Hilary's Desk

Last night TVNZ did a phone interview with me on the hot topic from the New South Wales legislature which has introduced legislation to ban unvaccinated children from child-care facilities. The Australian opposition leader Mr John Robertson wrote an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (pdf), which epitomises the lack of thinking behind this legislation. He said:



This is a politician who goes on taxpayer junkets, tanked up with travel vaccines, to countries which are hotbeds of swirling disease. He smiles and swans around mentally secure in the alleged “vaccine force-field of protection” around himself, yet his own child, in a country with far higher vaccine rates than most other countries, is suddenly is at risk from sitting next to an unvaccinated kid? With this kind of illogical non-thinking, is it any wonder Australia has so many “unsolved” issues with politicians talking like functional illiterates?

So….. TVNZ breakfast decided to debate this issue, and started the debate off with a small segment, extracted from a long phone interview with me, which plays here:

Then the other side was represented by Dr Elizabeth Wilson who ran with the hares (“Part of me says “go for it” (legislation) but another part of me ….”) She knows full well compulsion is never the answer.  Yet control and compliance is usually the mainstay of the paediatric medical model today. Ask any parent who attempts to have partnership with Starship staff.

However the most interesting comment from her, was when she said that the problem with the non-vaccine advocates, is that they miss the bigger picture, particularly in relation to measles and whooping cough which require over 95% herd immunity to stop the spread.



It’s not the non-vaccinators who miss the bigger picture.

It’s the pro vaccine lobby who are incapable of seeing what’s right in front of their own eyes.

Since she quoted whooping cough and measles, let’s look at both:

New Zealand has about a 97% vaccination rate for whooping cough vaccine right now. We’ve also had a rampaging epidemic for as long as I can remember. Even NZ medical articles admit that the whooping cough vaccine has done NOTHING to stop the decades of whooping cough infections. Yet they call for more vaccination. Duh!

Given that the last three decades has seen non-stop media coverage about ‘whooping cough epidemics”, wouldn’t you think that the remainder of the population are constantly being made immune? Wouldn’t you think they’d be asking the question, “Why isn’t the whooping cough vaccine working?”

With the huge numbers of whooping cough cases we have every year, you’d think that we’d have just about 100% herd immunity, wouldn’t you?

But we don’t.

Why? Because of the vaccine. And this is the bit of FACT that the Elizabeth Wilson should know about, but doesn’t want to talk about.

The very “immunity” the whooping cough vaccine creates, is the “wrong” immunity. It not only perpetuates whooping cough, but facilitates it’s spread. And the proof is all there in the medical literature. Elizabeth Wilson should know all that, and if she doesn’t, why doesn’t she?

If you want the scientific proof, then read this section of the pertussis resource.

The only people in this country who have meaningful immunity in 2013, are those whose first experience of whooping cough resulted in natural immunity from the disease, which enables them to rapidly clear the bacteria on re-infection, and their immunity lasts for over 30 years.

The vaccinated “immunity” is not only very short-lived  – maybe three years at most but the worst problem is that vaccinated people can’t clear the bacteria on re-infection for a very long time. Like I said, all the “experts” should know this, but no-one’s talking about it. If they explained to parents what the vaccine actually does, parents would be horrified. Why? Because it will be decades before enough naturally immune people can form a “herd” of solid natural immunity, because the majority of adults today have the faulty vaccine immunity which is facilitating the spread of the bacteria.

To make things more complicated, the vaccine also gives some antibodies which suppresses serious symptoms. The down side of that, is that the resultant infection just looks like a “nuisance cough”, so immunised people walk about blithely thinking that this cough is just a nuisance, when in reality they are a walking bacterial reservoir – an infection time bomb, silently spreading the disease to vulnerable people, because they don’t realise that that their coughing is whooping cough. And why would they?

After all, this is what the health Department told them when they were vaccinated back in 1985:



The problem is that being vaccinated, doesn’t mean you won’t catch it.  Which is why they got rid of that little ditty fairly quickly.  In the case of whooping cough, vaccination means you can later catch it repeatedly and spread it prolifically.

That brings me to the next point which Elizabeth Wilson carefully ducked in her comments on measles.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if she had told the listeners HOW MANY of the measles cases had had 2 MMR shots? The fact is that most whooping cough cases are in vaccinated people, and many measles cases are in vaccinated people. It’s the “dirty little secret” that Elizabeth Wilson didn’t admit on TV.

