Hilary's Desk

The Irony of Professor Roger Short

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:17:00 GMT

Professor Roger Short was Janet McIntyre’s premier “expert” for her “wonder drug” programme. It would seem that 80 year old veterinarian, Professor Roger Short, has a major bee in his bonnet, which filtered out in his enthusiastic endorsement of the pill to solve the world’s global warming problem... which is... far too many people.

Two months before the publication of the oral contraceptive study about which he waxed lyrical, Professor Short contributed this little gem to the debate:

"It is so simple; we have already invented a pill that will prevent global warming – the oral contraceptive pill. A recent study by Thomas Wire of the London School of Economics www.optimumpopulation.org) has shown that each seven dollars spent on meeting the unmet demand for family planning between 2010 and 2050 would reduce CO2 emissions by over a tonne, which is 4 times more cost-effective than any conventional solution. If women the world over were given easy access to the contraceptive pill, every birth could become a wanted birth, and human population growth would almost come to a halt. But getting that simple message across to our self-seeking politicians and economists will probably take another lifetime, and so the Asian elephant will become extinct after all. "

It would be nice if all vets interested in elephant testicles would actually walk the talk. A bit more investigation shows that Professor Short:

….is married to Professor Marilyn Renfree and they have two children, Tamsin, 23, and Kirsten, 20. He also has four children from a previous marriage, among them a vet working in developing countries, a GP, a psychiatrist and an economist.

Indeed one could argue that Professor Short has failed in two ways.

Firstly, he didn’t take his own advice, and secondly, doesn’t appear to know how to read a medical study, or study the criticisms of that study in any meaningful way.

Does Professor Short think that his six children more worthy than others?

And how are planned children going to use any less global resources than unplanned children?

In fact, might not his well paid, high flying, perhaps over consuming six children (who will also have goodness knows how many children), be a far worse influence on global warming than 100 unplanned children in Africa?

However, of interest, given this his solution is less people on this planet,... is his new line of endeavour:

...the development of new ways to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV in men and women. Intra vaginal lemon juice, once widely used as a contraceptive, might prove to be a natural microbicide, since it can kill HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in culture. Clinical trials are in progress in the Department of Obstetrics, University of Jos, Nigeria. All the details are at www.aids.net.au.

Lemon Juice.

The next saviour of the world, oh vey.

Sciblogs: more blind leading the blind

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:56:00 GMT

In another piece of cherrypicking nonsense called “Clash of the anecdotes”, Peter Griffin seems to think no-one else reads newspapers. He says:

If you read today’s letters to the Sunday Star Times you’ll see the flip side of anecdotal evidence on the use of intravenous vitamin C to treat serious illness. The letter below … illustrates well why it is potentially very dangerous when people make decisions that may impact their health based on anecdotal evidence.

So let’s look a the two letters published that week, and another published the week after. He was talking about the second letter, written by anonymous....:

Peter Griffin accepts as "evidence" someone hiding in anonymity who is on chemotherapy - yet ignores letters addressing the real science issues with real names supplied.

Peter whines about several months of intravenous vitamin C including safe administration costs, doctors fees, etc...supposedly costing this woman $20,000 out of her own pocket, but doesn't blanche at the fact at least HE didn't pay a cent of it, or that that people on chemo are having way more taxpayers' money thrown their way than that. Neither does Peter complain that taxpayers will be funding the HUGELY expensive Herceptin, or any of the other cancer drugs. In fact, Peter seems blithely unaware of the breadth of his own hypocrisy.

I wonder if we should go back to a fully paid "user-pays" health system, so that Peter Griffin can regain an accurate summation of what really counts in these issues (both regarding choice and cost), since money suddenly seems to have become such a big issue to him... .

And who is that group of people who yammer on about those who rely on anecdote? Sciblogs.

Typical.

On "Sciblogs" and throwing stones.

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:13:00 GMT

Oh the irony of it all. Peter Griffin of Sciblogs fame reckons he has H1N1. Would love to know how he knows that. After all, the only people being tested for H1N1 are those in ICU. Not even “normal” patients in the “fly-by" outpatients get tested. Perhaps he has special connections? Called in a favour maybe? Perhaps he should post the ‘laboratory proof’ for his claims on his sciblogs page?

Perhaps having H1N1 is the new “in” sciblogs disease. Funny though. He’s run out of codral now, seemingly not realizing that his ozzie mates who also write a version of sciblogs consider codral to be crap. So whose right? Aussie skeptics, or New Zealand Skeptics?

The other side of this coin is that Peter Griffin loves to portray himself as a knowledgeable scientist, and to excoriate those people he thinks aren’t. Therefore, wouldn’t you think that at the very least, he would have had his vitamin D levels tested LAST year, and be on top of that? Doesn’t he know, that there is overwhelming evidence in peer reviewed medical literature, that only those who are vitamin D deficient will be susceptible to respiratory infections INCLUDING the flu?

Sciblogs can’t talk about that, though.. after all, if everyone knew the answer to keeping the flu away was good nutrition and vitamin D, that annual cash cow – the flu vaccine, couldn’t be promoted as the only prevention by sciblogs, eh?! Of course, the other questions that could be asked are:

"Did Peter Griffin take his own advice and get the H1N1 vaccine?

If not, why not?

And if so, why has he got swine flu?

Either way, touche!

But getting back to real science, we know that Peter Griffin isn’t a real scientist. After all, if he had been … Professor Hemila wouldn’t have had to pull him up about serious omissions in his post called “Sins of omissions”.

Let’s just hope that H1N1 doesn’t get the better of him to the point where he lands up in ICU as bad as Allan Smith was. The question is, if that happened, would Peter Griffin ask them to use large doses of vitamin C, or would he rather just be proned?

Professor Hemila shocks Sciblogs into silence.

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:31:00 GMT

Professor Hemila quite rightly asks sciblogs why they blethered on about mice and cancer instead of actually DOING a literature review on vitamin C and Pneumonia.... Did Sciblogs... actually put their brains into gear? Professor Hemila's Finnish website is the BEST place on internet to find early and more recent published medical information on Vitamin C. I'd like to think that Sciblogs might learn something from this airhead episode, but seriously, ... I very much doubt it. Here is Professor Hemila's post, for anyone interested:

Sins of omission in 60 Minutes ‘miracle’ story Peter Griffin Aug 20

1. Harri Hemila 1 day ago

Serious omissions in the “Sins of omission”

Peter Griffin asked “what does the peer-reviewed literature say about this sort of [vitamin C] treatment for pneumonia-like symptoms?”

Proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM) emphasize that conclusions about medical interventions should be based on controlled trials with clinically relevant outcomes. Why then did Griffin discuss mouse models of cancer, instead of controlled trials on pneumonia?

The most important EBM data base is the Cochrane Library. Had Griffin searched the Cochrane Library, he would have identified our systematic review on vitamin C and pneumonia. We found three prophylactic trials in which vitamin C prevented pneumonia and two trials in which vitamin C treatment was beneficial for pneumonia patients [1].

One of the two therapeutic trials was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with elderly patients with pneumonia or chronic bronchitis in the UK. In this trial, there were 5 deaths in the placebo group, but only 1 death in the vitamin C group. The abstract of the trial is available at MEDLINE [2] and I scanned the whole paper so that it is freely available at my home pages [3]. This and the the four other trials are discussed in our systematic review [1].

Thus, the peer-reviewed literature says that there is justification to test the effect of vitamin C on pneumonia patients. Although there is no basis to state that vitamin C has been proven to be effective against pneumonia, testing of vitamin C is justified because of its safety and low price, and the findings of the published controlled trials.

Griffin is concerned about the safety of intravenous vitamin C. Numerous urban legends about the potential harm of vitamin C have been circulating, but they have been shown to be unfounded [4]. For example, a recent pharmacokinetic study administered up to 100 g of vitamin C within a few hours without adverse effects, pointing out the safety of high doses for ordinary people [5].

I do not think there is evidence that an ordinary healthy person would benefit from taking more than some 0.2 grams per day of vitamin C. However, the situation for people who have infections can be quite different. The level of vitamin C in plasma decreases during various viral and bacterial infections, which gives a rationale for testing the therapeutic effects of vitamin C for patients with infections [6]. Controlled trials have found benefit of vitamin C against pneumonia [1] and the common cold [7]. It is clear that the effects of vitamin C are not restricted to preventing scurvy, although the significance of the non-scurvy effects is unsettled.

