“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

Real Women who count.

Hilary Butler - Monday, January 23, 2017

Sydney Elizabeth Parkin
Born 8 August 1879
Died 5 November 1955

While watching the “pink” marches, my thoughts turned back to my grandmother. A real woman. Fiercely independent; well educated, who had the backbone and the guts to do the unthinkable. First she married my grandfather, but to get to him, traveled through Russia (trans-Siberian rail) on her own – something no “young lady” would do.

Sydney married Harold, whose work took him into many Asian countries where danger abounded. When they lived in India, a typhoid epidemic raged for seven years, and for the four years they lived there, Sydney nursed the sick locals, teaching them how to survive typhoid. Every country she lived in, she nursed the supposedly fatally-sick, and developed a reputation. No-one nursed by Sydney died. In their last year in India, Sydney got typhoid along with three children, and the locals abandoned her. She was too sick to nurse herself or her children properly.  She survived, though her hair changed colour, and two of the three sick children died.

In July 1911, six months pregnant with my father, Sydney took a passenger ship from Amoy in China to Kobe in Japan, sailing ahead of her husband and children, to prepare their home-to-be. Near Kobe, the ship was over-run by pirates. The pirates killed the men, and launched all the small boats without oars into the water with two women in each. One woman was shot dead in each boat, then the boats cut adrift.

Sydney survived along with a few of the other women. When her husband arrived, the law enforcement in Japan rolled their eyes and said, “Nothing doing”. China just laughed. Sydney and Harold tracked down the pirates, they were brought back to Japan, tried, and executed. I suppose the snowflakes would consider these photos to be cruel….

The First World War intervened, and the ship taking them home was diverted to New Zealand, 


so they made the best of it, and decided to travel up to Northland via the coast. In doing so, they got caught in a storm, were pretty much shipwrecked, and landed up on Kawau Island, where they licked their wounds, just as the Spanish Flu arrived in force.

Sydney turned Governor Grey’s house into a hospital with the men upstairs and the women downstairs.  

For months, she and the kitchen maid nursed everyone on the island, and yet again, not one person died. Only two people on Kawau Island didn’t get the Spanish flu. My grandmother, and the kitchen maid.

This was the woman who brought up my father. No surprises, but I learned two things at home. There are two words that don’t apply. “Can’t” and “Never”.

Strong women grow strong children. Strong women know who they are, what they are here for, and they make the very best of every opportunity handed to them. Strong women are not doormats. Strong women keep men accountable. Strong women make their own choices, they speak, and are heard. They work, and they control their own lives; defend themselves when they need to, and nothing stops them doing what needs to be done. They teach "pussy grabbers" manners, and put them in their place, without drama. Unless of course, they perpetuate it because they want it and seek it out… THEN they are part of the problem.

Ironically, coming to New Zealand in 1961, turned out to be a huge challenge for me, but the bullying and viciousness of my peers, had the same effect on me as the hardships of Asia had on Sydney.

It gave me a backbone built on discernment, control, knowledge, learning wisdom, resoluteness, and never backing down in the face of injustice.

I’ve spent the last 35+ years, helping others to do the same thing, in diverse situations. Real women change the world. They stand strong in who they are, become knowledgeable and astute, and see the female flake a mile off.

As I watched the marches yesterday, three things came through loud and clear…. First, they don't know how lucky they are, second, they have no idea what oppression really is and third, away from their handlers and emboldened by the mob mania, most of these people haven’t a clue what really matters.  If they did, they would have focused on protesting about real issues for women in the world ..., instead of sounding like ignorant asses. What they said shows their ignorance,


and what they left behind proves that they don’t care,

and are just in it for the moment… the media …. or… is it for the money?

Real women, make a real difference, because they walk the talk.   Continue Reading

The Seduction of Satire.

Hilary Butler - Sunday, January 22, 2017


The Onion, which calls itself “America’s finest news source”, filled space with another vitriol variant on Mike Pence today. “What Hilary? You don’t like satire? It’s just words Hilary. Humour makes the world go around didn’t you know?”

