Hilary's Desk

In the three articles written by Chloe Johnson in the Herald on Sunday, March 3, 2013, (here, here and here) there was a ton of misinformation. I pulled her up on all her mistakes, which she refused to accept, and maintains that her articles were balanced and she is proud of them. The Herald on Sunday editor’s contribution to my attempt at redress was ....  to tell me that he had told Chloe to stop corresponding with me. 

So let's discuss the truth, from New Zealand's provaccine medical literature – as opposed to  the medical profession's propaganda fed and regurgitated willingly by the Herald on Sunday. The only “plus” in Chloe’s articles, was that Dr Huang admitted that there was no evidence that the flu vaccine actually worked.

The problem is that while that single statement was true, most of the rest of the article was opinion, and did not even answer the questions asked. Possibly the worst piece of misinformation given by Chloe stating that the influenza vaccine had a 75% effectiveness.

Most astonishingly, Chloe consulted all the members of the SHIVERS (Southern Hemisphere Influenza and Vaccine Effectiveness Research and Surveillance) group, yet was sucked in by their words, and didn’t appear to even look at the black and white information on what SHIVERS has found.

So first, what is SHIVERS? 

SHIVERS  is a 5 year study funded by the USA CDC, with objectives and “expected” outcomes.  Interesting how you have expected outcomes before you even start a five years study. However, the CDC has supposedly put $9 million dollars into ESR to do this study. SHIVERS became operational on 30 April 2012, and community based surveillance will start in 2013.

When I challenged Chloe about her article statement that in healthy adults, the vaccine had a 75% efficacy, she replied saying:

“… the fact about 75% effectiveness came from a link you sent me. Please see 4th paragraph under DISCUSSION.

Perhaps the problem was that she didn’t read past the first sentence.

Here is the whole paragraph. Black highlights (mine) and text is Cochrane, my deconstruction in red.

“While the parenteral vaccine efficacy against seasonal (i.e. non-pandemic) influenza is around 75% for the WHO recommended and matched strain, its impact on the global incidence of clinical cases of influenza (i.e. ILI) is limited (around 16% in best case scenario). (What don’t you understand about these two parts – “limited” – and – “16% BEST case….” because that’s your real figure, 16%.... ….NOT 75% ) The universal immunisation of healthy adults should achieve a number of specific goals: reducing the spread of the disease, reducing the economic loss due to working days lost and reducing morbidity and hospitalization (note the word should. Not does or will. And if the “best case real life” impact is 16%, clearly it doesn’t). None of the studies included in the review presented results evaluating the ability of this vaccination to interrupt the spread of the disease.(Did you miss this bit, and let Dr Lance Jennings sucker you into printing that the reason for flu being so high in NYC was because not enough people were vaccinated?) Some studies presented data on reduction of working days lost and showed a very limited effect. (75% would not be “very limited” 75% would be superb) Similarly a very limited effect was found on morbidity and no effect was found on hospitalization. (a very limited effect on what, Chloe?) Given the limited availability of resources for mass immunisation, the use of influenza vaccines should be primarily directed where there is clear evidence of benefit."

The whole point of the Cochrane Review on healthy adults, is that there is no CLEAR evidence of benefit anywhere. While the 75% figure is a fictitious theory of what SHOULD happen, the rest of the paragraph details that what should happen, doesn’t work out in practice.

The 75% only applies if the vaccine is assumed to match whatever NON PANDEMIC viruses hit your country that are the same as is in the vaccine, and IF the vaccine actually does work..

However, in the USA last year the H3N2 matched perfectly…. but didn’t work. I provided Chloe with detailed information  (Table 2) which showed:

Officially in the USA the vaccine had an effectiveness of (minus) -118 to 34 for >65 year olds for H3N2... stunning... especially given the fact that this is the 'bad' flu virus... and you can be sure that this is actually the upper limit of how “good” they think the vaccine is.

Please note the data below:

• 673 (99.4%) of the 677 H3N2 influenza viruses tested have been characterized as A/Victoria/361/2011-like, the influenza A (H3N2) component of the 2012-2013 Northern Hemisphere influenza vaccine.

• 4 (0.6%) of the 677 H3N2 viruses tested showed reduced titers with antiserum produced against A/Victoria/361/2011.

The question is, .... "how will the NZ spin doctors rework their computer risk models to produce less embarrassing results?... especially since this H3N2 vaccine is the nearest to perfect match in recent history... “ The answer is that they have studiously ignored it, and opted to go nowhere near such inconvenient facts.