Prejudice against vitamin C is common and not limited to the urban legends about toxicity. I have shown that the most influential reviews on vitamin C and the common cold are severely biased so that there are errors in the extraction of data from the original study reports, errors in calculations, and inconsistent selection of trials for inclusion; see a summary and links to further documents at my home page [8].

I consider that Peter Griffin is irresponsible. He pretends to be familiar with the “peer-reviewed literature” on vitamin C and pneumonia-like symptoms. However, either he did not search the medical literature at all, or if he did, he intentionally omitted the controlled trials on vitamin C and pneumonia from his discussion.

Links:
[1] Vitamin C for preventing and treating pneumonia (Cochrane Review) http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005532.html
[2] The abstract of Hunt et al. (1994) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7814237
[3] Hunt et al. (1994) http://www.ltdk.helsinki.fi/users/hemila/CP/Hunt_1994_ch.pdf
[4] Safety of Vitamin C: Urban Legends http://www.ltdk.helsinki.fi/users/hemila/safety/
[5] Padayatty et al (2004) http://www.annals.org/content/140/7/533
[6] Vitamin C metabolism during infections http://www.ltdk.helsinki.fi/users/hemila/metabolism/
[7] Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold (Cochrane Review) http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000980.html
[8] Meta-analyses on vitamin C and the common cold http://www.ltdk.helsinki.fi/users/hemila/reviews/

Facts many people prefer to ignore.

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:43:00 GMT

(Written by Peter) How easy it is to fail to heed the significance of essential facts. The seriousness of this causes me to return once against to a statement I have made on many occasions especially when I have been talking to people.

Setting aside all the complexities that seem to permeate the screeds of material dealing with this theme, let me identify it in a very simple straightforward statement of a few words:

“I am a unique individual”.

Or I can restate it just as simply by saying, “You are a unique individual”.

Or “We are all unique individuals”.

On the basis of overwhelming evidence from all sorts of sources, this fact cannot be challenged.

In fact, to strengthen our uniqueness, we are body, soul and spirit. In other words when I analyse myself in the mirror; when I factor in the way my mind works, the emotions I experience, the way I make decisions, the roles of conscience and intuition in moment-by-moment living, plus “spirituality” in all its different forms, I can say with absolute certainty and conviction, “I am unique and there is NO ONE ELSE in the whole world quite LIKE ME.”

You can also make such a statement.

In fact, the world’s billions of people can say it!

Therein lies a problem! Perhaps I should say, “Therein lies billions of problems”.

Let’s face it, the world in which we live can only function by using systems of all sorts – examples of the main ones being political, educational, medical and financial. To operate the systems, there have to be structures, and plenty of bureaucrats! BUT SYSTEMS DO NOT ACCOMMODATE ALL UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS VERY WELL, if at all.

In an attempt to solve this incompatibility problem, various strategies and techniques are employed.

The unique individuals have to become manageable – split up and “boxed”!

We are named, numbered, categorized, assessed, computerized, “treated”, advised, experimented with, confronted with rules and regulations, and squeezed into as many moulds as possible.

If you survive these processes, and many others like them, and refuse to be made an acceptable conformist and suitably compliant, then other obstacles and persecutions will probably catch up with you sooner or later.

Does that sound extreme?

By studying the daily news media, you should soon find the answer to that question!

Systems could operate very well if we were all clones, but we were not created that way. I for one, am extremely thankful for that.

“Out of the Mould” is all about living beyond conformity, simply because we are unique individuals. We can choose to accept or reject these facts. It will be a personal decision. It will take place in the mind. The resultant action will be carried out by the “feet”, as it were, but the real “heart” of these matters is situated between the head and the feet! Too often the heart-felt belief is overridden by emotions (e.g. fear, intimidation) and lack of will-power (often likened to a switch).

.... Do we have “rights” and “freedoms” that help to safeguard our uniqueness?

We need to find out what they are, be prepared to fight for them, and to help others do the same.

Yes, very often it will be a struggle.

The “system” will be threatened by people who will be seen to be different because they haven’t been “standardized”, and the inculcation of the “right” mindsets have not been achieved.

How much is your uniqueness being controlled?

One of the reasons for the writing of the allegorical story, “The Great Divide” was to help the readers identify with the practical outworking of the uniqueness issues I have raised here. Copies are available for the asking. See “It’s Quite an Eye-opener” .

Maybe we need to strengthen our individual foundations before I toss some more thought-grenades in your direction.

The battle for the mind is never ending.

And if you feel like a chat anytime, please don’t hesitate to give us a phone call.

Never bite the hand that feeds you.

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:43:00 GMT

Watching TNVZ SUNDAY’s programme about the oral contraceptive pill, called “Wonder Drug”, my mind kept flitting back to the fair grounds of old. Merry go round horses, ever rising, and lowering and the ceaseless crackly potted music; metal clown heads, swinging wide open mouths, and the croaky voiced candy floss man intoning his automated speil. This was how I perceived the surreal presentation which characterised Janet McIntyre's uncritical canonization of a British Medical Journal article published on 11 March 2010. She followed the rest of the media who described this study as “titanic”.... forgetting that the unsinkable Titanic,... sank. Janet was unblinkingly content to present people who thought that the Pill should be available over-the-counter, with no controls, to anyone of any age. Caution and monitorring be damned. Let’s get with it, full speed ahead. Titanic, indeed. Which will of course, fix global warming! Hurray....

Not ... one... question... of real substance was asked.

If I had been asked to research this article for a balanced presentation the first question to ask myself would have been, “Has the BMJ put underneath the article on their website, criticisms, concerns or comment to the Editor about this study? Yes they had. That debate stopped on 5 May, 2010. Plenty of time to find out WHO the people were, expressing serious concerns about the study's legitimacy. Why were they concerned? What were their backgrounds. Why did they raise several serious confounders which the researchers had not even considered? All this basic information, right there on a plate, at the end of a mouse.... was ... ignored.

And who is this Dr Ellen Grant? It is easy to see from her responses, that her knowledge of these issues is extensive. Why might that be? So... Dr Ellen Grant is a gynocologist/physician. She has written two books on the contraceptive pill trials and surrounding issues: “Bitter Pill: How safe is the perfect contraceptive?” and “Sexual Chemistry: Understanding Our Hormones, the Pill and HRT”. Every woman should read these books, old as they are, and read Dr Grant's e-responses at www.bmj.com. More importantly Dr Grant was involved in the extensive early trials on the pill, and has made the topic, her “life”. You might think she'd be worth talking to.

You'd also think - wouldn't you, that with such basic information in front of any competent investigative journalist, that at the very least, Dr Ellen’s scientific knowledge and views would have been sought, in the interests of fully informing women that the contraceptive pill is far from a wonder drug?

Problem. Dr Grant is in UK, which isn't nearly as conveniently located as an 80 year old codger in Melbourne and two NZ spurts. As I watched these three medical people Janet chose to let ramble on, looking utterly smug, and also gobsmacked, .... I had to keep pinching my leg, and reminded myself, "Today isn’t 1st April!".

Some of the others commenting to the BMJ may also have been worth talking to, particular the number cruncher who said, “So imagine my surprise to find that the crude death rate of 2864/25942 (0.1104) is just a little lower than 1747/15559 (0.1123). This 0.98 crude ratio must have undergone considerable manipulation to yield an "adjusted" relative risk of 0.88.”

This mockery of investigative journalism is what happens when a journalist doesn't know what she doesn't know, and seems not to be able to see if there was something she should know.

The real story here, isn't just about the pill. Also on this "money for jam" plate medicate-everyone-for-life, ...sits statins for kids and normal healthy adults accompanied by it's phalanx of spin as well. Search around, and a vast list of "easy money" just itching to join the ranks, will appear just like magic.

Winners? Drug companies will be delighted. As will TVNZ's advertising revenue recruiters.

Losers? The public. As usual.

Twenty-five years plus is quite a long time....

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 02:44:00 GMT

Twenty-five years plus is quite a long time. Especially when it's been spent dealing with issues and systems governed by engrained mindsets, and heavily influenced by huge vested interests more interested in profits, than making available all of the facts ...without restriction; or providing customized care to unique individuals, rather than trying to fit everyone into their "one-size-fits-all" moulds.