What I know is that death and life are in the power of words, and those who love words, will eat the fruit of them,  and by their fruits you will know them

Satire isn’t humour. Satire is writing lying words as if they are coming from another person’s mouth. Satire is written from a veneer of hatred, and its purpose is to shame and humiliate. It’s also a subtle variant of public fear mongering. Hidden beneath the cloak of people’s laughter, satire is designed to plant into people’s minds perceptions about people which are a stereotype, assumed, or even fabricated.

Oh, we’ve all heard those words,Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you.Never was a bigger lie written than that one. Words are seeds, which are planted and grow.

Words have started wars which have killed millions of innocent front-line soldiers on both sides, because someone took offense to words. Historians who know the effects of words, will know which words were spoken, that so riled Hitler, that he decided to take matters into his own hands, giving us the holocaust and World War II.

But did the people who spoke those words which resulted in shame and humiliation for a country after World War I, ever dream that those words would become the fuel which would set fire to Europe as the Second World War, and also result in ethnic cleansing?

But back to Trump.

Is satire funny to those who are at the butt end of it? Those who are crying in their beards about Donald Trump being president should perhaps consider the impact that satire can have, particularly when it’s done publicly, deliberately, and cynically.

America is now eating the FRUIT of the words spoken by President Obama who chose to use satire to relentlessly humiliate and shame Donald Trump in front of the nation.

America can also thank the previous and ONGOING serial lying out of the mouths of the main stream media, for the election of Trump, by people who saw the previous satire and the lies for what they were.

Listening must be followed by analysis, then a choice.  Believe it, or not. Then comes the action.

I see the outcome of voices, choices and consequences whenever parents come to me with a vaccine-damaged child. The story is always the same, every time.  Parents listened to lies, believed the lies, and never bothered to read the vaccine data sheets in the doctors’ hands, which usually detail exactly the problems their children now have. They made a choice based on trusting a doctor, believing the lies, which resulted in the damage to their child.

The system of course, calls the vaccine damage “coincidence”, then labels the parents “anti-vaccine” idiots, and throws them off the cliff.

The parents then become angry at the system for lying in the first place, lying again, and then leaving the parents to pick up the mess that resulted from them believing the system’s lies in the first place.

After the lies, damned lies and statistics used by the pro-vaccine zealots, SATIRE mixed with as much dripping sarcasm as possible, (which amounts to character and intelligence assassination) is considered by the pro-vaccine to be the best way to sow all the propaganda you can imagine into the minds of parents who are thinking about vaccines. “Oh, but anti-anti-vaccine satire is only humour, Hilary!”

Dream on.

This last year has been a revelation to me. We can’t complain we live in boring times. It’s like the curtains have been pulled back to reveal the many faces of deception and mind manipulation everywhere.

Hopefully, those with eyes to see, will take note, and understand, because the satire and lies on all fronts, are the ways of the world, and part of a universal, well-orchestrated escalating campaign.

Those who know the truth, also know that evil communications – or as some would say – bad company - corrupts good manners.  The words you listen to and believe, have a defined outcome.  The words you speak can result in consequences....  ...  Continue Reading

Rocking the boat

Hilary Butler - Saturday, November 12, 2016

I’m astounded at how many Americans say, “Shut up Hilary, you haven’t got a dog in this race.” I'm also astonished at the number of American people who think that because I have plenty to say about the American elections on Facebook, that I'm pro-Trump.

Where does anyone get that dork idea from? If I had to pick a worthy candidate to vote for, to clear the Washington swamp from bottom up, it would be Trey Gowdy. “Oh” but you say, “ . . . he wasn't on the ballot.” No. “Oh” but you say, “ . . . the popular vote went to Hillary Clinton.” Right. It went to Al Gore (and others) in the past, as well.

You know the system. You vote (or not) by the rules you have. Same as us. And when a decision is made, the losers have to suck it up and not behave like whining babies or make the situation worse. As to the Soros funded rioters,…. so much for all the predictions that Trump's supporters would be the bad losers! And what about the " When they go low, we will take the high way!" Michelle Obama directive?

Have you no idea what you just escaped from?

Wake Up America. You didn’t just dodge a bullet, you dodged a Clinton neutron bomb. Do you not remember 1992? Of course not. Some of you weren’t even born then and obviously didn’t think to check the history.

