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?
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.
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.
Many will have seen and heard the verbal antics of bioevangelist Dr Lance O’Sullivan, along with the media salivating on his bone, followed by Toby Manhire’s rant called “Dangerous tripe of the anti-vaxxers”.
Bioevangelists believe that medical science has an exclusive mortgage on answers to public health issues. They go about proselytizing all and sundry to their causes… and persecuting anyone who dares even question their beliefs.
"Either you are with us, or you are a terrorist!” is their new mantra.'
What a shame, that apart from one TVNZ journalist who watched the film, the rest sat back and repeated the words of a man who refused to watch the movie, saying that VAXXED is all about Andrew Wakefield, when it’s nothing of the sort. Some could argue that there would have been less wind in the media rhetoric if Del Bigtree had directed the film himself. After all, he was once a sought-after, talented “reputable” medical journalist. Except that most journalists watched Del looking at the science and asking questions, and saw him get dropped into mainstream oblivion along with his golden-boy reputation. That is enough to make journalists think, “yeah, well if I say there is something to this, I could lose my job as well.” It takes a really tough journalist to break a “Watergate”.
So exactly what is journalistic honesty? In 1967 this is what honour meant:
Obviously they threw that code of ethics into the waste paper basket.
Even worse, it seems their version of research is to take short cuts, or indulge in mind-numbing parrotage.
On 26th May 2017, Checkpoint ran an item, which was very pro-vaccine. In an attempt to sound like they had done their research, Checkpoint downloaded one document from ESR and stated that over 1,700 cases of vaccine-preventable diseases had been notified in 2016, a third of which were under 19 years of age.
Radio NZ obviously wasn’t thinking carefully, because they didn’t notice that this excel document doesn’t include Influenza, which is okay, because that’s a crap vaccine and only 27% of the population even bothered with it last year.
If it had included all the influenza-like infections they could have blown the data up ever so much bigger. But I notice since ESR has been doing the SHIVERS influenza project they have stopped making their atrocious, lying statements about tens of thousands of influenza cases and 400 deaths per year—because their own research has shown that the vast majority of what they once called “influenza” wasn’t influenza at all.
That is why they have to rely on individual stories of heart-wrenching tragedy to motivate people to go and get a flu shot. Fortunately most people are too smart to take the bait off the plate.
Plainly Radio NZ didn’t think this through at all. Perhaps they were short of time. Paid-by-the-minute, you know. And what does it matter? 1,700 sounds BADDDDD, and they know that most people will think that the 1,700 cases just means, “a vaccine would have prevented all of those diseases!”
To analyse this data correctly, we need the raw data, and the analysis of who got the disease and whether they were vaccinated. ESR has some data on that, but it’s pretty much bare bones, because ESR only uses the data that is put into its EPISURV database.
For whatever lunatic reason, they don’t use the National Immunisation Register, where ALL vaccines are logged in under a person’s name. Seems to me there is no point in having the NIR if you never use it to check vaccine efficacy. Maybe that is deliberate.
So our mission-almost-impossible today is to compare the raw data, with the under 19’s vaccination status. Downloading the same excel as Radio NZ did , we see that there are indeed a total of 1,875 TOTAL cases of vaccine-preventable diseases in all ages, and 710 cases under 19.
Now, we have a slight problem because in order to work OUT which cases are vaccinated and which are not, we have to consult the 2016 ANNUAL report. And so far, there is NO 2016 annual report.
BUT we can do an analysis on 2016 Invasive Pneumococcal Disease (IPD), because their data is up-to-date and reported separately. Lance made much of a seriously sick baby in his arms flown to Starship, who could have had meningococcal disease, but he didn’t say what sickness the child had. Since Northland down to Counties Manukau is indeed the capital city of both IPD and meningococcal disease, it is instructive to look a bit closer at IPD for 2016.
What we have to do is download the four quarterly reports of 2016 for Invasive Pneumococcal disease = IPD.
