Hilary's Desk

Anyone who has read my whooping cough resource section, will know that since the introduction of all whooping cough vaccines in this country, there has been ZERO impact on incidence and a slight increase recently in death rates.

Seemingly in a desire to catch up to the rest of us, the Ministry of Health this week, showed how much they value thoroughness, by putting out an advert (pdf uploaded here for posterity) with a three week deadline.

The topic?






Why are they not also looking for the presence of the new mutant pertussis bacteria, which has been caused by using the acellullar vaccine?   Continue Reading

(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.
 Continue Reading

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.  Continue Reading

Everyone wants answers, just as much as Serenity's grandmother wants answers. There's no doubt that some parents kick kids around like footballs.  The problem is ... where do you get the WHOLE truth? What do the medical people mean by saying that the injuries were "similar to" shaken baby syndrome? Either they are, or they aren't.  And this is important, particularly when, as one expert says, at least half of all parents tried for Shaken Baby Syndrome, have been wrongly convicted. Apart from Tony Wall at the Sunday Star Times, the rest of New Zealand media automatically assumes that any diagnosis that comes from that shrine, Starship, has to be right. Presumably under the guise of "balanced reporting" Sunday Star times, allows Michael Laws to call the family, "feral", as if they are guilty before proven so.  Yet, the internet is full of stories like this one where just maybe, the parents didn't do it after all.  Key lawyers, world wide, are starting to question what they see as serial injustices. Continue Reading

The Guardian today, produced a scrappy piece of journalism here, under the heading "Herbal remedies banned as EU rule takes effect." Whatever the actualities of what herbals will survive, and what is banned, is a much deeper  issue. The voices of the skeptical comments supporting only big pharma, fall into two categories.  The intolerant, who wouldn't know a fact if they saw one, and the "same old" spanish inquisitors, who are employed by someone to bully, snarl at, and smear anyone who is not a big pharma worshipper.  Their mantra is that "only" science understands what is good for you.  "Only" science is reliable.  "Only" science can cure you.  It's astonishing the depths of ignorance they reveal, yet... they have no idea.  Like" rebecca rabbit" who scoffed, "When was the last time a doctor told you to ... starve a fever and feed a cold?" 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

Dear Professor Crane,  In my print copy of the Herald (attached) the following comment is attributable to you: “The benefits of paracetamol for fever control still outweigh the potential of later allergy development..” and…”there were few other options for fever control in young children.” and ... that you don’t know how paracetamol is causing allergies.

The use of paracetamol for fever control, is immunologically irrational according to the medical research. All the of medical literature shows that paracetamol, which can reduce fever in some people, but fortunately, not in most, does so by down-regulating very important parts of the inate immune system – (ome of which are used in the allergy process), resulting in advantage to the pathogen.

You say there are no alternatives to fever control. Firstly, why does the medical profession believe that parents need to control infectious fevers in the first place? And if there is considered a “need” to reduce a fever, then why not use the methods that parents may have used, who have children 30 years and older, and who have NEVER used paracetamol at all?

The medical literature tells us that fever is a very important adaptive advantage for the host, and has a pre-programmed immunological process which up-regulates the immune system in order to help the person throw off the pathogens causing fever, and to survive better.

Not all doctors are continuing the dogma of infectious fever control in the face of thirty years evidence against it’s use.  Continue Reading

On November 16th, 2010, Vaccine published an article titled “Public vaccination programmes against hepatitis B in The Netherlands: Assessing whether a targeted or a universal approach is appropriate”. This long, convoluted self-justifying article gives an extensive review on the Hepatitis B situation in the Netherlands; what is known; what is not; and the statistical tinkering by the committee which recommended universal vaccination. This article should be compulsory reading for all thinking parents, psychology students, and epidemiologists world-wide.  Continue Reading

Today was yet another embarrassing day for the "love a quick fix" medical system.  The Sunday Independant in the UK revealed that secret documents marked "closed until 2014", showed that in 1982, the Medical Research Council was warned that benzodiazepines, which were marketted as "completely harmless", could cause brain shrinkage, and brain damage.  The Department of Health, very conveniently, has "no record" of that meeting.  A Professor Malcolm Lader, asked to set up a unit to research benzos, but was refused permission or funding to do so.  He didn't push the issue, because  even back then, he knew what happens to people who come up against "competing interests", and he assumed that prescription of benzos would "peter out".   Continue Reading

Warning.  Having an opinion is dangerous.  Have you noticed the plethora of "needed" (choke) rules, regulations and safety requirements which stalk anyone who might want to do something adventurous?  Take for instance a group who sets up a children's adventure camp.  They analyse any possible problems, and try to cover every eventuality. Parents sign their kids up, (great, pay money, someone else can baby-sit my kids), but there's an accident, and a child dies.  Fingers are pointed and people are sued.  Therefore, in future there will be disclaimers. "We've done our best, but if you sign up, it's your risk." Everywhere we turn now, we see disclaimers.  And the cultivation of an assumption that anything without a disclaimer could invite liability. Continue Reading