Hilary's Desk

And my choice, Lance O’Sullivan. On 4th June, 2017, you appeared on Maori TV .

You said words to the effect of, “If a person chooses not to vaccinate and gets that disease and it results in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of treatment, as a member of society, I don’t want to have to pay for that.”

So Lance, please answer these questions:

If some of your whanau up there are smoking, and needing hospital treatment for a lifestyle choice of lung cancer as a result, why should my tax dollars pay for that?

If you have not taught your whanau essentials of nutrition, which seriously impact the severity of infectious disease, and are a driver for hospitalisation of more severe infection, and higher rates of pathogen shedding, why should my tax dollar pay for that?

If you have not got rid of nutritionally-related obesity and needless type 2 diabetes from your community, why should my tax dollar pay for treatment resulting from a lifestyle choice which you have done nothing to educate them about?

If some of your whanau are dealing drugs, smoking pot, and beating each other up causing injuries to one another, why should my tax dollar pay for rehabilitation or treatment for that?

Before you try to mandate vaccines on anyone else, because of the tax dollar, why don’t you educate your whanau about their right and responsibility to promote their own good heath which does not come at the point of a needle?

Or would your people rebel and say, “But mate, it’s our choice to smoke, to do drugs, to not eat right, to let our kids and ourselves get sick. It’s our choice to buy infant formula.... It’s our choice to get cancer. Hands off our choice!”

When asked what advice you would give to people who are concerned about vaccines, you also said words to the effect that "parents should trust the science, trust the experts, have faith in me, and trust me."

When it comes to vaccines, trust is earned, Lance, by always giving parents information which is not cherry picked, along with the vaccine datasheets, long before any needle comes anywhere near them. Trust is earned by never emotionally blackmailing parents.

You said, “We should put a lid on information which is factually incorrect”. Well, here is a fact Lance. All the information you give out about vaccines, is factually incorrect because it leaves out key concepts which are crucial to decision making. That is called lying by omission. Or… do you just assume that what you think you know is all there is to know? AND since you admit that you won't watch VAXXED, why do you think you are giving out factual information on its content?  I've seen it, and your comments about it have been balderdash.

You spouted more poppycock when you dismissed the term "vaccine injury" by saying it was made up by anti-vaxxers.  Seemingly it escaped your brain that the term was legalised by the American Government 31 years ago, for their 1986  "National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program". 

Talking about taking personal responsibility, my husband and I stopped taking vaccines, antibiotics and the other nonsense you say is “best practice” nearly 40 years ago.  As a result of that smart choice, we are NO LONGER a burden on the taxpayer. My husband is 85, and on NO prescription drugs. I have had a diagnosis of a primary immunodeficiency for over 30 years, which would flip your lid, because you would be all over me like a rash saying that I needed to do this, that and the other according to your science. You would say, "Trust me".  Sorry Lance.  Hands off my decision making. 

Yes, I refused the "best practice" treatment - which ironically has contradicted itself dramatically over the decades. Why did I refuse "best practice"? Because instead I chose to be responsible for excellent nutrition, good sleep, no smoking, no alcohol, no junk food, weight control, and as a result the "immunodeficiency" has minimal impact compared to the old bad days. Doing those things - and having no television in the house, has enabled our family to function optimally with MINIMAL need for tax-payer funded medical intervention.

If . . .  at any point, our family needed, or would need medical care, I would have no feelings of guilt because I have done everything within my responsibility, and within my ability, by putting the RIGHT things into our family, to ensure that the TAXPAYER doesn’t have to needlessly pay anything, because I have a COMPULSORY lifestyle which reduces so many risks down to almost nothing. We have “fixed” what is possible to fix, and anything else is outside of our ability to control. But even then, we often fix that too, without reference to a doctor.

Now when you have enabled every person in your community to have the good health that they have a right to, by compelling them to do the non-medical things they can do, THEN you will have a non-hypocritical basis with which to suggest compulsion in the matter of vaccination.

But even if you did suggest mandatory vaccination, to enforce it would be morally, scientifically and ethically wrong. Firstly, because what I put into my body is my CHOICE. What I eat, and drink is my CHOICE, which enables me to NOT USE the medical system. By having a compulsory lifestyle, our family has enabled MORE tax dollars to be spent on those people who shirk that personal choice or responsibility, and as a result, may be fully vaccinated, yet STILL line the walls of hospitals today.

You have to admit, Lance, that a large percentage of your people who sit in Kaitaia hospital, needn’t be there. They are there . . .  because of life style choices they have made, which you didn’t pass a law to stop them making.

Just because something CAN be done, doesn’t mean it SHOULD be done. Given that choice applies to lifestyle, then it should also apply to vaccination.

You talk about vaccination being necessary to protect your vulnerable. What are you doing to protect your “vulnerable”, (in the same way I have done with a primary immunodeficiency),  without the use of vaccines, antibiotics or your truck load of very expensive tax-payer funded drugs? It can be done. I am living proof.

