Hilary's Desk

Close Up's programme on whooping cough, was a triumph of emotional blackmail using a cute baby with whooping cough, to push a policy which doesn't work.  But worse than that, was the standard of discussion on Close up's facebook page.  You know that eminence based manipulation has truly scraped the bottom of the barrel when Grant Jacobs obliquely counsels all readers not to even look at the scientific links put up, .... inferring that those who don’t have the right background won’t understand the studies posted implying that there is no need for anyone else to look at them either

What does Jacobs then post?  A link to Imac, who according to him are the sanctified pontifical crystal ball.  IMAC - Nikki Turner the world's best trained cherry picker, purveyor of mandatory vaccination given half a chance -and the constant "leaver-outer" of any information that really matters, who.....subscribes to the Nike Motto, as do her followers.



And IMAC certainly would never remind the viewers on Close Up, that her colleagues in Australia, who actually understand the science.... cancelled the "cocooning" which Nikki Turner so earnestly advocates, because it doesn't work.  Can't let facts get in the way of a good thing for vaccine manufacturers, and IMAC asserting it's "control" and peer group pressure!

The most accurate assessment of the calibre of cognitive dissonance displayed by the provaccine people  on Close-Up's page?  A post by Erin LeKiwi which went like this:

Really does make you question the capacity of people to think when you have conversations like this, huh...

A. "Omgz get the vaccine!"
B. "But the vaccine doesn't work and never has - look at all this info!" *gives copious data, medical research, studies, statistics etc*
A. "Omgz shut up you don't know what you're talking about! Get the vaccine!"
B. "I just gave you all the evidence you could ask for... why get a vaccine that doesn't work?"
A. "You're just biased!"
B. "No, look at the info..."
C. "Omgz get the vaccine you mean plague-ridden ignorant non-vaccinators, I should have sovereignty over your body and make you get it! It's because of you my baby got sick!"
B. *facepalm* 
 Read Full Blog

This week's "The Science" contains an opinion piece on future vaccines for TB which deserves a historic comment.  The title of the article "Opinion: A TB vaccine blueprint" isn't likely to make headlines in the lay media for pretty obvious but unstated reasons.  They relate to the fact that most parents today, are under the "illusion" that the great white plague was vanquished by the old BCG vaccine used since 1950 in many countries.

In fact, the BCG has done nothing of the sort.  One of the most notable" features" of the BCG vaccine, other than the fact that it's pretty much a useless vaccine, is the fact that the USA has never used the vaccine. 

How many of you knew that?

Here's another fact.  TB declined in USA at the same rate as it declined in the countries which used BCG.

How many of you knew that?  And why did TB decline in USA, just like everywhere else?  Silence reigns, when it comes to the very obvious answers to such simple questions.

Why did USA not use the BCG?  Because their own studies showed that the BCG - in some races CAUSED TB, and the protection in other races, was at most 14%.  They decided not to use it on the basis that it would "conceal" cases of TB which could otherwise be picked up with the mantoux or heaf test, and that they would prefer to treat, rather than adopt the blanket vaccination policy of other countries.

USA also decided that their "silence" on the matter would ensure maximum profits for the BCG drug companies and keep them on the right side of the buttering up ledger, with regard to other vaccines.  Mutual backscratching if you will....

So now that there are 12 new TB vaccines on lab benches, set to "save the world", the question is whether or not the "blueprint" for past sales will be the same blueprint for future sales?

Will we be assured that these new TB vaccines are wonderful, safe, lifesaving preventatives ....  for another 50 years, until (OOPS) we then discover that our eyes were covered with the wool of yet another medical mirage? Read Full Blog

Whose right - Piri, Dita de Boni, Kara, Docherty or the Herald Editorial? None of them. And let me say, straight up, I breastfed, because I wanted to, I could - and I KNEW what the medical literature said about breastmilk.  Now, it says way more. Mammary glands are made to feed babies - with anything else, extra-curricula.  The problem with saying that FORMULA feeding is a choice, is that actually, people who feed formula, aren't given a choice.

