On 14th January 2010, the WHO put out a press release stating that they had not changed the definition of pandemic mid-way through the Swine flu, in order to ramp up sales of an unnecessary vaccine for a virus which did not fit their previous definition of the word "pandemic". Their porky comes after a European governing body announced a formal investigation of WHO for consistently scaremongering H1N1 into something dangerous, when it is not even as bad as normal flu, and...according to them... doing it because WHO experts have their hands in the "pharma tills" big time. Read Full Blog
Hilary's Desk
Science without principles
You know, I have no problem with scientific principles but I sure have problems when science has no principles. It beggars belief when you read the headlines in a newspaper which says, "More than half million (USA) kids get bad drug reactions". Okay, okay... maybe that's true. Read further, and you'll see it is. But these drug reactions are elective drugs like penicilin, paracetamol, and 'stuff'. Then further down, we read, "similar numbers of hospitalized children - about 540,000 yearly, also have bad reactions to drugs including side effects, medicine mix-ups and accidental overdoses." Okay? Parents are admonished to pay close attention when their children are started on medicines, since "first-time" medication exposures may reveal an allergic reaction." Fine. But. There's a very big BUT here. Read Full Blog
Mandatory Vaccination
Making vaccines compulsory, isn't something you hear much about in New Zealand media, BUT... if we aren't careful, mandatory vaccination will become law in this country. While those who tweak the strings around the wrists of politicians have kept very quiet in public, in private, there have been, and are, far more intense discussions going on about making vaccines mandatory, than ever before. How do I know? Read Full Blog
Swinish Shock Doctrine: Part Two
Everywhere we look, we see nothing but pictures of coloured surgical masks as if these have some paranormal ability to “protect” the wearer. These, we presume, work. Right? After all, they are part of the “national plan” to stop the spread of flu viruses right? We’ve been told that the two main means of infection are contact: as in shake someone’s hand, put hand in mouth; picking up droplets from furniture (fomites), or being directly coughed or sneezed over. Right? Masks supposedly are to contain what the infectious people cough out, to protect others, so wearers also assume that masks protect them from the “environment” around them. Why else would people on the streets of Mexico, and doctors, be wearing them? Right? Wrong, actually, on both counts. Read Full Blog
1