That revelation might have raised a few eyebrows. But again, we can’t possibly let the public know that there are downsides to the propaganda. Like… well, it’s not quite true, what we tell you…

Furthermore, measles in healthy children (whether vaccinated or not) should never lead to complications or death. Where were all the complications and deaths in the unvaccinated measles cases? There weren’t any.

In 1991, both measles deaths were immune compromised, and one of them was vaccinated. In 1997, five of the deaths had immune system problems – something Dianna Lennon knows full well, since she was the one that did the chart review, spoke about it at a doctors meeting – which got back to me via three of the doctors there - , but Dr Lennon, subsequently went to ground on the issue when I asked for verification of that through an OIA to the Ministry of Health. Why did she go to ground? And Elizabeth Wilson will also know that, because she and Dr Lennon operate within the System, and that System has extensive media training, ensuring that they all speak in lockstep with one voice!.

Isn’t it logical that rule number one, is that you don’t want ANY sick children at a day-care, period???

One of the people pushing for this NSW legislation in Australia, is the owner of a day-care, who BROKE THIS VERY RULE HERSELF.  Read the story here:     (pdf)

The guts of this story is simple. Marita Howell is the operator of the suburb's Mary Campbell Pre-School Child Care Centre. In a moment of stupidity (unless putting dollars above your child’s health is considered sane) she decided to take her child who had leukemia, was chemotherapy immunosuppressed and too sick to go to school… to her childcare centre to look after him. The article says, “Two unvaccinated children fuelled an outbreak of chickenpox at the centre...” Fuelled?  

Does that mean that vaccinated children also go it?  

We aren’t told. All we are told is that she believes that vaccination legislation should be in place so that she could take her SICK kid to a child care centre and he would be safe from unvaccinated children. She assumes that the only sick children are unvaccinated!  Just maybe she should check her attendance records and on location client health diaries.  If she bothers to keep such informative documents.

And…. are immunable diseases the ONLY diseases which affect immunosuppressed? No. All infections do.

So it’s ironic that the owner of a childcare centre would actually decide to take a a sick child to look after in a place which the medical profession recognises as one of the biggest bug spreading devices known to man, ALONG with schools, hospitals and doctor’s surgeries!

Yes, measles and chickenpox are a problem for very young babies or immunosuppressed children, which brings me right back to the original question. Should unvaccinated be banned from childcare?

Let me answer the question this way:

Just say I was the OWNER of that childcare centre. Which children would I ban?

I would ban any SICK children for the duration of any sickness, and I would ban any children vaccinated against the flu.

It’s usually blindingly obvious to observant parents when their children are coming down with something, even though many parents apparently have not had this revelation of the blindingly obvious. Children incubating any illness behave very differently than when they are feeling “normal”.

So let’s split these two problems apart:

1) Banning sick children. It should be a no-brainer, but sick children should NEVER be allowed in any day-care centre period. If you talk to child-care centres, the BANE of their lives are parents whose children wake up sick, but who consider the ‘right’ thing to do is dose that sick kid with Pamol and some OTC cold medication and send them to day-care anyway. That parents only concern is getting to work, or whatever activity it is, that makes day-care a “baby-sitting” service. I don’t know one day-care around here, that during the winter, doesn’t have at least one weakly wallflower sniffling away in the corner.

Yes, I know a lot of the day-care owners would LOVE to ban sick children. Just you try, and you get really stroppy parents who believe that their entitlement is for you to be parent to their child under all circumstances, and threaten to take their dollars elsewhere, so in a business where the dollar rules, in general, day-care centres just put up with lots of snotty nosed sneezing bug factories running around.

And no, I would never put my child in day-care, but then, we also had no time for play-centre, kindy, or any other “baby-sitting” operation when our children were little.

What did we do?

A group of us like minded parents, met regularly in each others’ houses on designated days which were sunny. If anyone had a sick child, or a child looking ‘not right’, they didn’t come.

And that’s how it should be.

But it won’t be, in a world where mothers have to work to make ends meet, or use day-cares as baby-sitting services because they want time out, or actually don’t like being a mother in the first place.

