A lot of New Zealand children have been coming down with chickenpox, as evidenced by newspaper articles like this one from Otago Daily Times. Put the word, “chickenpox” in Google news, and it’s everywhere, even popping up in . . . vaccinated USA.
Chickenpox, which was once a rite of passage for all children, is still a normal childhood disease for many children.
But things are changing. Chickenpox parties are now considered a medical crime and the height of dangerous irresponsibility. Don’t be surprised if media is saturated with this GSK chickenpox advertisement.
Because . . . Glaxo Smith Kline’s chickenpox vaccine will be added to the New Zealand vaccination schedule in July 2017. On the surface that’s the only major change most parents will notice. Under the surface is a much bigger change. GlaxoSmithKline has achieved a monopoly of all childhood vaccines up to the age of 11.
Having scratched IMAC’s back for a very long time, GSK finally gets their payback. Both Nikki Turner and IMAC have been prolifically funded by GSK, as evidenced from Helen Petousis-Harris’ study funding over the years; Nikki Turner’s WHO SAGE committee conflicts of interest, and funding for the Research Review educational series.
Of course, to provaxxers, GlaxoSmithKline funding the New Zealand provaccine forever and a day, and for a long time into the future, isn’t REALLY considered a conflict of interest. It is only a conflict of interest when parents pay for books written by anyone who points out history and medical literature which calls into question, vaccine propaganda. Ironic hypocrisy really.
Not that GlaxoSmithKline cares. They have got what they wanted. Almost a clean sweep of all childhood vaccines from 2017 will harvest shareholders, millions of taxpayer dollars.
So why has the Chickenpox vaccine been put into the schedule?
GSK has been touting this vaccine in New Zealand since 1995 as shown by this direct approach to doctors in 2004.
Notice how little information they gave doctors on the vaccine.
So for 22 years, some New Zealand parents have bought this vaccine for their children. The vast majority of the vaccinated children I knew still got chickenpox. The common parental response? “BECAUSE my children were vaccinated, they didn’t die”. Such is the power of brainwashing.
According to the recent Research Review Educational Series to New Zealand professionals, rising complications are the main reason for the introduction of this vaccine, because chickenpox has become a serious disease and therefore, parents’ perceptions of diseases should change.
When Ian was born in 1981, the doctor gave me THIS Panadol pamphlet. When David was born, in 1984, the doctor gave me THIS Panadol pamphlet. In both, the special points said: “As harmful complications are rare, no vaccination is necessary.”
In 2017, it’s a serious disease. In order to make parents vaccinate, they have to be scared of a disease, so you have to shift social perception, and that doesn’t happen overnight. A recent 2017 article about the Australian flu vaccine scare in 2010, showed that parents won’t use a vaccine if they don’t have a “high level of dread”.
Parents who aren’t in a state of dread, are able to think – to rationalise – that a disease that isn’t about to kill their child, doesn’t need a vaccine.
Most parents who have successfully home-nursed normal, mild chickenpox don’t consider it a big deal. So, you should expect to be told some really scary chickenpox stories on main stream media, to raise your level of dread.
And in that context, let’s be honest. Chickenpox, when treated the way the medical model recommends, can turn really nasty on you, which is provable from the medical literature.
Let’s look at how that came about.
An article came out in the Consumer magazine in 1995, which talked about a jump in hospital discharges for chickenpox complications in 1993. I rang the Ministry of Health Statistics services on 18th November 1995, and they told me that it might only be an artifact because in 1992, the definition of hospital discharge had changed to include any short stay of “longer than three hours”. Given the long waiting times in A&E even back then, you could now be labelled as “hospital discharged” for nothing at all.
That increase was prominently featured in a 1998 NZMJ article discussing the rationale for introducing the chickenpox vaccination in New Zealand.
But before that article, discussion for the vaccine was mainly centred on convenience for parents:
However, the 2017 ‘expert’ advice released to GPs, centres on the rise in hospitalisations which have increased considerably since then:
So the change in the criteria for Hospital admission isn’t responsible for all of the increase.
In my opinion, what started to increase the severity of chickenpox was the mindless recommendation to use fever-lowering drugs.
Even though there is NO EVIDENCE that bringing down a fever in an infected child, helps that child, it’s the reflexive go-to, which the medical system constantly recommends. Never mind that for decades, even the World Health Organisation has said that drugs which reduce infectious fevers increase complications and deaths. http://beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/paracetamol-should-not-be-used-for-infectious-fevers-revisited
Many newspaper reports of chickenpox complications have focused on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in chickenpox complications. Yet no mention is made in this update to doctors of the widely known link between the increase in GAS (Groups A Strep) complications, following the use of NSAIDs. This is in spite of the fact that New Zealand has one of the worst rates in the world for nasty skin infections like GAS.
Why would ibuprofen be a problem? More to the point, could New Zealand’s Panadol (Pamol, paracetamol, acetaminophen) also be a problem? Why have parents become addicted to using acetaminophen drugs to reduce fevers, and every illness, cut and scrape?
Earlier I mentioned the old brochures provided by the then makers of Panadol, in the early 80s, to be handed out to parents by doctors.
These brochures were a partnership venture between Winthrop Laboratories, which made children’s Panadol elixir, and doctors. The purpose was to educate parents, who were “losing their familiarity with diseases and uncertain how to treat mild infections when they do strike”. The brochure simply replaced the old fashioned proper nursing with panadol, and was the start of a concerted drive to increase the use of acetaminophen products to treat fevers during infection, or “discomfort”. All through the 1990s, magazine articles about dying children often had small paragraphs like this
By the year 2000, newspapers were reporting that Pamol had become a social medication. After all it was touted as such a safe drug to be used for – well – anything really:
This was confirmed in a 2004 study and is a trend that continues to this day. Ironically, instead of blaming the drug manufacturers and the doctors who brainwashed the parents into using an unnecessary drug in the first place, now it’s the parents’ fault for being fever-phobic and self-medicating.
Look again at that graph above showing the increase in complications above. Interesting, isn’t it? The increase in chickenpox complications mirrors the institutionalisation of Panadol/Pamol as the social medication go-to.
Our children got chickenpox around the same time as some vaccinated children got chickenpox. The mother of a very poxy, vaccinated child was most surprised when ours did better than hers, and made the mistake of congratulating me on vaccinating my children. My response was that my children did better than hers because they were NOT vaccinated; I knew better than to use paracetamol or acyclovir, which she had used; and I knew how to feed my children and treat the skin properly. She didn’t have a clue on any of those topics.