So there Chloe had an example that the H3N2 was as perfect a match as was possible, and the vaccine didn’t work. Even worse, Chloe stated that USA data showed an effectiveness of 9% but never showed the wild confidence intervals, which proved that before the data was ‘evened out” the elderly had a 20% increased chance of getting influenza due to H3N2 DUE to being vaccinated.

But the way Chloe put it, what all “healthy adults” would have heard, was :  3 out of 4 of us who are vaccinated, WON’T get the flu, period.

Chloe also said without putting her own brain into first gear..., "Lucy hadn't had a flu jab because she considered herself healthy. And she paid the price:..."

I emailed her saying that, “this was “a very significant piece of misinformation you put out there, particularly as the girl you focused on, whose lung baked, wouldn’t have been protected, because what she got, didn’t match the vaccine, yet in your article you INFER that the vaccine would have protected her.”

Of course, if last year’s evidence in USA vaccine is anything to go by, the H3N2 component of New Zealand’s vaccine might not work either.

So let’s look at what I think you should have read in the Sunday on Herald: Part Two.  Continue Reading

How many people died from flu in Auckland in 2012?  According to Shivers data:. 


A child could understand this stunning graphic, yet Chloe didn’t bother to use it.  Even a mug can see why she avoided this like the plague.  One death from Flu in Auckland doesn't sell papers - no drama, no story.

I repeat:  Out of 9 deaths of Serious Acute Respiratory (SARI) Illnesses in AUCKLAND in 2012 .. only ONE, .....tested positive for the flu.

ONLY ONE.  Continue Reading

On 6th March, 2013, Dr Huang was interviewed by Radio New Zealand.

During this interview Dr Huang emphasised that influenza could be very very serious, and stated that "in Auckland 282 babies per 100,000, were hospitalised last year". 282 hospitalizations sounds BADDDDD doesn’t it.

Serious. Nasty.

Here’s the problem with Dr Huang’s data. She used a figure which would inflate the risk in people’s mind, deliberately in ORDER to make it sound bad. It was a strategy to force people to run and get their babies vaccinated.

How do I work that out?

If you go to Statistics New Zealand,  you will find that in the year up to March 2012, 61,178 babies were born in the WHOLE of New Zealand. And note that births dropped that year by 2%. So it’s safe to say that they dropped again in 2013 by a similar percentage.

If you follow the link on the page to the births section there is an excell document  which shows you that up to March 2012, the two areas covered in SHIVERS data, AUCKLAND and CMDHB had 16,087 births.

So let’s translate Dr Huang’s inflated data down into REAL numbers.

282/100,000*16087 = 45 hospitalised in 2013, in Auckland and CMDHBs.

Is that what Shivers Data says?

No. The answer, including part of THIS year, is 44 babies under one - but that is for BOTH the Auckland study areas and the Counties Manukau areas, (See the top oval on the SHIVERS chart below) and 80 under 4’s, admitted to hospital, with positive flu tests. You only get 282 per 100,000 babies for Auckland AND Counties Manukau, so we don't know what the rate is in Auckland alone.  But it sounds a nationwide huge problem, if you say “282/100,000 babies” when you know that there aren’t even going to be 100,000 babies born in the WHOLE country in one year. The public isn’t going to rationalise this out. They are just going to hear “282" BABIES a year.


 Continue Reading

A headline in PerthNow (Adelaide Advertiser) recently read, "Chief medical officer Paddy Phillips says it's time to end debate on jabs" Of course, to Professor Paddy Phillips vaccines are wonderful, safe, effective and anyone who suggests otherwise is misinformed and patently insane.  So he wants all the non-vaccinators to see sense and vaccinate their children.  That's his answer - dictatorship control.  My answer is simpler. Those who want vaccines can have them, and those who don't, can be left alone.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Adelaide Advertiser  has this piece of browbeating in the paper today. (pdf)

SA Health chief medical officer Paddy Phillips urged parents to ensure their children were immunised against diseases and that all South Australians get a flu jab.

"I think absolutely the debate should be over, people should do the right thing and get their children, themselves and their families vaccinated," Prof Phillips said.

"There is no doubt that vaccination, to protect ourselves and the community, is the right thing to do."

A University of Adelaide study - published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal yesterday - found the number of children hospitalised with chicken pox or shingles had dropped 68 per cent since the introduction of the vaccine in 2006.

A second study, which was published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, highlighted the benefits of a US vaccination program during the 2009 outbreak of H1N1, or swine flu.

