Hilary's Desk

Last week I was walking down the road, and gasped as I saw a mannikin dress which was high fashion when I was 14.  I still have a sepia-shaded photo of me in it.  The only thing that's changed is the fabric.  Not that the human body changes it's design, other than self-adjusted additions or removals. I thought, "How true, old becomes new."  The very next day I was stunned to read the New Zealand Herald's report of Dr Mary Fewtrell's idiotic article in the BMJ. It took me back to a day, nearly 30 years ago, when a Middlemore paediatrician gave me a lecture with an almost identical message.  I thought to myself, "I wonder where Fewtrell's head has resided all these years, as well as her three co-authors?" Continue Reading

Several times, I’ve been asked to explain my silence, and why I have not written about Andrew Wakefield in the past. My concerns started in 1981, and go much deeper and relate to much more fundamental issues than “that” paper. It’s up to Andrew Wakefield to clear his own name. It’s up to Deer to prove he’s right. There are far more serious, fundamental issues people need to face up to when it comes to vaccines. 

On 6th February 2001, I wrote an article called More Motives Reviewed based on a publication WHO had put out in 1997 called “The CVI Strategic Plan Managing Opportunity and Change: A vision of Vaccination for the 21st Century.” (PDF is 5.23 mb) 1997 was the year that I realised that Henry Gadsden, Chief executive of vaccine manufacturer Merck was right, and that the plan was bigger than any one drug but encompassed as much of the drug list as feasible - including vaccines. I was shocked at the “reach” laid out by the WHO. And not surprised that "consumers" were never considered.  This was all about conditioning people to accept vaccines, and demand them.  This was all about getting the pretty, the famous, billboard names, media and the politicians to promote Henry Gadsden et al's vaccine dream.

Plainly, Wakefield had never read that plan, for if he had, and if he had had his pulse on the new vaccine development in the pipeline, he would have known that the CVI Strategic Plan was only possible, if the record of both the DPT and the MMR remained utterly unblemished, so that layer upon layer of other vaccines could be added into both of them to eventually result in super vaccines containing many antigens. Continue Reading

That about sums up the last week really. Meanwhile, Brian Deer shafts the parents in the 1998 Lancet study calling them worse words than being “nuts”; Dr Paul Offit calls Wakefield a fanatic; vaccine defending bloggers infer that Jenny McArthy is a slut, and the sun shines out of Dr Offit’s little pet Amanda Peet’s long legs... and Gregory Poland considers anyone who is anti vaccine has, "low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns, reasoning flaws, and a habit of substituting emotional anecdotes for data”. And we think Parliament is childish?

The current medical and media parrotage on Deer-gate is worse than in the past, but even so, history is very instructive. Medical systems have for centuries, made dog-piling, and character assassination into versatile art forms with all the spontaneity of well practiced professional wrestling.  Continue Reading

Yesterday, in discussing the cozy relationship of the medical profession with big pharma while paying lip service to nutrition, I remembered an old book I have on this topic.  It's quaint title is, "Intestinal Gardening for the Prolongation of Youth". It was written by Dr James Empringham, and published in 1926.  It's fascinating; makes me chuckle, and roll my eyes at the same time.  Why?  Because it shows just how insular the average doctor was.  And by proxy, still is.  Much of what he writes is just plain common sense, which us fruitloops have long been wise to.  There are a few interesting gems in this book, so have a gander at this lot: Continue Reading

Open Letter to the Hon Minister of Health, Tony Ryall,  Dear Mr Ryall,  We realise that health policy is determined by your advisors, but we believe that it's time for you to independently do some research on Pubmed, Google Scholar and apply some commonsense to the escalating industry entrenchment around the expensive testing for and treatment of rheumatic fever.  What most concerns us is the apparent reading and research deficit suffered by the New Zealand medical profession regarding rheumatic fever, resulting in employment of chemical solutions rather than application of meaningful preventive strategies which if enacted would not only prevent rheumatic fever, but a whole raft of other medical conditions as well. Continue Reading