and at the 1998 Dublin conference.

Recent BMA lies about family violence.

The gross inflation of figures for violence and other abuse by husbands and fathers is politically motivated; a last ditch attempt by radical feminists to retain the de facto situation enforced by our secret family courts, that a child and its home are both chattels of the mother, and that a child has no right of access to its father. (It is also motivated by a desire by homosexuals to obscure the alarmingly high rate of violence in lesbian relationships. 52% of lesbians report violence in their relationships. It also obscures the high rate of sexual abuse by homosexuals.) The current reaction, to show that violence by mothers and wives is just as bad, is misdirected. It will merely cause the child to become a chattel of the state instead of a chattel of its mother. The proper strategy is to show that there is very little violence in the traditional family; that figures (and definition of terms) have been grossly, wilfully, inflated. - Ivor Catt, jan99.


Erin Pizzey told me that all statistics on the family have been falsified since 1970. Robert Whiston got some of the first true statistics published in "Family Matters", the 15july98 report by The Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, of which he is a member. Much current govt. policy and legislation is moving in the wrong direction because we have all been wilfully misled as to the facts, by evil polemic masquerading as fact. The false propaganda is unremitting in all our media. Jan99
Top of page


At the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), London, Dr. Arnold Lynch gave the evening centenary lecture on J J Thomson's discovery of the electron. When I asked him why, he replied that JJ had told him about it. Arnold is now in his eighties. The attendance for his evening lecture was around 200 or 300. The other four lectures that day drew audiences of around 20.

Various sources tell me that Arnold's reputation in the IEE is very high.

The IEE always refused to publish anything on Catt Spiral, a computer invention which was developed by Sinclair and led to product in the field in 1989. After it had attracted investment totalling £16 millions, the IEE did publish commentaries on the project by their own staff. All the same, the IEE continued its 30 year embargo on any publication by Catt, or any discussion in its journals of Catt's theories of electromagnetism. Catt continued to not exist in the field of electromagnetism (e-m).

Recently, Lynch said that the Catt e-m had not been treated properly. His interest centred on the Catt Anomaly. This is an anomaly in classical e-m which I tried to publish during the past ten years after my own theories had been suppressed for thirty years by the IEE. He proposed a joint Lynch-Catt paper, and I agreed. As the pressure increased on IEE officials, they told him that they were desperate for the paper to pass their referee system. They promised him that it would be very thoroughly reviewed, and that if rejected, reasons for rejection would be given. In the event, it was rejected and reasons for rejection refused.

Lynch then suggested to his friend Dr. Colin Hempstead, Chairman of IEE Professional Group S7 (History of technology), that a joint Lynch-Catt paper be given at their annual conference; "The history of electrical engineering", on 10july98. This was done, and the paper was then published in the Digest of Papers Presented (HEE/26) Now see IEE paper.. The paper outlines the Catt Anomaly, and its first reference is the book (available on this website) of the same name which lambasts the IEE for its obstructive behaviour during the last third of a century. (Note that this is the least appropriate section of the IEE in which to announce state of the art advances in e-m theory. When I pointed this out to my friend Robert Whiston, he replied; "Of course. It's all in Machiavelli."

Lynch tells me that he will continue to try to get a paper published in an IEE journal. [nov99. No success yet.]
Top of page


British membership of the Society of Friends totals 18,000. I wrote to Caton, Head of the Department of Applied Ethics, Griffiths Univ., Australia, that the Quakers were important because even though all very well meaning, they had in place all the mechanisms for suppression of new information in subjects that should interest them the most. If even they behaved like this, then censorship must be pandemic throughout society.

Recently, a report purporting to be research results was published by the Rowntree Foundation and reported in The Friend, giving details of outcomes for children following divorce. All the results contradicted all the leading research publications in this field, which were omitted from the 200 odd references at the end of the report. Thus, polemic was masquerading as research.

I wrote to Friends House to say that, although the Rowntree Foundation was not exactly part of Britain Yearly Meeting, and the same goes for the main Quaker journal The Friend, they circled round it, and gave it a bad name if this report was not answered for balance. I proposed that a meeting be held with representatives responsible for the Report and also where members of the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group be invited to attend. The response was a disgraceful run-around in the bureaucracy of Friends House, and no action will be taken. Interestingly, the idea evolved that I had a "Concern", to be dealt with as per "Quaker Faith and Practice" 1995 sections 13.12 and 13.13

Some years ago, when I tried to deliver up to date information on the AIDS crisis to the Friends House Aids Committee, its chairman Drewery refused to circulate a one page report by me to members of her committee. She told me I had a Concern, and so I must take it to PM, who might then take it to MM, who then might forward the information to Meetings for Sufferings, and so on. (This process takes years). Similarly, eight years ago, when I tried to deliver information to the Friends House Children's Committee on the plight of children of divorce, its chairman Hosking refused, telling me to take it through what I then began to call "The Quaker Steeplechase"; the procedure for airing a Concern. I wrote a report analysing "The Quaker Steeplechase". That was five years ago.