Oh yes, the critics and naysayers (who just sit around spouting hot air) are now saying, “I didn’t vote. Elections are a mirage, and if they mattered they wouldn’t be legal” or “But Trump will bring the environmental desecration that exists in China and India here, with his anti-climate change policies!!”

Well first up, if you didn’t vote you have no right to complain, because you benefit every day from the system, or people who work with the system that you criticise.  You have to live under that administration. Doing nothing will get you nowhere. Whining will get you worse than nowhere.

If you are really concerned about the environmental future, look at what YOU OWN. How many of the things that you have bought are made in China? Why haven’t you been buying “Made in the USA”?

Oh right. Because… most of your industries were relocated to China, because you – the people - wanted everything cheaper. And…. because your manufacturers just wanted to push environmental degradation on to China and keep fresher air for themselves. And if you bought into that? That’s hypocrisy.

Do you think Trump wants to repeat the mistakes of a regime in China which has a moral deficit the size of a sucking black hole? Do you think that Trump wants to love a country that he is about to environmentally shit in, industry wise and ecologically?

Do you think Trump is totally dumb?

Or are you just trailing along behind the ….

To those who would rather I shut up because I'm not American, or because it's none of my business because it doesn't affect me, -- it does, so here is my reply to the ongoing criticism from afar:

I have more than one dog in this race. All my dogs are in this race. I went to the USA twice during the Clinton years and watched with disgust as Hillary Clinton excoriated your ‘health care’ system and was the driver behind mandatory vaccines, and supported "Every child by two" and supported removing vaccine exemptions. Had she got in this time, it would have been curtains for any parental (and eventually adult) vaccine choice.

More than that, I've spent my life dealing with the fall-out of vaccines and seen how they destroy life at ground zero. So I know that in order for people to really have freedom, they need both control and choice at a ground zero level. Freedom to choose is something that Hillary Clinton only wanted in areas where it didn't really matter for her politics. Where it really mattered, her rule has always been, “My way or the by-way.” She has never believed in family control, and firmly believes that no children should go to any other school than a state mandated one. She thinks all children should be in daycare and that the state appointed “experts” should make all decisions on behalf of all children.

How does this election affect me?

The influence of the USA goes far beyond its hundreds of military bases, its interference in other countries or use of drones, or when the USA’s politicians try to force other countries to comply with "policies". The term "global powerhouse" is not without foundation.

I've spent my married life working for families in USA, here in NZ, and elsewhere. Those families have been torn apart as a direct result of USA's 1986 vaccine legislation, which has impacted every country in the world. That legislation is solely responsible for the huge increase in vaccines world wide, because what the CDC does, the rest of the world follows.

In New Zealand, girls are being injured and crippled by Gardasil at a huge rate, all because of a 1986 piece of American legislation that President Reagan was against, didn't want to sign into law, which a certain parent group campaigned for, and basically mounted public pressure to force President Reagan to agree to. He didn't want to, but was forced to. If that legislation had never been enacted, we wouldn't have Gardasil today, or any other of the long list that has been added from that time and are waiting in the wings to be added in the future. If that legislation hadn’t been passed we wouldn’t be facing the ever-creeping invasion of adult vaccines, which the industry will also try to have mandated through government policies.

Vaccines cut to the heart of individual freedoms and choices, for every individual. When I was in the USA during the Clinton era, I watched Hillary Clinton like a hawk, because compulsory vaccination, no exemptions, and "Every child by two" were her babies.

Make no mistake. Hillary’s 2016 agenda for children was far reaching. It looked benevolent and was understated. Believe that at your peril.

The direct actions of the Clinton family and American people who couldn't see beyond their pockets, continues to affect New Zealand and the rest of the world.

The American vaccine manufacturers lobbied Governments worldwide, and licensing medical authorities were delighted that suing vaccine manufacturers had become impossible. Of course all the shareholders and “stake-holders” got on the bandwagon and new vaccines were developed to become the new El Dorado with 1998 headlines like, “Drug companies revel in heady time of unrivalled prosperity” (NZ Herald Wednesday July 22) and “The Vaccine Business Gets a Shot in the Arm” (Wall Street Journal, February 25, 1998.)

