Hilary's Desk

How much medicine is actually ‘evidence based?” Nineteen years go, in a British Medical article called “Where is the wisdom?” the opening paragraph contained this information:  Read Full Blog

While the medical profession has finally caught on, that the more "educated" a parent makes themselves on the issues around vaccination, the more likely they are to chose not to vaccinate, they are utterly offended that people can chose not to vaccinate.  Furthermore, their take on the issue of "choice" is off the wall.  Their solution to parents not making the 'right' choice, is to back parents into the wall and take pot shots at them with "Refusal to vaccinate" letters (see bottom), which read like legal documents, but are not.  These "refusal to vaccinate" letters come out of such skewed thinking patterns as can be seen in this statement in May this year, from the biggest vaccine defender of them all, Dr Paul Offit: Read Full Blog

"Not possible!" said Dr Paul Offit who believes that the medical profession can happily inject babies with up to 100,000 vaccines at any one time, and the baby's immune system will be just fine. This "dogma" is repeated by all and sundry, including GP's, IMAC and many other medics on autopilot. The theoretical "mathematical model" Dr Offit touted, has just taken it's second "hit" in two years. The first was when they added chickenpox to the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMRV) which caused an increase in high fevers and seizures, and the second has been adding H1N1 into the children's seasonal flu vaccine in Australia, which has also caused an increase in fevers and seizures.  Not that you'd know it, by the way CSL and other "stakeholders" are trying to say nothing, to keep this out of the news.   Read Full Blog

The Lancet has retracted the 1998 paper (1). Now, all the pillorying and slandering of Andrew Wakefield will start in earnest. The question is, "How does Richard Horton manage to go to sleep each night?". And here's why.  In 2004, the Lancet "partially" retracted the paper, on the basis that Andrew Wakefield never declared to the Lancet, financial conflicts of interest. When confronted in front of the GMC, with 1997 faxes , and proof of receipt, showing that that required information had indeed been received by the Lancet, Richard Horton said that he had never seen it. Read Full Blog

WE mothers are not the crème de la crème of society. WE did not go to medical school. WE are mere mothers, who can’t possibly understand all medical science. And WE know this, because they infer so, in their medical articles about us. And in lay-press articles, we hear patronising messages such as vaccines being just like “hard hats”, “seat belts” and “steel-capped boots”. Strange. NONE of those things go ‘into’ a body. Neither do they have potential to train-wreck the immune system in a finely tuned biological-wonder.  Read Full Blog

  Read Full Blog

A recent abridged email provides another piece to the jigsaw puzzle: Read Full Blog

No doubt you have all read book reviews about Paul Offit’s book, “Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure”, like this one here:  Read Full Blog

In a previous blog, I mentioned the fact that in the interview with Kathryn Ryan, Dr Paul Offit dismissed Hannah Poling's autism following the administration of multiple vaccines as irrelevant. He did so, by the fallacy of authority, as in the insinuation of "I'm a vaccine expert, I've looked at the issues, and they are a load of rubbish". Yet again, he's been caught with his pants down.  Read Full Blog

A curve ball was delivered Dr Offit’s way about a week ago, when CBS television investigated the many vested interests behind various vaccine defenders.    When asked to comment on the $1.5 million Merck Sponsored University chair he occupies, and what his other financial vested interests might total, Dr Offit declined to comment. Read Full Blog