Other options? Porse perhaps, but even there, I’ve heard a few horror stories.

2) Banning children vaccinated with the flu vaccine.

Here’s the background:

I’ve lost count of the numbers of parents who complain that their children get sick in the two weeks after any vaccine. That comment is like a stuck record. And the doctor says, "Oh, it's coincidental!"

Somewhere in this house is an article where Dr Ellis-Peglar’s daughter was vaccinated, got sick in the week after, and he stated that, and laughed, pronounced it as a common myth, and oh yes, ... just a "coincidence".  Everything with vaccines, is a "coincidence".

Why mention just the flu vaccine then?

Because at the moment, it’s the only vaccine for which there is now proof that the vaccination itself, leads to an increased risk of infection from other respiratory viruses.

And the “proof” was only solid last year.

As a reminder,.... every years, you hear the medical profession trying to dispell the “urban myth” which says, “get a flu shot, then get the flu”. Of course, with the SHIVERS project now underway, we know that the majority of what is diagnosed as the flu is not the flu.

Here is the graph, from the latest Shiver's report.  All the red is the REAL influenza, and the blue is what is called influenza .... but isn't influenza - even though it's classified as "influenza-like illnesses" and the non flu respiratory viruses, are used by the medical system to justify the need for an influenza vaccine!.



I’ve always believed the "myth" of "get the flu vaccine, get the 'flu'...", because… it’s true. In 1993, on a trip to USA, I was booked into a medical conference. Three days before it’s start, it was cancelled. Why? Because all the key note speakers had got flu shots two weeks before the conference, and every jack one of them was too sick 'with the flu' to be a key-note speaker. I laughed and laughed, and spent that week messing around with Ruth and Anthony Morris instead.

Much nicer than going to a silly medical conference with people who can’t see what is right in front of their eyes, anyway.

In 2011, I laughed and laughed again, when an article (Kelly) came over my desk which commented that children vaccinated with the flu had much higher rates of other respiratory viruses than the unvaccinated. The author dismissed the phenomenon saying:


How farcical … in science it appears any old coincidental explanation will do.

Kelly tempered this with another article which found no evidence of either BENEFIT or HARM in children vaccinated with the seasonal flu vaccine. No doubt this was on the basis that he still believed that the flu vaccine causing non-flu respiratory illnesses, was .... “implausible”.

He’s wrong. And if being wrong means the flu vaccine causes unnecessary respiratory infections, then that is a demonstrable “harm”, unless you want to argue that influenza like illnesses never harmed anyone.

Any such “implausibility” went out the window last year, when the 2012 Cowling study (+ supplemental data) – the first one since the 1980 WHO India BCG trial using a REAL SALINE PLACEBO - found that while the influenza vaccine conferred “antibodies” against the flu, there was no “real life” difference in influenza infections between the vaccinated and unvaccinated!  Which is pretty much what the Cochrane Collaboration has always said. Yet the Influenza vaccine is now part of the "mandated" child schedule?  And this is where that fact is important: 

In the Cowling study….. there was a HUGE increase in clinical non-flu respiratory infections in those who were vaccinated with the flu vaccine, compared to those who got the saline placebo.  I'd also like to know, on the basis of the Cowling study, how much of the blue in the SHIVERS graph above, was respiratory infections provoked by having the flu vaccine in the first place.

Why is the saline placebo so important in this study?

Normally, any vaccine trial, uses another vaccine as a “placebo” – because it’s “important” that all participants “benefit” from being part of the study.  The assumption being that everything offered, tested or not, will always be of "benefit".

If the Cowling study had used another vaccine as a placebo, there might not have been any difference in the rate of clinical non-flu respiratory infections in either group – on the basis of my 30 years of observation that ALL vaccines can result in the recipients getting sick!!!

A saline placebo does not provoke the immune system… so for the first time in decades, Cowling et al eliminated the immune system provocation of “another vaccine”, which would have masked the effect of the flu vaccine.

Of course a comparative study of fully vaccinated and never vaccinated children from ages 0 - 20 would in my opinion, immediately bury all the other current pro-vaccine “coincidental” myths, but such a study currently lies in the “camels might fly” category.

If my decisions as a child-care owner didn’t have to depend on science, I would simply ban all vaccinated children, period.

