“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Why Immediate cord clamping must cease.

Hilary Butler - Saturday, October 27, 2012

On 24th October Fox News announced that Dr Michael Chez had begun an FDA approved trial of 30 children (using cord blood commercially stored by their parents) who were subsequently diagnosed with Autism. Dr Chez wants to see if the children’s own stem cells will reverse the autism, and has “high hopes” that the stem cells will do this.

The children have no genetic markers for autism and have developed it through an infection or an environmental factor (unspecified).

At no point does Dr Chez ask the question as to what babies are forfeiting, in exchange for the parents storing their cord blood. It’s of interest to me, that most news articles on the topic ALWAYS make the point of describing unbanked cord blood as “medical waste”.

Dr Chez, got the idea after treating boy A with Cerebral Palsy with stem cells his parents had stored, and the child responded very well. The problem is, that the immediate cord clamping required to harvest that blood reduces oxygenation to the brain, which as this Australian Professor states, increases the likelihood of Cerebral Palsy in the first place. The question needs to be asked, whether the parent's desire to harvest their baby's cord blood, created the brain condition, which caused the cerebral palsy.

Was this girl B's Cerebral Palsy which was reversed by cord blood cells, actually caused by the immediate cord clamping required in order to harvest that same cord blood --- that was later used to “cure” her?

Similarly, on March 29, 2011, Fox News reported the use of child C’s cord blood stem cells stored after her birth, being used to treat a tumour blocking the girl’s kidney.

Child C's mother, says, “I want to encourage other parents to save their child’s cord blood… I tell all our families and friends, it’s the cheapest life insurance you’ll ever buy and it’s an amazing opportunity for your children. To look at her, you’d never know, which is the best part of all.”

Come again?

Note that all the stories about children who are treated with their own cord blood stem cells, state that these cells are “medical waste” and the child doesn’t feel a thing, and that when infused into the body, these cells hunt out the injured spot and heal the problem.

The Fox News articles all make stem cell transplants look like a wonderful option. The comments about how it doesn’t hurt the baby are all the same, and all articles emphasize that the blood was sent to the bank of the parent’s choice.

There is an additional factor in child C's story, which will be mentioned shortly.

Looking at medical literature, let’s have a look at WHERE the baby gets its stem cells from in the first few years of life.

Right from conception a baby’s organ development is orchestrated by stem cells made in the placenta during pregnancy. Barcena 09 reports that the foetus is infused with those stem cells in utero.

The blood INSIDE the placenta grows the baby, is unique to that baby’s DNA, and belongs in the baby itself, after birth. It’s a pretty nifty arrangement which has several functions. If half of the baby’s blood remains in the placenta during vaginal descent, that decreases the volume of flesh which has to be conformed into and slide down a 10 cm wide pelvic canal, meaning that there is much less resistance, and the baby will come down easier. The baby still gets oxygen from the mother, but its muscles are much more “relaxed”. Far from placenta and cord blood being “medical waste”, just after the baby is born, when the baby’s chest expands, the lungs open out and try to fill with blood… when the cranial plates spring apart and the arms and legs wave around with the accompanying pins and needles, all that placental blood which belongs to the baby, is rushing back into the baby because of ongoing uterine contractions. That blood increases the blood volume in the baby by at least one third (Hutton 07).

One effect from this was illustrated in this article from 1940. Yes, you read that correct. 1940. They KNEW that immediate cord cutting was bad, even back then:

And yes, the medical profession has collected cord blood since 1941, though goodness knows what they did with it. While I would like to say that immediate cord clamping is not common in this country, that isn’t quite true. Unfortunately it is widely practiced in the bigger hospital and teaching hospitals. However, independent midwives, home-birth midwives and smaller country hospitals in general, seem to be much more amenable to not immediately clamping the cord.

But it would appear that in USA, and other countries where cord blood banking has become the expensive fashionable thing to do, mothers are convinced that cord blood is otherwise “medical waste”.