So what we are looking at is vaccine impact on the age groups listed as eligible for invasive pneumococcal disease childhood vaccines from 2008, as well as vaccine impact on the disease itself. Is it reducing the disease? That includes the 0 – 10 year old children, and their rate of IPD is still very high compared to the children “not eligible”.
January to March
61 cases total. They plainly have some data confusion going on, because they had changed from Synflorix (PCV-10) to Prevenar 13, so their comparative ability is a bit stymied and they don’t actually talk about vaccination status at all.
As to the influence of any vaccine, they just say that IPD caused by the strains of pneumococci represented in the vaccine PCV-10, went DOWN by 19.1%. A sparse report.
April to June
121 cases total.
The number of IPD cases attributed to PCV-10 decreased 15.4% Again, no vaccination data given. A sparse report.
July to September
179 cases total. And this time, data is slightly more complete.
On page 3 it says that IPD due to PCV-13 was DOWN 10.1% (217 – 195 – down 22), but IPD cases due to non PCV-13- targeted strains went UP 21.8%. (214 – 264 up 50 ) Down 22 and up 50. Does that sound good to you?
For the first time there is vaccination data for 16 cases eligible for vaccination. No age appropriate data is given, but ALL SIXTEEN CHILDREN were vaccinated. Six cases were non PCV-13- targeted strains.
October to December
116 cases total.
PCV-13-targeted strains showed a 12.5% decrease, but non-vax IPD strains showed a 23.4% increase. More serotype replacement . . .
Seems to me, the new swings are worse than the old roundabouts.
Twelve were eligible to be vaccinated. Again, no month-appropriate data, but 10/12 were vaccinated, with 6 cases due to non PCV-13 strains.
So there is your IPD vaccine-eligible data extracted from the 2016 Excel sheet, matched with the quarterly reports.
475 cases of IPD and a total of 28 cases eligible for vaccination, and 26 of them were vaccinated.
But I hear you say, there would have been more if the children weren’t vaccinated. The trouble with that statement is that that isn’t obvious from the decline graphs included. The rate per 100,000 is still vastly higher than the older non-vaccinated age groups. Yes there is a slight decline on the graph, but look at the 2015 annual report and you will see similar decline graphs over the same time period, for infections which there are no vaccines against. So according to ESR, of the 28 vaccine-eligible children they listed, only 2 were not vaccinated. You have to ask yourself why, of the total 475 cases, the other 449 “not-eligible-for-vaccine” were not worthy of a campaign to get adults to take the vaccine, since these vaccines are so good?
It’s best not to talk about the fact that all the Cochrane reviews and this recent article (Htar 2017) simply confirm that the Pneumococcal vaccines for adults, are a whistle in the wind and akin to taking your chances with witchcraft.
However, if you want to do a really valid comparison of the OTHER vaccine-preventable diseases in under-19’s mentioned on TVNZ checkpoint, you would have to take the 2015 excel spread sheet for notifiable diseases and compare them with the 2015 Annual report.
We can leave out the IPD comparison, since we have an analysis for 2016 already. So without IPD, we print out the 2015 Excel sheet and see a total of 1,577 supposedly vaccine-preventable diseases, and 616 cases in under 19’s.
Opening up the Annual report, alongside the excel sheet, let’s start with:
Diphtheria: There were two cases in under 19-year-olds. They were newly-landed Pakistani refugees with no listed vaccination status. (There were a total of 42 isolates, 5 toxigenic—no discussion of vaccination status at all in the remaining cases either, which is pretty slack. So lets be generous and add them to a running total.
Total = 2.
Haemophilus influenza B. 3 cases, European, 2 unvaccinated confirmed cases from a non-vaccinating community and the other was a non-confirmed case. All survived with no complications.
Total = 5
Hepatitis A. 12 cases in under 19-year-olds. Even though there is no vaccine in the schedule, lets count them in just to be generous. After all, technically they ARE preventable with an elective vaccine.
Total = 17.
