“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

Does Nikki Turner live in Gaga land?

Hilary Butler - Monday, July 25, 2011

After last night's Sunday documentary, Nikki Turner hit out, with the email below.  However, all this document does, is to show just how little Nikki Turner actually understands the very system she's trying to explain.

She says:

Firstly we need to remember that ACC is no fault compensation – it is not proving causal links. 

This is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever seen her spout.  Here's why.

ACC has never been "fault" compension insofar as the injured party cannot find fault with the doctor, the practice, the DHB, the Government and the manufacturer, who were all indemnified for perpetuity.  Parents couldn't "blame" them.  No "fault" was ascribed to them. Furthermore, compensation was only available for "uncommon" injuries.  Soreness at site just didn't count.  That was "normal".

ACC never paid these parents compensaion on some beneficent whim.  I know.  You know how I know?  I spent 15 years helping parents fight for ACC compensation.  The PARENTS had to prove that there was nothing else that could have caused the brain damage - that the only possible thing "at fault" was a product called a vaccine.  The standard of evidence required the parents to PROVE a causal link, and not only to prove a causal link, but to find a doctor who will AGREE that there is a causal link, and preferably, to produce medical evidence from the medical literature to support that causal link. Continue Reading

Windmills of my mind.

Hilary Butler - Sunday, July 24, 2011

Further to yesterday’s blog, the latest Lancet once again, misses the point. Something inevitable with Mr Fog-Optics in his Ivory Tower. In his latest contribution to the debate, called The Vaccine Paradox,  a two pronged attack-approach is taken. First, those who dare criticise or question vaccines are vilified by implication. Second, Bill Gates’ Foundation is fingered for silence about what Horton considers is really important.

In order to define what is "important", Horton quotes the “2010 Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health”, saying;

“Ban Ki-moon’s 2010 Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health sets out a comprehensive approach to reaching Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5 for the world’s poorest countries. The strategy is broad, inclusive, and ambitious.”

Have a read of the 2010 Global Strategy. Frankly, it’s not broad enough - and certainly doesn’t include the really important political and social needs for a stable, healthy society.

But Horton goes further. He says;

“While civil-society movements demand access to new interventions—from antiretrovirals to emergency obstetric care—there is not the same fervour about access to vaccines. The notion, expressed elsewhere in global health, of the right to the highest attainable standard of health is rarely expressed in the field of vaccines. For these attitudes to change, the vaccine community, together with its partners, has an opportunity to rewrite the terms of engagement between vaccines (as part of a larger package of services) and communities threatened with vaccine-preventable diseases. While the past has much to teach us, it is the future of vaccines that must command our priority today.”

This has to be the biggest load of blinded drivel I’ve ever seen written on paper, but it’s what you expect from medical journals whose editors walk in lockstep with, and who are joined at the hip to vaccine manufacturers. Vaccine manufacturers can never “get enough”. It’s not enough, that vaccines are rammed down all parents “throats” from the moment a doctor opens his mouth. It's not enough that families in Africa have no choice about vaccines, and they are administered pretty much at gun point.  Continue Reading

Lessons from Ernest Shackleton.

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Knowing history can sometimes be more important than you might think.  Kim Hill was talking to someone on her Saturday national radio programme, and as an aside, the discussion veering onto the reason why Ernest Shackleton's South Pole venture resulted in everyone dying.  The speaker put it quite bluntly, with words to this effect:  "Everyone died, because Shackleton took five people, and enough food for four." 

Something most of us who have studied history, already know. Most people interested in connecting the dots in broad social issues will have noted several recent interconnected events. The first, was the big GAVI meeting in London in June, with the drive to collect billions of dollars - for vaccines to save babies' lives in Africa etc. The second was the news about insurgent groups continuing to take very young children - boys and girls - to train as soldiers, or as slaves.  Here's one story, and as this article shows, this has been going on for decades, and continues to this day.  The third was the story about Al Queda in Yemen, putting out a disney type cartoon to recruit very young children to going out and kill lots of people.

These headlines took me back to 1988, when The Evening Post ran their weekly column by a Dr Anyon.  In this column, Dr Anyon talked about the three million children who died every year, because they were not vaccinated. He also mused just what sort of life these saved vaccinated children would have to endure. That 3 million figure varies, according to who wants something. In 2006, Unicef in the Herald said 10 million children a year, so give us more dosh please.  Bill Gates adds the three new vaccines will save another 3 million more children, over 4 years - so give us more dosh please. So I'll round it out, and say without any shred of scientific proof, that if all children in undeveloped countries are fully vaccinated, that will "save" 11 million children, every year.

When you listen to the glibness of Bill Gates and all the other vaccine defenders - vaccines are "it", basically.  Problem solved.  Vaccines are quick and easy and a great photo opportunity.  In Bill Gates's case, it also increases the profits in his share portfolios dramatically.  Listen to Bill and Melinda, and it's "all about the kids."

That sounds very hollow to me.  If the issue was really about the BEST way to save kids, the focus would be completely different.  The focus would be on clean water for everyone.  Providing people with the tools and means to be independant and grow their own food innovatively... dealing with insurgents ... encouraging small businesses... getting to the core of the corruption in African politics. The focus would come from looking at Ground Zero - not "best use of money".  Continue Reading

Antisystematosis and Plurasideaffects.

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, July 13, 2011

How many of you, who have read our books, or looked on the blog,... Continue Reading

Getting to the Point.

Hilary Butler - Monday, July 04, 2011

Perhaps this Australian documentary should have been labelled...

Totally missing the point. Or .. A bunch of Lies.  Take your pick.

The Australian 60 Minutes journalist who had the responsibility for doing the research for this programme, is professionally incompetent.

You will not understand this blog unless you take the time to download all the full text medical articles, tables, graphs etc in this blog, and study for yourself what a 60 minutes journalist refused to look at.  Or .... chose not to.

The increase in pertussis has nothing to do with the unvaccinated at all.  It's all happening because doctors in Australia have finally woken up to the fact that pertussis can happen in vaccinated people and are testing for it.

The reason all the old studies over-estimated pertussis vaccine efficacy was, as Cherry said in a 1998 medical article, that doctors believe that vaccinated people never got pertussis, so they never diagnosed it.  SIMPLE.  Pertussis after a vaccine was coincidence and something else.   According to Dempsey 2009, that situation still exists in USA today. 

As to the Australian whole cell whooping cough vaccine, it was implemented solely on the basis of trust, because as CDI admitted in 1994, there were NEVER any efficacy tests done on it, and there were no "serological correlates" or tests to prove immunity, for them to use as a basis of discussion anyway. 

Wonder what the Australian public would have said back then, if some doc had said, "We don't know if this works, because we don't know how to test for immunity to pertussis, but we assume this bright idea is a good one."

The Australian CDI went one further in 1997, and admitted that they ALSO... didn't collect data on the vaccination status of whooping cough cases either.  Continue Reading