If a baby is "allergic to dairy", that doesn't preclude breastfeeding, except for the mother who refuses to remove dairy in her diet. Furthermore, hypoallergenic formula doesn't prevent or treat allergies. The issue isn't about "breastfeeding nazis", because in my seven years breastfeeding I only ever got rude stares in public even if people couldn't see "anything", and most mothers I know still get stick for breast feeding in public. Breastfeeders are the tiny minority in this country, which is why formula is seen as "normal". 

The reason that most of the 2 - 5% of women, who physically cannot breastfeed, put formula in bottles in this country, is because they have no choice but to put formula in that bottle.  First, at the highest level of the paediatric community in this country there is NO COMMITMENT to educating parents of the necessity to breastfeed babies, or to cater for those who CANNOT.  (Note that word - CANNOT.  Not.... "won't") 

High level commitment, could have had led to a smoothly operating, nation-wide breast milk bank  in New Zealand over a decade ago.

Parents should be provided with detailed information on WHY breastfeeding is vital.  Note that word: VITAL - not "optional".

Everything written in the Herald was anecdotal hot air, not fact. Not one of the people mentioned above, who wrote in the Herald explained WHY breastfeeding was best. Even Docherty got it wrong, saying that formula only leads to obesity and that was easily dealt with by getting ones children into sport.  If the Herald's commentaries reflect the level of education on breastfeeding in New Zealand today, no wonder everyone has missed the bigger picture.

Only on Friday did the Herald meekly offer readers a study which showed that breastfeeding protected against asthma.  

The LACK of a breast milk bank in New Zealand, proves that paediatricians in this country have NO COMMITMENT to the fundamental health of New Zealand children.  The medical profession needs to do more then tweet about asthma prevention.  They need to start talking about the HUGE money-saving and health advantages of breast milk, and how breastfeeding sets up a child to AVOID many and diverse key health issues in both the short and long term, right through to the age of 80 and beyond. 

Not one media presentation has effectively detailed the issues, and why should they, when the medical profession won't?  Every first time parent should be able to go to an antenatal class and ask the question, "What do we do if we find we physically cannot breastfeed?" and every parent should be told, "In that event, we refer you to the local breast milk bank."

But then the formula brigade gets in on the act and says, "But the very fact that eminent paediatricians like Peter Nobbs are happy with formula, means there is no issue.  Formula is good.  Formula is our choice".

That argument is incorrect in every aspect - and Peter Nobb knows it.

FACT:  Formula creates a completely different child on many different physiologic, immunologic (and genetic) levels, as anyone who has read Keith Woodford's book, "Devil in the Milk" can tell you.  Is formula A1 milk or A2 milk?  A child's future health could depend on that, but again, no-one's talking about the consequences of A1 formula on type 1 diabetes and heart disease, are they? Paediatricians know all this stuff I'm about to detail, concerning breastmilk and formula..., yet they tell NONE of it to prospective parents or the media, because you KNOW what parents and media are going to do and say:

They will point the finger and ask:  "Well, what are you going to do about it?"

But mothers who physically can't breast feed, don't have the CHOICE to buy breast milk, because the paediatric community thinks that's a total waste of their time and effort.  What sort of example is it, when as recently as 2008, the Auckland Woman's Health Council was aghast at senior paediatrician Peter Nobb's "sell out" to Bayer's 'Novalac Colic", while demonising parents who chose not to vaccinate (who are mostly, long term successful breast feeders)!

Why should a breast-milk bank be set up?

The following is a very INCOMPLETE list of what the medical literature has to say about breast milk, and its influence on how a baby grows, and lives: Read Full Blog

(For anyone reading this in Australia, I did a similar blog in 2008, on Australian media lies on pertussis as well, which you can read here. It also contains full text medical articles and proof that what their media reports is blatantly fictitious propaganda, created by medical people whose only aim is to intentionally deceive the reader by NOT providing the facts. After all, if they provided you with the facts, they wouldn't be able to bully you into "comformity and compliance" would they?)

