“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

"Going Viral" Part 2.

Hilary Butler - Thursday, April 16, 2015

As a follow up to Sunday’s Gardasil documentary called “Going Viral” and my yesterday’s blog  (which I posted on Sunday’s facebook page), this morning I received email notification of this reply.  

All mistakes are his, not mine:

Callum MacRae
April 15 at 11:03am

As one of the Wellington High students in the piece, I'd like to tell you that I intended to receive the vaccine prior to even being approached for the story (and I'll have you know we were all well researched. We had just spent over half the school term researching the biological and ethical issues surrounding vaccines, and were provided with sources that were both pro and anti vaccinationing for several different controversial vaccines. We were then encouraged to come to our own conclusions from the material provided)*. Whether Dr Miller's cancer was caused by one of the strains protected against by the vaccine is actually irrelevant; the vaccine still protects against both genital warts, and several forms of cancer. The vaccine, like all vaccines, actually protects more than the individual if widespread enough (You seem well researched enough to know about herd immunity, so I don't need to explain the basic concept). The people most at risk of developing complications from an HPV infection are (bio-sex) females. HPV is a sexually transmitted infection (albeit not spread exclusively through fluids), and the majority of sexual interactions are between people of male and female sex respectively. By vaccinating males, the links between females are broken. It must be notes that genital warts are not much fun either, and Gardasil offers protection against that too. By not vaccinating males, the "gay" community (a term used very loosely here to include any person of male sex who interacts sexually with other people of the same sex) receives little protection from the viruses; a point made briefly in the story as well (condoms, as the story also points out, are not very effective against HPV). You bring up a good point, but push it too hard. That is more a flaw in the story than in our reasoning. (I'm sorry I haven't sourced claims. I'm typing on my phone in a Hotel in Japan right now.)(* It should also be noted that the interview was conducted in such a way that we were not being swayed by Ian Sinclair's opinion. In fact what is not obvious from the editing is that the majority of the questions were about sex amongst teenagers and how parents often aren't aware of what their child might be getting up to. Ideally I would have liked the story to focus more on the sexual health side, over the nosr cancer side)



Here is my reply:



Callum, thank you for your response.

You say that I bring up a good point, but that I push it too hard.

What is more important to you? Scientific truth, or defending your publicly stated choices?

I hammered the point home, because there are some core things which are truth and important.

Without knowing the TYPE of HPV in Dr Miller’s nose, any linking of prevention of it with a vaccine by you, Dr Miller or SUNDAY is completely unfounded. And they used Dr Miller and you as the poster boys. Therefore, repeating a fundamental truth several times is warranted.

Making a TV programme based on “some sort of wart virus” is like building a house on “some sort of” unseen shonky foundation. If the house foundations are faulty , then the rest of the house will be unstable. Would you want to live in a house with unsafe foundations? Different example but similar concept.

You say that you have just spent HALF a term, researching the biological and ethical issues surrounding vaccines, and *were provided* with sources that were both pro- and anti vaccination for several different controversial vaccines.

Interesting. Who exactly provided you with the anti-vaccine information? Were you given the “myths” documents put together by pro-vaccine IMAC?

I see you are now in Japan. As a different but comparative exercise, see if you can get hold of an English translation of the Japanese school text book which details the “history” of World War 2 AND Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then compare that with your history text. Tell me. Who is right? The two versions are significantly different based on the justification of defended viewpoints The same applies to when pro-vaccine people “discuss” what anti-vaccine people say.

Where did you do your research? Or did you just discuss the material provided? Because if your information is based on someone else’s idea of what someone like myself, who has been studying the published medical literature for 33 years, has to say, then any conclusions you come to, are spurious, just as the whole SUNDAY programme was also spurious science.

So let’s have a look at some of your points:

You say, “The vaccine >>> like all vaccines <<<, actually protects more than the individual if widespread enough”

INCORRECT. There are many vaccines, which do not have herd immunity as a factor. The most obvious one is tetanus. The next proven one is the MenZB vaccine for which right from the start, it was admitted that after vaccine, the recipients carry and spread the bacteria concerned. It’s ironic that all the deaths after the vaccine campaign, were in the 80% vaccinated, not the 20% unvaccinated.

