Hilary Butler quotes
Hilary Butler

See Quote banners

"In 1991 over 60% of cases in children were "vaccinated". ....The measles death decline graph provided shows that the measles vaccine had nothing to do with the decline in deaths, and has not affected the number of children hospitalised during epidemic years since its introduction."----MEASLES : THE REAL FACTS-----HILARY BUTLER

[vid] Infant Immunity Part III: Birth, placenta, breastmilk with Hilary Butler    "We are told it's just what you would produce yourself.  Actually it's made of mammal brains, and the manufacturers are allowed 16% impurities, and it doesn't tell us what those impurities are."  ~  Hilary Butler Oxytocin (synthetic)

"I have never seen a SIDS death in a healthy breastfed baby, unvaccinated, who has slept on anything from here to Timbuctoo. Over the 19 years in IAS, we have never seen one."--Hilary Butler

"If you want to prevent SIDS, the one thing you must do is breastfeed with absolutely no bottles of formula "to top up" -as mothers say.   Ridiculous!"  Never never never give formula."--Hilary Butler

[2010 Sept] I'm not that fussed about the hygiene issues.... by Hilary Butler  gut flora is responsible for 70% of your immune system.....when you take antibiotics you napalm the whole of your body, the consequences of which can be long term.

[2010 Sept] Pertussis epidemic? Or Media induced malady? by Hilary Butler   Being an information junkie, I have a huge collection of newspaper articles about kids with pertussis dating from the late 70's, and... most of them are vaccinated children.  One more recent prominent one was a 10 month, fully vaccinated daughter of a doctor at Middlemore hospital.  Which reminds me of this medical article in which in 1979, while defending his article the author replied with a situation which exactly mimics THIS country: I did discover that the only seriously ill infants were too young to have been vaccinated in any case; and that these children were threatened by an outbreak of which the onset and initial spread were entirely among immunised children.
Nothing has changed in the world of expedient misinformation.  Whooping cough is primarily spread by vaccinated children with undiagnosed infections, to their unvaccinated siblings, or other children in daycare or school.
    The brown coloured paragraph (By 1976, the number of cases nationwide had dropped to 1,010 a year, because of what experts say was the widespread use of the vaccine. But the numbers have increased tenfold since. In California alone, there have been more than 4,000 cases reported this year, including nine infants who’ve died – most of them after being misdiagnosed initially) is typical misinformation, when the truth is, that because of "observer bias" and the assumption that all vaccinated children can never get pertussis, pertussis was constantly diagnosed as something else, until the truth gradually dawned on everyone, and that TRUTH then permeated the medical literature. Ironically, the guru of pertussis, Dr James Cherry, was the first to twig that the problem was blinkered doctors, not absence of pertussis! 
    Why did that truth gradually permeate the medical literature?  The whole truth and nothing but, is never told in the medical literature about anything......In order to convince the public that pertussis boosters from cradle to grave is a good idea, you have to have time to concoct some plausible sounding excuses.  As well as allow enough time to pass, to get away with absolute porkies.
    But the mainstream media will never wake up to the fact that media induced maladies exist, because they ASSUME that doctors tell the truth, and they can't be bothered  studying the medical literature (or wimp out by saying they don't have the time).
    Even if they did all the above, I wonder who would in mainstream media would have the balls to challenge people like Dr Alison Roberts, and demand truth and accountability? 
On past experience, the answer would be "none".

We are perhaps fortunate in this country, that records on hospital admissions for pertussis were never stopped after the vaccine was introduced, as was done elsewhere in the world.  Had we been so “stupid” as to do what all other countries did, and stop all pertussis notification, period… we might not be in the position today where the data from the Health Department (and the ESR for that matter), conclusively proves that the pertussis vaccine in this country has done nothing.
......What “gains” has Australia made which they didn’t have before, through having a 95% whooping cough vaccination rate, when they had an 80% vaccination rate? Their whooping cough vaccination rates have increased 20% in 9 years; their number of vaccines has radically increased, yet their whooping cough rates have increase 1200% in that time.  [March 2010 NZ] Letter to Paul Hutchison from Hilary Butler

New Zealand has not used the Tuberculosis vaccine on a population basis for many years now, since many studies have showed that it’s far more likely to prevent Leprosy than TB?  You have seen the TB deaths graph for New Zealand haven’t you?  If not, I’ve attached if for you. You do know that the BCG was only introduced for nurses in 1951, then for teenagers, and was stopped in the late 80’s?  And it beats me why the Health Department still rolls it out for the supposedly “at risk” people who are the very people in whom the trials have all showed that the vaccine doesn’t work?  You do know that the USA has never used the BCG because their trials return negative protection results, and they found that it’s use prevented them being able to effectively detect Tuberculosis in people with infection?
    Tell me.  Where is the re-emergences of nationwide TB in New Zealand, without the universal use of BCG?  You do know that there are many studies showing that very high rates of vitamin D deficiency is widespread in New Zealand?  You do know that Vitamin D has been found to be effective in the treatment of TB?  This is all in recent medical literature.  Would you like me to send it to you?  You do know, that Dr Robert Scragg, a New Zealander, has written about the fact that influenza is primarily prominent amongst people with vitamin D deficiency?  You have heard that a recently published study, detailing the first ever blinded RCT trial of vitamin D vs influenza, was highly effective in preventing influenza, and much more so than the vaccine?   [March 2010 NZ] Letter to Paul Hutchison from Hilary Butler