Prof Phillips said vaccines became publicly available only once stringent quality and safety testing processes had been followed.

"Absolutely effective and cost-effective."

So is euthanasia. Is compulsory euthanasia at aged whatever, the next on your list?

Absolutely ironic that Professor Paddy Phillips would say this:

"Prof Phillips said the Australian Vaccination Network Inc, a group that advocates debate about vaccination, was spreading misinformation and lies. "They don't put a balanced argument and I honestly don't understand why they do this."

And this?

The swine flu study found the H1N1 vaccination was associated with a small excess risk - about 1.6 extra cases per one million people vaccinated - of acquiring Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disorder of the nervous system that can result in paralysis and sometimes death.

The authors said the the vaccine had prevented an estimated 700,000-1.5 million influenza cases in the US.

"In view of the morbidity and mortality caused by 2009 H1N1 influenza and the effectiveness of the vaccine, clinicians, policy makers and those eligible for vaccination should be assured that the benefits of inactivated pandemic vaccines greatly outweigh the risks," the study says.

Prof Phillips said the Australian Vaccination Network Inc, a group that advocates debate about vaccination, was spreading misinformation and lies. "They don't put a balanced argument and I honestly don't understand why they do this."

So let's tell the public the TRUTH that Paddy Phillips chose to miss out.

First the estimates as to how many cases the H1N1 vaccine prevented is a mathematical model which has no relevance since the numbers of people who got the pandemic vaccine in the USA was around 10%, therefore the vaccine is irrelevant. Furthermore, a recent study in USA casts doubt on every single preconceived idea about flu vaccines. The  2013 Ohmit study just published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, shows that the flu vaccine:

1)  had a 40% effectiveness which they said "wasn't statistically different to zero".  

2)  didn't prevent household transmission (which begs the question of whether it will prevent flu in vaccinated staff, or prevent vaccinated staff giving it to patients) 

3)  in the optimum population with the best immune system, the vaccine didn't work, and did not reduce hospitalisations or medical attendances at all.  

4) that PREVIOUS vaccination interfered with the most recent vaccine resulting in even FEWER antibodies, than developed in people who had had no previous flu vaccine.

These findings FLY IN THE FACE of everything previously said about the flu vaccine, and clearly expose all of Professor Paddy Phillip's statements that everyone should have flu vaccines because studies have shown them to be very effective, wonderfully safe and to create herd immunity.... to be the ULTIMATE in  misinformation.  It is Professor Paddy Phillips, who is the one who doesn't put a balanced argument to parents. Here are some extracts:.


 



Even more intriguing, the accompanying medical journal editorial by Treanor says:





Treanor in his editorial, struggles with  ... remarkable.... disbelief - ("apparent" failure.....), and has some even more bizarre excuses - but I want to leave them for another blog.  In the light of the previous revelations, let's look at this bizarre claim by Professor Paddy Phillips:

Prof Phillips said vaccines became publicly available only once stringent quality and safety testing processes had been followed.

"That means that it not only has to be effective and be valuable but it has to show absolutely, without any question of a doubt, that it's cost-effective," he said.

So he's saying that lots of clinical trials will have proved that the flu vaccine is effective, valuable, have stringent quality control and are uber safe - absolutely without any question of doubt????

So how come CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy) wrote about the CCIVI's (Cidrap Comprehensive Influenza Vaccine Initiative) recent evalution of ACIP's (the American Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice) decision making about the flu vaccine over the last 50 years, which has shown that:

 


Note those words.... "A strong belief".... If you read the whole document, you will see that while they acknowledge that the recommendations to use a vaccine that doesn't work,  were all opinion, and not fact, they also indulge in massive weasel word machinations, to deflect that, and move forward saying, but we still need to do it!   All they wanted to do was jab more, jab more, and why bother about actual data?  Opinion - which Phillips calls FACTS - - - is all that matters.... After all, "we don't have anything else to offer!!"

In the meantime, while all this was going on, three studies in Europe (Kissling, Pebody and Castilla) were even more ground breaking, not only showing how ineffective flu vaccines are, but that after 100 days, most flu vaccines have less than zero protectivity.

So CIDRAP came out with another press release in January 2013 discussing this, and admitting that belief in the flu vaccine was an article of faith:

 

Wow.  An ... ARTICLE OF FAITH.... which Professor Paddy Phillips calls scientific FACTS?  

 

Commendable?

Never easy to publish something that doesn't fit with what we say?

All these years, they've ignored the previous messengers blasting the same trumpet so what is different this time?