Health and wellness concerns everyone. The problem is, the definition of "health" and "wellness" depends on who is defining it.

We all have to live and move according to the fitness of our bodies, from conception to death and everything in between.

Twenty-five years plus of research into many related health issues has uncovered information from which everyone should benefit thus eliminating many “problems”, and radically reduce dependence on the medical systems’ treatment with so many unnecessary side effects. Pharmaceutical companies’ strategies and motives need to be exposed, but tread on pet corns and you’ll get a predictable reaction! Anyone who threatens such juggernauts cannot be tolerated.

They will become sacrificial offerings to be silenced by all sorts of subtle techniques. If this is hard to believe then start digging beneath the surface and sooner or later you will discover what it is like to work in a minefield! Hazardous at least!

To change the metaphor: stick your neck out and you will soon be clobbered in many many ways.

Throughout the world there are those man and women who have, and are, fronting up to these powerful systems as they seek truth and justice, for themselves and others.

More and more parents and families are being torn apart as a result of ignorance, mistrust, lies and subtle deceits and long drawn-out (and very expensive) legal proceedings.

As these “needs” increase, and people cry out for advice and assistance, it soon becomes apparent that there is a serious shortage of “qualified” people who are willing to help in such situations.

Many are hamstrung by bureaucracy, discrediting strategies, threats and lack of money.

Heart-wrenching stories, and appeals, reach our ears, and the numbers are increasing, all over the world. In many places, those in need don’t know where to turn for help.

What can be done in the face of these problems?

The easy way is to shrug your shoulders and walk away from it all. Involvement can be “dangerous” and “costly”. The easiest way to do something, is to do nothing.

However, we would like you to consider the following questions – all directly or indirectly related to health issues which in some way will impact everyone, either now, or in the future:

• What sort of a doctor do I want?
• A paternalistic dictator, to relieve me of the hard work of informed decision making and health care choices for my family?
• Does my doctor listen to me; ask sensible questions; think laterally; work as a partnership, and make information available on all possible treatments from a wide range of modalities?
• Do I trust the state-promoted medical system implicitly for all my health care?
• Am I completely happy and willing to use the drug companies’ products prescribed by my doctor?
• If not, do I have genuine reservations?
• Can I identify and vocalise those reservations?

Am I strong enough to question medical advice given to me, and ask for clarifications and justifications on any hesitations I have?

• If I don’t like the “advice”, am I strong enough to decline what is offered by the medical system?

• If necessary, would I seek alternatives?

• How will I eventually decide what to do?

• Will I be prepared to research these matters myself, or will I depend on what others have done or are doing?

• What is the most effective method of working with paediatricians who believe the State, by law, is in-loco parentis, when parents’ choices aren’t paediatricians’ choices?

• What sort of knowledge base is required to get the best out of the medical system, and protect yourself and your family from the worst?

• How do I define which is the “best”, and which is the “worst”?

Very often we are conditioned by tradition, customs, culture and family upbringing, and automatically continue those attitudes without question. Basic questions such as those, need to be faced:

Am I really taking responsibility for my own health?
When I get sick e.g. a cold, experience a fever, suffer a cut, or puncture-wound, what is my first reaction?
What should I do?
Do I want natural immunity, or will I follow through on vaccine-induced immunity programmes in the belief that they are better, and are completely safe?
Am I determined to eat a balanced diet with an awareness of the importance of vitamins and minerals and plenty of fruit and vegetables?
Am I aware of deficiencies in so many convenience foods available?
Does it make any difference to what I chose to eat?

The real test for health issues comes when Individuals become a family unit – when parents assume the responsibility for bringing healthy children into this world and providing for their needs.

This involves carefully planning each pregnancy.

Will the medical systems be in control throughout conception, birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and start that cycle again, in their adulthood?

These questions focus on issues that cannot be taken for granted, or left until the last moment when it is often too late to put right what has gone wrong. Now the personal pronoun “I” will has to become “we will” – the verb “should” allows feet in the door!!!.

Will we:

 start planning before any possibility of conception occurs?
 plan carefully every aspect of pregnancy?
 eat a healthy diet?
 educate ourselves about the type of delivery to be achieved e.g. homebirth?
 plan carefully and early, the type of midwife and other support?
 educate ourselves about, and say no to any unnecessary invasive/interfering procedures; e.g., immediate or any cord clamping; coping with labour, bottle feeding, vaccinations….. ?

Raising a family will always bring with it contact with the Health Department and other agencies supposedly designed to look after your best interests. Pressures will come from various quarters as each child develops. The previous questions will still be applicable and need to be heeded.

However, a new “danger” now becomes relevant – child abuse. While there are no doubt many parents who do abuse their children, the pendulum has swung far enough to include over-zealous “child protectors”, who can manufacture all sorts of sinister allegations, resulting in children being removed from their parents’ care. The system’s definitions of denying the “necessaries of life” can cover so many things these days, from failure to protect a child by not vaccinating, to shaken baby syndrome symptoms assumed to be indisputable, to home-schooled children considered to be “socially deprived” because they weren’t educated in a building with their peers.

The big questions here then, are:

 Am I aware of the traps laid for the unwary?
 What can I do to avoid them?
 How knowledgeable am I of what my rights, freedoms and choices are, as opposed to what some “expert” says should be the case?
 Have I done everything possible, and even more, to ensure that I am not going to create problems through ignorance or carelessness?
 Am I convinced that (knowledge) prevention is better than the cure, or is there an attitude that someone else can pick up the pieces if I mess things up?

...............And who would that someone be?

What has been written here, underlines the fact that choices have to be made all the time as circumstances and situations change. The fact that everyday we are bombarded by so many clamouring voices, all pleading to be heard and obeyed, also creates confusion, and decision-making becomes more difficult.

So what often happens?

Find someone who has the answers - quick!

Help! Help! Help!

There are books that can be read – if you can find them. Try the library first.

There is the internet – if you have a computer and know how to use it.

There is the telephone – if you know who to ring.

And this is where “the 25 years is a long time” becomes pertinent.

It is easy to think that the fruits of research and practical experience is available on tap!

And remember .... that for the many others like us, ... the amassing of this knowledge is often a labour of love, so that when other people are in difficult situations you try to make it available, very often at all hours of the day and night.

Sometimes concentrated assistance can be very lengthy – even as long as five years!

There comes a time when, with all the good will in the world, burn out has to be faced and dealt with. So a few more questions need to be asked, but first remember this:

If you are doing everything you can within the circumstances of your life, then you can do no more than that. Each family's integrity and survival comes first, and we know the lives of some families with vaccine damaged children can be a suspended nightmare. Nevertheless, we feel these are important questions:

 Do these people and their families who collect and/or disseminat information deserve a lifestyle too?

 When does the time come when they have to say “No”? Or be selective? Using what criteria?

 How can the requests for assistance be met on a worldwide basis with so few people available?

 If the “resource pool” dries up, or becomes disillusioned by being “once bitten, twice shy”, who is going to replace them?

 Why is it so hard to find people who, having received help, willingly commit themselves to passing on similar help?

 Where is the weight of voices from parents and others being heard, who have had to fight for justice and changed mindsets?

 Do such groups exist for the benefit of others and the sharing of the load?

In every battle there are casualties. If the battle is to be won, reinforcements / replacements have to be found. The systems and vested interests have trained “snipers” who cope very well with the strategic “picking off” of any lone-voice opposition, but snipers don’t do well against a concentration of numbers.

After 25 years there is a need to confront people “out there” with the situation that exists now. Things are going to get tougher. Start digging, and that will become glaringly obvious.

So?

We would make this suggestion.

Go back over all these questions and really personalise them.

Answer each one very carefully and honestly.

Have you read “Just a Little Prick”?

Have your read “From One Prick to Another”?

Do the messages they present mean anything to you?

And finally, some personal crunch questions:

 What will I do to help when people cry out, “Help me!”
 Will I be the one to help them myself, or will I pass the buck?
 If I can’t help them, why can’t I help them?

Perhaps “Life’s More Than a Riddle” from “Out of the Mould”, might help.

Then .... “Help!”