Currently the dogma is that only ibuprofen is linked with GAS, but is it just ibuprofen?
By 1989, it was already known that paracetamol prolongs the course of chickenpox, just as it prolongs the course of the flu, and the children taking paracetamol were also itchier. Why then, would doctors suggest Pamol? They just do. This is not an epidemic of advice solely caused by parents wanting to use Pamol as social medicine. Just like, “It’s just a little prick” used to be the mantra before injecting a vaccine, “Just give Pamol . . . ” is still the automaton response from medical people when it comes to dealing with the outward sign of the body’s own defense against invasion—fever.
In my opinion, if paracetamol can blunt the immune system, allowing chickenpox and other infections to last longer, then it could well do exactly the same as ibuprofen, and drive secondary bacterial superinfections deeper.
No-one has bothered to look at the use of Pamol in children in New Zealand who have chickenpox complications. Are they too scared? Or will they say that the use of Pamol is only an indication that the child was actually sick?
My paracetamol folders bulge with newspaper and medical articles showing how dangerous paracetamol is, and how it increases a whole host of serious childhood problems.
So why does the medical system not STOP parents using paracetamol for chickenpox, influenza, and other infectious fevers?
Do we have proof that ibuprofen is dangerous with chickenpox? Yes, by the bucket load. Take a look at Bryant just for starters.
Even worse, if you use any NSAID and get GAS complications, You get hit twice because the NSAID reduces the effectiveness of antibiotics in fighting the infection.
But back to the new 2017 advice for doctors about VarilRix, the GSK chickenpox vaccine.
Before you read the advice to doctors, please read these three different Varilrix datasheets.
and the new Medsafe Varilrix 2016.
Print them out. Compare them.
Note that the 2016 data sheet REMOVED most of the side effects listed in the 2012, and 2014 datasheets. Notice that the 2004 advisory to doctors, also had almost no side effects.
Notice that in all of them, the efficacy data used is the same, though slightly different in the 2017 doctor advisory.
Notice also that the expert review got the vaccine components WRONG saying it had human albumin.
Whereas in 2012, and 2014, Varilrix contained human albumin, Medsafe’s 2016 datasheet says it does not.
Why has the rate of chickenpox complications increased? Why is the information above, not in any expert information? These factors behind the increase in chickenpox complications would be considered to be “non-essential” concepts. After all, if a vaccine can prevent it, we don’t need to expose the practices that cause the increase in complications do we?
Here is what you should know:
1) 62% of people who have never experienced the pox, could already be immune. People without a history of clinical infection should be tested before the chickenpox vaccine is given. (Holmes 2005)
2) The use of ibuprofen (and IMO paracetamol) for fever, by down-regulating the immune system, allows Group A Streptococcal and other bacterial infections to run rampant.
3) New Zealand doctors indiscriminately prescribe anti-virals, antibiotics and topical Fusidin. Has this also led to further expansion of various drug-resistant bacteria? After all, New Zealand has huge skin infection issues compared to the rest of the developed world.
4) Varilrix data sheet says 20 – 92% of any severity of chickenpox and 86 – 100% of severe disease will be stopped. Advice to professionals from IMAC is that Varilrix will prevent chickenpox of any severity in 65.4% of children and moderate to severe chickenpox in 90.7% of children..
5) Varilrix should only be given to healthy children? Please define healthy.
6) We know that various immune deficiencies in children, are on the rise, some of which aren’t detected in childhood. Both the vaccine and infection could put those children at risk. Shouldn’t those parents be educated as to the risks that the current medical advice for treatment imposes on the innate immune system of their children?
7) Why have the nasty side effects listed in the GSK Varilrix datasheets in 2012 and 2014 been removed from the 2016 GSK datasheet?
Chickenpox complications could have been prevented a long time ago if the real concepts about how to nurse children with chickenpox – how to prevent secondary infections, were taught, but they are not. A situation which suits the provaccine, because in 2017, how many parents would think to question medical advice?
Look at this from the Otago Daily Times:
The advice about baths every three hours, has possible flow-on effects, particularly if it involves soap, oatmeal, or anything which makes the skin pH alkaline. The skin immune system functions best with an acid pH (around 5.5) and with the skin’s own salt, which is a crucial cofactor to key immune system cells which fight bacterial infections.
When parents constantly put children with chickenpox in (oat) baths, they are diluting the microbiome into the bath water, spreading potential pathogens, making the skin alkaline, and opening wide the doorway for potentially serious GAS secondary infections.
Pink Calamine lotion with a ph of 10 is just about useless, should be called out for what it is. Quackery..
There are other, far more appropriate ways to treat chickenpox, that the medical model appears to have no idea about, but which I will not talk about here. After all, it’s bad enough questioning medical vaccine dogma and current treatment advice, without being also accused of practicing medicine without a license.
If parents question or refuse this vaccine, Professor John Fraser will no doubt roll out his go-to scientific “terrorists” label accusing parents of not loving their children.
If this vaccine has any reactions, they will be a coincidence non-disorder and any reactions will be denied as usual. Unless it’s a tinsy sore arm. That will be added to the SMARS database just to make it look like the Dunedin Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring is paying attention .
Another point not being discussed in the doctor advisory, is the fact that many children previously vaccinated with Varilvax, subsequently get chickenpox. One notable case known to me who had two chickenpox vaccines, recently had chickenpox for the third time.
Just before you say, “you can’t get chickenpox more than once!”, actually you can.
Repeated chickenpox is much more common than you would think. This study discusses four cases, and quotes other studies with similar stories including a study showing chickenpox in “apparently immune” patients. This study showed “sequential follow-up of their eight patients revealed one who became seronegative and two who lost cellular immunity and that some of them developed more than three episodes of recurrent chickenpox”.
It will be most interesting to watch just how the chickenpox vaccine changes the age-epidemiology of chickenpox and zoster once levels of vaccine uptake get high, and what the long-term outcome of that will be. But doctors are well prepared for that. They know that the chickenpox vaccine results in more cases of shingles, so they will offer everyone Merck's 14x stronger chickenpox vaccine called Zostavax. Continue Reading
A lot of New Zealand children have been coming down with chickenpox, as evidenced by newspaper articles like this one from Otago Daily Times. Put the word, “chickenpox” in Google news, and it’s everywhere, even popping up in . . . vaccinated USA.