Is it just about "scientific integrity and a passion for the best data"?

I don't think so.

These SAME findings have been repeatedly put in front of the old Division of Biological Services, which then became the , and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) from the early 1960's onwards, yet were ignored as "isolated aberrations" and the messengers labelled as "outliers" and marginalised.  There now exists a mountain of these "isolated aberrations".  It's also remarkable how CIDRAP looked at over 5,000 studies and found only 31 which provided reliable information.  The question has to be asked... "How did the other 4,769+ unreliable studies even get into the medical literature?"

So what has changed now, that enables previously discarded findings to be re-visited under a completely new guise? Perhaps there is a "new idea"?  Yes,... hidden in an extract from the October Cidrap report, stemming from the fact that the vaccine manufactures can't be bothered doing anything about their flu vaccine, because it provides them with a "reasonably stable source" of annual income:


So what?    Skip forward again to the January CIDRAP document where we see - oh lookee here. The solution. That everyone should have a SECOND influenza shot 100 days after the first.


A second dose!  Voila!  ....A doubly stable source of income by the stroke of another opinion?  another idea? another ACIP stroke of a pen?... AND look.... more  exciting things for the future as well..... .....:



Who would have thought? (Smacks forehead).  Of course.  Hand the bill for new vaccine development to the mug-public, who for the last few decades blindly believed Professor Phillip saying that the flu vaccine was wonderful.  Public taxes can not only provide the money to build new research and development facilities for vaccine manufacturers, employ MORE scientists to develop "better" vaccines" on the gravy train for a couple of decades  - - -  but also generously double the income for the current vaccines .... 

I understand why Professor Paddy Phillips doesn't present a  balanced argument on flu vaccines.  

If Paddy Phillips told the truth about the flu vaccine, parents wouldn't vaccinate their children with the flu vaccine. Paddy Phillips would have to admit that he's lied for decades, and that everything else that he's said just might be similarly tainted.  To tell the truth about the flu vaccine, might reveal the whole house of cards.  The public might not like that.  The fall out might be worse than an atomic bomb.

That cannot happen, so Paddy Phillips has to retreat behind medical model pontifical doctrine.  Winston Churchill once said words to this effect: "Truth is so important it has to be protected by a fog of lies."  That's all Phillips is doing, because his career depends on the public having no fog detectors.

Even worse, if Professor Paddy Phillips admitted that his own information to the public was "fog", and the public woke up to just how much other fog shrouds their head, about other vaccines and medical procedures, the reputation of the medical profession would never recover. 

That  is why the charade - as Phillip says, ....  that vaccines are "one of the greatest public health initiatives that has improved the health of humans over the last hundred years." must go on.

One day the public will wake up, and then Paddy, I wouldn't want to be in your head when you hear the roar.

 Continue Reading

The flu vaccine doesn’t work, and never has since that fact was first publicly outed in USA in 1971, and in 1972, there was a USA congressional hearing (S.3419) about it. It had been sold every year from 1940 through to 1975 with almost no potency and DBS (now the FDA) didn’t give a caber toss.

However, as time passed, the public forgot. The vaccine manufacturers started working on Key Opinion People, and organising themselves so that “reputable” people could push the product on their behalf. The sleeping frontline medical profession got emboldened in 1996, and said, “We must vaccinate the over 65’s because they are the only ones who die from the flu. All the rest are healthy enough to cope with the flu.” They also assured the oldies that the flu vaccine always prevented the flu - which was a gigantic stretch of the imagination. They also targeted anyone with a chronic condition on the basis that they were at risk because they weren’t “healthy”.

As you know from previous blogs, along came Cochrane review and said, “the flu vaccine isn’t worth squat for the oldies”, and a few other things, then came Simonsen in 2005 and 2009 and said, “Nope, this vaccine doesn’t work”. In 2011, Michael Osterholm admitted that authorities “overhyped” the vaccine, saying that it is about half as good as what it was back in the 80’s.

Why have they admitted the flu vaccine isn’t very good? Will they stop vaccinating the oldies in whom the vaccine doesn’t work? No-no! They will still be jabbed.

Instead, a much more efficient "plan" was being worked on, from about the year 2000, which went like this. “Oh my goodness, we didn’t realise how DANGEROUS the flu is for babies.” Better vaccinate babies. Never mind that there’s no proof that that will work either.

Next up in 2004? Oh, yes. Maybe the Japanese have it sorted. It must be all these horrid little kids; adolescents; their parents and healthworkers, and salespeople and everyone… who infect Granny. Then in 2006, came this nifty plan to nab the parents in NICU.  And oh, ....  what about pregnant women?

