Hilary's Desk

On March 1, The Wall Street Journal ran an article on fever  which was discussing the American Academy of Pediatric’s latest policy document on fever and antipyretic use.  which is exactly the snow-job you’d expect of an organisation wedded at the hip to Big Pharma. Out of interest, I submitted an e-response to Pediatrics. In the event of it not being put up, here is a copy below: Read Full Blog

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. Read Full Blog

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.  Read Full Blog

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.  Read Full Blog

What happens when paediatricians take a look at the disease incidence in their own country and decide that certain vaccines are not justified on epidemiological grounds?  Nothing, So long as they keep their mouths shut.  What happens when they look into the use of certain vaccines, and find that reactions are being covered up?  Nothing.  So long as they keep their mouths shut. But when they tell the world about both... , no matter that good science is on their side, there is only one possible result. To start with, they will be branded ANTI VACCINE. What better slur is there?  Anti vaccine people are idiots, don't you know?  Truth won't be discussed.  Truth is inconvenient to the vaccine industry, especially to organisations who owe their existence and income to the vaccine industry. Simple as that. Here's the story. Read Full Blog

London Time’s headline shrieks: “Leading scientist accuses doctors of increasing fear of vaccines”  When are scientists going to understand that they don’t know everything, and the world doesn’t revolve around their myopic thought patterns? Why is the primary aim of scientists to make everyone conform to their own thinking. Why do they assume that, “For most people it goes back to the primeval: ‘Well my mother had measles, I had measles, so why do I need to take the risk [of vaccinating my child]?’ What they are really saying is, ‘Can I live with myself if something went wrong?’ ” Incorrect, Prof Sir. But because Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, by virtue of his many letters, thinks he’s right, so are his solutions??! Read Full Blog

Why doesn't the World Health Organisation stop making fools of themselves? As reported in the Washington Post two European reports have been very critical of the WHO's handling of the swine flu pandemic. WHO's reply? "The idea that we declared a pandemic when there wasn't a pandemic is both historically inaccurate and downright irresponsible," said WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl in a telephone interview. "There is no doubt that this was a pandemic. To insinuate that this was not a pandemic is very disrespectful to the people who died from it."  Read Full Blog

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse for WHO, it has. Perhaps they looked at the amount of money Bill Gates was slinging around at vaccines over the next ten years, and thought..."Well, if he gets that much from selling computers, then think how much we can rake off people who USE his computers, however they use them!!?!!"  Voila. Brilliant... What an idea. Let's tax every email, all internet use, etc, as described neatly, by James Corbett at Global Research. Read Full Blog

You know the old saying, “where there’s smoke there’s fire”. In the World Health Organisation’s case, it’s a blazing inferno. Not only is Dr Fukuda fighting for WHO’s reputation through clenched teeth, he appears not to realise just how deep is the hole he’s digging for himself is. What Fukuda also forgets is that not everyone is ignorant to the machinations of drug companies, so let’s take a wee walk down history lane to discuss a few seemingly unrelated events. Remember this from 9 October 2008?  Read Full Blog

On 14th January 2010, the WHO put out a press release stating that they had not changed the definition of pandemic mid-way through the Swine flu, in order to ramp up sales of an unnecessary vaccine for a virus which did not fit their previous definition of the word "pandemic". Their porky comes after a European governing body announced a formal investigation of WHO for consistently scaremongering H1N1 into something dangerous, when it is not even as bad as normal flu, and...according to them... doing it because WHO experts  have their hands in the "pharma tills" big time. Read Full Blog