A quick read of Section 13 of the 1995 book Quaker Faith and Practice makes it obvious that the desire to deliver up to date information to a Friends House Committee is not a "Concern". We see that bureaucrats in Friends House - Hosking, Drewery, Smith, - just misuse the Concern concept and procedure to block the flow of up to date information. We just have to clean up Friends House. Their appearance of piety and goodwill masks decadence and decay.
Top of page


 Lipschutz first ran trials on his U-plane in 1928. He phoned me tonight. It is being published in a number of leading journals dealing with military vessels round about now. One describes the U-plane as "an exciting new development in naval architecture", or some such. It is incredible that the delay in the development of a potent heavier-than-water submarine should have been suppressed and delayed for seventy years. Whereas heavier than air airplanes were laughed off and censored for five years or so, the censorship and delay now, a century later, is far more than ten times as bad. The same goes for the Kernel Machine, my supercomputer containing a 2D array of one million processors, for which I had world patents. This century, which almost totally suppresses publication of scientific and technical advances for decades, cannot be described as "Scientific", or as "the information age".
Top of page


1jan99. As the years roll by, the confirmation of the dissidents' position becomes unshakeable. Many years ago, Caton, Hodgkinson etc. said that AIDs would not break out of the ghetto, and would not continue to increase. Figures were massaged by the AIDS industry Establishment, but they have now given up trying to make them continue to increase, as they had to according to their dogma. Hodgkinson thinks they are too far committed to retract, and that the refutation will come from outside the Western NIH-controlled Establishment, perhaps from reports on conferences held in somewhere like South America, where the financial gain being made by the AIDS Indistry is less pervasive and less able to censor.

Email to Meditel, 24jan99.

I am on the list of the first 500 who wanted a reappraisal of AIDS

Neville Hodgkinson has stayed with me.

My website is www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

On my website I have written, under "News", that the Ch4 programme 1hr 21mins 3jan99 7.55pm "Whatever happened to the Plague?" was scandalous. (I have it on tape.) It was as though many people and things did not exist, including of course Duesberg, but most significantly INCLUDING YOUR CH4 PROGRAMMES! I wrote that it was presumably funded by Wellcome. It really is disgraceful. [Similarly, today's copy on AIDS in the Sunday Times completely ignores all the copy in that same newspaper produced by Hodgkinson under Andrew Neil over a ten year period. In his autobiography, Neil writes that this AIDS copy was his greatest achievement in editing the Sunday Times. I.C. 6feb00]
Top of page

The killers continue their propaganda and their killing.

9jan99. Incredibly, a murderous 90 minute cover-up programme was put out in peak viewing time by British TV Channel 4 at 19.55pm on 3jan99. It was as though the following had never existed; Hodgkinson, Andrew Neil, Sunday Times, the Maddox-ST debate, Duesberg, Caton, Meditel, Root-Bernstein, Eleni Eleopulos, Nobel Prizewinner Dr. Kary Mullis.

Quoting Hodgkinson's 1996 book, p144; "Meditel interviewed Duesberg in the summer of 1987 and a film featuring his critique, AIDS: The Unheard Voices, received the Royal Television Society Award for the best international Affairs documentary for that year, although there was little in the way of recognition or debate outside telvision circles; the film went into 'a pool of silence', as Joan Shenton later described it." Meditel programmes went out on Channel 4, so the programme on 3jan99, presumably financed by Wellcome, is all the more disgraceful. Wellcome's cover slipped only thrice during the 90 minutes. Once, when a man said that the drugs were costing $2.6 billion per year. That is, there was minimal admission of the murderous scam. Second, a man was allowed to say that those testing HIV positive who were surviving were keeping off the prescribed drugs. Third, an African Nob said the drugs cost a patient $1,500 per month. Apart from that, the programme could have been made in 1989 or before, with the old discredited platitudes, so useful for Glaxo-Wellcome's profits from their murderous AZT and the other, newer, killer drugs of other pharmeceutical companies, safely in place. (AZT was such a killer that it had to be blended into a cocktail of three drugs. However, these other drugs kill in the same way. To be practical, the other drugs enabled other drug companies to join in the scam and make some of the profits.)

If Glaxo-Wellcome did indeed help to finance the 3jan99 programme, then that will figure big in the inevitable class action against Glaxo-Wellcome in a few years' time for using misinformation to entrap HIV positives into taking their lethal drugs. Glaxo shareholders please note! Get out while you can.

