“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

Reply Number two to Paul Hutchison

Hilary Butler - Thursday, March 18, 2010

Dear Paul,  On rethinking your email to me, and given that you are our electorate member of parliament, I feel I need to address a few issues to you more thoroughly. You say:

Dear Hilary

The Herald article was written by Adam Bennett. Mr Bennett has made it clear that those with a documented 'conscientious objection' would not be penalised. I absolutely agree with this. (As I am sure you are aware there can be rare but real side effects from immunisation). What is without doubt, is that the benefits of achieving herd immunisation far outweigh the disadvantages. (The World literature is clear) Few people would wish the re-emergence of polio, tuburculosis, rubella etc. for our children. The matters outlined in the article are being considered by the Health Select Committee of which I am Chairman.

Yours sincerely

Dr Paul Hutchison

I’m presuming that you do know that New Zealand has not used the Tuberculosis vaccine on a population basis for many years now, since many studies have showed that it’s far more likely to prevent Leprosy than TB? You have seen the TB deaths graph for New Zealand haven’t you? If not, I’ve attached if for you. You do know that the BCG was only introduced for nurses in 1951, then for teenagers, and was stopped in the late 80’s? And it beats me why the Health Department still rolls it out for the supposedly “at risk” people who are the very people in whom the trials have all showed that the vaccine doesn’t work? You do know that the USA has never used the BCG because their trials return negative protection results, and they found that it’s use prevented them being able to effectively detect Tuberculosis in people with infection?

I’m surprised at the ‘substance’ of your comments.

Implied in your statement on the Government website, in the newspaper and your response to me, is that the rates of vaccination in New Zealand are appalling and need to be improved. Define “appalling”. In what way do the current rates disadvantage New Zealand children?

You say that “few people would wish the re-emergence of…. for our children.”

Tell me. Where is the re-emergences of nationwide TB in New Zealand, without the universal use of BCG? You do know that there are many studies showing that very high rates of vitamin D deficiency is widespread in New Zealand? You do know that Vitamin D has been found to be effective in the treatment of TB? This is all in recent medical literature. Would you like me to send it to you? You do know, that Dr Robert Scragg, a New Zealander, has written about the fact that influenza is primarily prominent amongst people with vitamin D deficiency? You have heard that a recently published study, detailing the first ever blinded RCT trial of vitamin D vs influenza, was highly effective in preventing influenza, and much more so than the vaccine?

Have you read the medical literature, which shows that effective levels of vitamin D, would result in reductions in all viral, bacterial diseases, cancers, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and a whole raft of other both acute and chronic conditions? A New Zealand national wide vitamin D testing programme, and twelve tablets per annum to be taken once a month, at a cost of $3.30 to the person, would cut far more off the total health expenditure in this country than any other single act you could do?

In fact, doing away with the flu vaccine, would probably fund national vitamin D testing. But eliminating a useless flu vaccine programme would never happen would it Paul? How is it that, as the head of the Cochrane Collaboration said, that Flu vaccine continues to be used as a political decision, while ignoring the science?

The medical profession will never admit that the data on flu vaccines shows they don’t work, because to do so would be to admit that for 30 years, they’ve knowingly told New Zealanders porkies. And I know that, because I have enough studies of “useless” flu vaccines to sink a ship. But I’ll just attach one for you here, Paul. Simonsen 09.

Where is the wholesale emergence of the diseases you mentioned, in this country, with the current vaccination rates, or even the lower vaccination rates of 15 years ago?

Let’s leave out the whooping cough vaccine, which even the New Zealand medical literature (which I have neatly filed in date order) admits that the vaccine has done nothing to reduce either cases, or deaths. (Deaths wasn’t a hard one, since whooping cough deaths had reached bedrock before the vaccine was introduced, as did a lot of the other diseases, like diphtheria). The majority of children who get whooping cough now, are appropriately vaccinated, and the majority of babies who get it suffer primarily because their mothers were vaccinated, and the transplacental and breastmilk immunity immunisation transfers is now negligible. The numbers getting whooping cough in each epidemic cycle, hasn’t reduced since before the vaccine was introduced as a triple in 1961, and given that the single whooping cough vaccine had negligible use before that, (I have the data…) and was suspended for a few years from 1955 – 1961, that is irrelevant. Unfortunately for anyone who is vaccinated their immunity is faulty and the concept of “original sin” applies, something which I’m sure you know about. If you don’t, the attached article Cherry 2004 (one of many on this topic) will explain what I mean. This means that the key primary step of immunity to develop mucosal immunity to adenylate cyclase toxin (ACT), which was ignored because it can’t be incorporated in the whooping cough vaccine, is also ignored on the vaccinated person’s re-exposure. Vaccinated people re-exposed to whooping cough, respond to it, in the way in which their immune system is pre-programmed, result in those people not clearing the pertussis bacteria fast (as happens after natural immunity), and they become ready carriers and spreaders of whooping cough.

Cherry’s article is only one of the early articles in medical data bases, on this topic. It’s clear that the inability to put ACT into the vaccine is a fundamental flaw in terms of the pertussis vaccine, (since the “manufacture” and excretion of ACT from the bacteria is a process of disease, only started once the bacteria adheres to the base of the cilia on the bronchial wall). The aberrant immunity created by the vaccine, creates a situation whereby the vaccinated are now the most effective spreaders of the disease. The ones whose first attack was natural, are not likely to spread the disease, since their bronchials clear any reinfection bacteria very quickly. Again, this is all in the medical literature.