Whooping cough has never been anything but endemic in this country. The Ministry of Health data shows that the vaccine hasn’t even made a dent in cases. The lack of herd immunity with this vaccine, is why whooping cough continues to be endemic in this country. Even worse, the USE of the whooping cough vaccine is the reason for the emergence of the new mutant form of pertactin-negative pertussis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301209

How would a bacteria start selecting new strains to get around the vaccine? It could only do this, if on reinfection of a vaccinated person, only if it was able to live long enough to multiply and mutate.

The best study on this was in a primate model identical to humans, here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24277828 If you read that you will see that primates (people) who are re-exposed to the bacteria after they have had whooping cough naturally, throw out the bacteria immediately, so it doesn’t have a chance to stick around. The problem with the pertussis vaccine is that it creates “original antigenic sin” and affects the immune system so that the vaccinated have a shorter lived and skewed version of immunity. Because of the radical difference in vaccinated vs naturally convalesced people, vaccinated people, can’t throw out the bacteria on re-exposure, like those whose immunity is from the disease. The vaccinated people then harbour the bacteria for up to 7 weeks, allowing the bacteria to change into new strains which then evade the vaccine, and those strains are then spread to everyone else.

If the pertussis vaccine created herd immunity and vaccinated people never spread the bacteria, the development of new strains would never have happened because naturally immune people can’t “carry” the bacteria. That’s why, in the old days, pertussis was primarily limited to a very narrow age range of people with no immunity – usually ages 3 – 11. Very rarely did babies, adolescents, or adults get whooping cough. Now, it’s endemic throughout all ages, courtesy of a vaccine which skews the immune response to the bacteria, and as a result creates a climate in which the bacteria can mutate but only in the vaccinated.

You say, Gardasil provides protection against two wart viruses and several forms of cancer. Theoretically, that could be said. However, theory is different to practice. If you have studied HPV world wide you will notice that many countries with cervical cancer, have circulating HPV types which are NOT in the vaccine, but are found in pre-cancerous lesions. Yet these countries have been pushed to use a vaccine irrelevant to the strains in their country. Have a look at this study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18684497

As part of your HPV research, did you ask the Ministry of Health to provide you with the research showing which strains of HPV are the main strains found in this country and more specifically in warts and cervix lesions in this country? That again, is a core foundation in order to know whether Gardasil will have a practice application based on core reality.

As to Gardasil, you mention the two wart strains. Did your research into HPV define for you HOW MANY wart strains have been listed as of 2015; how many are currently waiting for genetic analysis; and WHICH of these strains circulate in this country? If not, why not? As above, if the strains in this country aren’t relevant to Gardasil, then why take the vaccine? That same fact applies to the strains of HPV in other countries, like Japan. And on that note, since you are in Japan, while you are there, why don’t you ask around and research WHY it is that the Japanese Government has withdrawn their support for Gardasil? Find out what has happened to many Gardasil recipients over there.

You say, “HPV is a sexually transmitted infection”. This comment tells me that you have not accessed Pubmed at all. HPV doesn’t have a notice on its forehead saying “Only go from Cameron to his girlfriend – or vice versa – during sexual activity”. There are a large number of medical articles showing that HPV types in Gardasil can (where they circulate) be transmitted from mother to baby, father to baby, child to child, and family to family. There are articles showing that Gardasil types can readily be found in the tonsils removed from young children.

Therefore your argument surrounding “biosex” females, or any other sexual contact is also spurious. Dr Miller is actually right - HPV is not a sexual issue. The fact that promiscuous sex can suddenly amplify its spread ignores the fact that it’s there to start with. Were that not the case, HPV spread couldn’t be amplified. This is an example of where the Ministry of Health ignores medical literature. I am surprised that as a student body, none of you have asked the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question. The virus has to be there, in order for one or other of you to spread it.

Case in point. I have a friend whose 14 year old daughter tested HPV positive from a CIN3 smear pap. She had never had sex. Where did she get her HPV? How many of the children you talked about, who had already lost their virginity before 14, already had HPV from babyhood?

We don’t know. Why don’t we know? Because there is no testing for HPV at all in children or anyone pre-vaccine, even though the medical literature is clear on that issue. I wonder what your teacher would have said if you have taken all those full-text articles to school for discussion and debate? Especially the ones showing negative efficacy in vaccine recipients who were pre-infected with HPV.

In an ironic twist I am delighted that you boys are promoting Gardasil. Why? Because if you boys get the array of serious side-effects that afflict some of the girls, your fathers will (hopefully) not tolerate the medical profession fobbing you and your mother off, by saying that it’s all in your wimpy teenage neurotic heads. I don’t see too many fathers standing up for their daughters, but fathers will usually stand up for their sons, horrible though that may sound. So maybe when boys start keeling over like the girls are, you boys can help validate the girls’ very real concerns.