You know, Lance, initially as I read your latest Stuff.co article, I thought, “My, this man has finally learned some grammar and vocabulary of excellence". But then, as I read on, and compared it to the style used in your book, it dawned on me that you can’t have written this all on your own. Someone with a bit of science, and better grammar than you, added key stuff in here. But that someone didn’t realise how badly they have just shot themselves in the foot. And you wouldn’t have picked that up, because … well… you don’t know the facts or science in order to spot the mistakes, do you?
So let me show you a few bloopers which escaped your bullshit radar.
First up, in 1996, IAS never wrote a pamphlet with “Netherlands” in it, and sure never left anything in a lecture room at any medical school in this country. Second up, most vaccine studies used to justify past and current vaccines aren't studied in communities that look like ours either. Since there was nobody else doing anything in 1996 where did you get this mythical pamphlet from, Lance?
And later you say:
Causing illness and misery? In vaccinated children? Again, seeding minds that the unvaccinated are walking germ cesspits. You . . . "wanted to believe"? Are we talking about someone training to evaluate fact? No Lance. Now, you are really insulting the intelligence of those who know. You never signed up for the IAS quarterly magazine, because if you had, you would have been far too well-educated to come out with moronic statements like the above. We don’t “believe”. We KNOW. We don’t not vaccinate on the basis of a non-existent pamphlet, and even if there is a pamphlet, those who place a premium on truth view any pamphlet as suspicious, and look deeper afterwards.
Why? Because immunisation is so complicated, that the issue can't be told in a pretty coloured folded piece of paper. That is why most of us think that the Department of Health vaccination pamphlets aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
You never found a brochure in a medical school lecture room, because there was no “Netherlands” pamphlet, and IAS were always “personas never gratis”. In 1990 I had delivered a talk on smallpox to the medical school academics which made them realise that I knew the science from their own medical library, and FOR that reason, I was, and continue to be a threat to their sound bites.
Furthermore, in all the years that I settled into solid study in Auckland Medical school’s Philson medical library, between 1982 to now, once key personnel knew what my mission was, the ONLY time I was treated with any respect was in the holidays when medical students manned the facility to give the fire-breathing desk dragons time off. To certain librarians, I was 'the enemy', and help was often refused. However, that was all to the good, because it meant that on my own, I learned what was in every nook and cranny of the then three floors of that information resource.
Now, the NEW Philson medical library is not nearly as useful a resource. Barriers have been erected to make it very hard for members of the public to find what they need, which means that it’s also not quite so easy for medical students. But that just means everyone has to be more resourceful.
Next, you resort to the lies of emotional blackmail. Using inflated language you say (cue in victorious violin music): "In the FACE of SUCH overwhelming evidence of the BENEFIT of immunisation and the DRAMATIC REDUCTION in life-ending, or life-altering medical conditions . . .
The only problem is that the wool-pulling-over-the-eyes writer above, chose the wrong disease. Listen well, Lance. NO whooping cough vaccine in this country hast made any difference in terms of circulating bacteria. How did you miss out reading Professor Grant’s 2013 expert review on pertussis or the Immunisation Handbooks from 1993 to now? Haven't you kept up with the ESR whooping cough reports? Don't you know all the other published papers and Department of Health Graphs which prove that the whooping cough incidence in this country, is worse than before a vaccine was used? Where is your data showing that the vaccine has DECREASED the death rates in babies? You don't have it, do you? But I do, and you're wrong. Even worse, among the Department of Health graphs here, the 6th graph down shows an 8-fold increase in hospitalisations of babies under one year old between 1966 and 1996, a trend which has not diminished. And it's the failure of the whooping cough vaccines to achieve their stated aim, which has fuelled the idea of vaccinating every pregnant women with a Tdap every pregnancy. We wouldn't be vaccinating pregnant women, supposedly to protect newborn babies from whooping cough, if there WAS decades of overwhelming evidence of the dramatic reduction in life-ending or life-altering medical conditions. Or can't you see that?
Then you say that one year after your daughter was fully vaccinated….
So . . . fully vaccinated, and despite your “pride” here is your daughter . . . sick. If it wasn't Haemophilus Influenza that caused her periorbital cellulitis, what did Lance? Starship should have told you. It’s notable that you did NOT tell US. It is also notable that this seminal incident is nowhere to be found in your book and yet, here you tell it as if it is a landmark of self-validation.
Now we come to your biggest scientific blooper of all:
So, up until now . . . .
You’ve told all your Northland patients the LIE, that the reason Merck's Gardasil is given to a 12-year old, is that little’ole HPV sits there silent with a sign on its forehead, saying, “I won’t do anything until Dick puts his whatsit in Jane.” Right?
Oh, but now . . . you introduce CHILDREN dying from an obstructive warty mass in their throats from childbirth . . . ? Presumably from MOTHERS who have genital warts? How frequent is that? Aren't warty throat masses supposed to be a disease of older people who get HPV from kissing or oral sex? You’ve let the cat out the bag Lance. THAT little admission of yours above, is a major major OOPS. How are you going to explain to parents with no genital or vaginal warts, how the HPV 16 and 18 got into their children’s warty throat growths, when up to now, everyone has been told HPV isn’t an issue until adolescents have sex?
From One Prick to Another (2008) has several chapters on HPV and Gardasil in it, clearly laying out that HPV can be transmitted vertically from Mother to baby, horizontally from father to child and from sibling to sibling, and detailing the Finnish research which shows that HPV is spread in families. Yes, the anti-vaccine already knew this and more, before the vaccine was licensed.
We also know that the HPV strains 16 and 18 are regularly detected from the removed TONSILS of toddlers, when pathologists bother to look for it. Yes, Lance it’s ALL THERE, in the medical literature, that HPV can hit any age group.
There are at least three PMID numbers of studies published before Merck's Gardasil was marketed, warning that the use of cherry-picked incomplete data as public propaganda, was a potential recipe for disaster.
There was one comment under the Stuff.co article from another of your colleagues who didn’t know about vertical transfer. She probably doesn't know about the Finish family research either.
To people like me, that’s no shock.
In fact, it's not even the WHOLE story, is it? How is Merck's Gardasil going to eradicate HPV strains already in children? Particularly when Merck's Gardasil does not have life-long efficacy, and causes an immunological problem termed original antigenic sin, which encourages other HPV strains to take over? Yes, that's in the medical literature as well.