The massive influx of blood – which belongs to that baby - is vital to the baby and is described in this 2009 document I wrote, detailing the third stage of labour. And anyone who has read here before knows that I have no patience with medical people who immediately clamp cord as a matter of habit and protocol, or for cord blood storage.

So, how is this cord blood for transplantation collected, and how much blood is stored?

According to Hemastem, an American cord blood bank, IMMEDIATELY on birth, the cord is clamped. It looks like a purple pulsating sausage with very distended veins. A syringe is inserted into the largest of the three cords, which has the blood going into the baby. There is no need to pull a plunger or anything, because the cord has considerable pressure, which by itself, passively pumps all that blood into a container about the size of one cup, which has in it an anti-coagulant to stop the blood from clotting. The syringe is removed, the container sealed, and that costs the parent a sweet 2 – 3,000 dollars, plus an annual fee for storage. Hemastem says that between 60 and 150 mls is stored.

According to Cord Blood Donation.net, 180 mls of blood is stored. Furthermore, parents who can’t afford to pay to have blood stored for their own children, are “encouraged” to “donate” this MEDICAL WASTE so that someone else might benefit from it. Does the term “medical waste” start to take on a new dimension in your mind?

In 1967, the ideal blood volume in a baby was calculated at 85 mls per kg of body weight. Hutton 07 makes it clear that immediate cord cutting removes 20 – 40 mls per kg out of that optimum 85 mls per kg, of body weight.  So if your baby weighs 4 kgs in weight, this lack of blood is the equivalent of a haemorrhage removing 80 to 160 mls from the possible total blood amount of 340 mls.  This is like depriving an adult of a quarter to a half of their total body amount of blood.  Does that sound like a good idea?

In 2009, Pikser stated that between 25 – 60% of the total feto-placental circulation is found in the placenta at term, and allowing placental transfusion into the baby results in a 30% increase in blood volume and a 60% increase in red blood cells.

In other words, those who consider this cord blood to be medical waste, deprive their baby of 60% of red blood cells which the baby should have after birth. Do those red blood cells sound like “waste” to you? And people pay big money to deprive their baby of its own blood. 

What was the rationale for immediate cord clamping in the first place? In 2007, a medical article stated that there is, and never was, a scientific rational for immediate cord clamping. Here is a timeline from books down through the ages, talking about physiological optimum third stage labour. In this “scientific” age, immediately cutting the cord is not only utterly lacking in science and common sense, it works against the best interest of babies. Furthermore the timeline clearly shows that immediate cord cutting is a phenomenon which only became “common” as conventional obstetrics considered itself more "advanced". Which possibly means that cutting the cord was a billable item charged to the patient.

There are some obstetricians leading the charge to stop immediate cord clamping. One is Dr Hutchon http://www.hutchon.net/  who stated quite clearly in a medical journal in 2008 that immediate cord clamping must cease, and in 2010, that immediate cord clamping is not a physical necessity. You’d think, in an era rife with high malpractice insurance that leads many obstetricians leaving the profession, that practising delayed cord clamping would be seen as added insurance and security for the obstetrician.

The other obstetrician who is hopping mad about cord cutting is Professor G. M. Morley http://www.cordclamp.org/  

Dr Morley’s website reads:

Birth Injuries Related to Umbilical Cord Clamping:

“Autism, cerebral palsy, anemia, hypovolemia, hypotension, ischemia, shock, shock lung, respiratory distress, oliguria, hypoglycemia, ischemic encephalopathy, mental retardation; neural, behavioral and developmental disorders.”

How much clearer can you get? Dr Morley believes that the brain damage created by immediate cord clamping can predispose a child to autism.  Dr Morley considers Cerebral Palsy to be a direct result of the brain damage that can follow immediate cord clamping. 

But in Child C's case, the story gets much worse.

By now, anyone reading this blog KNOWS that breastmilk is ALSO loaded with stem cells  because God designs a baby to be a continuum of in utero growth, programming and development. Growth is so fast after birth, that it’s vital the baby continues to receive an ongoing supply of stem cells in breast milk in order to give children the best possible chance.