Of course, if I did that, I’d make no money for the simple reason that most non-vaccinating parents wouldn’t put their children into day-care if you paid them to. Just as I wouldn’t have, either….

While a pro-vaccine editor wanted Australian schools for unvaccinated children (pdf) on the basis that it would protect the vaccinated children (snort) I’d consider opening schools for unvaccinated children so that they didn’t have to endure the ignorant brainwashing from the public health vaccination “lectures”, which are supposedly the means of conveying "consent information" to parents, once the frightened children run home.  If what children had to see and hear from public health nurses in schools, was shown to the parents, I believe there would be a national outcry.  Most children simply don't think to tell their parents what they saw. 

I’d have other reasons not to send any child to a state school, but... perhaps those reasons are for another blog… or maybe not.

Addendum: And our children were both home-schooled. One guess why?  Actually, all intelligent guesses might also be correct….  Continue Reading

The year 1997 in Australia is etched in my mind, because 17 years ago, the then Minister of Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge, started a fraudulent media campaign stating that Australia's childhood vaccination rates were 53%.  This figure was not only splattered over the Australian Media... it made it into the New Zealand Herald. It didn't matter to him, or the media, that the data he provided was a total lie.  It never occurred to him that he'd even got any facts wrong, like men becoming sterile after MEASLES..... The medical profession knew his vaccination rate data was lies, and stayed silent, sitting back poker-faced with folded arms, quietly cheering him on in one of the most blatant, criminally erroneous publicity campaigns that had ever taken place.   Until now....

 Continue Reading

In the three articles written by Chloe Johnson in the Herald on Sunday, March 3, 2013, (here, here and here) there was a ton of misinformation. I pulled her up on all her mistakes, which she refused to accept, and maintains that her articles were balanced and she is proud of them. The Herald on Sunday editor’s contribution to my attempt at redress was ....  to tell me that he had told Chloe to stop corresponding with me. 

So let's discuss the truth, from New Zealand's provaccine medical literature – as opposed to  the medical profession's propaganda fed and regurgitated willingly by the Herald on Sunday. The only “plus” in Chloe’s articles, was that Dr Huang admitted that there was no evidence that the flu vaccine actually worked.  Continue Reading

How many people died from flu in Auckland in 2012?  According to Shivers data:. 


A child could understand this stunning graphic, yet Chloe didn’t bother to use it.  Even a mug can see why she avoided this like the plague.  One death from Flu in Auckland doesn't sell papers - no drama, no story.

I repeat:  Out of 9 deaths of Serious Acute Respiratory (SARI) Illnesses in AUCKLAND in 2012 .. only ONE, .....tested positive for the flu.

ONLY ONE.  Continue Reading

On 6th March, 2013, Dr Huang was interviewed by Radio New Zealand.

During this interview Dr Huang emphasised that influenza could be very very serious, and stated that "in Auckland 282 babies per 100,000, were hospitalised last year". 282 hospitalizations sounds BADDDDD doesn’t it.

Serious. Nasty.

Here’s the problem with Dr Huang’s data. She used a figure which would inflate the risk in people’s mind, deliberately in ORDER to make it sound bad. It was a strategy to force people to run and get their babies vaccinated.

How do I work that out?

If you go to Statistics New Zealand,  you will find that in the year up to March 2012, 61,178 babies were born in the WHOLE of New Zealand. And note that births dropped that year by 2%. So it’s safe to say that they dropped again in 2013 by a similar percentage.

If you follow the link on the page to the births section there is an excell document  which shows you that up to March 2012, the two areas covered in SHIVERS data, AUCKLAND and CMDHB had 16,087 births.

So let’s translate Dr Huang’s inflated data down into REAL numbers.

282/100,000*16087 = 45 hospitalised in 2013, in Auckland and CMDHBs.

Is that what Shivers Data says?

No. The answer, including part of THIS year, is 44 babies under one - but that is for BOTH the Auckland study areas and the Counties Manukau areas, (See the top oval on the SHIVERS chart below) and 80 under 4’s, admitted to hospital, with positive flu tests. You only get 282 per 100,000 babies for Auckland AND Counties Manukau, so we don't know what the rate is in Auckland alone.  But it sounds a nationwide huge problem, if you say “282/100,000 babies” when you know that there aren’t even going to be 100,000 babies born in the WHOLE country in one year. The public isn’t going to rationalise this out. They are just going to hear “282" BABIES a year.