So now the silencing, threatening or bribing of scientists or doctors doesn't exist? Will you tell me that Merck creating and using a hit list to harass clinical researchers, and silence doctors speaking out against Vioxx, is the only example of Merck's lack of ethics? At this point it’s useful to deal with an issue that neither you, nor your cloned colleague Helen Petousis-Harris appear to understand. And that is that sometimes it IS only one scientist who stands between the public and a nasty something . . . This woman below is Dr Kelsey:
But Helen Petousis-Harris, in a recent interview said this:
So much bull here too. But I will deal with her bull, another day. Helen considers this to be "the success of the FDA". An example of how the system always works. She is wrong, and she is dangerously ignorant. So let me re-educate her, and you in the process.
If the FDA had been a group of heroes, they would all have been awarded medals.
The TRUTH is that Dr Kelsey was one of 12 assessors, working under the head of the FDA. But regarding thalidomide, Kelsey stood ALONE. None of the other eleven FDA co-workers thought she was reasonable, because she was going on 'gut instinct' and not fact. Every other country considered thalidomide research to be impeccable. It had been studied in so many different animals. Dr Kelsey was seen by the industry as totally unreasonable. Why should one woman in the USA be an outlier? How DARE she buck the rest of the world??!!!??!!!!!
The manufacturers put inordinate behind-the-scenes pressure on her through her colleagues and through her boss, but she refused to buckle. How do I know? Well, I’m an old biddie, Lance, who happened to know some of Dr Kelsey’s FDA colleagues from the 1970s and 1980s. Dr Kelsey was always modest, and she also knew that if she wanted to keep her job at the FDA she had to suck up the fact that the MEN around her were not as supportive as they should have been. To her credit, she didn't stick the knife in them. As your article and Helen’s blog admirably illustrate, just because you have a name doesn’t mean your assumptions hold water. You assume that doctors and scientists can’t be silenced. They can be, and they are.
I do use Dr Kelsey as an example of ONE scientist who stood against collegial and peer pressure. Like Thompson, she could have caved. Conversely, William Thompson COULD have been a 'Kelsey', but instead he allowed himself to be roped in, tied up and silenced. Today, there can be no 'Dr Kelsey' in either the FDA or the CDC. Medico-politics of today leave little room for that kind of individual scientific integrity.
This is why the secret recordings upon which the film VAXXED is based are important. This is why police put decoy prisoners in the slammer. The police know that often, people only talk when they think no-one that matters, is listening.
Seems to me that both you and Helen Petoussis-Harris have a lot of real history and medical science to catch up on. Perhaps you should start here, with this series. You will find the outlier scientists in part 3.
So Lance, when it comes to silenced scientists:
What about those people in Honesty vs Policy, Part 3? What about the Bernice Eddy’s, the Tony Morris’s, and the fact that Sir Graham Wilson could never have written the book, “The Hazards of Immunisation” had it not been for the Director of Wellcome's Physiological Research Laboratory, who handed him a large set of documents on his deathbed? You think those people don't exist either? Go have a listen to the the doctors interviewed by the VAXXED bus. They all talk about their many colleagues who don’t like vaccines, but are silenced, threatened and bribed. What about Dr Humphries? Do you think there was no attempt to silence and harass her?
All these doctors can’t all be wrong. Better still, even though we know, and you’ve confessed that you don’t read books, perhaps you might make the effort to read “Rising from the Dead”.
Then you might discover why doctors are silenced, and why some rise from the dead. Not that it’s likely that you would rise from the dead. Because you speak before you think or research, your mana and personal pride is now locked up in the words continually spouting from your mouth.
Your next comment:
"Partly due"? Hedging your bets? No Lance. Ask any teacher on the cusp of retiring after a 45 year career of teaching. They will tell you that autism today, is NOTHING LIKE what was previously put under the term of “intellectual disability”. Ask any doctor past retirement and they will tell you that “intellectual disability” is nothing like what we are seeing in children today. What teachers are seeing today, is more akin to functional and intellectual death.
Then you say:
Early childhood infections Lance? Ummmm… do you mean… INFLAMMATION? Has it occurred to you that because of adjuvants, vaccines hit the immune system of some people in different ways, but just as hard, if not harder than an infection? Congratulations though. You are one up on Paul Offit, Lance, admitting to brain changes, but what you fail to notice is that those changes are actually inflammation, and if or when that inflammation happens in utero, everyone knows it from the start, because the baby starts life in regressed mode. As to your suggestion that there is a genetic component you’re trying to shift the goal posts. It’s either epigenetic or genetic, Lance. Which do you think? Every time someone tries to prove “it’s this gene”, they fall flat on their faces. In the face of clear evidence? No. In the face of the same sort of Merky evidence that saw Vioxx which was similarly polluted with jacked up data and a galaxy of conflicts of interest, survive its full patent period. It is amazing how regularly medical journals write editorials about the myriad of shortcoming in peer-reviewed science, while the sacred cow of vaccine research glows under a get-home-free card.
Actually the complete insult isn’t caused by the parent, who is bullied into vaccinating their child by dictators like you, who do not provide fully informed consent. The person who bullied parents into vaccinating and helped create a chronic inflammatory disorder is the PERSON who is responsible for creating an inflammation in that baby that could have been prevented.
You can argue as does Gregory Poland, that the pregnancy flu vaccine prevents the strong inflammation from the flu that can theoretically cause autism. The problem is that influenza infection only creates strong inflammation in a FEW people who catch it. The vast majority of people who get the flu often don’t even know they have had it. Yes, that is in the medical literature. But if you say that, then Gregory Poland, and you, might have missed one thing: ONLY a tiny minority of pregnant women will ever get the flu in the winter. You know what SHIVERS is, right? It's an influenza research programme funded primarily by USA's CDC. Poke around and you will see that only a tiny percentage of the people thought to have flu, actually get flu types which match the vaccine.
Ironically then, you tell us that it's a fantastic idea to vaccinate every pregnant woman, every pregnancy, all year around, with the potential to cause varying degrees of inflammation in every vaccinated pregnant woman. Given that most pregnant women would never have got the flu anyway, how is vaccinating every pregnant mother a rational decision? And what happens when you toss aluminium from the obligatory Tdap vaccine that same woman is coerced into getting with every pregnancy — along with the flu shot?
You can't even assure at-risk obese people that the flu vaccine will give them any protection, since Neidich has found that, "Despite robust serological responses, vaccinated obese adults are twice as likely to develop influenza and influenza-like illness compared to healthy weight adults. This finding challenges the current standard for correlates of protection, suggesting use of antibody titers to determine vaccine effectiveness in an obese population may provide misleading information."