I could provide a counterpoint to most of the assumptive statements in your post to me. But for now will finish with this. I’m held up to the wall to justify myself, because I’m not a doctor or a scientist. My views are picked on, because I haven’t made the decision that they agree with.

But apparently you can be a teenager in college – a nurse mother, or a school nurse, or a journalist, and your science is valid because you’ve made a decision they agree with.

And that is another core fallacy in the whole discussion surrounding vaccines. I, and most intelligent people who choose not to vaccinate are not stupid enough to make important decisions based on “hysteria or misinformation” on the internet.  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=11432909

I challenge you to come and stay with us and read my rooms full of medical articles and then tell me that your analysis of the information given to you has actually resulted in a fully informed choice.  Continue Reading


Key rules out 'no jab, no pay' policy

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Yesterday,  the Herald interviewed me about the Australian law which now financially penalises parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, for today's article called "Key rules out 'no jab, no pay' policy" and these were my notes of the questions asked, and my answers.  This is not a transcript, so the wording here may now be more condensed than a telephone conversation. Which is actually why I prefer to answer journalists via email, because then I have an exact record.

1) What did I think of Tony Abbot's decision to financially penalise parents who didn't vaccinate their children?


Answer. He's a hypocrite. He didn't vaccinate his three daughters against Gardasil, and publicly said so, so why penalise other parents for choosing the way he did?

2) John Key has said that because we have a very high vaccination rate, he won't follow suit. What is your response?


Answer: How can I trust him? He has a history of saying one thing and changing his mind. Besides which since New Zealand has the highest rate of vaccination that we have ever had ... why would you suddenly be making criminals of children who aren't vaccinated?

3) But doesn't Tony Abbot have a point - that it's not a person issue, but a public health issue?


Answer. No, actually, there is total hypocrisy there. When any of you journalists go to Kenya to cover a presidential election or an Isis attack, you are recommended to get certain vaccines because the people there are walking around, seemingly healthy, carrying endemic diseases which supposedly will kill you (and not them) so you get the vaccines on the assumption that those vaccines will protect you when you are dumped into a cesspit of disease. You go there with impunity, thinking that you will be protected right?

So why, when you come home to New Zealand and one case of measles pops up, do you suddenly have the pro-vaccine trolls all over Facebook saying that measles case is about to kill off the vaccinated majority?

4) But isn't the point to protect the immunocompromised people?


Yes, that's the argument they use now. However, it's a fallacious argument. Part of the drive in Australia was hyped up by a woman who owned a day-care centre where she made a living off looking after toddlers. She also had a son with leukaemia, who had been treated with chemotherapy and couldn't go to school because his immune system was chemically nuked. So she took him to her child-care centre to look after him, rather than stay at home with him. A child in the day-care centre arrived with chicken-pox, and she wrote this article about how these children should be banned.

Actually her own child should NEVER have been in her day-care at all, because anyone with a brain who has read the medical literature knows that toddlers in day-care have a very high rate of infections, BECAUSE they are in day care.

(Hilary, I did not say this. it's for readers: Furthermore, chickenpox spreads fomites which can easily be transmitted by vaccinated people back to sick people and whooping cough is carried and spread by vaccinated people. Also people with cancer are recommended to stay away from anyone who has had a live vaccine, for at least a month )

Immunocompromised children can catch ANY infection, and ANY infection can be fatal, even a simple cold. That mother didn't even consider all the normal things that toddlers come into day-care centre with. That in itself is astonishing. All she did was hit out at unvaccinated children, support their banning and ignore the fact that if her son couldn't go to school for that reason, her son shouldn't have been at her day care either.

Why is it that perfectly healthy unvaccinated children who are not even carrying disease are ostracised, so that a chemically coshed child with no immune system can live a normal life in society which is always carrying and passing around a whole lot of bugs completely unrelated to vaccines?

Again, the hypocrisy is astounding.

P.S.  For readers .....How do I know Tony Abbot didn't vaccinate his daughters against Gardasil?

I kept this:


So it's allowable for Tony Abbott to make a choice, but he's not going to allow others the same freedom. Continue Reading


"Going Viral" - Gardasil fact or fiction?