Not that the vaccine manufacturers can do anything about it, since just using parts of bacteria and toxins as your antigens, absolutely precludes immunity to ACT. However, they recognize the flaw, hence new research and studies on pertussis vaccines are looking at making one which is inhaled and has to initiate a mild infection, in order to achieve longer lasting immunity, quick bacterial clearance and a less aberrant immune response. But that will be decades away, if it even comes to fruition, since New Zealand has followed the mindless advice of CDC, to simply revaccinate every possible moving target within range of any child.

We are perhaps fortunate in this country, that records on hospital admissions for pertussis were never stopped after the vaccine was introduced, as was done elsewhere in the world. Had we been so “stupid” as to do what all other countries did, and stop all pertussis notification, period… we might not be in the position today where the data from the Health Department (and the ESR for that matter), conclusively proves that the pertussis vaccine in this country has done nothing.

Yet if you talk to Dr Cameron Grant ( as per Sommerville 2007 attached) , Nikki Turner, or Diana Lennon, they will admit to the data I’ve long since published but dismiss the data telling you that the problem is that we need “timely” vaccination, and “more” vaccination as per the CDC, which is scientifically inexcusable. Across the ditch in Australia, where they have blindly blamed the unvaccinated for all the vaccinated getting whooping cough, they’ve only just gulped and said “oops”, because they realized that just as in every other country in the world, there are now strains of pertussis which have developed precisely because of the vaccine, not for lack of a vaccine. But instead of taking it on the chin, they then turned round and said that if the non-vaccinators had vaccinated, that would never have happened. That is utter rubbish Paul. You are very much invested in developing good science curriculum are you not? Then make sure you get de Bono into the act, as well as some other critical thinkers involved, because right now, much of the New Zealand vaccination propaganda simply contains weasel-speak and zero-think.

I realise some of this information might come as a surprise to you.

However, I’m quite happy to photocopy (or loan you) Tuberculosis and pertussis information from the New Zealand medical literature and show it to you. and even Polio if you wish.

Your statements about whooping cough in the paper on the Parliament website are perhaps excusable, since many doctors have only seen the published articles which told a load of bollocks, but were put in medical journals none the less.

So, pertussis aside, if we don’t see other epidemics right now, exactly what is the ‘gain’ to New Zealand from coercively pushing every child in this country into a “done it, whether you need it or not” hole? Do you think it right that parents should pay to have a choice they have made, “approved” by the very people who want to stick the needles in?

What “gains” has Australia made which they didn’t have before, through having a 95% whooping cough vaccination rate, when they had an 80% vaccination rate? Their whooping cough vaccination rates have increased 20% in 9 years; their number of vaccines has radically increased, yet their whooping cough rates have increase 1200% in that time.

Conversely the more you back parents like us into a corner, Paul, the more there is to lose, which I have no doubt, you will experience over the next few years, should your personal plans be implemented. There are many many parents in this country, who consider that democratic right of choice doesn’t involve paying a fee to gain a medical doctor’s permission for that choice.

We know what happens in Australia. Australians who can’t find a doctor who understands democracy, and is prepared to sign the form without an inquisition, and without charging a disapproval fee, are certainly spreading the message. Furthermore, doctors who then throw patients out of their practice for refusing to vaccinate their children, are further inflaming the situation, and if reaction from USA, and now Australia is anything to go by, such policies will “meet their Waterloo” at some point in time.

I note that the Secretary of the HHS in USA, Katherine Sebelius has attempted to suspect the American constitution by informing all media that they should not to report any vaccine concerns relating to autism, in any form, from any parents, scientists or doctors in the future. Such is the land of the free.

My inbox has been full today, of people who are disgusted at any suggestions of cash lures and signed inquisitions. We know the inquisitions which happen even without such means. And I know you know this was also mooted in a more radical form before, when Commander Jenny Shipley attempted to tell the nation that disgusting parents who don’t immunize should be penalized by losing any benefit. Just beware, Paul. You’re dipping your toes into an issue here, which will be met head on.

People throughout New Zealand, care a lot more about their bodies (unfortunately), and will defend their democratic right of “choice without coercion, pressure or unwarranted discrimination”, far more ferociously than they will the super city. A person’s health and home are sacrosanct Paul. And yet the issues of the super city and the right to refuse any medical intervention, are similar. Democratic right of choice, but even more so with health, since the Health and Disability Act enshrines a lot of provisions which are blatantly broken every day by zealous nurses from the “vaccine outreach” clinics around the country.

I know. We hear about it regularly!



Bookmark and Share

Hilary's Desk

These are some of Hilary's latest blogs:

  1. Polio: Behind the curtain. Hilary Butler 20-Sep-2021
  2. Are you thinking? Hilary Butler 18-Sep-2021
  3. No mumps jab? Stay home: school Hilary Butler 22-Nov-2017
  4. Chickenpox: A new, dreaded disease? Hilary Butler 30-Jun-2017
  5. Fake bait on a plate. Hilary Butler 18-Jun-2017
  6. Why so much hot air, Dr Lush?. Hilary Butler 17-Jun-2017