The DOCTOR who did the core work behind the theory of in-utero inflammation, Dr Patterson, specifically said that vaccination in pregnancy could be equally as dangerous in any mother who also responded to the vaccine with strong inflammation. Some do, some don’t. And you should also know that because the flu vaccine makes some people more susceptible to other viruses, those OTHER viruses can also cause severe inflammation in people who don’t respond well to them either. And IF a flu vaccine can cause strong inflammation in some mothers — which it can — that could also affect the baby.
Vaccinating a pregnant mother is simply another form of Russian roulette, which Patterson advised against, because strong inflammation after a vaccine can also affect the baby. But Dr Patterson was just another 'outlier' who didn't fit the dogma . . . who, fortunately for vaccine stakeholders, died of cancer before he became outspoken enough to stop that sherman tank on autopilot.
This load of fake bait, had me laughing for hours, Lance. How indignant you sound! Didn't you know that court cases forcing Merck to pay out for death and disability from the drug Vioxx, nearly broke the back of Merck? What did Merck look to, to Help Pay for Vioxx? HPV. In 2006 Dr Philip Broker, the HPV guru, said this at about Gardasil, at a meeting:
A vaccine isn’t the foundation and saviour of a company facing court actions against a drug, if the income from vaccines is a drop in the ocean, and it is all the drugs that keep them afloat financially. Vaccines are a HUGE $take in the ground, and trying to beat that fact into dust, Lance, defies what anyone can find from the business mouthpieces themselves on… yes…. DR GOOGLE.
But on a more serious note, my favourite myth buster website is FIERCEPHARMA. There you discover that because profits from meds are falling so short, vaccines are bigpharma’s saviour. You discover how many millions Gardasil earns for Merck. You discover how badly Pfizer will feel now that their NZ Prevenar 13 contract has been chopped. You realize how one minute, the Swine flu vaccine is lucrative, then five years later, narcolepsy from the vaccine, threatens the company’s reputation and future profits. Oh yes, vaccines are all about big money. As for you Lance, what are you doing about lifestyle excesses? Just carry on prescribing these drugs you say are so profitable?
Then comes your lowest blow, where you say:
Well done Lance. I can hear another haka . . . while Lance . . . drops the ball yet again . . . instead playing the MAN, then the conspiracy, then the WOMAN, then THE RACE CARD, topping it all off with the filthy lucre icing! Even managed to mention politics!
Trump? . . . What's that they said about Trump? Sexist, rhetoric, rigged elections, misogynist, racist . . the list goes on . . .? Your own regular media circus road show scripts, do indeed give the nod to the tactics from the new monkey see, monkey do Ministry of Health psychology manual, describing shooting the messenger while NOT discussing science.
Then you say:
Actually, that F grade is right on your doorstep Lance.
All you and your colleagues seem to care about is needling kids. You don’t really care about the things you SAY matter, like tight families, good housing, breastfeeding, not smoking, not boozing, great nutrition, reducing drug use, high standards of ethical behaviour, etc . . .
The only ethical behaviour you want to talk about, is that everyone should be made to vaccinate themselves, or their children for someone else’s sake. You don't want or even care about informed consent, or personal choice! What do you say to anyone who has been vaccine injured, just to supposedly protect the too young, your patients who are immune compromised from the drugs you prescribe, and the elderly? Or will you tell me, you've never seen a single vaccine side effect?
The reality is that persuading people to improve their lifestyle choices is in the doctor’s 'too-hard' basket. It takes too much time. There is no ten minute quick-buck-turn-around while educating people . . . is there . . . Lance? You want to redeem yourself? Then stop doling out lifestyle drugs, and get the basics of numbers one to four sorted out in your community.
Because guess what.
People like me who actively, intelligently CHOOSE NOT to vaccinate ourselves and our children, have made Numbers 1 – 4 our compulsory lifestyle, as described here in "Hands off my family". The people who REALLY get the basics right voluntarily in this country, are the educated, well-read parents of all races, whose children rarely see a doctor, and who you disparage, instead of 'playing the ball'. We actively CHOOSE not to vaccinate BECAUSE of the science. We actively CHOOSE our lifestyles, because we play the ball, Lance. We are not the chronically sick, fully vaccinated people who line the corridors of hospitals and cost the taxpayer millions of dollars, nor are we running around constantly spreading diseases on everyone else.
I challenge your ignorance, and your right to demand compulsion by playing people, conspiracy and race CARDS, instead of promoting fact-based decision making.Continue Reading
Dr Douglas Lush, we have met before, as you may recall. In your response to my article in the Gisborne Herald, you call me a conspiracist. Did you look at the evidence on the back up blog, at the bottom on my Gisborne Herald article?
You were born around 1970. As ACTING Director of Public Health you had a large library at your disposal, with the exact same information I have. How did you miss out on catching measles, mumps, rubella or chickenpox since all those diseases routinely circulated at that time, and there was no MMR or chickenpox vaccine for you to have as a child? Neither was there a Hib vaccine. Nor a Hep B vaccine.
You certainly didn't "escape" whooping cough as a child, because you were surrounded with vaccinated people ... because the vaccination rate for DPT was appalling (I have the data applied for under the OIA over 20 years ago), and ... the vaccine didn't work. I refer you to the following Department of Health graphs on my website, in particular to the Communicable disease December 1987, which clearly shows the rising whooping cough rates when you were a child. So much for herd immunity.
In 2013 you received an Expert Review in which Professor Grant explained on the front page, that the introduction of the pertussis vaccine has had no impact on the circulation of pertussis in our population. In fact he goes on to state that the hospitalization rate between 2000 - 2005, was 1.5 times higher than the 1960s. It is now, higher still. The graph on the following page, should make any honest man blush.
I also have the Department of Health graphs for cases and deaths from diphtheria from 1873. Have you?
Because if you have, you will know that the use of the diphtheria vaccine in this country had nothing to do with either decline in deaths or cases. Both declined drastically before the vaccine was incorporated into the DPT vaccine in 1960. It was not used during the polio years, and before that, had a maximum uptake of 9 - yes - NINE measly percent. But back to your story . . . .
In the year you were admitted, all medical students were first blood tested. I knew quite a few in the years you were there. One was a Maori woman who wasn't vaccinated either. All she "needed" was the Hep B vaccine. She told me about her vaccinated colleagues showing no titres, who were re-vaccinated, a topic wryly discussed with one of your tutors, Dr Roger Booth.