The Wall street journal article was straight to the point in saying, “The climate slowly began to change again in 1986, after passage of a federal law that shields vaccine producers from all liability not relating to manufacturing error. … this law “turned the industry around” and encouraged biotech companies to jump into the vaccine field, says Mr Williams of Pasteur Merieux Connaught”

My life which has been spent trying to help people directly affected by the original decisions of American leaders in 1986, who thought controlling everyone was the right thing to do, and if Hillary Clinton was your new President, the recipe would be more mandates, no exemptions, and parents be damned.

So yeah, I think I have more than one dog in the vaccine discussion as to why a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been a disaster for me as a New Zealander, and for the rest of the world too.

What will the Trump presidency bring? History will be the judge. But whatever your view on the issue, Hillary Clinton got one thing right in her concession speech, even though she means it differently to how I took it. We should never stop fighting for the things that are worth achieving, and at the core of that, is the freedom to make informed choices about anything to do with our bodies, our faith, our education options and our family lives.

Lose that, and nothing else matters.  Continue Reading

Johan Morreau - the disenfranchised

Hilary Butler - Sunday, October 16, 2016

Johan, according to your youtube presentation, the solution is better organised nanny state. You show us pictures of the connected babies, and say that these pictures were taken in Amsterdam, Holland where the family had a child nurse 8 hours a day teaching her parents how to respond to her needs and how to organise their home. Of course. Parents are dumb, right?

What you neglect to say is that the Holland scheme is an OPT IN scheme, which offers a raft of other programmes which the NZ parliament would never agree to, but are far more valuable than the "8-day care.    

I know people in Holland, and asked them about this service. Yes, it's there if mothers want it, but most thinking parents usually part way with this system within 48 hours because their advice can be laughable. And frankly, most parents don't need to be taught how to organise their houses or lives, and neither do they need to be taught how to respond to their child's needs. However, one thing Dutch parents don't like, is the huge emphasis that all mother must be back at work when their babies are 1 year old. They tell me lots of stories of distraught stressed babies basically torn away from parents, who do not cope with that separation.

Are you wanting that too Johan?

Then as if 8 hours a day for a week has any relevance, . . . as if Northern Europe is some utopia to show up New Zealand's failure, you say, "A country like Holland is closing it's prisons, at a time when New Zealand is building them."

Such a remarkable assumption.

Simple as that?

Did you only read the first bit of this article Johan? Err...isn't that called cherry-picking? 

Because if you did, then you missed these bits. 

" However one Dutch MP Nine Kooiman, told Telegraaf newspaper: “If the government really worked at catching criminals, we would not have this problem of empty cells.”

Frans Carbo, head of FNV, said there was another story. “The ministry puts everything down to a decrease in crime in the Netherlands, partly related to the ageing population,” he said. “Actually, the ministry of security and justice is already cutting back and reorganising the whole chain. This starts with police, where reorganisation is failing, so they are not as good at detection and a lower percentage of crime is solved than ever before…"

So maybe, it's not quite so simple.  Shame about the police force losing it's crime solving ability.  Even though Holland is a big brother state which tracks its citizens on data bases which you apparently envy, the Netherlands is also, in other regards, a very permissive and liberal society which allows many things in society, which would land New Zealanders in jail.  In Europe, women had much more political input, and jail policies have long been very different to our.  While one jail might have been made into a tourist hotel, in others, business is booming as those prisons contract to take prisoners surrounding countries that still have a compentent police force.

The declining numbers of Dutch prisoners in Dutch prisons, might have nothing at all to do with eight days of a state mandated nurse giving state-mandated sound bites.  It might be that definitions of crime are different, sentencing policies are different and rehabilitation more successful.  But it also might have everything to do with the ability of a new IT breed of more intelligent, totally cyber-savvy criminals who now easily outwit the police.

Criminals, all over the world, are turning to cyber crime, because the tools are now there to do it so easily, and not get caught doing in-the-flesh crime.