I've been involved in vaccine research for 25 years now. This sort of thing is nothing new. Right from the start of my work, I'd find articles which promised a right of reply in the "next" journal, only to find that right of reply "missing" from Philson Medical Library archives.
    Those missing right of replies, were always stuff that would not be useful for the pro-vaccine standpoint.
    Over the years that I went up there, I'd find really interesting old books on the "biff out" table, many of which are now in my library. Sometimes medical students picked them up and make a buck selling them on ebay, or trademe.
    If you think this is new, it's not.
    Here is an example you can check out for yourself. Go to your medical library, and ask to see the United States Polio Surveillance Unit's bulletins, from 1955 to 1970.
    They will be listed as "missing".
    Every single medical library in USA, that someone checked out for me, and New Zealand (and possible other countries) has them listed as "missing".
    There is only one place you can see them, as far as I know, and that is in the AMA library, and they are listed as having top security clearance requirements to see, according to someone who tried to access them.
    Why might this be? When he was alive, Dr Ratner had copies of them at his home. He gave me many of the years' data I wanted. They clearly showed that from the inception of the SALK vaccine, to it's discontinuation, the vaccine had MINUS efficacy and was actually causing more polio in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
    Any studious person looking at Government stats in retrospect, would be able to easily see that the polical and media canonization of SALK and his vaccine was a mirage of duplicity upon duplicity.
    I have NOT known a time, in the last 25 years, where medical libraries have made it easy to do any meaningful research.
    For instance, for the last 10 years or so, if I want to look at historical issues of BMJ or the Lancet inside Auckland's Philson medical library, I can no longer go down to the third floor, start at the beginning, and "see" if there is something that might be interesting.
    Oh no. NOW I have to place an official request at the main desk, asking for a specific bound book, which means I have to know what I want and which volume it is in. This will then be brought at a specified date and time, from the locked storage "dark hole", which is in a remote place a long long distance from Auckland medical library itself.
    Can I actually GO to this dark place, and sit and study? No, of course not. That would make it much to easy for me to find stuff they don't want me to find.
    Unless I have appropriate credentials or specific authorization, or am a suitable bigwig, any research is made as difficult as possible.
    In terms of hospital files in this country, anything over 15 years of age, is automatically destroyed.
    Parents should know that they should keep their own running paper copy of all medical files, in their own home. If they don't, then don't expect either a hospital, or a doctor to do that.
After all, they too have "budget constraints".
Wink wink.------[2009 April] Olmsted on Autism: Hopkins Loses Early Case File

Measles and measles vaccination
The reality of the years between 1952 to 1970, and afterwards, prove that Dr Flegg’s mathematical equations are about as relevant as saying that the measles death rate in Africa, is comparable to the Measles death rate in UK.
    In reply to Peter Flegg’s expansion of my question to him: no, it did not occur to me that Peter Flegg would decide to include the third world when the BMJ was discussing a topic based in UK.
    But since Peter Flegg wishes to compare apples with army jeeps, let's discuss his concept of that as well. Flegg states that, "in 1999 there were estimated to be 873 thousand deaths from measles, reducing to 530 thousand in 2003."
    Last year, WHO (2) stated that measles mortality in Africa had slashed the death rate from measles by 91% since 2000. This 91% is an artifact figure, because before 2000, measles in Africa was "estimated", while after 2000, notifications were only accepted after being laboratory proven. In 2000, WHO implemented a system of laboratories (3) specifically to diagnose measles, and provide the laboratory confirmed cases which are now the basis of WHO data.
    Look at pages 2, and 14. On page 14, 14,185 cases were reported in 2006, but after blood testing, 9,764 were "discarded". That's an immediate 69% drop in cases, because they are no longer relying on doctor's eyes.
    On page 2, of 14,185 cases, 3,257 were accepted, leaving a balance of 10,928 discarded measles cases which equals 77% which were NOT measles after being blood tested, but which would have been accepted on the pre- 2000 measles notification system. Comparing data from laboratory-confirmed blood tests after 2000, with pre-2000 guessing, and then claiming a 91% decline, is not a valid scientific comparison.
    Which raises an obvious issue. Peter Flegg says that clinicians caring for measles cases " would have had no doubt. Acute measles is a relatively easy clinical and laboratory diagnosis." Did (and can) UK doctors do any better than those who guessed measles in Africa before 2000, or even New Zealand for that matter? That depends on who you listen to. ----Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

