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
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.
Johan Morreau: You talk about US going to our politicians and asking them to commit to THE SOLUTIONS. The “elephant in the room” according to Johan Morreau. Presumably… “the solutions” that you espouse. You use the term “we”, therefore I am assuming that you are speaking on behalf of your colleagues and the system, and that the presentation isn’t just your personal opinion.
You say, this needs to be an “all-of-the-country” solution.
Don’t you think , therefore, that your first move should be consultation with “the-whole-of-the-country”?
What about sit down with people like me and discuss the problems in the medical model that are already identified? Are you willing to do that? And maybe considering a local trial, to see whether or not empathy, compassion and connection can start first, in your house?
We have plenty to discuss. First your satisfied youtube review of the medical model: ( transcript )
"In health we've done lots of good things:
1) Improved standards of care in our maternity hospitals:
Hmmm.... good things... improved. Ummmm. For whom? The nurses? The doctors?
Every email or message I've had says it's worse in 2016, not better. Even midwives are disgusted at your comments.
2) Our newborn department.
What planet do you live on? Since I hit the publish button on the first blog I've been deluged with ongoing dramas ranging from the fact that Motueka maternity hospital does NOT allow skin-to-skin except for brief breast-feeding, to a family, in a mainstream hospital with a baby forced onto IV antibiotics on the say-so of a doctor. Not one symptom of significance, no fever, just episodic heavy breathing ONLY when the baby is separated from the mother and forced into the hospital plastic baby holder. No consideration that the problem might be a version of separation anxiety.
3) Our surgical care of children is fantastic.
I will give you a bit on this one. Comparing what is done now, with what was done in 1981, SOME things are better. At least no-one is now told, as I was told, that "newborns don’t feel pain" Remember that day? You were standing there, when the head paediatrician said that, and you didn't even wince. However, today, newborns are traumatised by far more tests, tubes and assaulted with vaccines because you think it's good for them, YET before babies are vaccinated, NICU is warned because you know that after you give sick babies vaccines, particularly premies, your staff are going to get extra practice with bradycardia, oxygen sats dropping, breathing irregularities and monitors going off twice as often. But that doesn't matter does it. Policy is what matters.
4) Care of children with cancer is beautifully done.
Again, is that your view, or the children’s' views? Parents are basically held hostage to a system and know no different. But I will give you one thing. The support services are very compassionate, because they know that the most likely outcome WILL be death.
5) Immunisation has changed the face of child health medicine. We don't see a fraction of the sick, dying and damaged children that we used to.
I have three views on that Johan.
First, I have the mortality and morbidity data available since 1872, therefore know the facts, and you are dreaming. Do you realise that the NUMBERS of NZ cases of polio in this country between 1872 and today just about matches the number of cases of preventable medical error you guys cause in 18 months? Do you realise that the numbers of polio deaths equates from 1872 - today, equates to the number of preventable medical error deaths in this country in 3 months? My grandparents and parents lived through the worst of the polio outbreaks. I was born in the middle of on, and not one person in our extended family actually got clinical polio, but, as your literature admits…. most got natural immunity.
Oh but Hilary, you're talking pears and apples. Really? Not really. The crux is – what caused the most damage in each era. So, we’ve got rid of polio. But what are the real dangers to us, and our children in 2016? You.
The fact of the matter is that in this country, someone going into hospital now, has around a 1 in 20 chance of coming out with an additional problem caused by you guys doing something wrong. I know. I've seen that happen too. Personally I’d rather take my chances with Polio, because in New Zealand, the published nicely rounded out, estimated risks used to be one per 2,000 to get sick and 1 person out of each hundred sick people, ended up with paralysis.
When my son was in ICU for a week as an adult, THREE other patients were there at the same time because of preventable medical error committed in the previous few weeks. Whether they got into the data-base detailing your mistakes is another matter. And if it hadn’t have been for my eagle eyes, my son could have landed up joining them.
And that's another thing. You know, don't you, that the data for your preventable medical error, nosocomial infections etc, aren't publically available? When I asked the Statistics department why, I was told that "it might confuse people". In what way, Johan?
Secondly, since I first met you in 1981, there have only been subtle infection shifts... like Hib - a bit of pneumococcal, and measles. You say it’s changed the face of child health medicine. True. Now you have a generation with such serious chronic and allergic illnesses, that you’re running out in circles with no real solution to offer. Have you thought about why it is that acute disease has been swapped for chronic ill-health?
In the time you've been a paediatrician, whooping cough has increased hugely, and the small drop in the other infectious diseases has been replaced by an explosion in MRSA - largely of your making - cellulitis, child cancer, child chronic diseases of rates never seen when you first studied paediatrics. In fact, children's hospitals are still run off their feet with infections in fully vaccinated children, which are actually getting worse and harder to treat, like childhood cellulitis. Isn't that right? I have plenty of nurse friends, who give me running monologues.
Another thing they tell me is that many of these problems stem - not from the government funded systems not working properly, but from parents who think that daily nutrition is comprised of a meal balanced on the knee. Twisties, lollies, white bread and coke. Even worse are the streams of intelligent people posting pictures of what is supposed to pass for hospital nutrition, on Facebook. It seems you guys have no clue of nutrition, so what incentive do parents have to change their ways?
Since 1981, it's been my experience that you rarely see the children of responsible parents who understand nutrition except for accidents - but the irony is - and please tell me if I'm wrong - the vast majority of your patients in your hospital are fully vaccinated good little medical doggies. Right? Who all have no clue what real health is all about, because neither do you.
6) Then you say, "So you would think we would feel pretty good about this, and we sort of do, but there's an elephant in the room"
So plainly you do feel good about how the system operates today. Delusion number one. The real elephant is the one you studiously ignore.