But breast milk is also loaded with a substance which, if a baby gets any form of cancer, can nuke the cancer, and then the stem cells go in afterwards and heal everything.

So, not only was child C deprived of her own stem cells by immediate cord clamping, her problems were compounded BECAUSE she was fed formula from birth. (Note the story doesn’t admit or discuss that, but when you know the medical literature, the actions of a key substance in breastmilk are obvious.)

In 1990, a doctor at Lund University called Catarina Svanborg, accidentally discovered that alpha- lactalbumin in human breast milk had both nutritive and non-nutritive properties. She found that when lactalbumin partially UN-folded itself and joined with oleic acid, it formed a substance which she called HAMLET, meaning Human Alpha-lactalbumin Made LEthal to Tumor cells. In short, breastmilk HAMLET is THE ultimate cancer destroyer which has no side effects.

Using a multipronged approach, HAMLET selectively rips apart walls of dysplastic cells, messes up the mitochondria, and using other immunological “cluster bombs”, blasts, detaches and rapidly pummels cancer to pieces and destroys it.

Much of Dr Svanborg’s work can be found here

For as long as a mother breastfeeds, her child is drenched in abundant quantities of HAMLET, or alpha lactalbumin… which actively patrols, seeks out and destroys cancer in that baby.

Here is a geekspeak explanation for those who require it:


Here we present HAMLET (Human Alpha-lactalbumin Made LEthal to Tumor cells) as an example where partial unfolding and the incorporation of a cofactor create a complex with new, beneficial properties. Native alpha-lactalbumin functions as a substrate specifier in lactose synthesis, but when partially unfolded, the protein binds oleic acid and forms the tumoricidal HAMLET complex.


HAMLET has broad antitumor activity in vitro, and its therapeutic effect has been confirmed in vivo in a human glioblastoma rat xenograft model, in patients with skin papillomas and in patients with bladder cancer. The mechanisms of tumor cell death remain unclear, however. Immediately after the encounter with tumor cells, HAMLET invades the cells and causes mitochondrial membrane depolarization, cytochrome c release, phosphatidyl serine exposure, and a low caspase response. A fraction of the cells undergoes morphological changes characteristic of apoptosis, but caspase inhibition does not rescue the cells and Bcl-2 overexpression or altered p53 status does not influence the sensitivity of tumor cells to HAMLET. HAMLET also creates a state of unfolded protein overload and activates 20S proteasomes, which contributes to cell death. In parallel, HAMLET translocates to tumor cell nuclei, where high-affinity interactions with histones cause chromatin disruption, loss of transcription, and nuclear condensation. The dying cells also show morphological changes compatible with macroautophagy, and recent studies indicate that macroautophagy is involved in the cell death response to HAMLET. The results suggest that HAMLET, like a hydra with many heads, may interact with several crucial cellular organelles, thereby activating several forms of cell death, in parallel. This complexity might underlie the rapid death response of tumor cells and the broad antitumor activity of HAMLET.

You may now put away your medical dictionary.

So plainly put, if Child C's parents had NOT had her cord clamped, their baby would have received her full quotient of stem cells free of charge, which could have healed whatever the problem was, and HAD she been breastfed, then chances are, that she would not have developed a tumour, and wouldn’t have needed a stem cell transplant. Her parents could have saved themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills, and a truck load of worry as well.

A fetus is designed with placentally made, pluripotent (pluripotent = relating to all cells in the body) stem cells just waiting in the placenta and umbilical cord, to slide down into the baby - if the cord is left open and NOT clamped. As this medical article states, it's the baby's FIRST stem cell transplant.  And a mother’s breastmilk provides cancer destroyers and stem cells.