"Statistical inflation by the use of laboratory confirmed cases only, to vastly inflate estimated death rates from measles, is the most effective way to convince parents in 2008, that measles will kill far more people than it really will..... It is my opinion, that Peter Flegg been able to create a scientifically invalid method to compare the “worth” of a vaccine, with not vaccinating at all, ONLY by concentrating on laboratory confirmations, and eliminating serological surveys and notified cases from the mathematical equation. "---Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

An old UK newspaper article, unfortunately undated, received on 17th April 1997, reads: London (Europe Today). – "97.5% of the times that British doctors diagnose measles they are wrong", says a publication of the Public Health Laboratory service. The mistake being made by National health GP's was found when the services tested the saliva of more than 12,000 children who had been diagnosed as having measles. Roger Buttery, an adviser on transmissible diseases at the Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Department, said that the majority of doctors "say they can recognize measles a mile off, but we now know that this illness occurs only in 2.5% of the cases." Buttery says that doctors classify as measles, many other viruses that also cause spots. He found eight different viruses during the survey in East Anglia. One of them, parvovirus, gives symptoms similar to German measles. The reason for the high rate of error puzzled Buttery. "Doctors are neither vague nor careless," he said. The solution is to defer the diagnosis until more detailed information can be got. There are 5,000 to 6,000 cases of measles registered each year in the United Kingdom, but these findings now call most of them into doubt."
    A later report by the same laboratory (4) showed that the most common viruses causing "morbilliform rash" in the UK are "parvovirus B19; group A streptococcus; human herpesvirus type 6; enterovirus; adenovirus, and group C streptococcus."
An editorial in an Australian medical journal (5) pointed out that:
• In Sydney, in 1990-1995 only 49% of 58 notified cases were serologically confirmed.
• In Victoria, in 1997-1998 only 8% of 248 notified cases were serologically confirmed, and for the whole of Australia in 1997 – 1998, only 45% were serologically confirmed.
• In 1994 in UK and Finland, only 1% of notified cases were serologically confirmed.
    So now, doctors check for BOTH IgM (immediate antibody) IgG (evidence of past infection). If there is both IgM and IgG an enzyme immunoassay or a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction is required to type the virus to figure out whether it's wild, vaccine, or whatever (6). In my files is an MMR information sheet to parents which states that neither rubella nor measles can be correctly diagnosed without a blood test. (In UK they use a saliva test.)
    Therefore, according to medical literature, and information provided to parents, I would dispute Flegg’s assertion about the ability of all doctors to easily or accurately diagnose measles or rubella, without the assistance of technology. For the same reason, I also dispute the validity of comparing any historical data from 1850 with any data after laboratory data conformation was required.
    However, since Flegg is presumably calculating his risk benefit analysis on potentially invalid data, I have no choice but to do the same. If the UK historical data for measles deaths is inaccurate because it too contains more “viruses” than just measles, that makes Peter Flegg’s calculations in the first paragraph, even more extravagant. ----Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

In countries like UK the decades of pre-vaccine death decline is obviously due to factors unconnected with the use of any vaccine. For the same reason, the WHO media release claiming that the measles vaccine has reduced the measles death rates in Africa by 91% between 2000 – 2007, defies logic, analysis and reason for anyone who knows the facts. I note that Peter Flegg has stopped short of repeating that spectacular assertion. Perhaps it's because even he can see the ludicrousness of such a claim.
    If that is the case, the Peter Flegg fails to mention that comparative data in the UK, uses the same "mistake". Total numbers without any laboratory confirmation before 1994, cannot be validly compared with laboratory-confirmed cases only. To do so is not legitimate "science".  ----Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

In UK, from 1998 to 2007 (as of 24th November), there were 28,364 cases of measles.
    Out of the 12 deaths from 1998 - 2007, one is known not to be measles, one is provisional, 2 were immunodeficient children within the age where vaccines are administered, and the other 8 were older deaths resulting from infections contracted prior to 1967. From the years of 1998 – 2007, the risk of any unimmunized child dying from ACUTE measles was as follows:
    immunodeficient children = one per 14,182 cases of measles; healthy normal children = 0 out of 28,364.
    Any suggestion that in 2008, the risk of any child dying of acute measles is 1 in 2,000 is another fictional statistical manipulation, in the same vein as: “in order for the risk/benefit equation to be tipped in favour of leaving children unvaccinated against MMR, there would need to have been more than 7500 deaths from MMR in the last 10 years.”  -----Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