Are YOU a contributor?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:13:00 GMT

The world needs people.....

who cannot be bought;

whose word is their bond;

who put character above wealth;

who possess opinions and a will;

who are larger than their vocations;

who don’t hesitate to take chances;

who won’t lose their individuality in a crowd;

who’ll be as honest in small things as they are in great things;

who’ll make no compromise with wrong;

whose ambitions are not confined to selfish desires;

who’ll not say they do it because everybody else does it;

who are true to their friends through good report and evil report, in adversity as well as prosperity;

who do not believe that shrewdness, cunning and hard-headedness, are the best qualities for winning success;

who are not afraid to stand for the truth even when its unpopular;

who say “No” with emphasis even though the rest of the world says “Yes”.

- Ted Engstrom.

On the matter of Dr Anthony J Morris.

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:20:00 GMT

On the matter of Dr Anthony J Morris, my verdict on the research skills of the non-skeptics is quite simple.

I have known Dr Morris personally since 1984, so can say straight up, that PALMD, the practicising internist from the Great Lakes region of the USA, (PALMD's vitriole, pdf'd and uploaded here - just in case he tries to ever deny he said this) has research skills as useless as a mate of his, called Dr Ed Friedlander. If PALMD had used pubmed properly, he would have found all Dr Morris's papers, but then, .... it seems he couldn't figure out his correct name, hmmmmm???

(By the way guys. If you're reading here, this blog URL has been sent to all Dr Morris's friends, children, grandchildren, and his attorney. A print copy has been airmailed to Dr Morris as well.)

I'm not going to put the evidence these septic non-skeptics can't be bothered finding up here, because it would be pearls before swine. I'd like to see if - ever - people who waste hours writing ignorant blogs about people they can't be bothered to research... can ever actually get it right. Or would it be too much of a blow to their pride to admit that they got it all seriously wrong?

64 Million dollar questions. Will they eat humble pie? Will they apologise to Dr Morris? (Not that he cares)

Because I have the relevant documents, I know what they don't know. And because I know what they can't be bothered finding out, I have to ask this question: "If the research skills of PALMD and Dr Friedlander are this bad, would I want them within a mile of me, should I actually need medical help?"

Seriously folks, if you are patients of either of these men, ...scarey!

What follows is all the information non-skeptics are going to be handed on a plate, by me. The same as was dished up in a mail trail after reading Dr Friedlanders site...,

From: Hilary Butler [mailto:butler@watchdog.net.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 13 September 2009 8:12 PM
To: 'scalpel_blade@yahoo.com'; 'jim@swankin-turner.com'
Subject: On the matter of Dr J. Anthony Morris.

Dear Dr Friedlander, This email is copied into Mr James S Turner, long time lawyer for Dr J. Anthony Morris, who can attest to all of the following and more besides.

You have this text on your site:

I have received a few inquiries about J. Anthony Morris. who is presently cited on many of the anti-immunization sites as having been "the chief vaccine control officer for the United States Food and Drug Administration." On the record of his publications, he was a virologist at the NIH from the 1940's to the time of the swine flu vaccine business. He helped develop several experimental vaccines that did not work, most notably the failed attempts to create an influenza B vaccine in the 1960's following the obvious success of the influenza A vaccine. Not everything works out, in fact most things don't, and this is no reflection on him. His one major paper deals with the discovery that some anti-influenza antibodies are protective and some are not; you can read it in NEJM 274: 527, 1969. In the paper, his title is listed as "Chief, Section on Respiratory Viruses, Division of Biologic Standards, National Institutes of Health." In other words, he was a microbiologist who supervised the standardization of some of the viruses used for research. He is also third author on a paper in Science 116: 117, 1969, which lists his affiliation as "Division of Biologic Standards, National Institutes of Health." He has no major publications after this, and I could find nothing more about him except from anti-immunization activists. I would conclude that the claim that he was "the chief vaccine control officer for the United States Food and Drug Administration" is just one more lie. If Dr. Morris or his family wish to show me evidence to the contrary, or they have something else to say about the whole anti-immunization business, I will post it here.

Dr Morris has never laid claim to developing any experimental flu vaccines whatsoever. He did however, extensively test the effectiveness of all influenza vaccines up until 1976, and investigate why all the influenza vaccines, including A strain vaccines, appeared not to work very well. (You seem to infer that the only source of information which will satisfy you, is for Dr Morris to produce himself, or for his family to contact you. My connections with Dr Morris are no concern of yours, since surely as a scientist, what should really matter are the FACTS on the issue, some of which are stated below. )

In 1976, Dr Morris appearing on the Phil Donahue show. (Perhaps you should talk to him as well?) He had informed his superiors he was going to go public through a variety of media, because none of the information he had provided to those in charge of the campaign had been either acknowledged and used. He was told not to go public. He disobeyed that order in many ways, the Donahue show, being only one way. He informed America, on Phil Donahue’s show, that he had been responsible for the testing of the Swine flu vaccine; that it could cause serious allergic and neurological reactions; had a very low potency, and was completely unnecessary as the virus concerned was an ordinary pig virus, and not highly pathogenic, and had died out within two weeks of it’s being detected in February, and had not been seen anywhere else.

The FDA fired him, after that appearance, for insubordination. He then employed a Washington lawyer, James S Turner (who is still a lawyer, and who will hold all the files on this very extensive 7-year long case for unfair dismissal by the FDA, which he won. You can contact him here: http://www.swankin-turner.com/jim.html I have copied him into this email.) Given that this is in the public domain, and Mr Turner will have accurate documentation, why have you not talked to James S. Turner?

The media of the time covered Dr Morris’s case extensively. For instance, ask the Washington Star to provide you, from the archives of 1976, the major articles they ran on this story. One of them was July 25, 1976. They ran another extensive story on January 5, 1979, The Washington Post on 13 March 1977, ran a major article on the story which included photos of both Dr Morris and James Turner. Many other papers also ran reports of the story as it was huge news at the time.

There is also inaccurate mention of him on page 100 in this book:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?chapselect=yo&page=100&record_id=12660

J. ANTHONY MORRIS, Bacteriologist, Bureau of Biologics, Food and Drug Administration; discharged under protest, July 1976.

Seems many of his sloppy colleagues besides yourself, don’t know how to accurately define his role either.

With regard to your comment about Dr Morris’s lack of publications after 1969, again the public record can explain that, if you know where to look. James Turner would also be able to fill you in on why there is no scientific publications from Dr Morris from 1969, if you asked him for that information.

You could also contact Nicholas Wade, or read his article in Science volume 175, 25 February 1972 pages 861 – 866 Called “Division of Biologics Standards: In the matter of J. Anthony Morris”, which details Dr Morris’s first battle with DBS from the late 1960’s (the “matter” which lead to the senate hearing detailed below). Nicholas Wade, who is still around, interviewed Dr Morris extensively.

This debacle in the late 60’s lead to Dr Morris going to Senator Ribicoff, which resulted in high level investigations of various committees into the issues, and then a Senate Hearing. You can obtain, free from your library of congress, a copy of the “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Executive reorganization and Government Research of the Committee on Government operations, United States Senate, Ninety-second congress second session on titles I and II of S.3419, April 20, 21 and May 3, 4 1972.

James S Turner represented Dr Morris in front of the Senate in 1972 as well, so he will have extensive records on Dr Morris’s career as well as his findings in both DBS and FDA, which put him so off-side with both organizations, since the two issues were very similar.

This Senate Hearing also details some of the systemic harassment Dr Bernice Eddy after she discovered SV40 as well.

I trust that the information above, will provide you with the start of what should prove an interesting project.

When you have completed your study, perhaps you might like to apologise to Dr Morris (not that he cares. When I discussed this with him, he just snorted, and didn’t care whether someone addressed the issues with you or not ….), for behaviour unbecoming of a fellow scientist. If you would direct that apology through James S Turner, I’m sure he will pass it on to Dr Morris.

Sincerely,

Hilary Butler.

Dr Friedlander couldn't be bothered replying, so I jogged his memory

From: Hilary Butler <butler@watchdog.net.nz>
Subject: FW: On the matter of Dr J. Anthony Morris.
To: jim@swankin-turner.com, scalpel_blade@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 7:53 PM

Dear Dr Friedlander,

Below is my email to you from last year. Today, I checked your website, and as attached, found that your information on Dr Morris remains unchanged.