Perhaps at this point it should be said that (1) to be diagnosed HIV positive and (2) to fall into the hands of these murderous prescribed drug peddlers combine to create a death sentence. Friends of mine who have been diagnosed HIV positive, but who eschew all the prescribed drugs, stay fit and well for years into the future. For explanation, read a medical book's listing of the side effects of AZT, DDI and DDC. You will see that they resemble the symptoms of AIDS. Thus, AIDS is primarily the result of being diagnosed HIV positive and taking the resulting prescribed drugs. The medicine kills you. Thank God the exhorbitant prescribed drugs are too expensive to be used to kill more Africans. If Wellcome and their ilk were less venal, we would have a massive death rate on our hands. Jan99.


On my website I have written, under "News", that the Ch4 programme 1hr 21mins 3jan99 7.55pm "Whatever happened to the Plague?" was scandalous. (I have it on tape.) It was as though many people and things did not exist, including of course Duesberg, but most significantly INCLUDING YOUR CH4 PROGRAMMES! I wrote that it was presumably funded by Wellcome. It really is disgraceful. Ivor Catt jan99

Hello Ivor, I agree - it was infuriating. And criminal. I didn't sleep well the night after watching it! The producer Jenny Barraclough and I spoke by phone for over half an hour when she was making it. I tried to give her some useful information but she always batted it away saying her researchers took care of that. How can that production company be held accountable?

Huw Christie, Editor, Continuum managzine 26jan99
Top of page

Flu drugs exposed as waste of money

Most remedies do little for victims and even help to spread the virus.
An Observer investigation by R McKie and L McLennan, The Observer, 10jan99, p8.


It is a £300 million market… and it is the mainstay of the British drugs industry. Without [them], pharmeceutical company profits would be severely dented.

Yet virtually every product that is marketed is of dubious value. An Observer investigation. has revealed that a simple packet of aspirins or paracetamol is usually as effective as a product that is 10 times less expensive.

Their marketing may actually be contributing to the spread of Flu.

Radio Times. BBC Radio 4, 8pm, tue26jan99. Repeated 5pm sun31jan99, File on 4

Doctors in the US say more than 100,000 people die there every year because of adverse reactions to prescribed medicines. Mark Whittaker investigates the scale of the problem in Britain.

[Presumably prescribed drugs kill many more people than do illegal drugs. I.C. 26jan99.]
Top of page

Cancer Scam

By James T. Bennett & Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Pub. Transaction Pubs. 1998,
New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK)

I wish I had bought this book when I saw it in New York six months ago. I am so pleased Margot airmailed it to me. It arrived today. An initial glance at the first few pages indicates its importance.

Perhaps I should explain that when Nixon's War on Cancer dreamboat ran aground, its mariners jumped ship and constructed the AIDS indistry. AZT is a failed cancer drug.

On page 4, this book gives 1985 as the date when pork barrel science got into its stride. This matches well with the biggest medical scandal of them all, the AIDS industry. Also, the tape Ellison sent me when I bought his 1994 book Why we will never win the war on AIDS covers the manipulation in the NIH, in particular by the EIS. This present books homes in on NIH racketeering. The National Cancer Institute is part of the NIH, which largely orchestrates the AIDS industry. On another tack, when the World Health Org. faces a corruption scandal, it launches an epidemic scare, often in Africa. So we have two centres of corruption; NIH and WHO. A TV programme on corruption in UNO concentrated on the WHO, saying the WHO sends its medics to countries with good hotels rather than to those with bad epidemics.

The question of why the biggest scam, the AIDS industry, should occur at the present time may be answered by this book, although it is ostensibly about cancer, not AIDS.

The original reason why I went after this book was that it contains more on the new discipline, Public Choice Theory (PCT), than I have seen elsewhere. PCT is the analysis of how public money is used to manipulate public opinion in order to steer taxpayer money in specific directions; publicly funded porkbarrel politics.

[12feb99. Regrettably, the book does not live up to my high hopes. There is a failure to separate the general from the particular. What an opportunity missed! I bet the same criticism applies to my website. I.C.]

Ivor Catt 28jan99

Drug-safety doctors hold shares in the makers

By Lois Rogers and Mark Macaskill

Sunday Times, 4apr99, sect. 1 p7

Senior doctors who advise the government on whether new drugs should be approved for use in Britain have investments worth tens of thousands of pounds in the companies manufacturing them ….

Many of the doctors have direct shareholdings in the drug companies. One, who sits on the committee that advises the government on drugs to be used in specific treatments, has shares worth £130,000 in two of Britain's bigggest drug companies.


Top of page