Hepatitis B. There were 2 cases, one under 1, and one 15 – 19. No details are given of their vaccination status, or outcome. If they had died we would have never heard the end of it.
Total = 19
Measles. 6 cases under 19, 5 cases were eligible for vaccination but were not vaccinated. No complications or deaths mentioned.
Total = 25.
Mumps: 8 cases under 19, and of them, 6 were vaccinated. Great vaccine. Let’s add them in.
Total = 33
Pertussis. 550 cases under 19 yrs. As anyone who has read the literature will know, the vast majority of pertussis is in the vaccinated, because the vaccine does NOT and never HAS given good protection against whooping cough, AND the current vaccine ensures that the vaccinated carry and spread the disease. On page 45 is their analysis of the vaccination status from Episurv. (Not the NIR) I’m only going to analyse the cases up to 11 year old’s data, because anyone over 11 was lumped in with the one-hundred-and-one year-olds.
29 cases happened before the first vaccination at 6 weeks.
Of the 19 cases in the 3-4 month olds, 15 were fully or appropriately vaccinated, 4 unvaccinated.
Of the 126 cases from 5 months to 3 years, 5 were partially vaccinated and 83 fully vaccinated, with 32 unvaccinated.
Of the 215 cases in 4 – 10 years, 123 were appropriately vaccinated, 10 partially and 43 not vaccinated.
There were no deaths or complications discussed.
Now if we were to nitpick, we would have to remove the 221 fully vaccinated under 11 year olds, out of the 360 under 11 yr old children who still got whooping cough don’t you think? But I won’t. Let’s be generous and add them all in. Let’s ignore the fact that, pertussis and mumps vaccines don’t work beyond a few years. The flu shot is a far worse bet than even mumps or pertussis. All the mumps outbreaks in USA are in fully-vaccinated people in schools and universities… and it’s the unvaccinated who are locked out of school. Droll, don’t you think?
Running Total 393 Moving on from the stupid to the ludicrous, lets include Tuberculosis, since Lance O’Sullivan did a big crow job about how wonderful that vaccine was, when we don’t even use it in this country any more.
Tuberculosis. There were a total of 297 cases of all ages. (31 cases under 19) They were mostly from overseas and of the total cases, 160 provided vaccine records showing BCG. Okay, so those of us who have read the medical literature, which shows that the BCG vaccine doesn’t work, know that is why BCG was stopped in New Zealand. But let’s just pretend that BCG is SUPPOSED to work. Are you shocked at the rate of failure? 160 people who came here with documented BCG vaccines landed up being treated for TB. Nice.
Of the 31 cases under 19, the 6 under five years of age were not vaccinated. Presumably that means that the 25 over 5 were vaccinated. Shall we be nice and say that all 31 cases were “preventable”?
Total = 424 under 19-year-olds with supposed “vaccine-preventable diseases”—many of whom were vaccinated.
Now, just out of interest, I checked meningococcal invasive disease. There were a total of 75 cases with four deaths. 61 were laboratory confirmed and of those, 41 were Meningococcal type B. The other cases were scattered through other types. There were 45 cases under 19. Surprise, surprise and yes, topping the list was Lance O’Sullivan’s stomping ground = 8 cases.
So why did I not hear Lance O’Sullivan whine about the MenZB vaccine having been dropped from the schedule, all those years ago? Oh right. I forgot. It was stopped because the antibodies only lasted about 6 months and basically the vaccine was a bag of hot air. But we aren’t supposed to remember that.
Now have another look at that excel sheet and the 2015 Annual report and look at what New Zealanders are REALLY getting sick and dying from. It’s pretty self-evident don’t you think? It sure isn’t “vaccine-preventable” diseases. We do have a major health crisis in this country, 99.9% of which is NOT caused by the 424 so-called vaccine-preventable diseases. And . . . over half of the confirmed cases of vaccine-targeted diseases occur in vaccinated people, and can’t be blamed on the TB or meningococcal vaccines not being given.