The medical literature is absolutely FULL of medical articles expanding the topics in this short blog - - YET…. at the same time, the medical system regularly presents stories from people like Child C's parents, to try to persuade MORE parents to immediately clamp their baby’s cord in order to store the cord blood, which CAN LEAD TO exactly those problems these doctors are later using those children’s stem cells to fix!

The medical system does not tell people like Harlow’s mother that breastmilk is a continued source of both stem cells and cancer destroyers for as long as the baby is breastfed. They will probably tell the parents to try another formula. How about referring parents to a breast milk bank? Oh, that’s right. There isn’t one, because the medical system doesn’t think it’s worthwhile. I guess a breast milk bank is not worth supporting, if as a result, paediatricians earn less money while twiddling their thumbs in an empty office.

The current debate on cord cutting in the medical profession continues to be medieval and lackluster with the exception of a few such as Mercer 09 who stated,

“To prevent damage to newborns, the infant must receive the blood volume and stem cells lost at the time of descent and immediate cord clamping”.

My only quibble with this quote is the use of the word "lost".  Some of the blood is temporarily diverted into the placenta in order to help the baby be born, and as soon as the baby is born, that blood is returned to the baby with the remainder in the cord, which fills the lungs. Watch this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWCOzkSe85M&feature=related  I don't agree with his comments about extreme prematurity though... the more premature, the more important it is, to NOT cut the cord.  This youtube presentation shows you how lay people can educate obstetricians in this case Dr Nicholas Fogelson:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX-zD8jKne0&feature=related and part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDLywaBTd-o&feature=channel&list=UL and part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYhWzAjjRu8&feature=autoplay&list=ULYDLywaBTd-o&playnext=1 .  He tells the story of how he got interested in delayed cord cutting and discusses some of what is here.  Apart from these people, the clinical arguments amongst obstetricians, seem to centre more around HOW LONG they can wait before they get impatient and get out the clamp and scissors. An example is the conclusion of this article:

In the first minute the baby only gets 50% of the potential volume with the rest in the next 2 - 5 minutes.  Well, here's a practical way to keep the cord intact.  

Just LOSE the clamp and the scissors until the cord is hard, white and leathery

The moral of this blog is simple.

The “voices” you listen to, .....will determine your choices, .....and the bed you lie in .... just might have unwelcome consequences.  Continue Reading

Emergency doctor immune to reason?

Hilary Butler - Thursday, October 18, 2012

Hey there, Dr Mark Reeves.

I read your opinion in the Nelson Mail on Stuff.co.nz today. Anti-vaccinators Immune to reason? (PDF here) Are you open to "discussion"?

You say, "The fear-mongering and negative publicity caused immunisation coverage to drop to only 30 per cent in the UK in 1975. There were 200,000 extra notifications in the UK over the next 15 years, and many possibly preventable deaths as a result. " That is incorrect, and you should know that. But if you don't know it, would you like to read the medical articles embedded in the whooping cough resource on this site? You say, whooping cough used to take many lives. You infer that it no longer does, because of a vaccine.

Do you know that whooping cough is endemic in this country, and has always been so? Do you know the historical data from NZ relating to both whooping cough deaths and incidence? You know then, that whooping cough deaths were pretty much zero before a vaccine was even used?  If you do know that data, I'm surprised that you mentioned whooping cough. How many of the cases of whooping cough you see, are NOT fully and appropriately vaccinated?

Perhaps the PSU surveillance reports might realign your incorrect, beliefs, into evidence based fact instead.

If you would like to catch up on the whooping cough medical literature the system appears to have hidden from your sight, you can find it conveniently in one place on this website, handed to you on a plate.

Thoughtful parental decision making about vaccines doesn't revolve around listening to uncouth nasty intolerant loudmouths like Penn and Teller? I mean, do you seriously think that Penn and Teller..... contribute to educated, "informed choice"? As to this "argument"...."I don't need to get my kids vaccinated because you got your kids vaccinated" ...I've only ever heard that one, from a provaccine member of the medical profession.  Parents aren't usually that stupid. Besides which, we sit back and watch vaccinated kids get these diseases like chickenpox, whooping cough - and even rubella (!!)... so we know that being vaccinated doesn't mean that much out in the real world where we live. 