Hilary Butler - Monday, April 13, 2015

This Sunday's SUNDAY programme called Going Viral, used national TV and Dr Miller to imply to children, "You can either get a vaccine, or you can get cancer."  Then the children sat there with Ian Sinclair saying, “The government should let us have this vaccine free.” The kids were so grateful for Dr Miller’s story.

But there is a huge problem with this unethical story.

Dr Andrew Miller said: “The initial biopsy showed there was a factor, a protein that was sitting inside the skin that actually is a marker for wart virus. So what's happened is I've got some sort of wart virus in my nose that's triggered off a cancer," he says.

He said I’ve got ****SOME SORT**** of wart virus in my nose.

This lack of clarity is a problem for several reasons:

What say the squamous cell carcinoma in Dr Miller’s nose… is NOT one covered by the vaccine?

Did you hear him say, “I’ve got HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18, and this squamous cell carcinoma could have been prevented by Gardasil.”?

As of August 2014, 178 different HPVs had been identified and grouped into five genera based on their L1 gene. Gardasil vaccine covers four viruses from one genus, - alphapapilloma types, 6, 11, 16, 18, which are mainly related to the genital area, and sometimes the mouth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24850740

All the HPV genuses have a preference for different locations in the body. So the question is, are the strains in Gardasil relevant to the nose?

Gardasil HPV types are almost never found in the nose. The majority of nose HPV is beta and gamma papillomaviruses, not the L1 proteins represented in Gardasil. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23878325

As to Dr Miller vaccinating his three boys, it’s astonishing that he would do that to stop them experiencing what he has now got. HPV-related infections of any type take a very long time to convert to cancer.....

........And as we know, and Dr Miller said, “skin to skin” contact is all it takes to spread it......

.....So....... for the last 10+ years, Dr Miller has been kissing his wife and children, and it’s more than highly likely that his wife and children now have in their bodies, whatever type was in his nose. OR . . . they might, like the majority of other people, have just tossed it off and acquired natural immunity.

But it is illogical for his children to put their hands up for vaccination so that they won’t be like their Dad. ....  I will say it again, in case you missed it the first time..... They probably already have the genus and type which Dr Miller chose to have cut out, chemo’d and radiated.

So the whole flaw in this Sunday programme stems from lack of clarity about what SORT of wart virus it was in Dr Miller’s nose.

How would Ian Sinclair, and those Wellington High children (who were keen to go and be vaccinated after hearing from Dr Miller) feel, if they later found out that Dr Miller’s cancer was a genus which is not even related to the ones in the Gardasil vaccine?

Another question. Is it ethical to create fear in children as a result of giving information which lacks scientific clarity, or accuracy?

SUNDAY chose to take one doctor’s story, without proof of viral relevance and use it to influence children and a nation.

But nothing has been said about the growing list of girls who have been seriously hurt by this vaccine.

What’s worse, SUNDAY knows those girls exist and knows that those parents are just waiting for their stories to be heard.  So far the list of casualties from Gardasil far exceeds one doctor with a virus in his nose which might not even be a type in the vaccine.

Right at the start, the presenter said, that the show wasn’t about vaccination but about choice.

The problem was, that the whole show was about guilt and fear-mongering in order to get as many children to persuade their parents to vaccinate them as possible.

But CHOICE implies that you know all the information. 

SUNDAY, and Dr Andrew Miller, failed right at the foundation, because ***SOME SORT*** of wart virus doesn’t cut it, particularly when the Gardasil viruses are rarely if ever, found in the nose. Continue Reading


Chickenpox - Ignorance is not bliss.

Hilary Butler - Monday, October 20, 2014

Yesterday, TV3  treated New Zealand parents to a massive dose of ignorance with a story about a boy called Boston, who had a nasty superinfection in chickenpox spots on his back.

His mother is urging New Zealand parents to pay $50.00 so that their children won’t suffer like her son did.

This story is a top class example of the elephant in the room ignored by ignorant TV journalists today.

Boston’s complication has been known, for over two decades, to be a complication of immune fragility - one cause of which is using PAMOL to reduce chickenpox fevers. 

Read this: (That blog addresses pamol generically, not specifically relating to chickenpox, but maybe a blog on pamol and chickenpox will be my next job.) 

Given that this boy got the chickenpox from his 3 year old sister, who plainly did okay, why did the journalist not ask the doctors WHY the boy had trouble and his sister did not?