The fact is that the vast majority of people who require the expensive hospital care in this country, are fully vaccinated, and are there because of other things . . . and sometimes . . . because their vaccines haven’t worked. As you have seen above, a very large percentage of vaccinated people got whooping cough, mumps and TB. So right there, you have three vaccines of dubious worth, along with the flu and IPD vaccines.
Now, I know you will say that we don’t have huge deaths from tetanus and all these other diseases because of the vaccines, and the cases are low because of the vaccines. The problem with that argument is that deaths fizzled out long before the vaccines. For some infections, cases fizzled out before vaccines, and other infections, cases fizzled out without vaccines. The health department knows that. It is their data, after all. So they concentrate on cases, complications, and the rap that being vaccinated means you just get a mild case, not a nasty one. Yes, the measles vaccines have disrupted the circulation of measles in the name of "herd immunity" . . .
. . . but it has come at a cost. I have the annual deaths and cases data for New Zealand dating back to 1872, so I’m in a position to compare pre-vaccine deaths and cases with post vaccine figures. The comparison would surprise and shock you.
We also have a conundrum, which is that doctors are very reluctant to diagnose clinical disease in a vaccinated person. For decades, they plain refused to diagnose whooping cough in a vaccinated person until it became too obvious to deny any more.
As an interesting discussion point, there should have been a case of tetanus in the 2016 data, of a 20 year old girl. But it’s not there. Why? Because . . . she was fully vaccinated, boostered and reboostered at the time of her injury. BECAUSE she was more than fully vaccinated, Middlemore hospital diagnosed her as dystonia, not tetanus. Subsequent doctors and neurologists have diagnosed her as generalised tetanus, but I won’t hold my breath for her case to appear in any database. In 2012 another woman I know who was also fully vaccinated was admitted to Waikato hospital to reside there for a month. Despite all the classic symptoms for tetanus, the hospital refused to diagnose it correctly as well, which meant they couldn’t treat it correctly either.
It’s called indoctrinated deafness.
Those of you who are 60 years old and older, I would ask you a question. What was the health of other children like when you were a child? What was it generally like when you had children? When you look at your grandchildren, what do you see? Are children today, made healthier overall by vaccines? Do you think the children of today are healthier in terms of overall health to you, when you went to school? I think that when we consider this question, we need to think very deeply about this issue. Way back in 1986, when the Herald was brave enough to actually do a reasoned thinking article on measles (link to it.), I said something that I still stand by and that is that, “we have essentially traded our acute epidemic diseases of the past century for the far less curable chronic diseases of the present.” And what I see today, is far worse than what I saw nearly 30 years ago.
Too bad Lance is too short sighted to do some real good. It’s too bad that Lance seemingly doesn’t understand the real factors which complicate infections, and the ways in which he could educate his people, and stop the problems which plague his Northland community.
To be continued. Continue Reading
Polly Gillespie is not one for letting the facts get in the way of an emotive story, even when it concerns the tragic death of her sister. Polly got her sister’s cause of death wrong, her sister’s age wrong, the day she was admitted to hospital wrong, and the day she died wrong. In addition, Polly thought nothing of dishing out hate and literal threats of violence to individuals who dared to question the integrity of her story or don’t get vaccinated. If the provable facts were wrong, what information was correct in the article which was a jock-shock attempt to use emotion to get people to have an influenza vaccination?
The usual ‘skeptics’ accepted her error-ridden story as fact, and lauded her for her courage, perhaps unwittingly, embracing woo-science to promote their cause. Her flawed story was spun around cyberspace by so-called objective experts, such as staff at IMAC, in the hope of scaring a few more folks into having their annual shot at the flu vaccine altar.
On Monday 9 May, 2016, a formal complaint was lodged with the New Zealand Herald in the matter of three articles present on their website:
1) Twelve Questions: Polly Gillespie 1 May 2014 . . . . PDF
2) Polly Gillespie: Losing my Sister 2 May 2016 . . . . PDF
3) Polly Gillespie: Messages of Support over Flu Death 6 May 2016 . . . PDF
PDF of Detailed complaint to the Herald.
