Hilary's Desk

How much does the medical system know about the total hardware of the immune system, and how all parts interconnect? As you’ve seen in the last few blogs, their understanding is crucially hampered by what they now know they don’t understand. The problem is, most parents have no idea of the extent of their immunological “blindness”. Definitive knowledge of the innate immunity, our first defences, resembles a big black hole called “ignorance”. Immunologist appear to be like tree experts, walking in huge forest, saying, “Oh yeah, I recognise that clump of trees – they are antibodies, but I don’t know what they have to do with those ones. Wonder what these are? And those are....” and so it goes on.  Read Full Blog

The Guardian today, produced a scrappy piece of journalism here, under the heading "Herbal remedies banned as EU rule takes effect." Whatever the actualities of what herbals will survive, and what is banned, is a much deeper  issue. The voices of the skeptical comments supporting only big pharma, fall into two categories.  The intolerant, who wouldn't know a fact if they saw one, and the "same old" spanish inquisitors, who are employed by someone to bully, snarl at, and smear anyone who is not a big pharma worshipper.  Their mantra is that "only" science understands what is good for you.  "Only" science is reliable.  "Only" science can cure you.  It's astonishing the depths of ignorance they reveal, yet... they have no idea.  Like" rebecca rabbit" who scoffed, "When was the last time a doctor told you to ... starve a fever and feed a cold?" Read Full Blog

Today was yet another embarrassing day for the "love a quick fix" medical system.  The Sunday Independant in the UK revealed that secret documents marked "closed until 2014", showed that in 1982, the Medical Research Council was warned that benzodiazepines, which were marketted as "completely harmless", could cause brain shrinkage, and brain damage.  The Department of Health, very conveniently, has "no record" of that meeting.  A Professor Malcolm Lader, asked to set up a unit to research benzos, but was refused permission or funding to do so.  He didn't push the issue, because  even back then, he knew what happens to people who come up against "competing interests", and he assumed that prescription of benzos would "peter out".   Read Full Blog

Warning.  Having an opinion is dangerous.  Have you noticed the plethora of "needed" (choke) rules, regulations and safety requirements which stalk anyone who might want to do something adventurous?  Take for instance a group who sets up a children's adventure camp.  They analyse any possible problems, and try to cover every eventuality. Parents sign their kids up, (great, pay money, someone else can baby-sit my kids), but there's an accident, and a child dies.  Fingers are pointed and people are sued.  Therefore, in future there will be disclaimers. "We've done our best, but if you sign up, it's your risk." Everywhere we turn now, we see disclaimers.  And the cultivation of an assumption that anything without a disclaimer could invite liability. Read Full Blog

Further to the superb piece in today's Otago Daily Times paper written by Otago Medical Schools Professor of Medical Ethics (and neurologist) Professor Grant Gillett, calling into question the ostrich attitudes of medical practitioners, Read Full Blog

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

It never ceases to amaze me, when people who put themselves out as scientists, display woeful researching skills, and appear not to hear what is said on programmes they criticise. Peter Griffin at Sciblogs had this to say about the 60 Minutes documentary “Living Proof”. Amongst his various ramblings, he misses the fact that experts were asked to comment.. but refused. He also asked heaps of redundant questions:   Read Full Blog

It’s mind numbing to me, that in 2010, the medical system would still expound this myth. Oy Vey. But so we read, “Study looks at why mum’s kiss is good for baby”; “Sterile when they are born, babies inherited bacteria from their main carer, usually their mother” … right there, the fundamental premis, which underpins this study, is not supported by the medical literature.  Read Full Blog

“Warning on blood thinning medicine” rang out the headlines in the Herald on 10 June 2010, in an article which warned that warfarin can result in strokes. This type of article is particularly dangerous, because readers can assume that what is said is the only danger there is. Warfarin is way more dangerous than just causing strokes. Warfarin is a major nutrient robber, to the proportions of being a biological weapon of slow mass destruction. Read Full Blog

Drs Hazel Lewis and John Holmes from the Ministry of Health (MOH), took an opportunity in the Herald letters to the editor to “swipe” an article called “Jab no surefire protection”  which they maintain undermines an important health initiative. Never mind that the article was based on a Ministry of Health press release, and gave no negative information about the Gardasil vaccine itself. Reading it, I thought that the MOH would be delighted at the meek compliance of it all. Not so. This MOH whine actually joins the ranks of “pillock” status, because the article was rightly addressing what many published medical studies show and the MOH had identified – that most people vaccinated with Gardasil, think they don’t need smears.  Read Full Blog