 Continue Reading

A headline in PerthNow (Adelaide Advertiser) recently read, "Chief medical officer Paddy Phillips says it's time to end debate on jabs" Of course, to Professor Paddy Phillips vaccines are wonderful, safe, effective and anyone who suggests otherwise is misinformed and patently insane.  So he wants all the non-vaccinators to see sense and vaccinate their children.  That's his answer - dictatorship control.  My answer is simpler. Those who want vaccines can have them, and those who don't, can be left alone.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Adelaide Advertiser  has this piece of browbeating in the paper today. (pdf)

SA Health chief medical officer Paddy Phillips urged parents to ensure their children were immunised against diseases and that all South Australians get a flu jab.

"I think absolutely the debate should be over, people should do the right thing and get their children, themselves and their families vaccinated," Prof Phillips said.

"There is no doubt that vaccination, to protect ourselves and the community, is the right thing to do."

A University of Adelaide study - published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal yesterday - found the number of children hospitalised with chicken pox or shingles had dropped 68 per cent since the introduction of the vaccine in 2006.

A second study, which was published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, highlighted the benefits of a US vaccination program during the 2009 outbreak of H1N1, or swine flu.

Prof Phillips said vaccines became publicly available only once stringent quality and safety testing processes had been followed.

"Absolutely effective and cost-effective."

So is euthanasia. Is compulsory euthanasia at aged whatever, the next on your list?

Absolutely ironic that Professor Paddy Phillips would say this:

"Prof Phillips said the Australian Vaccination Network Inc, a group that advocates debate about vaccination, was spreading misinformation and lies. "They don't put a balanced argument and I honestly don't understand why they do this."

And this?

The swine flu study found the H1N1 vaccination was associated with a small excess risk - about 1.6 extra cases per one million people vaccinated - of acquiring Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disorder of the nervous system that can result in paralysis and sometimes death.

The authors said the the vaccine had prevented an estimated 700,000-1.5 million influenza cases in the US.

"In view of the morbidity and mortality caused by 2009 H1N1 influenza and the effectiveness of the vaccine, clinicians, policy makers and those eligible for vaccination should be assured that the benefits of inactivated pandemic vaccines greatly outweigh the risks," the study says.

Prof Phillips said the Australian Vaccination Network Inc, a group that advocates debate about vaccination, was spreading misinformation and lies. "They don't put a balanced argument and I honestly don't understand why they do this."

So let's tell the public the TRUTH that Paddy Phillips chose to miss out.

First the estimates as to how many cases the H1N1 vaccine prevented is a mathematical model which has no relevance since the numbers of people who got the pandemic vaccine in the USA was around 10%, therefore the vaccine is irrelevant. Furthermore, a recent study in USA casts doubt on every single preconceived idea about flu vaccines. The  2013 Ohmit study just published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, shows that the flu vaccine:

1)  had a 40% effectiveness which they said "wasn't statistically different to zero".  

2)  didn't prevent household transmission (which begs the question of whether it will prevent flu in vaccinated staff, or prevent vaccinated staff giving it to patients) 

3)  in the optimum population with the best immune system, the vaccine didn't work, and did not reduce hospitalisations or medical attendances at all.  

4) that PREVIOUS vaccination interfered with the most recent vaccine resulting in even FEWER antibodies, than developed in people who had had no previous flu vaccine.

These findings FLY IN THE FACE of everything previously said about the flu vaccine, and clearly expose all of Professor Paddy Phillip's statements that everyone should have flu vaccines because studies have shown them to be very effective, wonderfully safe and to create herd immunity.... to be the ULTIMATE in  misinformation.  It is Professor Paddy Phillips, who is the one who doesn't put a balanced argument to parents. Here are some extracts:.


 



Even more intriguing, the accompanying medical journal editorial by Treanor says:





Treanor in his editorial, struggles with  ... remarkable.... disbelief - ("apparent" failure.....), and has some even more bizarre excuses - but I want to leave them for another blog.  In the light of the previous revelations, let's look at this bizarre claim by Professor Paddy Phillips:

Prof Phillips said vaccines became publicly available only once stringent quality and safety testing processes had been followed.