Your own medical code of ethics allows parents the right to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children. You know, "informed consent", not CONFORMED compliance?. Why is it that "choice" appears to be so offensive to you? Taxes may be the price to pay for a civilised society, but as far as I know, I'm not injected with taxes. Which reminds me. These vaccines which you say are free...., aren't free. They are bought with public taxes, so the only person injected with taxpayers' money will... be the vaccinated.

Contrary to your characterisations of those who don't vaccinate, medical studies shows that people who don't vaccinate, are more likely to be highly educated, with degrees, and many of them come from a medical background. There is no medical literature that characterises non-vaccinators the way you do.

Parents, who don't vaccinate their children, usually have brains and commonsense. These same parents also tend not to use paracetamol for infectious fevers, even though the medical system appears NOT to know the decades of medical literature, or the WHO bulletins which state that using paracetamol for infectious fevers is a "no-no". Most parents who come into a hospital and says no to paracetamol, are also treated like a criminal. I know, because these parents tell me all the things said to them.

Do you think, that the medical system's attitude of aggression towards parents who don't want to use paracetamol for infectious fevers just might be medical malpractice?

Have you noticed that most people who don't vaccinate their children, feed their children really well, and don't usually have either fat kids or couch potatoes? Have you noticed that most of the people in the corridors of Nelson Hospital where you work, are fully vaccinated? Have you looked at their lifestyles?

By your own admission, Dr Reeves, you spend your weekends mopping up after (presumably) fully vaccinated drunks, and refer 2 - 10 of them every weekend to the Nelson Marlborough Alcohol and Drug Clinic. You treat the alcohol issue with verbal kid gloves, yet these people use up far more taxpayer money than an unvaccinated kiddo who gets chickenpox, or even all of them put together.... . And no doubt, many of the drunks you treat on Friday, have been treated by you before.

I don't know WHICH Oliver Wendell Holmes you are quoting, but THE DR Oliver Wendell Holmes, was run out of medical practice. Why? Because like Semmelweis, for decades, he accused his colleages of the mass murder of birthing mothers and babies because they refused to wash their hands. To the day he left medicine, his colleagues refused to listen to him.   I find it amusing that the Stanford University says that in his paper, he "convincingly" argued his case.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Dr Holmes wrote many papers on the issue (which I have copies of) , and he left the medical profession because he got sick of being slandered and bad-mouthed by his ignorant colleagues, They also called him a doctor "basking in the valorising limelight of affected iconoclasm"! 

Holmes's peers allowed thousands of lives to be lost over several decades, because they wanted to protect a dangerous dogma. I see from the latest hospital surveys published in the medical literature, that many in the medical system are STILL having trouble understanding that washing hands is REALLY important. Why is it that there is a preference for a squeeze of squish, which is vastly inferior to good old soap and water?!!!

There is no breast milk bank in this country. Why is that Dr Reeves? The best way to make a real difference to the lives of New Zealand babies, children and adults would be for you to help set up a breast milk bank, so that women who can't breast feed, are referred straight away to a place where they can purchase what you know, and what your medical literature says, is - "the best."  Breast milk.

It could be that the providers of breastmilk to such a bank, would be the long term breastfeeders, who know the importance of good nutrition, don't have obese kids - and chances are - don't vaccinate their kids.

The medical system namby pambies around pregnant women saying, "You know, breast milk is better for your baby..." Better ... than what? Formula is presented as the acceptable bench mark and breast milk is just a bit "better"?

Why not tell these mothers that babies who are formula fed are MORE likely to get depressed later in life.

Why not tell parents that formula fed babies will cost the nation big money because of their inability to control cholesterol levels.

Why not tell parents that by NOT breastfeeding, they are costing the nation millions every year in unnecessary government health expenditure for preventable infections

Why not tell all these formula feeding mother in this country the things listed here which are all proven from YOUR own medical literature?