..."If we can convince everyone that the flu might kill everyone, even healthy people…. and have Granny and everyone else vaccinated with our useless vaccine, it’s better than doing nothing, right? What a stroke of (financial) genius!"

And what better way, than using divide-and-rule emotional blackmail within families to force everyone to vaccinate! Just tell’em, “Awwww you don’t want to have Granny get sick with the flu and die do you? Didn’t think so, roll up your sleeve….”

The new Flu policy is the reverse of the new whooping cough policy where Granny, aunt, uncle, parents, and anyone with any contact with any baby, will get the “lecture”… “Awwww you don’t’ want to be responsible for killing your wee baby do you? Didn’t think so, roll up your sleeve....”





How did these new pricks everlasting policies come about?

Simple. The whooping cough vaccine is like the flu vaccine.

Most of the people who get whooping cough in NZ today, are fully and appropriately vaccinated! It doesn’t work very well at all. The vaccine works so BADLY that pregnant women are being “offered” it during EVERY pregnancy, on the unproven off-chance that some of whatever it does in the mother, might rub off on the baby too.  The unanswered question is, will activating human maternal cytokines do to human babies what it does to mice babies?

Isn’t it strange how so few people see the irony of all this?

Two lousy vaccines, and the new policies for both are to vaccinate EVERYONE with increasing numbers of doses of the flu vaccine AND the whooping cough vaccine from cradle to grave! The flu vaccine  ... every year, and the whooping cough vaccine... as often as a new baby comes around.

Who would have thought that such new-found expanded riches would have dropped in the laps of the manufacturers from marketing TWO DUD vaccines??!!!!

But the flu plan is the most ingenious, because instead of only “at risk” groups being vaccinated, the science flip-flop says that everyone is now “at risk” and will be bullseyed – every year!

The dog will be next.

In the meantime, we New Zealanders will probably be regaled with silly headlines reading,

“Annual Flu Death toll of 400, rivals yearly road fatalities”.

Such attention grabbers are produced from the end of a fairy wand. As to the enormous numbers of New Zealanders, who will be predicted to get the flu – ignore that total as well.

As I will show you in the next blog, the medical profession doesn’t know the difference between influenza-like infections, and the flu.

The whole deal on the flu vaccine is as big a rort as the whooping cough vaccine.

That’s all you need to know really.

You don’t believe me?  Because such words sound like the rambling of an idiot?

Go make a cup of tea (or whatever) and read the flu science in the next blog HERE: You must decide.  The rambling idiot just might be on target.  Spot on!  A bullseye!!  Continue Reading

The annual flu barrage has already started in our local paper Franklin County news with this little pearl:




Before you read anything else, please flick through this presentation put together by the Cochrane Collaboration Influenza group (Yes, the last three slides bunk out, but the rest is good! This Cochrane powerpoint puts similar things in a different way... ), who believe that you need to understand what the issues are all about, before you can interpret what the “words” that the medical profession spout, REALLY mean.

Now that you’ve done that, you will understand some of the amusing things about the Franklin County News propaganda. Obviously, an “influenza-like illness” which the Collaboration describes, isn’t necessarily the flu and can’t be “prevented” by any means. However, Dr Sue Huang (the head of the National Influenza Centre) always counts all those “influenza-like illnesses that can’t be prevented, as the flu, and tells the public they can be prevented. The reason she does that, is that if you REALLY KNEW how few “influenza-like illnesses” WERE actually the flu, then you would start asking questions like, “Why are they deliberately inflating the data?” Simple. They do that to make you think that flu is a really big deal.

What you won’t know about the article above though, is that:

1) The hospitalisation data is wrong. Look very closely at this graph and THINK about what you are seeing here:



2) Of the 1,517 hospitalisation, 1122 were for Swine Flu. And how many of those hospitalizations would have occurred without the terrorism everyone endured via the media, that the upcoming pandemic could wipe out billions?? In the 2009 Annual Influenza Report there were 35 deaths recorded for swine flu,



but by 2011, that total was 49 deaths. … So if there were only 49 flu deaths in 2009, you’ve got to start asking a few questions, like….

3) In the 395 influenza hospitalizations for “something else” - the presumably more "vicious" influenza types - how many deaths were there? Apparently, none. Something the Health Department never talks about is, “How many people hospitalized were VACCINATED?" Why? When the medical profession tells the truth, the result isn't pretty, so they are best to not go there, huh? (PDF in case it disappears!).