Why did I make the complaint? Because:
The Herald and Polly Gillespie, are supposed to be bound by the New Zealand Press Association standards. Both the Herald and Polly have breached those standards. Although there are three more working days left before the New Zealand Herald is due to reply (this blog made live on 18th May) , the Herald has not even acknowledged receipt of the complaint. If the Herald has not replied by 5 p.m. on Friday, or if they consider there is no basis to the complaint, an additional complaint will be laid with the New Zealand Press Association. Polly's incorrect Herald facts continue to be quoted by other publications as if they are the truth, so in the interests of the public, here are the facts relating to the three articles in the Herald.
Everyone who ran off and got vaccinated with the flu vaccine in a total emotional panic, because they believed Polly's columns, ... should wake up to the fact that not everything written in a paper upholding the New Zealand Press Association standards will meet those standards.
Most importantly, perhaps Polly embellished her story hoping that no-one in the crowd would use a mouse to check her facts, and relied on the crowd to believe every word that dropped off her pen into their heads.
Ever heard the statement that, "Crowds Lie. The more people, the less truth"? SØren Kierkegaard explored this theme from many angles in all his writings. On pages 320 - 22 of his book "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", he said that when we "admire and blubber" in the presence of what we regard as superior human achievement, we turn ourselves into spectators and connoisseurs and neatly avoid the call to live as humans ourselves. Admiration, in other words . . . can be a dodge.
Blind belief in the face of such admiration, can also suspend, or prevent critical thinking.
The third column by Polly is a chilling example of what happens when the gullible crowd chooses to admire someone being sparse with the truth. "But," you say, "what if we didn't know that a lie was told?"
On what basis should the crowd believe Polly? Because she has a big mouth, literally and metaphorically? ‘Buyer beware’, doesn't just apply to things obtained with money.
History through the ages is a sorry story of the unreliability of crowds to discern or even reflect the truth. You would think in an age when it's so easy to check people's facts, that the Herald, or its readers might have asked a few questions. Particularly from someone who admits to having such a creative imagination as Polly Gillespie, and who admits to being "naughty". But no.
Why does the participation by the majority in something - anything - , equate to uncritical legitimacy, and reduce the thinking of the crowd to mindless passivity?
Why does being a columnist, confer an impression of excellence, importance and pontifical scientific rightness?
Any student of history can show that truth can often be compressed to fit into a slogan, which is reflected in Churchill's quote, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Unfortunately, the issue of vaccination is also talked about with a "wartime" mindset, and is similarly attended by a bodyguard of lies.
On this occasion, Polly Gillespie is not an unwitting victim of those lies, though perhaps she might believe a complaint against her, makes her a victim. She was the creative perpetrator.
The victims who were abused by her articles, were not only the unwitting listeners who believed her lies, and rushed to the doctor for a jab . . . but her sister, and the anti-vaccinationists who were publicly villified by an extraordinary torrent of invective.
So let’s look at the problems here. In the last few years, Polly has publicly bared her soul about how her sister Jeanette, was her very best friend for life, the light of her life, - always there for her - paid her bills etc etc . . . the list of expanding extollations grows with every retelling.
The core point of Polly's stories have always been that if her sister had been vaccinated, she would never have died.
Jeanette, according to Polly, "caught the flu and died five days later."
In 2014, when this story first came to my attention, Jeanette died in her "early 30's".
In the Herald in 2014, according to Polly, Jeanette was 38 when she died.
In 2016, the graphic description of Jeanette's death, and a unbridled vicious raging at non-vaccinators, was exceptionally callous, so a warning light went on in my head.
Add to the warning light, the fact that in 2000, the year Jeanette died, the flu was pretty much non-existent, and nowhere in the official death databases was there such an influenza death in the 30 - 40 year age group.
Knowing that Polly's description did not match the clinical picture of a death from "influenza", OR the data, I researched Jeanette's death using various combinations based on known facts, and the web threw up an obituary, written by one of Jeanette's colleagues (who cannot remember who actually told him that Jeanette had the flu).