Nikki Macdonald
Senior feature writer
The Dominion Post and Your Weekend
04 474 0063
www.dompost.co.nz

From: Hilary Butler [mailto:butler@watchdog.net.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2011 5:57 p.m.
To: 'nikki.macdonald@dompost.co.nz'
Subject: Your article, "battline immunisation ignorance"

Dear Nikki,

While what follows may appear to be anger at you, it is not. It’s anger at the medical people who came to you with dogma … not with facts, and have deliberately mislead you. I will prove that to you using their own documents.

In your article "Battline Immunisation Ignorance" you stated: ****Nasty at any age, whooping cough can cause brain damage and even death in young babies. Before a vaccine was available, the disease killed more babies than measles, diphtheria, polio and scarlet fever combined.***

Exactly what was the doctor’s desired “reader’s inference” - by using this statement? This statement infers to the average reader that it was ONLY after a vaccine was available, that all these baby deaths stopped. Correct?

Yet nothing could be further from the truth, and every single doctor who talked to you, should have known better. Cameron Grant certainly knows that, because he’s worked with the same data as I have, and he’s never been able to bring himself to put in print the full death decline graph for whooping cough.. and no wonder! It makes a mockery of the comment above.

Why did Cameron Grant tell you that under 6 years, the whooping cough vaccine has an 80% effectiveness, when the only study done on the current NZ vaccine shows it has an effective immunisation rate of 33% (see korobeinikov 03 attached)? And all those toddlers under one… in Wellington hospital – how many of them are appropriately vaccinated for their age? FACT: Most babies over the age of 6 months who get whooping cough, are fully and appropriately vaccinated. Why? Because NZ has about a 94% nationwide vaccination rate for that vaccine. And you can request under the OIA vaccination rate data by region, if you want to find that out. Why is Grant’s mantra simply, “more more more and more timely”?

At least Dr Helen Harris Petoussis had the honesty to admit on Radio Rhema that the whooping cough vaccine is lousy.

They gave you a 19 year old fraudulent statistic of 60% vaccination and your next sentence was in the present tense, saying, “That leaves a whole tranche of society who are not protected.” Really? Did you ask them for the ESR data showing the vaccination status of all these whooping cough cases in that age group?

Why is he talking such low vaccination rates? In Sommerville 07 attached which Cameron Grant co-authored, the point is made that by 1996, the pertussis vaccination rates were already 86%, I know that by 2000, whooping cough vaccination rates were already 90%, and they are now around 94% and even higher in some districts.

The 2 year old rate of 60% in the 90’s was a total nonsense. Why would you think that 86% of infants, would be up to date by a year old, and suddenly, only 60% would be up-to-date by 2 years? That is straight nonsense.

Did you ask them for FACTS and proof that their numbers were accurate?

Just think. We’ve had over 90% baby vaccination rates for whooping cough vaccines for over 11 years….since 2000, AND they’ve includes even more shots since then for the adolescents at the time…, and yet more, after 2000…. AND here we are with whooping cough in EVEN higher numbers than it was before 1960? Don’t you think that’s absolutely astonishing?

Look at the more than doubling of cases in the under ones since vaccination started... Why has that doubled when the actual vaccination rates has increased radically in that age group since 1960, let along 1992, or 2000? What else might that indicate, Nikki? Have a guess?

I’m not stupid and neither are you, so surely you can work that out. Why would Dr Grant et al, not discuss this with you honestly?

Australia which has had over a 95% whooping cough vaccination rate since 2000, is having the largest outbreak in their history since pertussis vaccination started. The same is happening in USA Nikki, and their rate of vaccination is even higher than Australia. So what do you think is happening there?

