Hilary's Desk

The telephone rings. It’s someone with a fully vaccinated child, whose kid has earache. Again. And was prescribed antibiotics. Again. Did the doctor run tests to see what it was? No. So let’s toss an antibiotic napalm bomb into a kid, which will nuke what good bacteria there are that have a job to do in keeping bad bacteria under control. Dumb, dumb and dumber. But this is “infectious disease” medicine we are talking about. And it has been this way for decades, and its time it stopped. Continue Reading

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? Continue Reading

Just when you think sanity might prevail, and you write a blog about one doctor with a brain, everything implodes. I decided to do a pubmed search, just to double check when stem cells were first found in cord blood. The answer to that is around 2000 if you count the lag to publish. Then I did a check on third stage cord clamping management, and came across this 2010 article, which exemplifies everything I dislike about obstetric practice in 2010. Continue Reading

Hurrah, a doctor finally sees the blindingly obvious! In a study entitled “Wait to clamp umbilical cord, study says” Paul R. Sanberg from South Florida College of Medicine, is the first person I know of, who has finally published what I’ve been saying for years. Which equates to “Don't clamp the newborn’s umbilical cord!” His reason is that cord blood gives the baby its first infusion of stem cells which could help regenerate any underdeveloped organs.  And do a whole heap of other things too.  I’m glad he said that. But here’s my problem. Why didn’t all these medical people who have called cord blood “medical waste” and set up cord banks specifically to save those stem cells, see that? Isn’t it somewhat blindingly obvious? My first published article on delaying cord clamping was in the New Zealand Home Birth Magazine which was then reproduced in the New Zealand Association of Midwives Newsletter. An American magazine called “Mothering” published it in 1986. 24 years ago. My second “rant” on this topic was last year, as part of a talk. Continue Reading

Further to yesterday's blog about Michael J Smith's opinion piece in Pediatrics, telling us not very much, a very interesting observation on it was made here, in post 9 for those who want the specific place.  Continue Reading

Today, Pediatrics published a retrospective study with the above title, which purportedly provides the "strongest clinical evidence to date that on-time..." and that these results offer reassuring information" etc etc... I received an alert, and downloaded the study. And started reading. Most of the tables you can't make much of, since they simply tell you end-points and you have no way of knowing whether those end points are even accurate or not. I burst out laughing in the first paragraph of the results though when I read this: "A total of 491 (47%) of 1047 children met the study definition for timely receipt. An additional 235 (23%) received all recommended vaccines during the study period but not on time. The remaining 311 (20%) did not receive all recommended vaccines during the study period." Continue Reading

On May 8th, IMAC scored a coup with this patsy plant, in the Press.  This article is stunning - not for it's factual or investigative, intelligent content, but for the seeming naive gullibility of the reporter, who it would appear didn't realise that he was asked to come for a walk, like a little puppy dog.  I can just see it now. Someone walks in and asks, “Who is the most provaccine reporter here?”, ... and hands them suitably predigested material on a plate.  Pre-written, with the "right" slant, just as it "should" be! “What we need is a re-port-er, okay? .. No – no, not an investigative journalist! Shhhh A re-port-er, to re – port what we think, just the way we think it. No, we don't need balance - we just need the right message!”  Of course they wouldn’t want an “investigative” journalist on the job, because that might involved "balance"!.  And worse, in the past, investigative journalists who have taken the time and energy to do their own research have become ultra critical of IMAC pre-digested soundbites. Continue Reading

It makes logical sense that very high IgA levels of rotavirus neutralizing antibodies in breast-milk, would result in babies not developing high levels of antibodies against an oral rotavirus vaccine, right? The conclusions of a recent study was that lots of studies should look at stopping mothers breastfeeding before and after vaccination, to overcome this "negative effect”.   Continue Reading

And my final comment on this issues.  Sheldon from "vaccineswork" will be writing a blog about this blog, to discuss his version of the difference between the ethics of provaccine people, and the lack of ethics of anti-vaccine people. For those new to this particular post, please see the original post and then the first post after Sheldon contacted me before reading any further. Continue Reading

apparently... that the antivaccine rarely admit their own mistakes, whereas provaccine people value truth very highly, and always admit their mistakes and move on. Apparently, I have failed in an ethical challenge, because a vaccine defender, is trying to make out that in this post I'm saying that all the influenza formulations are just seasonal ones with the H1N1 added into it.  Given that most of you have me on RSS and regularly receive what I write, and know what I've said in the past, I'll let you be the judge as to whether that's what I think, or said. The contact us form received just before lunch today (from someone who has never read here before, according to my burearat tracker) which said: Continue Reading