"That means that it not only has to be effective and be valuable but it has to show absolutely, without any question of a doubt, that it's cost-effective," he said.

So he's saying that lots of clinical trials will have proved that the flu vaccine is effective, valuable, have stringent quality control and are uber safe - absolutely without any question of doubt????

So how come CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy) wrote about the CCIVI's (Cidrap Comprehensive Influenza Vaccine Initiative) recent evalution of ACIP's (the American Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice) decision making about the flu vaccine over the last 50 years, which has shown that:

 


Note those words.... "A strong belief".... If you read the whole document, you will see that while they acknowledge that the recommendations to use a vaccine that doesn't work,  were all opinion, and not fact, they also indulge in massive weasel word machinations, to deflect that, and move forward saying, but we still need to do it!   All they wanted to do was jab more, jab more, and why bother about actual data?  Opinion - which Phillips calls FACTS - - - is all that matters.... After all, "we don't have anything else to offer!!"

In the meantime, while all this was going on, three studies in Europe (Kissling, Pebody and Castilla) were even more ground breaking, not only showing how ineffective flu vaccines are, but that after 100 days, most flu vaccines have less than zero protectivity.

So CIDRAP came out with another press release in January 2013 discussing this, and admitting that belief in the flu vaccine was an article of faith:

 

Wow.  An ... ARTICLE OF FAITH.... which Professor Paddy Phillips calls scientific FACTS?  

 

Commendable?

Never easy to publish something that doesn't fit with what we say?

All these years, they've ignored the previous messengers blasting the same trumpet so what is different this time?

Is it just about "scientific integrity and a passion for the best data"?

I don't think so.

These SAME findings have been repeatedly put in front of the old Division of Biological Services, which then became the , and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) from the early 1960's onwards, yet were ignored as "isolated aberrations" and the messengers labelled as "outliers" and marginalised.  There now exists a mountain of these "isolated aberrations".  It's also remarkable how CIDRAP looked at over 5,000 studies and found only 31 which provided reliable information.  The question has to be asked... "How did the other 4,769+ unreliable studies even get into the medical literature?"

So what has changed now, that enables previously discarded findings to be re-visited under a completely new guise? Perhaps there is a "new idea"?  Yes,... hidden in an extract from the October Cidrap report, stemming from the fact that the vaccine manufactures can't be bothered doing anything about their flu vaccine, because it provides them with a "reasonably stable source" of annual income:


So what?    Skip forward again to the January CIDRAP document where we see - oh lookee here. The solution. That everyone should have a SECOND influenza shot 100 days after the first.


A second dose!  Voila!  ....A doubly stable source of income by the stroke of another opinion?  another idea? another ACIP stroke of a pen?... AND look.... more  exciting things for the future as well..... .....:



Who would have thought? (Smacks forehead).  Of course.  Hand the bill for new vaccine development to the mug-public, who for the last few decades blindly believed Professor Phillip saying that the flu vaccine was wonderful.  Public taxes can not only provide the money to build new research and development facilities for vaccine manufacturers, employ MORE scientists to develop "better" vaccines" on the gravy train for a couple of decades  - - -  but also generously double the income for the current vaccines .... 

I understand why Professor Paddy Phillips doesn't present a  balanced argument on flu vaccines.  

If Paddy Phillips told the truth about the flu vaccine, parents wouldn't vaccinate their children with the flu vaccine. Paddy Phillips would have to admit that he's lied for decades, and that everything else that he's said just might be similarly tainted.  To tell the truth about the flu vaccine, might reveal the whole house of cards.  The public might not like that.  The fall out might be worse than an atomic bomb.

That cannot happen, so Paddy Phillips has to retreat behind medical model pontifical doctrine.  Winston Churchill once said words to this effect: "Truth is so important it has to be protected by a fog of lies."  That's all Phillips is doing, because his career depends on the public having no fog detectors.

Even worse, if Professor Paddy Phillips admitted that his own information to the public was "fog", and the public woke up to just how much other fog shrouds their head, about other vaccines and medical procedures, the reputation of the medical profession would never recover. 

That  is why the charade - as Phillip says, ....  that vaccines are "one of the greatest public health initiatives that has improved the health of humans over the last hundred years." must go on.