Is the reason that you don't get stuck into formula feeding parents, ... because you don't want to hurt their feelings?

But it's okay to offend parents with breastfed healthy, skinny, children because... they choose not to vaccinate them?

Why not tell parents that the VAST majority of the people you treat in ED are FULLY VACCINATED people who have their priorities wrong?

You offend parents - and by your own admission, your "friends" who don't vaccinate their children. Yet just maybe their children are much healthier than the average. Just maybe you never see their kids except for accidents.

Why might that be? Intolerant attitudes have so alienated non-vaccinating parents, that they are really motivated to gather enough knowledge to keep their children as health as possible, so their chances of seeing a doctor are minimal.

Next time you happen to see one of us - say with a child with a broken wrist, remember that you rarely see us because of our lifestyle. Think about that a bit.

It just might be that instead of reviling us, you might learn to respect us and our choices. And perhaps you might also apologise to those people who thought you were their ..... friend.  Continue Reading

Part Two: Astounding Hypocrisy – ingestion and injection.

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Part One is here....       While the mainstream media is crawling all over the meningitis outbreak stemming from fungus contaminated steroidal injections, and blame is focused on lack of regulation controlling small compounding pharmacies, the medical system chooses to ignore bigger issues than their current simplistic red herrings.

The issue which should be being discussed, is the difference between ingestion, and injection, and why a contaminant, can cause problems in a body not normally seen in the real world.

No-one is asking why it is that the the medical profession’s “bread and butter” for pain is either steroid injections, or pain killing drugs which vastly increase the rate of necrotising fasciitis?  Why is treatment for pain so.. barbaric?

Common fungus - when ingested - is rarely a problem. When injected with steroid to shut down the immune system and therefore stop pain..., it can take on a whole new dimension. 

The fact is that vaccines can have contaminants in them, which we just might not know about, like bacteria, viruses and other ingredients considered by the medical system to be safe. Even... DNA!!!  The book picture below, was written in 1967 (with such an innocent title), and detailed what was known in that year, about culture contamination in live virus vaccines. Never mind the killed vaccines, which the medical literature states are also often contaminated.

Just think of the size of the encyclopedia, if they were to detail contamination in all vaccines before and after the Lubeck incident ?!!!

Vaccine contamination is occasionally admitted, usually by highlighting minor selective sins - like whatever the burned plastic wrap was, that was found by the FDA in the Gardasil vaccine. “Just an easily fixed systems error, don’t you know.”

“Contaminants” which are injected in either drugs or vaccines, can affect the body very differently to those same “contaminants” when they are found on the skin or in the gut.

What do vaccine contaminants do? What about DNA? What about aluminium? There are lots of medical articles now being published, sounding the alarm about aluminium in vaccines, but the medical system defaults to its routine dogma which says: “You “eat” aluminium, so it’s safe to inject it and the body just expels it from the body really fast.” Their own medical literature has stated for 11 years, that aluminium in vaccines is a significant contributor to the body burden (Yokel McNamara 2001) , because unlike “ingested” aluminium, the body absorbs injected aluminium into organs and bones.

Who is right? The medical literature or the medical system? What else, does the medical system not know, or admit to?

Years ago, we also heard that,Squalene can be eaten, so there’s nothing wrong with injecting it as a vaccine adjuvant.” Really?

The USA meningitis outbreak from fungally contaminated steroid injections, graphically illustrates that something “injected” can create havoc in the body in a way which rarely happens in the normal world.   

Significantly, the CDC is frantically running around looking for answers to fungal disease caused by contaminated steroid injections…, all in the name of “saving lives”, (15 deaths 231 cases) while criminal investigators from FDA comb the premises of the pharmacy!!

The media meticulously details a frantic CDC accurately tracking the number of the dead, the affected, and the minute details of the state of their health, ....just the same way as they tracked survivors and victims of the swine flu.