See, in the 1990s I practically lived in Auckland Medical School's Philson medical library, often talking to medical students, so I know what was going on at the time. Even if you had no titres to anything, you would only have had DPT, polio, Hep B and MMR vaccine. That's it.
I could bore everyone with a thorough refutation of the majority of your casual soundbites, but most people who know their way around this website, have already read the peer reviewed medical literature on the subject.
But one point I will deal with, is your opinion that I merely mouse-hunt on Dr Google. You are aware, are you not, that years ago, Google and Gregory Poland from Mayo Clinic banded together to change Google’s configuration so that anti-vaccine material was much more difficult to find? What Mayo Clinic didn’t appear to realise, was that their reconfiguration of Google searches has actually made it much EASIER to find the information in medical search engines, which points people to the truth.
Let me give you a tiny glimpse of one of my book cases in my work room ….
…. And a tiny glimpse at just one of my many disease and vaccine sections:
Pubmed of course, continues its policy of never putting up an abstract on peer-reviewed medical articles which might be of interest to people like me, which is of course, a dead give-away to ensure that ways are found to read it.
All anyone has to do, who wants to find out the truth, Dr Lush, is to first, read the vaccine package inserts, then your own Immunisation Handbook, THEN spend time on medical databases and go to medical libraries and read the last 127 years of the BMJ and Lancet. Will that take time? Oh yes. Its taken me 35+ years and I'm still going . . .
Is it worth it? Absolutely. Why? Because Dr Lush, I KNOW what was in your library under your office in the Wellington Department of Health building. I have every Immunisation Handbook that has ever been published. I have KEPT the vaccine inserts that come with the actual vaccine from years back. I KNOW my way around Medsafe’s website. I KNOW what is in the appendices to parliamentary journals from the late 80s in the History room in Auckland Library. I have READ the official year books. I’ve spent 30+ years reading, so that I KNOW BOTH sides of the story, which is why I am now an ex-vaxxer.
For those interested, here is the latest Immunisation handbook, published last month.
May 2017 New Zealand Immunisation Handbook.
Much of it is an un-scientific joke. Sometime, I will scan the measles section of the 1993 Immunisation handbook and put it side by side with the 2017 version and you will see just how low science has fallen. Even more interesting, on page 130, they list as “references”, blogs by fellow admirers, Helen Petoussis-Harris and David Gorski, whose name they even managed to spell wrong. This takes 'peer review' to new heights of lunacy. When "peers" . . . "review" each others' opinionated hot air, that makes their words “peer-reviewed” science worthy of Medsafe acclaim? Truly, the world of science has fallen flat on its face!
I presume you have a family tree, Dr Lush. Have you looked at it lately? Has it ever puzzled you, as to how it is that your parents, and grandparents got to live to a ripe old age without imbibing in the long list of childhood vaccines which you extolled (tetanus, diphtheria, polio, whooping cough, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, meningococcal disease, rotavirus, HPV, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and rubella) in your third to last paragraph?
Before you fluster around and tell me that measles has always been a deadly killer and without it, we would all have been dead in the water, have you read what the premier instigator of the measles vaccine, Dr Langmuir, had to say about WHY the vaccine was made?
Have you read what one of the greats, Dr Sencer, had to say about measles eradication?
Returning to the importance of fact, not emotive fiction, Dr Lush. As the EX- ACTING Director of Public Health, why is your reply to me, primarily unscientific sound bites, and opinionated hot air? Continue Reading
Yesterday, Jeremy Muir, editor of the Gisborne Herald, published this editorial. The debate started as a result of Dr Lance O’Sullivan’s public antics.
Part of the editorial says:
“If anti-vaccination protagonists cannot provide peer-reviewed research that has been published in respected journals, and not later retracted, this subject will soon be closed as a matter for discussion in The Gisborne Herald and on our website — unless new evidence emerges. More commentary will be published in Saturday’s paper, with response."
Let me give you some back story.
On 3rd June, this article was provided to Jeremy Muir. Even though the original provided to Jeremy, conformed to the 600 word policy, he replied to me as follows:
Thanks for sending this in. We aren't able to run the additional images so you'll have to work out how to incorporate that information in the text of your piece Hilary. Unfortunately our maximum word count for columns is 600 so there's not much space for additional words and it might require some cutting as well. Kind regards Jeremy Muir
You can see why he didn’t want to print it. After all, it’s very solid and backed by peer reviewed references all nicely embedded for you to check for yourself. Great article, right?
So on 6th June, I provided him with another article which apparently got lost. Here is the article to be published tomorrow, and here is the attachment.
It was only when someone ELSE copied into the email, queried Jeremy as to why he had not done anything with my article, that he replied on 13th June:
sorry I was waiting for it but see from this it should have arrived on Tuesday evening. I didn’t see it then and can’t find it in my email trail. I have it now though thanks. Kind regards Jeremy
Tomorrow, we will see exactly what the provaccine have to say. No doubt, it will continue to conform to the usual Department of Health Kiss rhetoric in yet another attempt to shut down both intelligent thinking and discussion by pretending there is no evidence or science.
Another sentiment from Jeremy’s editorial caught my eye:
Many readers will agree with the person who privately urged the editor to stop providing anti-vax propaganda so much oxygen.
“They will see that a trusted institution like The Gisborne Herald is giving (them coverage) and think they must have valid points to make. Meanwhile, we are struggling to get all our children vaccinated. The sad thing is those children are at risk of becoming very ill from a preventable disease.”
Who was "the person"??? This remark clearly comes from a doctor, as in "we". A statement which drips the entitled belief that decision making regarding children belong to doctors rather than to parents. What exactly is that doctor afraid of?
These are the same doctors who DO NOT give parents vaccine package inserts, and who plainly don’t consider that parents are able to use their brains to make an informed decision. In other words, we are stupid, right?
Why are doctors so scared of informing parents? Wouldn’t you think that if their rhetoric matched the truth that parents experienced, that all parents would want to continue vaccinating with every new vaccine that came out?
Why do these medical people and editors not ask themselves, "Why is it that ex-pro-vaccine, very intelligent people, have now become the driving force of the anti-vaccine movement in New Zealand? What do they know, that others don't?"
Many peer reviewed medical studies now state that it’s the university educated people with high incomes who are making the NO VACCINES choice. Are the medical researchers now insinuating that the educated and rich, have suddenly become stupid?
Why does no-one ask the question, "Why do the not so rich vaccinate?" Could it be that just like in Australia they HAVE no choice BUT to vaccinate because they are dependent on government income to survive? Isn't the success of financial coercion WHY people like Dr Lance O'Sullivan, want the same "no jabs no pay" legislation brought into New Zealand?