One day the public will wake up, and then Paddy, I wouldn't want to be in your head when you hear the roar.

 Continue Reading

On the basis of only one  of my many previous posts on breast milk, you are all expecting me to clap my hands at New Zealand's first breast milk bank, and congratulate the team involved, right?

Well, no. I'm not clapping my hands.  Here's why.

From the article:



To be spending $150,000 establishing a breast milk bank, and $50,000 - or a thousand dollars a week to run a breast milk bank, is a waste of resources primarily because:

1) as per .. the words by Sally Gregory - her baby was born at 25 weeks, and she had a ton of breastmilk which she landed up tossing out. Yet she says that she wished that there was a breast milk bank when her baby was born?

What did NICU do with the breast milk she had, after her baby was born?

Did they use formula, when they could have used her own breast milk?

2) Lots of mothers of babies in NICU (including myself) either feed their own babies, or express their own breast milk and it is given to their own baby. My surplus went to feed other babies.

Why is that not happening at Christchurch?

3)  BUT.......  The most important issue is something that the neonatologist, Dr Maggie Meeks has clearly missed out, which is right there in her own medical literature  It's been known since 1980 that:

The breastmilk produced in a mother of a baby born at 25 weeks is completely different to the breast milk produced in a mother of a healthy baby born at term. The premie breastmilk has a completely different nutritional, immunological and hormonal profile, and premies have very different needs to a term baby.

The most recent medical review in February 2013 stated:

"Human milk from women delivering prematurely has more protein and higher levels of bioactive molecules.

Human milk must be fortified for premature infants to achieve adequate growth.

Mother's own milk improves growth and neurodevelopment, decreases the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and late-onset sepsis, and should be the primary enteral diet for premature infants.

Donor milk is a resource for premature infants whose mothers are unable to provide an adequate supply of milk.

Challenges include the need for pasteurization, nutritional and biochemical deficiencies, and limited supply."

I repeat.... The breastmilk produced by a mother feeding a three month old baby is not adequate for a premie or term baby.

To use breastmilk from a mother feeding a term, or older baby, is deficient in very important ways.... compared to that produced by the mother of that PREMIE baby.

THEREFORE

4) The breastmilk needed by a premature baby should be coming from the mother of that baby. 

Why would NICU be wanting to use breastmilk from the community which they will then pasteurise, and fortify because it does NOT have the nutrients that high risk premie babies need?

That is what Christchurch hospital should be using this money for - to educate mothers of premie babies as to WHY their breastmilk is the ONLY breastmilk appropriate for THEIR babies, and that it's their job to provide what only they can provide, as well as help supply extra for other premie babies. Continue Reading

All around the country the mantra of 400 flu deaths a year has been parroted as the truth, when it’s not the truth.

But medical documents are starting to reveal that even the medical profession knows that one day this will bite them on the backside. The more they are forced to put their facts on the internet, the more likely it is that someone will find that truth.

Do you remember the 2009 jumped-up pandemic, where Swine Flu (H1N1) was going to be the new 1918 "worse-than-the-plague", infection to kill us all?
 Continue Reading

The flu vaccine doesn’t work, and never has since that fact was first publicly outed in USA in 1971, and in 1972, there was a USA congressional hearing (S.3419) about it. It had been sold every year from 1940 through to 1975 with almost no potency and DBS (now the FDA) didn’t give a caber toss.

However, as time passed, the public forgot. The vaccine manufacturers started working on Key Opinion People, and organising themselves so that “reputable” people could push the product on their behalf. The sleeping frontline medical profession got emboldened in 1996, and said, “We must vaccinate the over 65’s because they are the only ones who die from the flu. All the rest are healthy enough to cope with the flu.” They also assured the oldies that the flu vaccine always prevented the flu - which was a gigantic stretch of the imagination. They also targeted anyone with a chronic condition on the basis that they were at risk because they weren’t “healthy”.
 Continue Reading

The annual flu barrage has already started in our local paper Franklin County news with this little pearl:




Before you read anything else, please flick through this presentation put together by the Cochrane Collaboration Influenza group (Yes, the last three slides bunk out, but the rest is good! This Cochrane powerpoint puts similar things in a different way... ), who believe that you need to understand what the issues are all about, before you can interpret what the “words” that the medical profession spout, REALLY mean.