Think on that, before you start forcing needles on those of us who have covered bases that many in your whanau choose to ignore, and you don’t “go there” do you,  because you don’t want whanau to explode in your face, do a haka, and tell you to go and boil your head. So taking your example, I say, Hands off my family, and I return your friendly greeting to me, back to you:  Pokokohua ratou.




 Continue Reading

It's 32 years ago, since I started out researching medical history, obstetrics, drugs, vaccines and pretty much everything pertaining to keeping the family's health intact... in spite of the medical profession.

Back in 1984, when I started helping parents, whose children reacted seriously after vaccines, these are the words they said, every time, like a mindless monotone recording.

"But they never TOLD me this could happen!!! No-one gave me any information at all! I had no idea (tears) and if I had known,  I wouldn't have let them give that vaccine". Continue Reading

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

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

Everyone wants answers, just as much as Serenity's grandmother wants answers. There's no doubt that some parents kick kids around like footballs.  The problem is ... where do you get the WHOLE truth? What do the medical people mean by saying that the injuries were "similar to" shaken baby syndrome? Either they are, or they aren't.  And this is important, particularly when, as one expert says, at least half of all parents tried for Shaken Baby Syndrome, have been wrongly convicted. Apart from Tony Wall at the Sunday Star Times, the rest of New Zealand media automatically assumes that any diagnosis that comes from that shrine, Starship, has to be right. Presumably under the guise of "balanced reporting" Sunday Star times, allows Michael Laws to call the family, "feral", as if they are guilty before proven so.  Yet, the internet is full of stories like this one where just maybe, the parents didn't do it after all.  Key lawyers, world wide, are starting to question what they see as serial injustices. Continue Reading

The subject of a previous blog on Paul Offit, was his porkies in his new book "Deadly choices" Dr Offit has authored another document, where, amongst various dictatorial objectives, he wants to force yearly "exemption reviews" by a "state-approved counselor" (inquisitor/brainwasher), to brow-beat parents who chose not to vaccinate - who will no doubt then be billed by the state.  Because such birds of a feather flock together, it wasn't surprising to see that Nikki Turner made a similar recommendation to the Parliamentary Select Committee.  As you see from Offit's darling dial staring at you from this press release, this new document is HIS work. There are other signatories, but you can forget them.  This is classic Offitism, written in the same tone and vein as all his books, and true to form contains similar fiction. Open up at page two and read: Continue Reading

A few days ago, I set my husband a task. To read Paul Offit’s book called, “Deadly Choices How the anti-vaccine movement threatens us all” By half way through he was unamused. Beguiled by his sighs of discontent, I decided to stop my current track of writing. and start reading. Naturally I started with the Prologue, where the first sentence read; “There’s a war going on out there – a quiet, deadly war.”  Continue Reading

The function of the placenta is an overlooked non-thought, because the medical system considers it redundant the minute a baby's head makes an appearance.  Don't you think that strange, given that for nearly nine months, the placenta has provided nutrients, oxygen and... stem cells to the baby?  This magnificent organ provides an amazing service, which is utterly abused, particularly when it comes to ... multipotent and lineage-committed stem cells.  That the placenta contains stem cells should present no surprises to anyone.  After all, where do the medical profession think stem cells come from? Thin air?  Perhaps they "just appear" and are unique to, a developing embryo?  Nope.  Cord blood from the placenta, has been described as the baby's first natural stem cell transplant. Which is why anyone who understands placental physiology would never clamp a cord. So why do they? And we also also know that one of the consequences of immediate cord cutting, is brain ischaemia, which can cause brain damage for life.  Continue Reading

Long time readers here will know that immediate cord-clamping is something which makes me angry enough to write lots of blogs on it.  In the latest BMJ, a retired consultant obstetrician, in a column called Personal View calls for the practice to be stopped.  Why does an obstetrician have to be retired before saying the blindingly obvious?  It’s utterly insane that the “lay” community is and has always been, way ahead of the eight ball when it comes to cord clamping. And they were way ahead when it came to routine episiotomy too. I’m sure that the obstetricians only re-looked at the "science" of episiotomy, when the vocal, radical antsy mothers of the 60’s to the 80’s told them where to stick their automatic scissors and lucrative intervention bonuses up their own posterior!!! That there had to be some research done to justify getting rid of episiotomies, was another tragic waste of money, just as more research on leaving the cord alone will be an utter waste of money.  Except to the lucky person in dibs for another 10 years of secure income.

On October 26th, I talked about the practice of immediate cord-clamping.  Continue Reading

In the Sunday Star Times today, Judge David McNaughton delivered a swift message to Starship doctors about predictive and substandard medical care, and the presumption of guilt without good cause.  The Judge found Famaile Lino not guilty of abusing his six month old child after Starship jumped to conclusions, and robustly defended their own preconceived mindsets.  The Lino's lawyer said, " "It's a very important case. It shows how suddenly a person can be at home with their feet up looking after their children, and a nightmare commences."  Here's the rub though.  Court cases like this USUALLY only happen to people like the Linos or the Kahuis.  Starship doesn't usually go after people who know what's going on; the limitations of the medical profession; and how to defend themselves.    Starship are of course, scuttling into a "risk management" position, by defending the indefensible: Continue Reading