The mother’s comment might have provided one blindingly obvious answer: “We couldn’t control his temperature” Apparently this child just kept falling asleep all the time. Which reminded me of another TV3 documentary of Allan Smith where he wife commented that the paracetamol knocked him out just about stone cold.  Viruses, bacteria and paracetamol are not a good mix and never have been.  Not that most parents would know, because doctors themselves appear to be ignorant about what is in their own medical literature.

So, did Boston’s parents pile in pamol dose after pamol dose, and when that didn't bring down his temperature, give yet more pamol????

I’m guessing – and it’s only a guess – that that is what those parents did, because that’s what most parents do with fever.

Like I said, chickenpox is notorious for doing exactly what Boston’s chickenpox did when anti-pyretics are used to control fever.

Why does pamol do that? Because PAMOL disables the arm of the immune system which deals with the secondary bacterial infection which has set up in the spots and THAT is why some children given fever reducers can land up with Group A streptococcal infection complications.

And if Group A streptococcal infection is what this boy had, ….and if those parents used constant pamol doses to try to reduce the fever, then PAMOL is one reason why Boston landed up in trouble.

If that is the situation in this case, then the real story SHOULD have been to warn parents NOT to use PAMOL for fever, during any infection.  If that is not the situation, then questions should have been asked about Boston's immune system, because normal children do not respond to chickenpox this way.  His sister had no problems, so why did he?

The medical profession needs to educate all parents, that using pamol during any infectious fever is child abuse because they know that pamol can increase the duration, illness severity and the likelihood of dying from many infections.  For example, if that fever is related to any meningococcal infection, then pamol increases the chance of Boston getting the disease more seriously, and increases his chances of dying.  

There will come a day when Pamol is banned as an over the counter medicine in this country.  It's already banned in many European countries.  But that won’t happen while Johnson and Johnson meticulously pulls the chains of the Ministry of Health, so that J & J can extract the maximum dollar from Pamol for as long as possible.

Until that time, there will be more Bostons in this world, simply because doctors and hospitals refuse to educate parents about the immunological threat posed by Pamol when used during any infectious fever.  Continue Reading


Why the hurry, Ministry of Health?

Hilary Butler - Saturday, October 04, 2014

Anyone who has read my whooping cough resource section, will know that since the introduction of all whooping cough vaccines in this country, there has been ZERO impact on incidence and a slight increase recently in death rates.

Seemingly in a desire to catch up to the rest of us, the Ministry of Health this week, showed how much they value thoroughness, by putting out an advert (pdf uploaded here for posterity) with a three week deadline.

The topic?






Why are they not also looking for the presence of the new mutant pertussis bacteria, which has been caused by using the acellullar vaccine?  Why have they not told the public that acellular pertussis vaccine ( Otsuka 12 ) have been the driver for this new mutant, and that the new strains infected vaccinated people better with higher growth rates? Why have no health officials admitted that they have known since 2009 ( Stephanelli 09 ), that these new strains have a five times greater ability to invade the body than the old wild strains?  Why are they not asking for a study on the mechanisms whereby pertussis vaccination REDUCES herd immunity because the vaccinated become carriers ( Warfel 13 ) ? Why do they not admit that natural immunity is 30 years, and vaccine immunity is about 3 years?

Why aren't they looking at the fact that neither the whole cell vaccine, or the accellular  can create herd immunity - and never have - because on re-exposure, the vaccinated become carriers.  The naturally immune do not, because they have a cellular based immunity which effectively repels bacteria and stops any carriage.

In 2003, Korobeinikov's study had shown them that the NZ vaccine had an effective vaccination rate of 33%.

Applicants for this long overdue cud-chew, are required to file before 12 pm, on 20th October, for "rapid application and assessment process".

The Public Health Surveillance Reports have been discussing this "problem" long before the website - from the days when their reports were printed on paper.  Yet they are incapable of admitting what has been blindingly obvious for since 1960 - and that is that the whooping cough vaccine has been a waste of money. It hasn't reduced disease incidence or deaths compared to before vaccination, and now the vaccines have spawned a new variant with teeth and seemingly nastier claws. 

So, eleven years later... why the need for a rushed application periods? And what will be achieved with only $130,000? 

Does the Ministry of Health already have their own "experts" lined up ready with proposals prepared months ago?

Will Dr Cameron Grant, be the lead author?

With the result be more eminence based edicts from the same people who told us how high the protection rates would be from all previous vaccines?