Now that you’ve done that, you will understand some of the amusing things about the Franklin County News propaganda. Obviously, an “influenza-like illness” which the Collaboration describes, isn’t necessarily the flu and can’t be “prevented” by any means. However, Dr Sue Huang (the head of the National Influenza Centre) always counts all those “influenza-like illnesses that can’t be prevented, as the flu, and tells the public they can be prevented. The reason she does that, is that if you REALLY KNEW how few “influenza-like illnesses” WERE actually the flu, then you would start asking questions like, “Why are they deliberately inflating the data?” Simple. They do that to make you think that flu is a really big deal.

What you won’t know about the article above though, is that:

1) The hospitalisation data is wrong. Look very closely at this graph and THINK about what you are seeing here:



2) Of the 1,517 hospitalisation, 1122 were for Swine Flu. And how many of those hospitalizations would have occurred without the terrorism everyone endured via the media, that the upcoming pandemic could wipe out billions?? In the 2009 Annual Influenza Report there were 35 deaths recorded for swine flu,



but by 2011, that total was 49 deaths. … So if there were only 49 flu deaths in 2009, you’ve got to start asking a few questions, like….

3) In the 395 influenza hospitalizations for “something else” - the presumably more "vicious" influenza types - how many deaths were there? Apparently, none. Something the Health Department never talks about is, “How many people hospitalized were VACCINATED?" Why? When the medical profession tells the truth, the result isn't pretty, so they are best to not go there, huh? (PDF in case it disappears!).

4) How many REAL deaths were really CAUSED by the flu? 35 or 49? And how many deaths were vaccinated?

There’s always been silence with regard to those statistics. And what are the vaccinated patients told? “You will have got a flu that isn’t one in the vaccine!” and the patients never think to ask, “Did you take a swab to find out WHETHER my flu was supposed to be covered with the vaccine?” There is an old saying that statistics can be lies, damned lies and statistics. Silence can be either golden… or.. yellow.

How many people even got “the flu”? What Dr Jefferson described in his presentation applies here as well.

Let me show you: the Health Department considers that the number of people who get the flu in this country, is the number of people who stumble into the doctor after convincing themselves that they’ve got all the symptoms they have just heard some medical zombie describe on the radio.

On page 25 of the 2011 Annual Report from the Public Surveillance website we read:



But consider this… each of these 88 practices take ONLY three swabs a week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The lucky first person who clutches their head on each of those days, and says, “Doc, I’ve got the floooooooo” is told to, “Open wide” and a nasopharangeal swab is taken. Just three a week (can’t overload the testing system) … and that tiny number of swabs are sent off for testing, and those results can look like this - with the DARK blue being the numbers of swabs, and the LIGHT blue being actual FLU:




The cases are estimated by taking the number of consultations for influenza-like illnesses reported weekly to the ESR by the 88 sentinal practices, averaging that out and multiplying those numbers, with the number of practices in the country.  The swabs from sentinel practices, labs and hospitals, lets ESR know which percentages are positive, and then they test them to find which flu types predominate. However, we rarely hear whether or not the flu types match the vaccine, and we never hear whether the influenza-like illnesses (flu or non-flu) were vaccinated.   So on the basis of a few hundred swabs from the estimated 41,133 New Zealanders the crystal ball says had “influenza like illnesses” ….. as you can see, a lot of the cases that walk in, aren’t the flu at all.

Not that the patients with negative swabs will be told they don’t have the flu. Instead they walked out the door clutching some of the millions of dollars of Tamiflu the Government brought in because of the “deadly” pandemic.

To the Health Department … all the tests that are negative for the flu are counted as the flu anyway. Why? On page 62 of the 2011 Annual Flu report, apparently doctors don’t know how to take swabs properly. 

In the next few weeks, the media will parade “400 deaths caused by Influenza – nearly the same as the annual road toll rate!”

Where does this “400 deaths” a year come from?   After all, a 2010 report from the Influenza group to the minister says this:




See that? 35 + some uncoded deaths = 49 deaths, the highest number of deaths since 2000. You would think that that Figure 1 graph, actually represents REAL deaths, yet we are "TOLD" that in New Zealand "approximately 400 people" will die of influenza every year.  Continue Reading