4) How many REAL deaths were really CAUSED by the flu? 35 or 49? And how many deaths were vaccinated?

There’s always been silence with regard to those statistics. And what are the vaccinated patients told? “You will have got a flu that isn’t one in the vaccine!” and the patients never think to ask, “Did you take a swab to find out WHETHER my flu was supposed to be covered with the vaccine?” There is an old saying that statistics can be lies, damned lies and statistics. Silence can be either golden… or.. yellow.

How many people even got “the flu”? What Dr Jefferson described in his presentation applies here as well.

Let me show you: the Health Department considers that the number of people who get the flu in this country, is the number of people who stumble into the doctor after convincing themselves that they’ve got all the symptoms they have just heard some medical zombie describe on the radio.

On page 25 of the 2011 Annual Report from the Public Surveillance website we read:



But consider this… each of these 88 practices take ONLY three swabs a week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The lucky first person who clutches their head on each of those days, and says, “Doc, I’ve got the floooooooo” is told to, “Open wide” and a nasopharangeal swab is taken. Just three a week (can’t overload the testing system) … and that tiny number of swabs are sent off for testing, and those results can look like this - with the DARK blue being the numbers of swabs, and the LIGHT blue being actual FLU:




The cases are estimated by taking the number of consultations for influenza-like illnesses reported weekly to the ESR by the 88 sentinal practices, averaging that out and multiplying those numbers, with the number of practices in the country.  The swabs from sentinel practices, labs and hospitals, lets ESR know which percentages are positive, and then they test them to find which flu types predominate. However, we rarely hear whether or not the flu types match the vaccine, and we never hear whether the influenza-like illnesses (flu or non-flu) were vaccinated.   So on the basis of a few hundred swabs from the estimated 41,133 New Zealanders the crystal ball says had “influenza like illnesses” ….. as you can see, a lot of the cases that walk in, aren’t the flu at all.

Not that the patients with negative swabs will be told they don’t have the flu. Instead they walked out the door clutching some of the millions of dollars of Tamiflu the Government brought in because of the “deadly” pandemic.

To the Health Department … all the tests that are negative for the flu are counted as the flu anyway. Why? On page 62 of the 2011 Annual Flu report, apparently doctors don’t know how to take swabs properly. 

In the next few weeks, the media will parade “400 deaths caused by Influenza – nearly the same as the annual road toll rate!”

Where does this “400 deaths” a year come from?   After all, a 2010 report from the Influenza group to the minister says this:




See that? 35 + some uncoded deaths = 49 deaths, the highest number of deaths since 2000. You would think that that Figure 1 graph, actually represents REAL deaths, yet we are "TOLD" that in New Zealand "approximately 400 people" will die of influenza every year.  Continue Reading

Yesterday I wrote a blog about the Sunday Herald flu propaganda, which resulted in the Herald removing the original article and replacing the Sunday on Herald emotional blackmail with different Pap. Not content with that, the vaccine "stakeholders" must have also said, "Oi, while we're on the phone, can we rope in Rudman?  He's pretty gullible..." and on cue, he produced an "opinion" rant, while Martin Johnson, produced a plodding report.  Tomorrow I will have a go at Rudman's Rant.    
 Continue Reading

Today, the Herald printed it's usual annual flu propaganda (I've removed the URL) and a private email to the reporters who put their names to it, was returned. The Herald doesn't allow enough words on the comment facility to deal with the issues, and they only want videos or photos, not facts. Therefore, this blog will address the issues.

 Continue Reading

Back to Basics, Part 1 and Part 2, lay the framework for asking the key questions of this blog, which relate to "Just how 'scientific' are vaccines, in principle, in practice, in fact and in application?" In order to understand the implications of that in babies, the lack of understanding about the neonatal immune system (and new discoveries which are very disturbing) - another three part blog series - has to be read:

Vaccines and Neonatal Immune Development

How a baby fights infection and Develops Immunity

 Continue Reading

On 29th August, I wrote a blog about a blog discussing a doctor in Sweden who found arsenic in the Swine Flu vaccine.  An astute reader reminded me of a 2009 finding, reported in Science Daily (pdf) informing readers that arsenic exposure, compromised the immune system when it came to swine flu:

"The ability to mount an immune response to influenza A (H1N1) infection is significantly compromised by a low level of arsenic exposure that commonly occurs through drinking contaminated well water, scientists at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and Dartmouth Medical School have found.
 Continue Reading