Hilary's Desk

What happens when paediatricians take a look at the disease incidence in their own country and decide that certain vaccines are not justified on epidemiological grounds?  Nothing, So long as they keep their mouths shut.  What happens when they look into the use of certain vaccines, and find that reactions are being covered up?  Nothing.  So long as they keep their mouths shut. But when they tell the world about both... , no matter that good science is on their side, there is only one possible result. To start with, they will be branded ANTI VACCINE. What better slur is there?  Anti vaccine people are idiots, don't you know?  Truth won't be discussed.  Truth is inconvenient to the vaccine industry, especially to organisations who owe their existence and income to the vaccine industry. Simple as that. Here's the story. Continue Reading

How do we know this? Because on page 40 of the June Issue of North and South, Dr Michael Tatley from CARM tells us, “An awfully large number of people have been exposed to vaccines and if they’re as bad as some of the anti lobby are suggesting, there must be a lot of really sick people out there. And we just don’t see them.” No, CARM doesn’t see them, and most of the time, neither do they receive reports about those children, as I mentioned in this blog. Why? Continue Reading

Drs Hazel Lewis and John Holmes from the Ministry of Health (MOH), took an opportunity in the Herald letters to the editor to “swipe” an article called “Jab no surefire protection”  which they maintain undermines an important health initiative. Never mind that the article was based on a Ministry of Health press release, and gave no negative information about the Gardasil vaccine itself. Reading it, I thought that the MOH would be delighted at the meek compliance of it all. Not so. This MOH whine actually joins the ranks of “pillock” status, because the article was rightly addressing what many published medical studies show and the MOH had identified – that most people vaccinated with Gardasil, think they don’t need smears.  Continue Reading

What other explanation is there for a comment in Truth About Gardasil's latest press release which stated: A medical source close to TAG (Truth about Gardasil) has stated: “I find it disturbing that Merck’s agreement with the FDA is based on an agreement that no adverse events will be labeled as such unless there is a TWO fold increase seen of diseases that occur at least as frequently as 1/10,000. This takes away all of the rare autoimmune demyelinating syndromes that cause blindness, paralysis and death.” ?  Maybe they are lying? Nope. I managed to obtain documentation as to the whats and why's and I'm satisfied that the comment is an accurate report. 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

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

In response to some questions after yesterday's blog, Fluvax was mainly used in adults here during March, so it's not been so much of an issue in this country in terms of children. The two vaccines being offered to children are Influvac and Vaxigrip. The pdfs for all three was in an earlier post, but they are embedded here under the names in the first sentence. Continue Reading

"Not possible!" said Dr Paul Offit who believes that the medical profession can happily inject babies with up to 100,000 vaccines at any one time, and the baby's immune system will be just fine. This "dogma" is repeated by all and sundry, including GP's, IMAC and many other medics on autopilot. The theoretical "mathematical model" Dr Offit touted, has just taken it's second "hit" in two years. The first was when they added chickenpox to the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMRV) which caused an increase in high fevers and seizures, and the second has been adding H1N1 into the children's seasonal flu vaccine in Australia, which has also caused an increase in fevers and seizures.  Not that you'd know it, by the way CSL and other "stakeholders" are trying to say nothing, to keep this out of the news.   Continue Reading

This morning, on Nine to Noon, Kathryn Ryan listened while Professor Peter Collignon carefully detailed his concerns about the lack of data on flu vaccine side effects; the short comings of the current reporting systems world wide; the inadequate reasoning behind the use of the H1N1 vaccine. Everything Professor Collignon stated this morning, underlines everything I said to the Health Select Committee on vaccination rates, on April 15th, 2010.  So let's see how my suggestions to expand the use of the National Immunisation Register to include other health data might pan out in the current situation of serious Fluvax reactions in Australasian children. Continue Reading

You read that right. It comes right at the end of an astonishing article talking about how the 1976 Swine flu vaccine, (which never needed to be used in the first place, and was stopped because it caused serious neurological damage in recipients) produced really good levels of functional antibodies... However, the 2009 H1N1 vaccine did not. But here's the irony of it all... Point out one "good" thing about a needless vaccine, and accidentally admit that the current, also needless, swine flu vaccine  ---  is rubbish. Continue Reading