You say “ I give myself out to be a Christian.

I'm a man of integrity, and I demand basic truthfulness from others.”

Talking the talk is one thing, but it would appear that walking it, is another?

Do not be surprised if your refusal to walk the talk, goes viral. I know that you checked with James Turner’s office, because Dr Morris told me so.

Sincerely,

Hilary Butler.

to which he replied:

From: Ed Friedlander [mailto:scalpel_blade@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 February 2010 7:48 AM
To: Hilary Butler
Subject: Re: FW: On the matter of Dr J. Anthony Morris.

Thank you for the opportunity to update myself on Dr. Morris. In fact, in light of the H1N1 business, I've been reviewing influenza vaccines. In looking over my notes from a few years ago, I realized they were unbalanced and I think the revised account is more fair. Dr. Morris's article in NEJM was a superior piece of work and I should have said so. I also regret any suggestion of dishonesty by Dr. Morris -- I believe he is being misquoted presently by the anti-immunization community. Their pattern of deception is outrageous.

Why not vent your anger on http://sacredcowwursthaus.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-maher-vaccines-and-autism.html I try hard to avoid profanity.

So I went to Dr Friedlander's blog:

And I replied to him as follows:

From: Hilary Butler [mailto:butler@watchdog.net.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 February 2010 6:57 PM
To: 'Ed Friedlander'; 'jim@swankin-turner.com'
Subject: RE: FW: On the matter of Dr J. Anthony Morris.

Dear Dr Friedlander,

Thank you for your reply.

As usual, Jim Turner is copied into this reply to you. I’m also blind copying this into another long term friend of Dr Morris. I’m sure the “joke” will be appreciated.

I see that your site now reads as follows:’

I have received a few inquiries about J. Anthony Morris. who is presently cited on many of the anti-immunization sites as having been "the chief vaccine control officer for the United States Food and Drug Administration." On the record of his publications, he was a virologist at the NIH from the 1940's to the time of the swine flu vaccine business. He helped develop several experimental vaccines, most notably the failed attempts to create an influenza B vaccine in the 1960's following the obvious success of the influenza A vaccine (in the development of which he also participated). Not everything works out, in fact most things don't, and this is no reflection on him. His one major paper deals with the discovery that some anti-influenza antibodies are protective and some are not; you can read it in NEJM 274: 527, 1969. It was a great piece of work. In the paper, his title is listed as "Chief, Section on Respiratory Viruses, Division of Biologic Standards, National Institutes of Health." In other words, he was a microbiologist who supervised the standardization of some of the viruses used for research. He is also third author on a paper in Science 116: 117, 1969, which lists his affiliation as "Division of Biologic Standards, National Institutes of Health." He was dismissed from the FDA, at least in part for talking in public about the risk-benefit ratio of influenza vaccines in the early 1970's. This went to litigation that he evidently won. (Academic politics is bizarre. When a practicing scientist goes on "Donahue", something is not right.) I could find no support for the claim that he was "the chief vaccine control officer for the United States Food and Drug Administration". This looks like a propagated error within the anti-immunization community. I am not aware of any attempt by Dr. Morris himself to mislead others during his time as a scientist. If he has in fact stated that no influenza vaccine has been of benefit to humankind, as is alleged here (warning: vulgar language), then time has proved him mistaken

As far as Dr Morris is concerned, as a result of over a decades of being in charge of the potency testing and studying of all influenza vaccines, none of the flu vaccines tested as efficacious at any time during his long tenure, and there is no flu vaccine which Dr Morris would include in his “health” schedule.

Time has not proven him mistaken.

Nothing has changed, actually, except that the CDC, FDA and people like you, find different, less litigious ways to try to “rope in” the Simonsens of the world – but she does keep popping up most inconveniently (as attached) …., and the CDC and FDA continue to disguise the fact that all flu vaccine suffer from exactly the same “defects” which Dr Morris found in his career, many years ago. And Gerby was suitably rewarded for her staunch support… …. So far, though, no-one has quite been able to rope in the Cochrane Collaboration, which you chose to ignore.

I looked at the blog of October the 10^th 2009, which you directed me to. I have attached a pdf of this blog in case you decide to change it, for Jim Turner to see if he’s interested. (Jim, I will send a copy to Tony).

You say: I also regret any suggestion of dishonesty by Dr. Morris -- I believe he is being misquoted presently by the anti-immunization community. Their pattern of deception is outrageous. Contrary to your assertions, none of the quotes attributed to Dr Morris, by anti-vaccine sites, are misquoted. Furthermore, your blog does nothing much to rectify your original mischaracterizations at all. All you do is attempt to reduce him to nothingness, and sideline him as some sort of irrelevant nuisance to your cause. Some of your current entry is grossly, factually incorrect and reflects your inability to follow research leads when handed you on a plate..

Hint: Medical articles in many different medical data bases; senate records; Nicholas Wade; Jim Turner; newspaper archives. You will find a swathe of on-paper proof should you really start looking, and asking those who know what really happened, who just might have them all in one place, in boxes. Now, there’s a novel thought!

You said you try hard to avoid profanity, Dr Friendlander. ???? As someone who gives themselves to be a Christian, why would you even need to use profanity? Your (colleague’s) piece quoted on your blog about Dr Morris is again, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Again, your potty-mouthed piece says more about yourself than it does about Dr Morris.

However, your blog did cause me some amusement: Bill Maher goes on to quote another person, Dr. Jonah Salk. Presumably, he said, "Live virus vaccines against influenza and paralytic polio, for example, may in each instance cause the disease it's intended to prevent."

Were it a genuine quote, the citation would be fairly common, and easy to find. It's safe to conclude, until any contrary evidence comes up, that this quote is fake. Strike two.

Really? Amazing. Such dripping sarcasm and arrogance of ignorance. I have the medical article in which Dr Salk says exactly that. On the contrary, being “genuine”, never guarantees that any ‘needle’ will jump out of the daily increasing haystacks, and hit you in the eye, at the click of a mouse. Something you have yet to learn.

Sincerely,

metal coils firmly embedded in pavement replied:

From: Ed Friedlander [mailto:scalpel_blade@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2010 12:10 AM
To: Hilary Butler; jim@swankin-turner.com
Subject: RE: FW: On the matter of Dr J. Anthony Morris.

We are unlikely to agree, and we are not talking about the same things. What I need to know is, "Was Dr. Morris in fact "the chief vaccine control officer for the United States Food and Drug administration", as is represented on numerous anti-immunization websites. That is really the only issue that I raised in the first place.

I think that the proper person to address this with me is Dr. Morris's attorney, and he is welcome to contact me.

(red emphasis added above is mine)

It would seem that skeptics also have a disease called:

LITTLE EMPEROR SYNDROME

My final reply to Dr Friedlander is as follows:

From: Hilary Butler [mailto:butler@watchdog.net.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2010 10:29 AM
To: 'Ed Friedlander'; 'jim@swankin-turner.com'
Subject: RE: FW: On the matter of Dr J. Anthony Morris.

Dear Dr Friedlander,

How can you say this: What I need to know is, "Was Dr. Morris in fact "the chief vaccine control officer for the United States Food and Drug administration", as is represented on numerous anti-immunization websites. That is really the only issue that I raised in the first place

Oh puleeze….. Can you not read your original “dripping-with-sarcasm” piece treating Dr Morris like some non-existent nuisance, and then your second piece “merely dismissing” Dr Morris as some irrelevant flea? Please drop the condescending hat, and instead of saying about Jim Turner, “he is welcome to contact me”, why don’t you go to him and ask?

I gave you all the contacts on 13^th September 2009, and I can’t believe that you are STILL running around like a headless chook on this issue. For a doctor who considers himself so superior to everyone else, you should have had the information you needed by 15^th September 2009 at the latest.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should contact you to spoon feed you on this issue.

It also amazes me that you “think” you know that we are not talking about the same thing. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. There is no equivocation in my comments. Perhaps it is you who needs to look at your words, and decide if there is duplicity there.

Let me repeat. Dr Morris considered all flu vaccines a waste of time then, and still does to this day. As does Dr Lone Simonsen, if she was actually allowed the breathing space to say what she means without being dog-piled on by the likes of you and your mates. As does the Cochrane Collaboration, which you ignore.