As in.... ... "More vaccine, more often, and on time Continue Reading


WHOOSH ... IT'S GONE!

Hilary Butler - Monday, May 05, 2014

Yes, It’s me again. Peter Butler. IT has gone, not me! For this to make sense you’ll need to read on!

I have no idea how many people read these “words of wisdom”, but I do know there is at least one person who does, because I have been asked why the writings in Out of the Mould, seem to have tailed off a bit. 

I shall endeavour to rectify this deficiency!!  This post will also be in Out of the Mould here, but this is just a head's up that I'm up and running again. Continue Reading


IT ISN'T WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Christmas! (By Peter.  Also in OUT OF THE MOULD)

That so-called festive season. Weeks of clamouring voices persuading all and sundry that this, that and the other thing is essential to celebrate Christmas in the approved way; to eat, drink, and be merry, and when it’s all over and the hang-ups have dissipated sufficiently, to finally count the cost and the consequences and make the appropriate New Year’s resolutions!

What lies behind the lead up to the 25th December? Is there a documented story which can be followed?

Yes there is!

But you’ll have to go to the Bible to check it out!

At the beginning of Matthew’s gospel there are 1 ½ chapters and at the beginning of Luke’s gospel there are another 1 ½ chapters, - brief and clear. There is also a verse in Galatians chapter four, which says in part: “But when the right time came, the time God decided on, He sent His Son, born of a woman… to buy freedom for us.”

Contained in those few chapters there are some key elements:

angels – God’s messengers.
Mary and Joseph,
a baby born to a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit,
a decree by the Roman Governor, which told the people where to go to be taxed,
a stable and a manger (feeding trough),
some wise men (or magi),
King Herod and the slaughter of boys 2 years and under.

To this list we could add other characters such as an inn keeper, a midwife and a donkey.

The birth of Jesus took place according to God’s perfect timing and provision. Let’s focus on a few practical specifics.

The Roman Governor’s decree had to be obeyed. That meant a lot of travelling on rough, winding, dusty roads by a lot of people.

Mary and Joseph had to travel 75 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Remember that Mary’s time to give birth was very close. Days of travelling on a donkey would have been far from comfortable.

The town of Bethlehem was crowded with hundreds – possibly thousands – of other people. Most of them probably crammed together outside. Where could Mary find shelter and privacy? Imagine Joseph’s concern for his wife.

Think about the urgency, and the offer of a stable in which Jesus could be born: the physical conditions, the animal occupants, the smell, the lack of cleanliness, the rearrangement of straw to make things more comfortable.

Think about the finding of a midwife and the amazement of delivering the baby of a virgin; the pains of child birth.

Think about Joseph’s protective instincts for his wife and this unusual baby boy, and then the sudden appearance of a group of excited shepherds who had been told by angels to seek out this child who had been born in a stable.

Think about the practical needs of this family and the provision of those needs day by day. Did Joseph have to find work? What were Mary’s thoughts every time she looked into the face of Jesus?

And then there was the arrival of the Wise Men. Strangers from another country, who had been led to a very special child by a special star. A newly born king? Their gifts were exactly right for future needs.

Think about King Herod’s anger and jealousy at the Wise Men’s failure to report back to him. Now how could he deal with any threat to his throne?

Think of the speed at which Joseph, Mary with the baby Jesus, were told to pack up and go to Egypt. Think of the anguish suffered by the parents whose baby boys were slaughtered, by order of Herod in a cruel attempt to safeguard his own kingship.

The joy of Jesus’ birth was tempered by considerable discomfort, pain and real everyday learning experiences. God in human flesh began tasting daily life just as we do. The Creator God identified with us in every way.

Think about the facts that:

Christmas is not a Bible word.

No exact date is given for His birth.

There is no mention in the Bible that it was to be a day to be especially remembered.

Contrast what you and I are subjected to at “Christmas” time, with the details above. There’s not much similarity. The more deeply you think, the more questions there are that need answers.

Why is there so much difference?

Humankind is very good at changing things if it results in gaining “advantages” from those changes. By manipulating dates, pagan festivals and commercial activities with a range of traditions from various cultures, etc, it is possible to create new mindsets and new societal attitudes, especially if you make this an on-going strategy.

One of the first things to do is to eliminate God altogether or to introduce substitutes that neutralise Him. Using Santa Claus, the character with the red suit and the white-whiskered face, his sack of goodies and all the other tinsel and glitter, new technology and keeping up with the Joneses, has been very successful. The fact that parents (and others) have to lie to their children to retain the secret of Santa’s identity is unacceptable. Surely this is hypocrisy. If a foot is allowed in the door, what will follow? So much more could be added on this subject!

