Hilary's Desk

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

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

Following on from my previous two posts here, and here, I decided to dig just a wee bit deeper. Why? Because there was one sentence in Michael J Smith’s study which I couldn’t work out. It was this: "Finally, our analyses were limited to publicly available data from the original study. Future VSD studies without this restriction would be able to assess a wider range of outcomes. These include putative vaccine adverse effects such as neurodevelopmental delay, autism, and autoimmune disorders." Lets rephrase this. If Michael J Smith’s study wasn’t restricted to solely using the publicly available data from the original study, he would have been able to study neurodevelopmental delay? …… But hang on! Wasn’t that the WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY? To reassure parents that vaccinating on time wouldn’t cause neurodevelopmental delay? So….What exactly were these data limitations, Michael?  Why didn't you specify them in your study? Read Full Blog

OPEN LETTER : Dear Drs Michael Osterholm, Kris Ehresmann and Ed Belangia; None of you get it, do you?  You say you “know the idea that the flu vaccine doesn't prevent deaths in the elderly sounds almost blasphemous” and that you “didn't really want to believe it at first either,” but that the new research is “incontrovertible”? The new research is no less “incontrovertible” than the research done between 1960 and 1976, which showed exactly the same - and Dr J Anthony Morris’s honesty, lost him his job in FDA. Can’t nuke the bread-and-butter of all vaccines, the annual flu-vax till ringer! And yes, that’s what was said!  Read Full Blog

You read that right. It comes right at the end of an astonishing article talking about how the 1976 Swine flu vaccine, (which never needed to be used in the first place, and was stopped because it caused serious neurological damage in recipients) produced really good levels of functional antibodies... However, the 2009 H1N1 vaccine did not. But here's the irony of it all... Point out one "good" thing about a needless vaccine, and accidentally admit that the current, also needless, swine flu vaccine  ---  is rubbish. Read Full Blog

People with any brains, can see, when they are told that ordinary flu kills 400 New Zealanders every year, that 20 deaths from swine flu is chickenfeed. They also wonder why it was only last year, that steps were taken in medical practices to stop people with "influenza like illnesses", from infecting everyone else, while they sit in the waiting room. Some even asked the question as to whether there were ONLY 20 deaths because doctors, for once, applied common sense in waiting rooms! Perhaps the other 280 deaths were caused by medical neglect. Which isn’t too far fetched given the number of medical papers I have which show that doctors waiting rooms and hospitals is where you want to go if you feel the need to pick up something which you didn’t have before, but need, to get sick, so that you can legitimize a few days off work. Read Full Blog

Here’s where their stupid data-mongering went wrong. Because they have repeatedly lied about flu deaths by simple multiplication and adding in deaths from a whole swathe of viruses that have nothing to do with the flu when there is actually only a handful of real flu deaths in the country every year, they weren’t able to admit that actually, the swine flu WAS worse than the ordinary flu. They were hung by the petard of their own lies. Read Full Blog

“Demand for jabs puts squeeze on supply” squealed page 2 of the New Zealand Herald. And those of us who have collected these headlines for decades realise that there will be suckers out there who think the news is for real. Even if they know that this is the typical selling technique for all advertising. “Stocks limited” “One per person”. A few discrete enquiries, revealed a few baffled medical practice receptionists, who said that it was pretty much business as usual. The New Zealand Herald – if they keep clippings files, which I doubt – seemingly doesn't remember that just these sorts of headlines have been trotted out with monotonous regularity: 2000: “Early demand exhausts flu vaccine” and “100,000 more flu jabs on the way”; 2004: "Vaccine readied to ward off killer flu strain” 2005 “Bird Flu shots coming in winter” (Yeah, right...) “Crisis talks on flu vaccine” and so the headlines roll on. Read Full Blog

This study is the latest marvelous words of wisdom from the medical profession who have decided that the increase in autism can’t possibly ... really .... be due to any specific virus, toxicity or any other moronic idea from people whose kids have regressed after vaccination .... or whose mother's bodies were loaded to the hilt during pregnancy with epigenetic toxins some of which prescribed, administered and approved of by the medical profession… oh no. Heaven forbid… the reason… . Read Full Blog

Dear Paul,  On rethinking your email to me, and given that you are our electorate member of parliament, I feel I need to address a few issues to you more thoroughly. You say:  Read Full Blog