We will not agree, but at least I have agreed to disagree in the past, and left you in cyber-peace to live your life as you chose.

Your website and blog are condescending, patronizing, and insulting to anyone whose choices are not yours, and also to God whose name you take in vain, yet throw around as if He’s conferred a secondary degree in pontifical theocracy onto you, and you alone.

We will all be called to account for our words, something I remember every time I write something. You will not be exempt from that, thought you write as if you are.

Sincerely,

Hilary Butler.

PS

From: Hilary Butler [mailto:butler@watchdog.net.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 4 September 2010 8:11 AM
To: 'jim@swankin-turner.com'
Subject: Hilary Butler here.

Dear Jim,

After more defamatory vitriole about your client and friend Dr Anthony J Morris, I wrote this blog.

The pdfs of Dr Friedlander’s original site and blog information as well as PALMD’s blog have been uploaded onto my site, and are embedded into the blog. I’ve sent printed copies of both PALMD’s blog and mine to Dr Morris today. His family and his friends have also been notified. I’ve also sent the information far and wide. Since neither Freidlander or the others have done the decent thing, I figure it’s now time for me to go public.

I’m sure that Tony will not be interested in doing anything. Why waste money on pillocks like these?

Cheers,

Hilary.

Non-Evidence based Medicine: Part Three

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:47:00 GMT

Like many of my friends, there was once a time when I trusted the system; was ignorant about the actual lack of “evidence base”; and assumed that what I was told was right. Because of this naivety, I learned the hard way that the system can be wrong. Since then, I’ve done my best to keep myself out of this system, but when neded, I have never hesitated to confront the system in order to get the best for my family or friends, and protect them from the worst. I’ve only been able to do that, with a backbone honed from years of research into all sorts of diagnostic scenarios, so that I know what is supposedly gold standard treatments, what evidence (or lack of) that’s based on, and the flaws.

Standing up for your family or your friends, comes with a price. The “black mark” for speaking up, has followed me into each next encounter more times than I care to count. Just like the elderly who speak about against elder abuse in rest-homes… if patients or friends in hospital speak out, the next time, depending on the team they get, may not be pretty.

But at the back of my mind are these questions: “What if some idiot drunk driver decided to make me into a broken pretzel? Who will be able to get for me, the best from the system and protect me from the worst of the system, other than God?"

My trust in the people within the medical system is that “rock bottom”. I see very few doctors prepared to stand against their colleagues, and be effective advocates for their patients. The system’s needs dictate doctors’ actions, which is grossly unfair.

It is an utter tragedy to have a state- run medical system founded on self protection, which treats with contempt, people who know and challenge medical practice, or ask for something which the system hypocritically considers isn’t “evidence based”!

The system tries to keep everyone right where they want them. Most of the time they succeed, because most people allow themselves to be walked over. New Zealand is a nation of sheep in more ways than one, so the system has never had to systemically confront the fact that they need to change how they view informed patients (and uninformed patients).

There is a serious shortage of conviction, backbone and activism in this country, and one day the results of this might be that we get UTTERLY screwed, because collectively, the public hears little (if anything) from medical people who know these facts, but don’t forcefully denounce them.

Those of us run over by the system, tend to clam up, and vote with our feet and never confront the system unless we have to. It’s time for us to stop saying, “Oh, but if I speak out, I or my child might be in the firing line the next time.” What if that next time is us? Who will be there for you?

The more people sit back, the happier the system is. It’s time for action.

One question is, “How can the system be changed?” But another more realistic question is, “If the system refuses to be changed, how can I guarantee that if I need serious help, I have people around me, prepared to support me, to get what I want?”

Seriously people, it's time that you find like minded people and work on collective supportive networks, of people with some backbone. Some say, "Silence is golden". Yeah, it is for the vested interests protecting their bank balances, but sometimes... silence is simply... yellow (cowardice)!

This morning someone told me they had just come back from doing errands, and were impressed by a bumper sticker on a four wheel drive vehichle which read:

"WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW - REBELLION BECOMES DUTY"

Maybe it's time for a rebellion.

Non-Evidence based Medicine: Part Two

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:46:00 GMT

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:

“There are perhaps 30,000 biomedical journals in the world and they have grown steadily by 7 % a year…”

(Just think how many there are now!)

“… yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence… this is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound… if it is true that ‘every defect is a treasure’ then we are sitting on King Solomon’s mine.”

The situation today is actually worse, because medical technology has exploded to the point where treatments used in ICU, like this famed ECMO treatment for flu patients, are not yet based on an “evidence base” because until they’ve been used on lots of adult patients (guinea pigs), the evidence base can’t be written up. Few patients know that ECMO is experimental. Most think that all ICU treatment is solidly science based.

When an “evidence-based” review cast doubt over the use of albumin in emergency treatment, ICU experts got very upset. Ironically, their replies provided no evidence to support their dismissal of the review! Another article rebutting the Cochrane review also glossed over the fact that they too were hung with their own inadequacies. The Cochrane team had to review 'garbage' for evidence, ... and therefore, concluded that the treatment was “garbage”. You know? Garbage in, garbage out. Whose fault is that?

The medical system has a love hate relationship with evidence based medicine. They love it, … when the evidence suits themselves, but hate it, when the evidence doesn’t suit their own beliefs. They will use treatments for which there is no evidence base, when it suits themselves, and dismiss other treatment modalities,.... when it suits them to do so. They can see no hypocrisy in this.

People always assume that VACCINES are well proven using “evidence based” medicine. After all, people like Dr Paul Offit say that vaccines are the best tested of all medicine. (Which if true, is actually an indictment on all the rest of medicine.) But this belief people and skeptics have, is reinforced by the medical policy makers, who go to Skeptic conferences and reinforce the dogma. Have the skeptics bothered to go and read the “evidence” for themselves?

I giggled when I read this medical article whine called, “Why is evidence based medicine so harsh on vaccines. An exploration of the method and it’s natural biases?”

The article stated: “It is disappointing on the surface that two 20th century victories for modern medicine appear to have collided with the failure of evidence-based medicine to find support in the literature for cherished practices in vaccinology.”

This article came hard on the heels of yet another evidence based review finding the flu vaccine as useful as a pogo stick for a fish. One of the authors is the editor of the medical journal ‘VACCINE’ and is so dyed in the wool, you can be sure that "evidence based medicine" will never get in the way of any vaccine!

And it’s funny how “evidence based medicine” has natural biases when it doesn’t suit the vaccinologists, who of course, couldn’t possible have their own “natural biases”!

Most people at ground zero in the medical profession have no idea how much of what they do to people is NOT evidence based, and neither do they realise that there is a huge closet of secrets about which they know nothing, and which is full to busting with skeletons just ready to tumble out if they open the door.

Most skeptics don’t realise that either.

When asked to jump to the defence of a cause, they don't ask why, they just ask, "How high?" And never stop to think about it.

Part Three

Non-Evidence based medicine, Part one.

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:46:00 GMT

A friend of mine, has not long got out of hospital with her fully breastfed baby. She didn’t actually “want” to be in there but the doctor noted a mild fever, and instantly got “fever phobia” and insisted she go to hospital. ESPECIALLY as the baby wasn’t vaccinated. The mother had been quite content with dealing with it herself, but her mother saw the baby and wet her knickers, insisting that the slightest fever needed to be look at by a doctor! To keep her mother happy, (big mistake) she went to the doctor. She didn’t realise that he too, had conditioned fever phobia. Once she got into hospital, things started to unravel.

Without even so much as a swab, H1N1 was pronounced, and then… pneumonia… with the instant rattle of heavy duty antibiotics. The mother folded her arms and said, “I don’t hear or see any signs of pneumonia?”, so the doctor ordered an X-ray, which came back… negative. “Oh, but we think you should do the antibiotics anyway, because it’s H1N1.”

“How do you know it’s H1N1? Where is the evidence for your assertion? Why don’t you test her for it to be sure” the mother intoned.

(Mistake number one: Questioning a diagnosis pulled out of the air on the basis that since H1N1 is “going around” everything must be H1N1.)

“Oh, we can’t do that. The test is expensive, will take a couple of days to come back, and anyway, if we do this right now, she’ll be fine before the results come back!!” the doctor chirped.