Another person who has publicly said something similar is Frank Haden, who said this in 1995, and this in 2001. You might find his views interesting.


For many people Christmas is a sad time.

The following is an example that illustrates this:

Author Jon Walker writes:

“I am sitting in a fast food restaurant observing a young girl celebrating an early Christmas with her mother. Her presents are spread out across a table and she just said, “I miss you Mummy.”

“I miss you too, baby,” her mother says. Beyond the table a woman casually, but carefully watches them. Using my journalist’s eye I put it all together. The watching woman is a social worker supervising a structured visit for a mother and child who are doing their best to celebrate Christmas. A few minutes later foster parents arrive and take the little girl home. The mother leaves alone. There’s a darker side to Christmas we rarely acknowledge.

We create this fantasy which seldom matches reality, even in the best of homes.

Many Christmas memories are full of tension – not tinsel. The holiday is just another excuse for Mummy to get drunk, or Daddy to be with his new family … yet another reminder that the one we love is far away or perhaps is never coming back. The suicide rate is extraordinarily high in December. Depression is as common as “Joy to the World”. More people hurt at Christmas than we initially imagine. For those tired of the hollow hope and false fantasies of Christmas, the good news is that God loves us.”


(Source not known)  Continue Reading


Infant Immunity - are the blind leading the blind?

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, December 03, 2013

On the 27th of November, the Malaghan Institute put out a press release, which reads in part:

Professor Graham Le Gros, Director of the Malaghan Institute, says immunology is a field in which there is still much to uncover.

“Your immune system does so much more than simply fighting infection. It scrutinises all cells in the body for signs of imperfection, and eliminates those not working properly. Our immune system also detoxifies and harmonises our body with the environment, the bugs that grow on us, and the toxins in the food that we eat. And it does so with minimal interruption to our daily lives.”

However, Professor Le Gros says it is becoming clear that the human immune system needs to be educated from the early months of life to know what it should, or shouldn’t, be attacking.

Our team of scientists at the Institute are working on applying this knowledge to the development of natural therapies that educate the immune system to stimulate the right type of immune responses for the treatment of cancer, asthma, allergy and other inflammatory diseases,” he says
.

The assumption is that the immune system isn't being educated in the early months of life. 

Really???????!!!!!!!!!!!
 Continue Reading


Neonatal Immunity Part 4. The blindingly obvious.

Hilary Butler - Saturday, November 16, 2013

Medical articles on neonatal immunity, habitually refer to a baby’s immune system as "defective"; "impaired"; "slow"; "inadequate"; "compromised" or "deficient".  Usually they end with the suggestion to add exogenous compounds to “correct X defect”. Even better, to manipulate and correct them all, making a baby’s immune system “perfect” in their human understanding.

Arstechnica editorialised on a letter in Nature, in which doctors had figured out that, “ Keeping the immune system in check helps the development of healthy gut bacteria.”

The authors were surprised to find that….

“For their part, the infants seem to be tamping down their immune response to allow the beneficial bacteria to establish themselves. Obviously, this also makes them more susceptible to infection from dangerous bacteria as well, so developing a healthy microbiome is a bit of a tradeoff. The authors of the Cincinnati hospital study call it "unfortunate by-product of the greater benefits of active suppression during this crucial developmental period, when tolerance to commensal microbes is more uniformly advantageous."

Having realised there is a good reason for this immune system tamping down, they swept on to a new grand fallacy that hyporesponsiveness to infection is itself, still a defect!

 Continue Reading


The definition of insanity

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, November 05, 2013



A quote from an article in a Canadian magazine, "Alive".

"A carefully controlled media has established "science" in our minds as fact... Science is merely an investigation, logically arranged and systematized. Science changes it's mind regularly and no-one seems to care. We believe the new hypothesis just as devoutly as we followed the first."

Pertussis (whooping cough) is a good example. In 1981, the brochure said, three jabs would make you immune for life. Then as time went on, they dropped to two.  Then suddenly went back to three jabs.  Then the next brochure decreed four, .... then five, .... then six, ....and in some countries, seven.

Now the “truth” adds on to that, "every pregnancy" and everyone around the new baby, "every pregnancy".

Next it will be your dog as well.  Continue Reading