But the rhetoric fits your clarion call, because your ideas are basically all based on more money for your systems:

• Big Brother: community child health services are seriously underdone.
• Big Brother: antenatal education is almost unavailable to those families that need it most.
• Big Brother: we don't have the midwives, child health nurses, social workers to identify and support the families that need it.
• Bigger Brothers united: all our services need to work really well together.
• More money for Big Brother: We need to throw more money at the issues.
• Big Brother prohibition: reduce access to alcohol, cut methamphetamines off at the border is critical. (as if prohibition ever worked, right? who exactly runs the NZ meth factories Johan?)
• Big Brother: sorting poverty in New Zealand's increasing gap between rich and poor is critical.
(Read your own history Johan... start with Macleans 1964 book ("Challenge for Health, a History of Public Health in New Zealand), and consider just what has REALLY made the biggest improvements in the past.
• Big Brother: sorting housing is critical.
• Big Brother. Children's ministry with aspiration and responsibility to sort this.
• Big Brother: children's minister to be front bench minister of finance.
• Big Brother: Treasury can help to sort this.
• Big Brother: Banks and corporations legislated to "give back" to a country and the communities that they benefit from.

According to my analysis , neither the banks or corporations benefit from the marginalised community group who, according to you, have nothing to spent and no homes to live in. Perhaps the money grabbing legislation should be directed at the drug smugglers, the millions of forced "entitled family" payments to Samoa/Tonga - and other "elements" who leach the money and soul out of these groups?

Perhaps you should just say it as it really is: You expect the law-abiding, hard working taxpayers who responsibly look after their own families, to be doubly taxed so as to pick up the tab for all those who can't, or won't. That's what it amounts to, because you know full well that corporations and banks, simply pass the costs on, and their profits never blip.

Neither is there any recognition of the responsibility of previous generations of families of these parents who don't make the grade, to have an active part in solving the problems they created. Where are they held accountable or being "educated" in all this?

Big Brother: Can we have a plan - a 10-yr plan for maternity, for your people for children that crosses all the political boundaries, and outlives the political cycle beyond our three years?

Seriously, Johan, what country are you living in? Hasn't New Zealand had to suffer the last 36 plus years at the hands of ineffective long term maternity/birth/CYPS plans crafted by you lot, which dragged on way too long after the horse was dead while you kept flogging it and saying, "give it time, it will work"?

Then you say, "When you go home, go and talk to your politicians. Make sure they understand the seriousness of the issues and that they commit to THE SOLUTIONS.... it's going to take an "all-of-the-country" approach to solve the first thousand days."

Everything in your impassioned plea, adds up to more money for you, for big brother boys, for monitoring services to teach parents you portray as dumb and in need of education.

Never once in all this rhetoric was there any mention of where the real solutions lie, nor was there any dawning in your consciousness that YOU and all the systems you have previously put in place, are part of the problem.

Not once is there consideration for research into the real reason as to WHY there is a housing shortage, and what really lies behind that. That might have everything to do with political policies which encourage the buying up of properties, and inflating the prices of them for their own gain.

But even worse, never ONCE in your rhetoric, and ideas, was there any thought of, mention of... ... God forbid .... asking the major stakeholders of this country - mother and fathers, . . . what THEY NEED.

Sitting down and talking to them. I understand your reticence, because you might discover one size does not fit all, and your ideas are extremely simplistic. Not once do you ask: "How has the medical model failed you?"

AS in the 1980s, your kite is just another idea to get more money to enforce more control, compliance and conformity. You have embraced consultation with Maori and organisations - because you see that as your “solution” to problem children. Is it?

The last big elephant in your room, is that there is no analysis, discussion with, or the embracing of the needs or aspirations of the people you don’t see in your clinic, who are equally disenfranchised. They love their children…. who also happen to matter.

Like the teacher focusing on problem children, your focus is on the tiny minority. The solutions you cite to solve that problem parents will not be welcomed by the ignored majority who don’t need even the present big brother breathing down their necks.

Your solutions, Johan, are all about the medical model, that can only be achieved through the dollar sign. It looks like its about money, to achieve your goals, your standards... and satisfying your theories, and dare I say it - making a name for yourself?

You ignore the mother's integrity and heart. You censor information. You regularly negate the right to decide, and treat those whose choice is not yours, as criminals. You ignore a mother's right not to be bullied.

You don't consult with us.

You don't "hear" us.

When will you ever learn?

 Continue Reading

Johan Morreau - the ugly

Hilary Butler - Sunday, October 16, 2016

Johan Morreau. Let's talk about the real elephant - the reality you sweep under the carpet.