Out came the thermometer. “Ah, her temperature is 38.2 degrees. Well give her paracetamol.”

“No you won’t,” said the mother. “Fever is an appropriate response to any infection and shouldn’t be suppressed with drugs.”

( Mistake number two: Telling doctors facts from their own medical literature.)

By this time, the medical profession were getting more than antsy towards this mother. She went to the toilet, leaving her baby alone, and while she was there, the staff administered paracetamol – without her permission.

(Mistake number three: Assuming medical people will leave your baby alone while you back is turned)

She started to mentally lose the plot, but did some deep breathing and decided to cruise, and to say whatever it took to get out of there.

This involved a few lies, and jollying along the staff without compromising her stance. At the same time, when their backs were turned she used other “ways and means” and pretty soon the baby perked up, and the temperature reduced enough for the hospital to say that the bed was needed for someone else.

Once home we sorted it all out and the baby is fine.

This mother couldn’t get out of there fast enough, but you know what?

Her baby will be another unproven H1N1 case for the medical profession to add to it’s statistics which will become part of the “evidence” misinformation.

What worries me, is that not only do we have a medical profession who practice ANYTHING BUT evidence based medicine, but that doctors have also become “thought police”.

There is huge hypocrisy surrounding what the skeptics worshipfully call, “evidence-based medicine”.

For those unsure of what evidence based medicine is: “Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”

This of course, is sometimes a chicken and egg situation.

To get evidence people have to experiment on people. So sometimes "medical practice" is NOT based on any solid foundation of evidence because there is not yet evidence to refer to.

The medical profession is generally quite happy to experiment on people (witness the long list of off-label and unproven medical treatments used in neonatal intensive care units), so long as those ideas come from them - not the patient.

Part Two.

Skeptics Part Four. Fever is there for a reason

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:07:00 GMT

Not that' you'd know with what many medical articles call both medical and parental "fever-phobia"! What other explanation can there be to the fact that not one person in the skeptics or the medical profession questions the use of drugs to squelch fever? Or even the function of fever?

Oh yeah. There could be another explanation. You know, the one which SKEPTICS normally suggest is a “conspiracy theory”.

That the makers of pamol and any other paracetamol laden products know full well these issues, but chose to stay silent, because paracetamol products are one of the biggest over-the-counter “sellers”, world wide, …. and to admit that paracetamol is dangerous during infections, would make a huge dent in the sales of this product.

I didn’t believe the dent-in-the-sales idea, until 2004, when Pfizer maintained that my comments on IAS’s old website, were “damaging the reputation of Pamol”, undermining it’s “heritage” status, and causing Pfizer “monetary loss, loss of reputation and goodwill”, and the putting of a picture of PAMOL onto IAS’s website was a breach of copyright.

While I was silent under legal constraint, the New Zealand Manager of Pfizer courted the press giving only a tiny smidgen of the story, which the average viewer would have had no idea … wasn't the real issue at all. The picture of the bottle was removed, but IAS was not going to back down on medical literature issues.

I had said that the use of paracetamol during meningococcal infection was associated with increased meningococcal disease seriousness… from this study, based on these quotes:

Page 987: “Analgesic use was defined as analgesics taken in the past 2 weeks, excluding, for cases, those taken for identified early symptoms of meningococcal disease. These analgesics were predominantly acetaminophen products… because analgesics showed a stronger relationship with meningococcal disease, the use of analgesics may be a better measure of more severe illness than reported individual symptoms.”

Page 988. “analgesic use and attending substantial social gatherings were also still strongly associated with the risk of contracting the disease.”

Page 989: “Although we have interpreted analgesia use to be an indicator of recent illness, we cannot exclude the possibility that acetaminophen use itself is a risk factor for meningococcal disease.”

All hell broke loose. Even stranger the lead author said that that wasn’t what the study said. You be the judge, and balance his comments with the rest of the medical literature. You will find the lead authors comments on a press release, at the end of Pfizer’s first letter. Pfizer teamed up with Dr Michael Baker, and Dr Stewart Reid who faxed the “press release” to Pfizer, with the sole aim of shafting IAS, on what they thought was a water-tight case against us.

Pfizer wasn’t interested in the consequences to people with infections, who were given Pamol. Pfizer constantly emphasized the “reputation” of Pfizer, Pamol, “significant loss and damage.”

Presumably that would be these massive profits BMJ was talking about, when saying that FDA was too scared to offend the aacetaminophen manufacturers? Only recently has FDA started to inch it's nose over the parapet, bit by bit...

Oh... and that press release. Otago University Press-releases are normally numbered, and logged onto their website. When I couldn’t find it on Otago’s website, I thought the fault was my then technophobia, so I employed someone to track the “origin” of the press release down. Result? Otago Med school initially said it wasn’t from them in spite of it being on their letterhead. Then when confronted with a copy of it, dissembled by sending the person on a wild goose chase, to try to end up with comment from Michael Baker … , who at all times, refused to answer emails about it.

Funny that. The games people do play.

The profit view was reinforced in a second letter . IAS replied by setting out in a very long letter decades of medical literature which backed up the findings in “that press release”, and included World Health Organisation “proof”. While holding us to a deadline, Pfizer were in return, contemptuous of the deadline we set. their third letter continuing the woe-is-our-reputation and the-loss-in-our-till lines while refusing to answer our questions, which were flicked off because some of our references were supposedly “antiquated”. The irony of that, is that the use of paracetamol for fever suppression has been used all through those decades, when these “antiquated” references showed that chemical coshing of fever is a pretty silly thing to do.

In the end, they did nothing to IAS, but were might fast in flicking Pamol to Johnson and Johnson, after a private investigator started doing some deeper legal digging…

So today, we have a situation where the medical literature on the immunological need for fever, and the potential dangers of chemical “fire sprinklers” continues unabated, yet the medical profession continues their ostrich-headed ways.

So, this is the real world around the carefully constructed myth that fever is bad, and dangerous, and you should straight away use paracetamol to smack it down and then - “you’ll be right, mate”.

The fact that chemical treatment of fever is biochemically and immunologically nonsense and potentially dangerous, is right there, in decades of the medical literature. That the reason why no-one does anything about it, is not a conspiracy. The most logical reason nothing is done, is because the medical profession doesn't want to offend the pharmaceutical companies. Simple as that.

If you've actually read IAS's letter in reply, you should be gasping, and wondering how they've got away with spinning this dogma for so long

The fact is - that IF the medical profession got on board with what their medical literature actually said, the huge profits of paracetamol manufacturing would tumble. Worse still, parents would question what else they weren’t told about paracetamol, like... it's association with asthma... and parents might feel upset they weren't told long ago.

So, when have we heard all these skeptics, who write various sciblogs…, who pride themselves on “critical thinking”, … who say they “challenge unproven medical procedures” campaigning to stop the use of pamol for fevers?

As they said, in the Sunday Star Times, pamol for fever is the very first thing that comes to some of their minds.

Why is that?

Skeptics Part Three: Living Proof.

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:35:00 GMT

Where are the skeptics, when it comes to looking at the “responsibility” of using intravenous vitamin C in serious illness? Where you’d predict them to be. Shoring up the medical system like good little marionettes.

My thoughts on IV vitamin C in serious illness are here. For anyone wanting to know more about the science in terms of recently published books, I’d recommend “The Cancer Breakthrough” by Drs Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts

The skeptics blather about it all, started here at sciblogs

The skeptic autopilot mindset ( the medical profession is god and everything else is tripe), comes to the fore with their replies on Investigate’s website.

At first I laughed. But the problem is that the arrogance of ignorance is not a laughing matter. When the average person believes the sort of medical group-thunk which constantly drips from conformed pens of so-called skeptics, the winners are the local mortuary.

I’m sure Al Gore et al, are very grateful for every possible death at the hands of conventional (or other) medicine, no matter how. After all, in the battle against global warming, every death is a bonus, right?

Question: "Why did paracetamol apparently knock Allan Smith out, stone cold?"

Another question: "Why do medical doctors, and the Health Department continue, in the face of overwhelming medical literature, to print pamphlets and advice stating that paracetamol used during fever is safe and effective?"

Yet another question: "Might the reason no-one tells the truth, because they don't want to upset the industry?"

Oh yeah. I guess they will call that evidence right under any sane person’s nose a “conspiracy theory”?