Thinking people should stop and ask WHY IT IS, that societal coercion and monetary blackmail has reached the point, where ONLY the well-heeled rich who don't rely on taxpayer money, have the freedom of thought to research and are (reluctantly) "allowed" to actually make an informed choice?
If you are pro vaccine and scoffing at that question, answer this one. "On what basis did YOU make your supposedly informed choice?" Or are you just defending the fact that you....
To be continued. Continue Reading
In today’s Herald on Sunday was an article about Waitetuna school near Raglan, where the school principal agreed to allow a midwife to show a film about the other side of vaccines on the school premises, but the board of Trustees overturned her agreement, on the basis that the topic was controversial.
I have a question. What are schools for?
Education, or social engineering? George Orwell wrote a book called “Animal Farm” Have you read it?
If a parent from Waitetuna school objected to nurses and doctors coming into the school and vaccinating children, would the Board of Trustees agree and stop them coming in because vaccines are controversial?
I somehow doubt it.
But I want to tell you a story of a young child, in a school, who along with some other children, returned a consent form for the HPV vaccine, which said, “No, I do not consent”.
What happened next will illustrate that New Zealand schools are not safe for children, and why the Department of Health vaccination programmes should be barred from schools.
The forms were collected and all the children who had returned “no” consent forms, were gathered in a separate group and the nurses berated the girls telling them that their parents didn’t love them, and that they could consent on their own, without their parent’s permission. One of the girls caved to that, but then another child who had watched the life of an older sibling be trashed and lead to a quality of life less than desirable, fought back. She refused to sign it. The nurses pushed. But she got angry and told the nurse that she wanted to go now. The nurse refused. The girl then told the vaccinating nurse that she wanted to call her parents and the police because what they were doing was wrong. Nothing like the experience of your own eyes, to firm up your own convictions!
At this point, she was quickly hustled out of the room in order not to freak out the other girls being pressured into going against their parent’s wishes.
How did all this situation come about?
The Department of Health, with school consent, seems to have started using the tactic of not telling the schools when they are coming to vaccinate. Their ostensible reason for this, is so that the children don’t get worried in advance.
What a load of bollocks.
The real reason is so that the parents of the non-vaccinators can’t keep their children home for that day, which allows the provaccine including the nurses, teachers and other pupils, to bully and berate children whose parents have chosen differently.
So while parents who don’t consent, would rather not send their children to school on that day, the Department of Health deliberately thwarts that option. This could be called revoking democratic decision making.
Of course in this mind-numbed unethical climate of bullying, emotional blackmail and … yes … controversy, such tactics are considered to be noble, wonderful and lifesaving.
Vaccinations ARE indeed a controversial topic of discussion. I believe that if schools refuse to allow parents to watch a film at a school, describing another side of vaccination, then schools should ALSO refuse to allow the Department of Health to vaccinate children in schools.
The issue isn’t just “controversy”. It’s one of non-hypocrisy. What is “education”? How do you define learning? Only by hearing one side of a story?
Do you send your children to school, and allow the Department of Health to vaccinate your children in school because you can’t be bothered making the effort to follow through on your own convictions? Shouldn’t parents who chose to vaccinate, be responsible for doing that at their doctors?
Would you like schools to also become places where children can also be prescribed antibiotics, prescription drugs, or even, abortion on demand?
Or should schools SOLELY be places where people are educated and learn to think, in particular to figure out how to make their own decisions without being brainwashed by the school or the state?
Vaccines: Safe, Effective and saved the world! This is what doctors say when parents asked about vaccines. Side-effects... "oh maybe fussiness and a sore arm...". But the vaccine inserts which are tossed into the rubbish tin, should be given to the parents? Is there something doctors don’t want parents to see?
Every parent has the right to full and correct factual information with which to make an informed choice. The whole truth, not emotionally blackmailing coercion.
Most people now being called “anti-vaxxers”, once trusted their doctors and followed blindly. The names all over the outside and inside of this bus, represent vaccine injury and death from every possible vaccine, after an uninformed, PRO-vaccine parent, signed a consent form, knowing nothing of substance.
The provaxxers say that “mere parents” are incapable of understanding what is good for them. Anyone who has studied the medical references in my two books, “Just a Little Prick” and “From One Prick to Another” will realise how much peer reviewed medical information has been withheld from them.
They might even wonder why? In 1984, this little gem came out:
How many people read the 1983 NZ Royal Commission on SV-40-contaminated POLIO vaccines? Do they know that by 1968, over 150 “adventitious” viruses had been found in polio vaccines?
After USA parents demanded more detailed polio pamphlets, the writers of this 1996 Pediatrics article, said this:
What is the reason for pamphlet writers targetting “behavioural objectives”, but ignoring “knowledge”?
Because they want parents to just DO IT. If parents understand the “non-essential” concepts they might have a more complete perspective and decide differently.
It seems the pro-vaxxers don’t want people reading vaccine package inserts; consulting annual deaths and cases data in all the NZ Official Year books; OR even worse, dissecting the annual Health reports in the Appendices to Parliamentary journals from the late 1800s!!!
People might realise that they have been lied to.
The Provaxxers say that antibiotics and vaccines caused disease decline before vaccines. How then, does that square with these graphs from official sources?
The provaxxers (and your commenters), cite smallpox and Polio, to validate all vaccines. But if they applied their minds to investigative research, which took me eight years to do, they would be astonished at the many twists and turns which radically contradict the world-saving dogma of smallpox and polio.
Throwing medically massaged success-of-the-past stories at parents is a deceitful false narrative, and emotional blackmailing rhetoric unworthy of science. Every day, parents are subjected to both, by the media and the medical profession.
Dr Lance O’Sullivan wants compulsory vaccination – a gross infringement of our rights to choose. But what if some “compulsion” might actually have spectacular results and improve everyone’s health? The following ideals are well established in peer reviewed medical journals:
1) Good nutrition for everyone. No junk food, no living off soft drinks, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs. (These should be too obvious to provide links for.)
2) Natural birth where there is no indication of “need” to intervene. After all, medical literature proves that elective caesarians cause long lists of problems for children and parents. (Salminen 2004, Scholinzig 2009, Dahlen 2016, Moya-Perez 2017 and Thursby 2017. This has been known since the 1990s.)
3) Family allowance enabling one parent to stay home for minimum of two years after every birth.