The only really honest remark Cameron Grant has made, is that reducing poor nutrition would lower infectious disease rates. Improving barriers to healthcare would not, since whether or not a child gets seriously sick in the first place, is dependant on nutrition, and if your child isn’t seriously sick you don’t need access to healthcare. Furthermore, Cameron Grant has absolutely nothing to offer in the way of treatment for either whooping cough or measles. And Cameron Grant knows that bad nutrition is the disease driver, because he’s published several studies which show that the sickest children in Auckland hospitals are the most malnourished.

While some in the medical profession will tell you that a single pertussis vaccine was available in 1945, what they won’t tell you was that it hit a record high of a mere 9% uptake before it was discontinued in 1955, when it was stopped because baby vaccines were causing “provocation polio” (Bet they didn’t tell you that either…) . Why would you assume that one jab of one whooping cough vaccine in 9% of people in 1955, would make any difference if five jabs of a superior vaccine in 94% of babies today, still sees us with higher levels of whooping cough than before vaccination started in 1960?

In 1958, once the SALK polio injection was widespread, they re-introduced a three dose whooping cough schedule, but parents wouldn’t use it, so then they combined it with diphtheria and tetanus to make DPT in 1960. After that, parents were more interested.

And given that the “new improved” whooping cough vaccines they use now, which requires a primary series of 3 shots with 2 boosters = FIVE jabs…., have an actual efficacy rate of… 33%, can you imagine what the old one shot in 1945, was like?

No mention of that. You are being sold a sacred cow here Nikki, not a set of proveable facts. I have attached for you, two pdfs which include the relevant graphs – as well as all the historical infant mortality rates, since you are focusing on babies. I’ve also included a Lancet article relevant to the issue, and an interesting 1932 tidbit from the appendices to the nz parliamentary journals so that you can get a flavour of the thoughts of that time period.

The attached MOH own information, and graphs,( as well as Grant’s own article with Sommerville)… shows you that you can pretty much wipe any “influence” of a max 9% uptake of one shot of a monovalent vaccine between 1945 and 55, or from 1958 onwards. And you can see from the death decline graph from 1872 in the NZ 5 diseases attachment from the MOH data, … , which Grant always declines to publish, shows that the whooping cough vaccine had nothing to do with the reduction in whooping cough deaths. If you want to know more about whooping cough, and other disease decline in this country and the REAL contribution made by clean water, better food and sewage systems…., the only definitive book which will give you an understanding of why these diseases declined in NZ is “Challenge for Health” by Dr DF Maclean. See the attachment up there called “Historical pert deaths”? In that paragraph, Dr Maclean explains to you why whooping cough was so fatal in 1907, and why it was nothing like that even in 1964 when the book was published and the vaccine use had only just started…. Did Cameron Grant show you any of that?

The medical literature and health department graphs attached, should be self explanatory for any intelligent journalist.

And I can send you a ton more if you would like it.

The only death graph I have not included for children is polio, because it’s not worth a sniff. Out of all the diseases mentioned, the death rate from polio was so miniscule in comparison to the others, as to be unworthy of comparison with any of the other diseases mentioned. (Yet most people are under the illusion that polio caused mass mortality. Funny that.)

See the TB graph? All that death reduction even for TB, was achieved BEFORE any vaccines of any sort were offered to parents, and most of the reductions for all diseases, were achieved before antibiotics became commercially available in about 1950 as well. So what did that? It wasn’t vaccines.

BTW, there never was a vaccine for scarlet fever…. And the graph only goes to 1929, because after that it was not really considered a disease of note. Scarlet fever and it’s resulting complication, rheumatic fever - has clearly been shown in the medical literature, to be nutritionally driven, which is why you will find rheumatic fever primarily in lower socio-economic groups in NZ. All of us carry Strep A regularly but the well fed amongst us never get scarlet fever, let alone it’s complication, rheumatic fever. But the reason it’s a significant problem in the lower socio economic groups where poverty is rampant, is because good nutrition prevents rheumatic fever. And Carmeron Grant should know that as well!!!