. You say, "I'll never forget a child I once saw. Dad was at home looking after this baby of just a few months of age, mum was at the supermarket. The child was crying CONSTANTLY. he was holding the baby like this. The child was crying and he couldn't cop, and he shook the child (light shake). The child continued to cry. he shook the child again. The child went pale, stopped crying, and a few minutes later, had a convulsion. He brought the kiddie straight to the hospital. When I explained to him that his child had just had a brain bleed, he leant over his baby and he wept, and he wept. No-one had taught him how to deal with the situation he found himself in. I wonder if he had ever met a child health worker."

Let's analyse this. The unspoken message is: Shaken baby syndrome because dumb dad caused a brain bleed with that little jiggle you demonstrated.

Typical medical assumption. There are a few problems with that assumption. If that baby was on your watch, why do you "wonder"? Shouldn't you know the care provided to that baby?

For a mother to go to a supermarket alone without her baby tells me one thing. That baby had been screaming, not just for an hour. Or even an hour or two. That baby was probably a vaccinated SERIAL screamer.

So let me ask you some questions. Was the baby a premie baby, born under your watch?

Was that premie baby immediately cord clamped by you, depriving it of stem cells and the blood it so desperately needed to have a better start?

Did you load that premie baby with vitamin K immediately at birth?

Have you ever wondered why it is, Johan, that all babies are born with low vitamin K? Or do you just assume it's a mistake, and that every baby must immediately have it's blood made many times thicker than that of an adult? Did you know that low vitamin K levels is a trigger to switch on the body and brains ability to mobilise stem cells, to fix damage which is inevitable during birth? And that by whacking in vitamin K that actually, you just might PUT some babies at risk in a way you have not thought about before?

Was that mother told her breast-milk wasn't good enough, so that in NICU you could use fat-enriched formula on the monstrous myth that that is much better for a premie? Did that baby also get serial clusterbomb antibiotics, because - as we all know - formula often leads to necrosing enterocolitis in neonatal units?

Did that formula, then antibiotics, also lead to microbiome destruction, disabling the normal immune system priming of that baby and leaving him behind the 8-ball from then on?

Even if the mother maintained any semblance of breastfeeding, was her diet so inadequate that her vitamin D levels were rock bottom, and vitamin C levels undetectable, so she didn't have in her, what it takes to make healthy breast milk? Do you talk to your parents about REAL health, Johan? 

If that baby had everything I wrote above, done to it, then that baby's bones weren't laying the collagen down properly, the collagen throughout the body was poorly knit and the whole vascular structure fragile and at risk.  And if that baby was fully formula fed, were they using the cheapest one they could afford and watering it down too much? You have to know, as a paediatrician, that weight and height charts only tell you about chubb, NOT about what's really going on inside a baby.

Did you do full skeletal xrays looking for Harris lines, bucket fractures and all the other tell tale signs that Emery so passionately explained in the older medical literature when he proved that the VAST majority of babies THEN called SIDS, (but who would now be called "Shaken babies") were malnourished even in utero?

Did you just blame a father for Shaken Baby Syndrome, because your conformed thinking means you didn't do the tests needed on the baby or the mother to discover that actually YOU were asleep on your watch?  Do you think that had you been awake on your watch, that not only could that baby have still been alive but the father wouldn't be living with your accusations that he had ignorantly killed his own baby?

That's another elephant in the room isn't it. It's not just parental ignorance, its paediatric assumption, leading to a circus investigation, which results in a pre-ordained judgement. As Emory said, you can't get the right answers, if you ask the wrong questions.

You talk about suicide rates and going back into NEWBORN NOTES and finding that the situation was predictable, and preventable. Predictable by who and preventable by what?

Johan, since 1981, every few years you guys present parliament with your latest and greatest green paper on children's issues with plans to "fixitall". I've read them all. And made submissions to most. Every single one of them misses the point and ultimate misses the mark, as you have pointed out. You no doubt put your two cents worth into all that lot as well. Think of the flip-flops and roundabouts, that culminated in CYPS which is now about to be disembowelled - because it's unworkable. What do you have to show for your previous ideas, other than a serial "fail"?

To be continued - Part 4.  Continue Reading

Johan Moreau: the elephant.

Hilary Butler - Sunday, October 16, 2016

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

Which elephant is that, Johan Morreau???

