On Monday, Jamie Morton, who calls himself a science reporter, penned an article called, “Your winter flu will count this year”. Jamie Morton’s twitter account, described himself as a, “Scribbler at NZ Herald. Enjoys irrelevant music and coffeehousing. Dislikes Nazis and any concept of a NZ celebrity culture. Views are his own.” Quite what qualifies him as being “scientific” is inscrutable, but at least he doesn’t describe himself, as an “investigative science journalist”, for if he had, I would have choked. Continue Reading
There are days when you wonder where supposed experts leave their brains. Worse, you wonder about the people who follow like lemmings. Dr Arthur Caplan has scored another hit in the brainless bullseye for his recent medieval thinking blog. I will intersperse comments amongst his mental witterings:
It would seem that tentative toes have entered medical debate over flu vaccines. Ever so tentative. Almost apologetic actually, which is bizarre, if you look closely at 60 years of very clear medical evidence that the flu vaccine has always performed exceptionally poorly. But there is another issue here, and it's the "myth" which the medical profession tries to dispel - which everyone knows, which is, "Get the flu vaccine and get sick.
That comment is like a stuck record, which comes out of the lips of so many people. Yet, the doctor always says, "Oh, it's coincidental!" and never bothers to do a throat swab to back that presumption up with fact. Continue Reading
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: 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
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.
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.
How many people died from flu in Auckland in 2012? 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."
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?
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.
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.
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
- 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)