I’m sure all the medical people came across to you as most pleasant and very caring and so emotionally persuasive! …. Therefore you felt that they couldn’t possible put you wrong….,

I’m sorry if you now find the real medical data somewhat unpalatable. That isn’t my fault. There is much more I could say, but I’ll leave the factual stuff at that.

If at any point, you wish to follow up with an article on the real data and information for the problems discussed in your article, I’d be happy to provide you with “the whole story” for you to consider.

This letter will also be sent out to anyone who asks me about your article, and I may well do a series of blogs so that parents who “drive by” know that people who chose not to vaccinate, are simply being made scapegoats because the facts are not being accurately presented by the media.

What would parents who chose not to vaccinate, gain from being ignorant?

Real ignorance would lead to the sort of pillorying which your article is designed to encourage. My sole reason for emailing you, is to give you first hand experience that actually, parents who chose not to vaccinate their children are far better educated than most of those who do vaccinated. If you go out on the street, and ask one parent who vaccinates their children, to give you with the information I have just attached, not only would they not know it exists, but they would have NO IDEA how to even find it.

Non vaccinators are deliberately portrayed as ignorant in order that those who DO vaccinate will feel “holier than thou” and, then turn around and demonise those of us who don’t. sort of reminds me of the social mentality at the time of Copernicus, don’t you think?

The real question is … exactly….. who is ignorant?

Regards,
Hilary.  Read Full Blog

How much does the medical system know about the total hardware of the immune system, and how all parts interconnect? As you’ve seen in the last few blogs, their understanding is crucially hampered by what they now know they don’t understand. The problem is, most parents have no idea of the extent of their immunological “blindness”. Definitive knowledge of the innate immunity, our first defences, resembles a big black hole called “ignorance”. Immunologist appear to be like tree experts, walking in huge forest, saying, “Oh yeah, I recognise that clump of trees – they are antibodies, but I don’t know what they have to do with those ones. Wonder what these are? And those are....” and so it goes on.  Read Full Blog

The main and unique intermediary step between a NON-INFLAMMATORY phenotype, which is the default setting in pregnancy and for all baby mammals -  and a more individually competent educated immune system better able to handle the world's dangers and challenges.... is breast milk.  Read Full Blog

Currently, there is considerable discussion relating to whether or not rodent viruses might be involved in CFS.  You will find three full text medical papers here. Obviously, we’ve always lived with mice, and Florence Nightingale had CFS, according to historical records. However, never .... since the invention of the syringe, and scientists brewing up drugs on animal cultures ... have so many people, being treated in so many different areas of medicine, had so many different animal endogenous viruses injected into them, one way or another, whether monoclonal antibodies, or whatever. And we all know, from medical literature that apart from vaccines, the majority of these patients in the past, were seriously immunosuppressed. We also know, that these immunosuppressed people excrete huge quantities of viruses into the environment, multiplying the opportunity of sharing with everyone else, their pathogenic loads.  Read Full Blog

 Read Full Blog

Following on from yesterday's blog about Paul Offit's Science Friction, .. today's blog is about how Nikki Turner's presentations to the Parliamentary Select Committee are tainted with the same "blight".  Part of Paul Hutchison's recommendations to Parliament included Nikki Turner's unfactual statement (under her IMAC guise) that if vaccination against measles stopped, New Zealand would see 5,000 to 6,000 measles hospitalisation and 20 - 60 deaths per year. A pretty spectacular statement when the medical literature (and Starship hospital policy) makes it so clear that complications and deaths can be radically reduced with vitamin A.  In this upload, you will see IMAC's measles claims, and following that, you will see the death decline graph for New Zealand. Following on from that you will see....   Read Full Blog

This is the first in a series of blogs on this topic. This one is a long blog but you need to read it very carefully.  You need to understand exactly how the information provided by the MOH to Dr Hutchison is so misleading and the implications of that for the whole debate.   Read Full Blog