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Johan Morreau.  (Part 1 of a FOUR part series) Yes, I watched your 3rd October 2016 Ted talk.

But guess what. You (both "you" personally and "you" the medical system) missed one group you don't talk about, yet it's a very big issue.  It seems to me "you" are only looking through reductionist narrow blinkers.  The elephant in the room isn't just "connection and protection" of the groups you describe, in the way you describe. There is more than one way to be deprived of "connection and protection".

The biggest ignored elephant in the room, sits in YOUR room; YOUR system, and is YOUR problem. Are you too scared to look at it Johan? 

You probably don't remember me, Johan.  You, and Elizabeth Wilson, were involved in my first labour and delivery in Middlemore. You were personally "charged" with explaining to me what would happen to my son after birth, while I was in active labour, in a situation that would become a total nightmare of medical mismanagement.

Neither you nor Elizabeth made any attempt to support me, or my son in the face of a brutal senior paediatrician on a power trip, whose aim was NOT the protection of my child. Seemingly you were too scared of him, to be a human.  Continue Reading

Anne Mae Braiden

Hilary Butler - Saturday, June 18, 2016

Today, the Herald posted this article from another person saying, “"Do not tell me that not vaccinating your kids isn't hurting anyone but your own kids," ( Annie Mae Braiden's facebook page ) ( pdf )

I have some questions for Annie Mae Braiden, who says she is provaccine and would never consider not vaccinating.

1) Did you, or did you not have the whooping cough vaccine scheduled for 36 weeks, which the medical profession alleges prevents babies getting whooping cough?

If you received it, did it occur to you to ask the medical professionals in the hospital, why it didn’t work?

2) Are you aware of the research which clearly shows that it’s the people VACCINATED against whooping cough, who each time they encounter whooping cough,carry and  incubate it in their lungs and spread it around for 42 days? ( Warfel)

3) Are you aware that it is these incubating vaccinated people who are RESPONSIBLE for the development of the new pertactin deficient strains which are much harder to treat than the common garden varieties?

4) Did you have the whooping cough type that your baby had, tested to see if it one of the pertactin deficient mutated strains created ... courtesy of the acellular vaccine?

5) Did you know that the majority of whooping cough cases are now happening in fully and appropriately vaccinated children and adults? (And actually, they always did - - at least in New Zealand....)  


6) How are you so sure that your baby caught whooping cough from someone who is walking around, healthy and unvaccinated, rather than all your baby's aunties, grannies and your friends, whose vaccines long since wore off and who are carrying the bacteria and spreading their silent infections far and wide?

Seems to me that there are sweeping assumptions being made here, by both the mother and the Herald.

If either Annie Mae or the Herald, want to promote the current propaganda party line, the story headline should read either:

“Gutted that I didn’t get the 36 week pregnancy whooping cough vaccine!”


“Gutted that the 36 week pregnancy whooping cough vaccine didn’t work!”

Beyond Conformity Whooping cough resource.   (Only any use for people who have the brains to apply themselves, read and learn ) Continue Reading

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

The deadly shadow of Measles and Michael Mina

Hilary Butler - Thursday, February 04, 2016

Over the last few months since July, 2015, I’ve had a few emails from parents who have had to face down their GP’s who have been saying this to them:

1) When they refuse to have MMR, they are putting their child at grave danger because

a) measles disease eliminates all prior immunity to any diseases the child had before the illness, or to any vaccines they before measles.,

(Above quote from here . ) AND CONSEQUENTLY

a) undermines herd immunity and creates the potential for new epidemics when children with wiped immunity get those diseases again.

(Above quote from here.)  The doctors told the parents who contacted me, that their scientific facts came from peer reviewed medical literature, “which wouldn’t be approved if it wasn’t correct”.

Here is the Mina article and supplementary material to this article. Reading the article and supplementary material was challenging, because the arguments are so complicated and convoluted, that even Einstein could have suffered a migraine and possibly a seizure.

To get my brain around the concepts and work out the biological plausibility (or in this case the non-plausibility of the arguments), I had to read all Mina’s references, AND all the related work that Mina did NOT reference.

Or perhaps he read them and realised that that tsunami totally undermines his immunologically illogical hypotheses. Continue Reading