4) Breastfeeding for two years minimum. The cost to the taxpayer of not doing that is so high, I wonder why the media never covers these topics in depth? ( Bartick 2010, Smith 2011, Rouw 2015, Kindgren 2017 - just a few of many...)
If THESE four things had been compulsory for the last 20 years, sick patient numbers would be a fraction of what they are now, and hospitals might have money to burn. Sound good?
No. Instead, Lance O’Sullivan just wants Mandatory vaccination. Go figure. Continue Reading
And my choice, Lance O’Sullivan.
On 4th June, 2017, you appeared on Maori TV .
You said words to the effect of, “If a person chooses not to vaccinate and gets that disease and it results in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of treatment, as a member of society, I don’t want to have to pay for that.”
So Lance, please answer these questions:
If some of your whanau up there are smoking, and needing hospital treatment for a lifestyle choice of lung cancer as a result, why should my tax dollars pay for that?
If you have not taught your whanau essentials of nutrition, which seriously impact the severity of infectious disease, and are a driver for hospitalisation of more severe infection, and higher rates of pathogen shedding, why should my tax dollar pay for that?
If you have not got rid of nutritionally-related obesity and needless type 2 diabetes from your community, why should my tax dollar pay for treatment resulting from a lifestyle choice which you have done nothing to educate them about?
If some of your whanau are dealing drugs, smoking pot, and beating each other up causing injuries to one another, why should my tax dollar pay for rehabilitation or treatment for that?
Before you try to mandate vaccines on anyone else, because of the tax dollar, why don’t you educate your whanau about their right and responsibility to promote their own good heath which does not come at the point of a needle?
Or would your people rebel and say, “But mate, it’s our choice to smoke, to do drugs, to not eat right, to let our kids and ourselves get sick. It’s our choice to buy infant formula.... It’s our choice to get cancer. Hands off our choice!”
When asked what advice you would give to people who are concerned about vaccines, you also said words to the effect that "parents should trust the science, trust the experts, have faith in me, and trust me."
When it comes to vaccines, trust is earned, Lance, by always giving parents information which is not cherry picked, along with the vaccine datasheets, long before any needle comes anywhere near them. Trust is earned by never emotionally blackmailing parents.
You said, “We should put a lid on information which is factually incorrect”. Well, here is a fact Lance. All the information you give out about vaccines, is factually incorrect because it leaves out key concepts which are crucial to decision making. That is called lying by omission. Or… do you just assume that what you think you know is all there is to know? AND since you admit that you won't watch VAXXED, why do you think you are giving out factual information on its content? I've seen it, and your comments about it have been balderdash.
You spouted more poppycock when you dismissed the term "vaccine injury" by saying it was made up by anti-vaxxers. Seemingly it escaped your brain that the term was legalised by the American Government 31 years ago, for their 1986 "National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program".
Talking about taking personal responsibility, my husband and I stopped taking vaccines, antibiotics and the other nonsense you say is “best practice” nearly 40 years ago. As a result of that smart choice, we are NO LONGER a burden on the taxpayer. My husband is 85, and on NO prescription drugs. I have had a diagnosis of a primary immunodeficiency for over 30 years, which would flip your lid, because you would be all over me like a rash saying that I needed to do this, that and the other according to your science. You would say, "Trust me". Sorry Lance. Hands off my decision making.
Yes, I refused the "best practice" treatment - which ironically has contradicted itself dramatically over the decades. Why did I refuse "best practice"? Because instead I chose to be responsible for excellent nutrition, good sleep, no smoking, no alcohol, no junk food, weight control, and as a result the "immunodeficiency" has minimal impact compared to the old bad days. Doing those things - and having no television in the house, has enabled our family to function optimally with MINIMAL need for tax-payer funded medical intervention.
If . . . at any point, our family needed, or would need medical care, I would have no feelings of guilt because I have done everything within my responsibility, and within my ability, by putting the RIGHT things into our family, to ensure that the TAXPAYER doesn’t have to needlessly pay anything, because I have a COMPULSORY lifestyle which reduces so many risks down to almost nothing. We have “fixed” what is possible to fix, and anything else is outside of our ability to control. But even then, we often fix that too, without reference to a doctor.
Now when you have enabled every person in your community to have the good health that they have a right to, by compelling them to do the non-medical things they can do, THEN you will have a non-hypocritical basis with which to suggest compulsion in the matter of vaccination.
But even if you did suggest mandatory vaccination, to enforce it would be morally, scientifically and ethically wrong. Firstly, because what I put into my body is my CHOICE. What I eat, and drink is my CHOICE, which enables me to NOT USE the medical system. By having a compulsory lifestyle, our family has enabled MORE tax dollars to be spent on those people who shirk that personal choice or responsibility, and as a result, may be fully vaccinated, yet STILL line the walls of hospitals today.
You have to admit, Lance, that a large percentage of your people who sit in Kaitaia hospital, needn’t be there. They are there . . . because of life style choices they have made, which you didn’t pass a law to stop them making.
Just because something CAN be done, doesn’t mean it SHOULD be done. Given that choice applies to lifestyle, then it should also apply to vaccination.
You talk about vaccination being necessary to protect your vulnerable. What are you doing to protect your “vulnerable”, (in the same way I have done with a primary immunodeficiency), without the use of vaccines, antibiotics or your truck load of very expensive tax-payer funded drugs? It can be done. I am living proof.
Think on that, before you start forcing needles on those of us who have covered bases that many in your whanau choose to ignore, and you don’t “go there” do you, because you don’t want whanau to explode in your face, do a haka, and tell you to go and boil your head. So taking your example, I say, Hands off my family, and I return your friendly greeting to me, back to you: Pokokohua ratou.
- November 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (7)
- May 2017 (1)
- March 2017 (1)
- January 2017 (2)
- November 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (1)
- February 2016 (1)
- April 2015 (6)
- October 2014 (2)
- May 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (2)
- November 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (3)
- July 2013 (10)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (6)
- February 2013 (3)
- January 2013 (1)
- October 2012 (6)
- August 2012 (3)
- July 2012 (3)
- June 2012 (14)
- May 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2012 (2)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (6)
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (6)
- May 2011 (15)
- April 2011 (8)
- March 2011 (3)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (5)
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (8)
- September 2010 (21)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (3)
- June 2010 (9)
- May 2010 (15)
- April 2010 (17)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (19)
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (10)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (2)
- April 2009 (13)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (2)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (10)
- August 2008 (17)
- July 2008 (11)