Hilary's Desk

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