Hilary's Desk

In the Sunday Star Times today, Judge David McNaughton delivered a swift message to Starship doctors about predictive and substandard medical care, and the presumption of guilt without good cause.  The Judge found Famaile Lino not guilty of abusing his six month old child after Starship jumped to conclusions, and robustly defended their own preconceived mindsets.  The Lino's lawyer said, " "It's a very important case. It shows how suddenly a person can be at home with their feet up looking after their children, and a nightmare commences."  Here's the rub though.  Court cases like this USUALLY only happen to people like the Linos or the Kahuis.  Starship doesn't usually go after people who know what's going on; the limitations of the medical profession; and how to defend themselves.    Starship are of course, scuttling into a "risk management" position, by defending the indefensible: Read Full Blog

I've had all my shots."  So said Javelin Thrower Stewart Farquhar.  This just about epitomizes the effort which the average New Zealander puts into learning about the real world. Fact.  The things which bite you on the bum in India, are NOT likely to be the things for which you have had shots. FACT: What might hit you harder on the bum if you go to India now are two things: India-derived superbugs only discovered in December 2009 - and the consequences of giving antibiotics like Doxycycline to the athletes to prevent Malaria, or other antibiotics, to treat infections while at the Commonwealth Games.  Therein lie the real dangers. Let's look at why: Read Full Blog

What epidemic? "Numbers have been on the rise since June this year, but they really spiked up in August," said Dr Alison Roberts, of the Ministry of Health' ... Hiding behind the word "epidemic", as a scare tactic, Alison Roberts continues: "We have been expecting an epidemic around now. New Zealand has a whooping cough epidemic every four to five years, and the last one started in 1999." Really?  has Dr Roberts read this from the ESR? which has a graph showing this:    Read Full Blog

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.  Read Full Blog

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.  Read Full Blog

In the wake of the TV3 documentary "Living Proof",  thoughout New Zealand, families who have members in ICU with H1N1, are being told that their near-death family members cannot be given intravenous vitamin C because it would cause renal failure. The medical literature does not support this statement. Many times we hear about vitamin C and kidney stones, but where did that "information" come from? According to Professor Hemila of Finland, it is an "urban legend". Quite why the medical profession feel it so necessary to create urban legends, is another matter altogether. Professor Hemila details the literature on this on his a page on his website called "Safety of Vitamin C: Urban Legends" (page pdf'd):  Read Full Blog

Are doctor prepared to their patients to die, rather than take note of either Allan Smith, or the known medical literature? Hence, this open letter to New Zealand Herald. Read Full Blog

While the medical profession has finally caught on, that the more "educated" a parent makes themselves on the issues around vaccination, the more likely they are to chose not to vaccinate, they are utterly offended that people can chose not to vaccinate.  Furthermore, their take on the issue of "choice" is off the wall.  Their solution to parents not making the 'right' choice, is to back parents into the wall and take pot shots at them with "Refusal to vaccinate" letters (see bottom), which read like legal documents, but are not.  These "refusal to vaccinate" letters come out of such skewed thinking patterns as can be seen in this statement in May this year, from the biggest vaccine defender of them all, Dr Paul Offit: 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