Part four coming up soon!

Part Four.

Skeptics Part Two: "Some suggested pamol"

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:58:00 GMT

Why would any real skeptic suggest pamol as a treatment to reduce fever? It’s standard medical practice, and has been used for decades, and THEREFORE, according to skeptics, is ASSUMED to be the truth.

There is no doubt paracetamol “works” by reducing fever. But does the word “proven” solely relate to whether a product does what the label says it will do? What about the underlying science about fever? There is a huge bolus of medical literature which makes plain the following:

1) Fever is an immunologically driven process which switches on various parts of the immune system, in order to give the person with a fever an adaptive advantage, as the fever speeds up the efficiency of getting rid of infectious pathogens. Therefore, when the immune system switches on fever, it is for the benefit of the host, and is the correct physiological response to infection. There are few “ifs” and “buts” about this fact.

2) Chemically suppressing fever decreases the ability of the immune system to work, and hands the adaptive over to the pathogen.

3) By giving the advantage to the infection, antifebrile drugs can INCREASE the severity of illness, and INCREASE the chances of dying.

And I'm not putting up links to pubmed URLS in this post, because skeptics should be able to find these in a twinkling of a rational skeptic eye!

(And most anyone else with a brain, already knows these URLS. Because we, the real skeptics usually have to have full text articles to defend ourselves from those physicians suffering from the disease mentioned in the bottom paragraph...)

Even the World Health Organisation knows, and admits this and publishes it on their website, so why is the use of PAMOL with fevers in anyone, actively supported, encouraged and implemented by doctors, nurses and hospital policy – and – as per the Sunday Star article, .... the SKEPTICS?

Everyone ASSUMES that the standard practice of chemically dousing a fever, is a scientifically proven and beneficial treatment, when it isn't.

Now for the medical speak: Last year, one of the medical profession’s experts on everything relating to infectious disease, Dr Robert Chen, wrote a Lancet editorial about a medical article, which showed that the use of paracetamol during vaccination, reduced the amount of antibodies after vaccination.

I wrote him this email:

Sent: Tuesday, 3 November 2009 9:09 PM To: 'prymula@pmfhk.cz'; 'rtc1@cdc.gov'; 'editorial@lancet.com'; 'richard.horton@lancet.com'; 'astrid.james@lancet.com'; 'ideditorial@lancet.com' Subject: Vaccines and paracetamol, Lancet October 17, 2009.

Dear Dr Chen and Dr Prymula,

(I have copied in the editors of the Lancet, and the Lancet Infectious Diseases, because to me, this is, and has been, a very important issue, and it is time it was dealt with properly.)

Dr Chen: Your article in the 17 October 2009 Lancet says that the findings of Prymula that paracetamol significantly reduces the antibodies formed after some vaccines given to children, are surprising, and that he’s the first to examine the issue. Yes in humans, but not in animals or in a broader context.

Please find attached Ryan et al, 2006 (labelled HPV vax paracetamol) in which it was shown that paracetamol suppresses antibodies from Gardasil in mice. Please also find attached Yamaura et al 2002 (labelled p supp antib mice) which shows that the effect of paracetamol extends to mitogens as well as antibody suppression.

Please find Australian Prescriber in which Dr Shand discusses the effect of paracetamol on disease, and Shalabi’s two articles explaining how paracetamol down regulates the immune system in terms of disease.

Please find attached the WHO bulletins which comment on how paracetamol increases disease severity and death, and should not be used during infection.

Please access for yourself Plaisance 2000 ARCH INTERN MED/VOL 160, FEB 28, 2000 et al, discussing how the use of paracetamol with influenza increases the duration of the disease in humans by several days: clearly a function of immune suppression. I have attached a news media article about Plaisance 2000 Pharmacotherapy about the same topic (Which also begs the question as to why paracetamol is STILL routinely prescribed for the flu, particularly those for whom a longer duration could lead to serious complications).

The medical literature for over a decade now, has clearly described paracetamol as a potential immune suppressant, and it is probably this action which is behind the association between the use of paracetamol and the subsequently much greater risk of some babies getting asthma later in life. Paracetamol may suppress the way “tolerance” for normal antigens is developed in the neonate, in a similar way to derailing the immune system during infection and at vaccination times.

It is a surprise (to me) that paracetamol has not been banned for use where there is an infection, because of it’s known effects on the immune system.

If you were sick with the swine flu and had asthma or other conditions which could place you at risk, wouldn’t you want your immune system to work as well as possible ??!

Knowing that paracetamol derails the immune system, would you be happy if you knew (that your doctor didn’t know that) paracetamol might increase the severity of the flu and also your chances of dying?

Why is paracetamol always the first line medication for infections and the flu?

You talk about paracetamol’s importance in relation to other vaccines. Given that vaccines can interact, and antibody levels can drop for some diseases, when combined with other multiple vaccines, without paracetamol, it would seem that there are two issues intertwined issues here. The already known effects of paracetamol on the adaptive immune system in BOTH disease and vaccines, and the known interaction of vaccines, which can also drop antibodies. Both are separate, but relevant. As you add more vaccines, even without paracetamol, interactions can cause the same effect.

Dr Prymula: While you are the first to look at this issue in humans (Dr Chen, why did it take so long?) I was surprised that your paper did not contain any of the papers I have attached, since they add considerably to the immunological rationale.

In the light of Shalabi’s and others medical literature proving that paracetamol has a fundamental detrimental effect on the immune system (there are several older papers which show that the use of paracetamol in bacterial infections and meningitis, increases severity and mortality), and that paracetamol suppresses antibodies in mice… and after Gardasil, can either of you explain to me why paracetamol’s affect on the immune system came as a surprise to you, and why it is that you appear to be hesitant to describe the research on the mechanisms already uncovered?

I realise that that might broaden the issue out more to include infections as well, but perhaps it’s time for that to be done.

Sincerely,

Hilary Butler

His reply follows:

From: Chen, Robert (Bob) (CDC/CCID/NCHHSTP) [mailto:rtc1@CDC.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2009 9:11 AM To: Hilary Butler; prymula@pmfhk.cz; editorial@lancet.com; richard.horton@lancet.com; astrid.james@lancet.com; ideditorial@lancet.com Subject: RE: Vaccines and paracetamol, Lancet October 17, 2009.

Dear Ms. Butler,

Thank you for your email bringing this literature to my attention. Unfortunately results in animals are not always predictive of results in humans. Our commentary explained "why it took so long". A previous study of acetaminophen with whole cell pertussis vaccine showed there was no impact. So it was assumed that the same would be true of acellular pertussis (and other) vaccines. This may seem obvious in hindsight, but given limited resources, one has to prioritize which wheels you choose to reinvent given slight changes in understanding.

I suggest you make the case for your hypothesis on paracetamol's impact on the immune system in a peer reviewed journal.

Best regards,

I pointed out in return, that it’s ironic to be asked to do something which I’d already done, more than once, and each time, my articles were turned down.

After all, what medical school did I got to? What would a mere mother know, in comparison to these lofty “experts”? (Or skeptics for that matter). The use of the word “hypothesis” in relation to this issue is actually pretty insulting and dismissive.

What’s really sad is that in spite of the fact that the medical literature contains more than any rational sane person would want to know which would stop them using paracetamol to treat fever, the current dogma continues to be; “Got a fever? Ram down paracetamol!” to which some skeptics assume is fact, and cheerfully, thoughtlessly, subscribe.

If you turn up sick at hospital, and refuse to use paracetamol, you are treated like some sort of uncaring criminal, who doesn’t want to “ease” the discomfort fever causes.

This quote from the American Scientist, Volume 82, November – December 1994, page 524, in an article written by Linus Pauling about vitamin C, would seem applicable to the paracetamol topic as well:

“Physicians of course, are a bit more skeptical and outspoken, and, in general, they don’t have the background of knowledge…. They don’t know enough to say that he has been successful so often in the past that he’s probably right this time. Physicians don’t try to form opinions of this sort anyway. They just do what the medical authorities say to do. Of all of the professions, the medical profession is the one in which the individual practitioners do the smallest amount of thinking for themselves.”

Given that skeptics unquestioningly believe unquestioning physicians about the use of Pamol in fever, where does that leave the thinking of skeptics?