Jeannette's obituary dates informed me that she was 41 at her death, not 38. So I went back to the Health Department database for deaths from the flu in 2000, in people from 40 - 45, and still found nothing.
A search of Hamilton City council's cemetery records confirmed Jeanette's age to be 41 at death. Ah ha. Now, I had a proper date.
So I picked up the phone to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and ordered a certified copy of her death certificate which says;
I studied the manual written in 2000, directing doctors how to fill out the patient’s death certificate, and discussions with Ministry of heath staff confirm that had Jeanette had the flu, it would have been written on the doctor’s certificate, and on the top line of the death certificate.
Furthermore, even in 2000, if influenza had been suspected, Jeanette would have been tested, and the samples sent to ESR in Wellington.
Severe coinfection with flu and Staph. aureus is possible, as shown in a CDC publication dated
April 27, 2012: "Severe Coinfection with Seasonal Influenza A (H3N2) Virus and Staphylococcus aureus — Maryland, February–March 2012 " which described illness and death in three family members as a result of Staph. aureus and the flu:
"All three family members had confirmed infection with seasonal influenza A (H3N2) virus. Patients B and C had confirmed coinfection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which manifested in both patients as MRSA pneumonia and bacteremia.... Two of the three had been vaccinated against seasonal influenza."
As you see, the flu vaccine did not prevent two of those deaths.
So what provable facts do you know now?
That according to her death certificate, Jeanette did not die of the flu, she was 41 at her death, the death certificate stating her birthday as 29th August 1959, not 28th August (no year) as asserted by Polly on her facebook page on the 4th May 2016 PDF
It seems that since the complaint was filed, Polly has played catch-up, and changed her sister’s birthdate to what it should be . . .
Polly was also very specific about some things, such as, " my sister's sudden fatal bout of influenza … She got sick on the Tuesday and was dead on the Saturday."
Except that published information shows that her sister got sick on Friday and died on Wednesday. So the above quote from Polly is also incorrect.
What else were we told?
"My sister was a brilliant artist too, who sold her work when we were in college together in the US, to constantly get my sorry ass out of debt. She would pay off my dental bills, and my rent. … and when she'd finished her fine arts degrees, became a scientist."
That didn't mesh with the time frame mentioned in her obituary. PDF Jeanette's obituary said that Jeanette was a dancer and tour guide for five years at the Polynesian Cultural Center at Laie, Hawaii. Jeanette enrolled in the University of Waikato in 1987, to study for a Bachelor of Social Science degree in Geography, and the following year converted her degree to a Bachelor of Science, majoring in Earth sciences. She graduated her BSc in 1989, taking the full three years.
Jeanette Gillespie then spent another three years to graduate with a Master of Science in 1992, and in 1993 enrolled for part-time PhD study, which seemingly had not been completed by 2000.
Surely someone with multiple degrees would have been cross credited, had time remitted, and those degrees listed in her obituary?
According to Waikato University, Jeanette never asked for, or received cross credits. Her colleague who wrote her obituary has no knowledge of any other degrees. Are arts degrees something to be hidden?
More research brought up public records of both Jeanette and Polly attending a Mormon college called Christ Church New Zealand at Templeview in Western Hamilton, and Polly’s passing School Certificate in 1977, which places Polly's birth year at around 1962.
Using clues from Jeanette's obituary, more research placed both Jeanette and Polly at the Mormon Brigham University in Hawaii, which is where the Polynesian Cultural Center was located . . . yet apparently there were no degrees which came out of this particular time period.
We were then told that: "I've seen the result of not getting a flu vaccination. Jeanette told me she didn't think she needed one because she was fit and healthy.”
Yet in this 2001 ESR report , we read:
Immunisation Coverage "In 1997 influenza vaccination was made available free to those ≥65 years of age, and in 1999 free vaccination was extended to risk groups <65 years."
