“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Polly Gillespie - when truth matters

Hilary Butler - Monday, May 16, 2016

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.

Some questions:

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 obituaryPDF  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

Flu vaccine causes the flu.

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, June 25, 2013

But not the "actual flu" mind you. The one that everyone thinks is the flu when it's not the flu. Now, let's be precise. The Herald yesterday had this bizarre piece  (pdf) which treads new ground.

For once, we are told a bit of truth. Very selective truth. Continue Reading

Never bite the hand that feeds you...

Hilary Butler - Friday, May 31, 2013

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

How to get sick. Have the flu vaccine.

Hilary Butler - Monday, May 27, 2013

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

Part One (of four) Herald on Sunday Flu propaganda

Hilary Butler - Sunday, March 17, 2013

In the three articles written by Chloe Johnson in the Herald on Sunday, March 3, 2013, (herehere 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

Part Three: Dr Huang's Shiver's propaganda

Hilary Butler - Friday, March 15, 2013

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

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

Serious. Nasty.

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

How do I work that out?

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

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

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

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

Is that what Shivers Data says?

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

 Continue Reading

Part Two: What the Herald on Sunday should have shown readers

Hilary Butler - Friday, March 15, 2013

How many people died from flu in Auckland in 2012?   Continue Reading

Parents want the truth about the flu vaccine, Professor Phillips.

Hilary Butler - Thursday, March 14, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Absolutely effective and cost-effective."

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

Absolutely ironic that Professor Paddy Phillips would say this:

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

And this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

In the meantime, while all this was going on, three studies in Europe (KisslingPebody 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.

 Continue Reading

Vax-ganda - Idiotspeak or Bullseye?

Hilary Butler - Monday, February 25, 2013

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

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

Annual Flu Death toll of 400, rivals yearly road fatalities

Hilary Butler - Saturday, February 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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