Then you show us pictures of babies, uncles, fathers and connections. (All white pictures. Why is that?) You talk about love and connection from the first day of conception through 1,000 days that grows and develops an infant's brain. That their primary attachment figure is their mum, and they will learn empathy and understanding etc etc. (transcript) Then you say, "We in child health are increasingly seeing the impacts of poverty - financial poverty, poverty of parenting, poverty of spirit and hope... struggling stressed tired parents - no time to give to their children. Often young, sometimes addicted, lacking their own parental models and lacking parental support.”
Now, I agree about this current generation. Their own parents are often addicted to TV and video games, and ignored them, so it’s little wonder their primary linkage is IT. These kids don't connect well face to face, and even in their own groups primarily converse phone to phone. Take them out in the bush where there is no wifi and they cremate emotionally, because they have no idea how to survive without their blue screens.
Bullying is rife. Ignorance is rife. They are fearful to the max because they are ignorant which is actually good for you because you can scare the pants off them once they are in your office and they buy it, hook, lie and stinker. You actually like this malleable group because they don't give you much trouble. They just roll over and do what you say. It’s the ones in this group that are also drug addicted and have gone off the rails that are the real problem, right? And most of their children are fully vaccinated. Ironic really.
Some of those less addicted to their Ipads, are instead, addicted to their friends, coffee cliques and live off the backs of the opinions of their groupies. You like this group too, because they also just do what you say as well.
The group you really hate though, (and hardly ever see, but blame for all your immunisation woes) are people like me. Who brought our kids up in the garden and the mud - who fed their children really well, so that when they did get sick it was nuisance value only. No, we didn't vaccinate.
Neither did we put our children into school where you have so sneakily corrupted the hearts and minds of the children and teachers, by acting as vaccine and thought police .
At first our kids may have thought they were deprived, but as time went on they realised the plus side of not being forced into your moulds. They achieved things that wouldn't have been possible if we'd put your handcuffs and balls and chains on their thinking processes.
7) You say, "No money means accessing health care is difficult"
For us, "No money” meant finding easier and better ways to heal our children. “No money” gave incentive to find answers "outside of the mould", even if wooden apple boxes were part of our furniture.
8) You say, "Food is often inadequate". Well, that's sort of right and wrong.
Right, in that often these parents are ignorant and think that junk food wouldn't be sold if it wasn't good for you. Food for their children COULD be adequate, but often these parents priorities go like this: Drugs, alcohol, smokes, disposable nappies ... oh.. and the cheapiest food they can buy.
The ultimate drug addicted "ME" generation which has accidental "add-on" children, who just don't feature in their priorities, are your problem children.
And just like the problem kids in the classroom who suck up 90% of the teachers attention leaving everyone else ignored, these parents also suck up 90% of your attention, leaving the silent ones ignored. The problem is that the numbers of those who have lost the plot, is starting to grow alarmingly. Their parents are truly on a planet of their own.
But so are you on another planet, because you are the system and you still think the system can fix it. The problem is the elephant in the room isn’t the one you think it is.
To be continued - Part Three. Continue Reading
These are important thinking points which come out of this case, which readers with an indepth knowledge of Merck's litany of lies in the past will appreciate.
There are the main issues:
1) The more you investigate the legal history of Merck, you wonder how anyone can have any faith in medical articles, data sheets or information presented by Merck to the public. As far as I’m concerned Merck has never had any ethics, and the way their top staff is ‘selected’ is proof of that. Jobs for the boys who ring the tills. Or girls, as it is in the case of Dr Julie Gerberding, responsible for fast-tracking Gardasil, and now head of Merck’s vaccines division. You scratch my back, I’ll pay you handsomely.
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.
Today, the Herald printed it's usual annual flu propaganda (I've removed the URL) and a private email to the reporters who put their names to it, was returned. The Herald doesn't allow enough words on the comment facility to deal with the issues, and they only want videos or photos, not facts. Therefore, this blog will address the issues.
Close Up's programme on whooping cough, was a triumph of emotional blackmail using a cute baby with whooping cough, to push a policy which doesn't work. But worse than that, was the standard of discussion on Close up's facebook page. You know that eminence based manipulation has truly scraped the bottom of the barrel when Grant Jacobs obliquely counsels all readers not to even look at the scientific links put up, .... inferring that those who don’t have the right background won’t understand the studies posted implying that there is no need for anyone else to look at them either
( Part 3 of 3 ) So what might happen when you repeatedly bombard a baby’s immune system with vaccines? Continue Reading
The subject of a previous blog on Paul Offit, was his porkies in his new book "Deadly choices" Dr Offit has authored another document, where, amongst various dictatorial objectives, he wants to force yearly "exemption reviews" by a "state-approved counselor" (inquisitor/brainwasher), to brow-beat parents who chose not to vaccinate - who will no doubt then be billed by the state. Because such birds of a feather flock together, it wasn't surprising to see that Nikki Turner made a similar recommendation to the Parliamentary Select Committee. As you see from Offit's darling dial staring at you from this press release, this new document is HIS work. There are other signatories, but you can forget them. This is classic Offitism, written in the same tone and vein as all his books, and true to form contains similar fiction. Open up at page two and read: Continue Reading
A few days ago, I set my husband a task. To read Paul Offit’s book called, “Deadly Choices How the anti-vaccine movement threatens us all” By half way through he was unamused. Beguiled by his sighs of discontent, I decided to stop my current track of writing. and start reading. Naturally I started with the Prologue, where the first sentence read; “There’s a war going on out there – a quiet, deadly war.” Continue Reading
- 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)