In 2000, it was neither the norm, nor was it expected for healthy 40 year olds to have the flu vaccine.
Plainly, Polly disagreed with Jeanette . . . by implication. Does that mean that Polly who would have been around 39 at the time, had the flu vaccine, and disapproved of her sister’s comment?
Polly claims she was on air/in the studio (presumably in Wellington) when the call came through that her sister was very ill in hospital in Hamilton. It would have taken the best part of a day to make arrangements and get to Waikato Hospital, even if flying. Jeanette had pneumonia, Staph. sepsis, renal failure and coagulopathy for 5 days, and Polly said that Jeanette's body was on life support and being dialyzed:
"The wonderful staff at the hospital hooked her up to a machine that removed her blood, cleaned it, and pumped it back through her body."
So her sister's body was shutting down. She was bleeding from her eyes, nose and ears, her lungs were full of fluid, her hands and feet turning black. With Jeanette in an induced coma a skeptic would have to ask, when could such a rational conversation with Polly asking, “Why didn’t you have the flu vaccine” and Jeanette saying, “I didn’t need it”, have taken place?
Who told Polly this was "the flu"? It would be instructive to see the medical files, but those would only be released to the executor of the estate.
So instead of a factual representation of her sister’s death, the public was bombarded with a story, some of which is verifiably false, and some indeed implausible, in order to form some kind of authenticity and legitimacy to allow Polly to say this:
The last of the three articles was about the feedback from the rant above. Polly again ranted about wanting to send the anti-vaccine crowd for an IQ test:
And Polly was delighted to report that:
“People from the health sector thanked me for my responsible position. Cool. That felt good.”
Perhaps the health sector can go and look at Jeanette Lea Gillespie's hospital file, doctor’s certificate and death certificate, obituary, and research the case. Then maybe they can explain to me, exactly what is responsible about anything Polly has said about her sister since 2014.
Or is truth not important when it comes to needling people?
Seemingly, Churchill was correct. "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Continue Reading
As a follow up to Sunday’s Gardasil documentary called “Going Viral” and my yesterday’s blog (which I posted on Sunday’s facebook page), this morning I received email notification of this reply.
All mistakes are his, not mine:
April 15 at 11:03am
As one of the Wellington High students in the piece, I'd like to tell you that I intended to receive the vaccine prior to even being approached for the story (and I'll have you know we were all well researched. We had just spent over half the school term researching the biological and ethical issues surrounding vaccines, and were provided with sources that were both pro and anti vaccinationing for several different controversial vaccines. We were then encouraged to come to our own conclusions from the material provided)* Continue Reading
This Sunday's SUNDAY programme called Going Viral, used national TV and Dr Miller to imply to children, "You can either get a vaccine, or you can get cancer." Then the children sat there with Ian Sinclair saying, “The government should let us have this vaccine free.” The kids were so grateful for Dr Miller’s story.
But there is a huge problem with this unethical story.
Dr Andrew Miller said: “The initial biopsy showed there was a factor, a protein that was sitting inside the skin that actually is a marker for wart virus. So what's happened is I've got some sort of wart virus in my nose that's triggered off a cancer," he says.
He said I’ve got ****SOME SORT**** of wart virus in my nose.
This lack of clarity is a problem for several reasons:
What say the squamous cell carcinoma in Dr Miller’s nose… is NOT one covered by the vaccine?
Did you hear him say, “I’ve got HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18, and this squamous cell carcinoma could have been prevented by Gardasil.”?
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
And here is where the Ministry of Medical Truth's reformulating the meaning of the world nocebo, is the new scientific paradigm. Their aim is to rescue an industry annually teetering on the edge of the next scandal.
On the one hand, they need definable effects, and credible proof which is difficult, because as Manfred Schedlowski says, "… we know the nocebo effect can be really really large… this hinders development of new drugs.” And “the nocebo effect may also have a really worrisome effect on vaccine use". Oh yes, you can create fear, to make people use vaccines, but when parents say that vaccines cause reactions, you can’t study that, because It's all "nocebo" caused by parents reading the facts from the vaccine datasheets. And as Dr Bernadine Healy stated:
“Healy said: "There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. "First of all," Healy said, "I think the public's smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."