Yet, can the CDC or the FDA tell us how many girls have suffered side effects from Gardasil, or even give us a half-baked analysis of the course of any of the clinical problems in the victimsGoodness me, that's asking a bit much don't you think?  What we see is…

All around the world, girls,– like the latest Gardasil casualty - are keeling over after Gardasil or Cervarix, and having their lives ruined, …..

..... while ... the CDC and FDA have no accurate Gardasil reaction numbers, no clues, no ideas, haven't sent the FDA crim squad into Merck...and just... DO ....nothing.  

On the one hand, the CDC has this "Oh-so-concerned-and-meticulous" expose of contaminated steroid injections, and make great noise about investigating some piddly compounding pharmacy,   Yet.. they cosy up to Merck, and refuse to even investigate the findings of L1 HPV genetically engineered DNA in the Gardasil vaccine – which according to Merck’s patent number 6,602,697, is a listed contaminant, and shouldn’t be there!

When confronted with this proof of contamination, the CDC and FDA simply patted Merck on the back and re-wrote the Gardasil script  saying that they had always known there was HPVDNA in Gardasil, as an "expected ingredients" and ,- it's perfectly safe - and all Gardasil reactions are "coincidental"....., pass the bean dip.... Yawn.

FACT: Neither CDC nor FDA, can produce documentary evidence from Merck’s licensing application detailed this “expected” DNA.

FACT: Neither CDC nor FDA, can produce testing results detailing quantity of this "expected" L1 HPV DNA per vaccine dose.

FACT: Neither CDC nor FDA, can produce testing results showing that this “expected ingredient” has been demonstrated to be safe. 

FACT: Neither  CDC or FDA can explain why they allowed Merck’s datasheets to state “no DNA”,

FACT: Neither CDC or FDA can explain why the ingredient list does NOT state a quantity of this “expected” DNA, when all other ingredients in the patent are quantified and listed.

If the genetically engineered DNA in Gardasil is "expected" by the FDA and CDC..., then all the facts above are highly irregular. 

As to Gardasil and Cervarix child casualties….? .... CDC doesn’t appear to show any concern.  Their inaction reminds me of a statement in the Friday 1 June 1984 Federal Regulations, page 23007, regarding failures in polio testing, which reads:

“any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives.”

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the CDC is following a long term, well worn programme of vigilantly protecting worldwide vaccine manufacturing corporates involved in potentially vaccinating every single baby, child, adolescent, man, woman and the elderly.

Diligent head counting, and finding a "cure" for some fungus infected people... - fighting the good fight - creates the IMPRESSION  in the public's mind, that that the FDA and CDC always conscientiously protect the public from everything..., including vaccines. 

All I can say is, .... on all counts ... … what   blatant ….. in your face....  hypocrisy. Continue Reading

Part One: When common becomes lethal.

Hilary Butler - Monday, October 15, 2012

Since May 2012, the CDC has been investigating a meningitis outbreak, seemingly caused by contamination by Aspergillus and Exserohilum spores in injectable steroids and other drugs made at a compounding pharmacy, …a point that’s being emphasised by risk management departments worldwide.

More on that later. There are some serious issues at stake here, the first being why common, can become lethal.

Let’s talk hypothetical basics:

 Continue Reading

Breastmilk stem cells.

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, October 10, 2012

A long time ago - 2007 to be precise, the first medical article was published showing that breast milk contained stem cells. Perhaps the mainstream media didn't know what to do with this information. After all, most discussion is about the use of stem cells from aborted foetuses, for trying to correct disease, or  parents who stored their child's cord blood, then want to use it to cure the child of some disease

Stem cells are a big deal.
 Continue Reading

BABY FORMULA - choice or denial?

Hilary Butler - Saturday, October 06, 2012

It is time the discussion about breast milk changed to fact, not denial. Yes, there should be labels on formula, just as there are labels on cigarettes.

But if formula feeding parents really mean business in terms of accepting that breast is best, then they should be campaigning for a nationwide breast milk bank.  Continue Reading