Yet that’s exactly what they have done. The medical system has turned their backs on FACTS because they are afraid of the truth that those facts might confirm that it's not nocebo at all, but that being biologicals, meaning that they do affect the biology of the person, vaccines do indeed have the potential to wreck lives. THEREFORE they invoke the placatory placebo principles and make sure that all research only asks questions and uses methods designed to dismiss what parents see, return to business as normal, and not to get to the bottom of any of the issues.
"Worried Sick" tells us that nocebo increases the “incidence of asthma and allergies… we know an allergic reaction can be conditioned.”
I couldn’t help laughing at the last quote, because for a very long time, I have believed that vaccines in babies result in a fundamental changing of the immune system, resulting, amongst other things, in an increase in allergy and asthma:
1. Vaccines and neonatal immune development 23-May-2011
2. How a baby fights infection and develops the immune system 24-May-2011
3. Can vaccines become cranial and immunological cluster bombs? 25-May-2011
Please note in the three blogs above, that EVERYTHING I say comes from medical articles for which links are provided. Ask yourself this. Did all the immunologists who wrote the things I discussed suffer from a nocebo delusion that what they saw was real? Yes, an allergic reaction can be conditioned: … by deviant immune responses to allergens and vaccines, but that isn’t what this article is meaning. It's all in your imaginations, mammas!!!
And here’s the interesting thing. Just about every second child you meet these days, appears to have some dairy sensitivity or a gluten intolerance – the list is legion.
The article infers that these allergies and asthma are a new form of nocebo, and that, the children are the victims of a psychologically deranged parental child abuse.
Why parents would want to make their lives into that sort of hell beats me, but it seems that this is where the medical profession is heading with this argument. Everything will soon be your fault!
I wonder what would happen in the unfortunate scenario that I landed up in hospital from a car crash? Here's the imaginary discussion:
Dr: "I see your medic alert says you're allergic to all antibiotics. Can you describe the symptoms please?"
Me: Well, my neck and face swell up like a balloon, and I start choking and can't breathe. And usually don't remember much after that."
Dr: "Well, never mind. We know that's all caused by nocebo effects, and was all in your mind. That won't happen again now that you know your hypochondria caused it, so we'll just go ahead and use what we like...."
You know why that wouldn't happen. Because the medical system would be sued to Mars and back again.
Don't you think it's bizarre, that you can legitimately be allergic to drugs, anaesthetics and a whole raft of things, but suddenly they are framing allergies and asthma as being a psychosocially induced disease?
And you can see WHY this shift in language...., because the sheer numbers of drugs and vaccine reactions being brought up by parents and people to their doctors is staggering. Reactions of any sort financially threaten an industry which wants to look benevolent and convince us all that they are not capable of doing any harm at all.
THEREFORE the focus must come away from drugs and onto people….. No doubt, the end aim of that, will be the new vaccine, Pluracydafex which will abolish patient nocebo forever!!! (see Pages 82, 118, 132-133, and 147 in our 2008 book, "From One Prick to Another". PDF can be got here.)
They want to research nocebo to nail the issues down and come up with their version of scientific data....., but they have a huge problem. Paul Enck a psychologist at the University of Tubingen Germany, puts it in a nutshell when he says that "he can’t study nocebo ‘ “..unless I tell the subjects that I’m deceiving them” a requirement that obviously defeats the purpose of the deception."
But wait. They have come up with a nifty solution……
To be continued. Continue Reading
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
Part Six: Reforming Nocebo.
The solution for the medical system? It’s pretty simple really. If you aren't allowed to "deceive" people, to research what happens when they are deceived, only one possible action remains. Only ever tell patients the GOOD THINGS a drug or vaccine can do. Say, "Just trust us. WE know what we are doing...."
- 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)