Peter Flegg says, "The only reason more children do not die of measles in the UK is that herd immunity is still sufficiently high to protect those who cannot or have not been fully immunised."
    That is not entirely correct in my opinion.
    A site called Measles Initiative says that (7), "Measles is a leading killer of children in many developing countries for several reasons. Children are already compromised with poor living conditions, they are infected at very young ages when their immune systems are not strong, malnutrition is rampant in many homes, and many families do not have access to medical care to treat measles and its complications. Measles, itself, does not kill children. Instead, complications from measles attack the child's already weak immune system. Measles attacks the body, inside and out. It is similar to HIV in the sense that when it knocks down the immune system, the child becomes susceptible to the myriad of diseases that fester in poor living conditions."
    Do children in the United Kingdom have the same living conditions as children in Africa? ----Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

Peter Flegg also says, "I have no doubt that another vulnerable group (infants too young to be vaccinated) will see deaths within its ranks before too long."
    Before the measles vaccine was used, it was exceedingly rare for any infant younger than 18 months to acquire measles because of the strong maternally transferred immunity and, if a mother breastfed, through the many immunological components within breast milk.
Those women in UK who now have naturally acquired measles in the last decade, will transfer solid immunity to their babies, and their babies will be unlikely to experience measles before 18 months. On the other hand, those vaccinated mothers who have not had natural measles, will not transfer that sort of immunity to their babies, and their babies might be at risk. That being the case, to blame unvaccinated children for a relatively new problem created by the use of a vaccine in the first place, is more fact juggling.
A better initiative to reduce all risks to any child from any cause whatsoever, would be to employ a certain young British chef to help start nationwide "Vitamin D, Victory gardens, exercise and cooking course" initiatives for parents and the unemployed, as well as someone else to teach "breastfeeding, home nursing and nutrition during infection". More than any vaccine, parents who provide their children with correct nutrition, enough vitamin D, sleep, exercise, and decent home nursing, can vastly decrease the annual expenditure of NHS with regard to a long list of conditions, (including potential complications and deaths from any infections).
These are conditions African parents would give their eye teeth for. If they were able to achieve even half of what the UK achieved after World War II, even without a measles vaccine, African children would have far less to fear from measles infections. ----Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

In 1982, a doctor in Tanzania, who was looking at blindness in children, pointed out that “The clinical picture in malnourished measles patients is very typical and entirely similar to that of diseases children suffering from severe vitamin A deficiency, i.e. xerophthalmia”.  i.e. blindness.  He pointed out that, “well nourished children, however, only rarely develop complicated measles and they do not have bad corneal lesions.”  They took 59 children who had blindness as a “result of measles” and put them on 100,000 units of vitamin A every day, for a week.  The eye lesions started to dissipate, and by two weeks, all 59 children, with or without corneal scars, had healed.  So tell me.  What causes the blindness?  The measles, or a fundamental vitamin A malnutrition? [2007] Vaccines and Third World Countries by Hilary Butler

Studies in America, and New Zealand have found children who have measles often have third world micronutrient levels, and the recommendations in both countries since 2001 have been that all children with measles be given vitamin A.  So I ask you two questions:  Why, 75 years later, is Gerberding only wanting you to know that the measles vaccine works to reduce deaths?  Don’t you wonder what might have been, for Africa and the developed world as well, had doctors taken their heads out of the sand and administered vitamin A from 1932 onwards?
       Ah, but the catch with that was they wouldn’t have had all those deaths and complications from pre-1996, to wave in front of your nose and say, in a nutshell, you need the vaccine because there is NOTHING we can do to help you if your child gets measles.  The messages that “you need the vaccine” and “there is nothing we can do for you” were both lies. For whatever reason, the medical profession chose to ignore decades of literature on vitamin A. [2007] Vaccines and Third World Countries by Hilary Butler



[July 2008] The ethics of Cord clamping and stem cell collection by Hilary Butler Immediate cord clamping is the equivalent of removing one third of an adults total blood supply (10 pints), or three and one third pints.  That is classified as a severe haemorrhage.  But in babies, immediately cord clamping is worse than a haemorrhage.  The blood in the cord and the placenta is what has “breathed” for the baby, as well as circulating food in, and waste out.  the baby needs that full quota of blood for correct intracranial pressure, lower blood volume, and to decrease the risk of anaemia in later life.  Furthermore, there are unanswered questions about whether depriving the baby of that "abundant" supply of the stem cells which Professor Williamson considers have such wonderful medicinal prospects when 'harvested', may contribute to the development of serious diseases later in life as a result. ......Immediate cord clamping should be called “unethical premature cord clamping”.  Delayed cord clamping should be renamed “normal” or “appropriate cord clamping”.  

    20 years ago, the research was quite conclusive about breast-fed babies. They didn't usually die of SIDS.  There are records of some "breastfed" babies dying, but if you look at them, those babies also received supplementary formula bottles.  Anyone who has read my paper will know that one formula bottle will create an alkaline environment, and also raises the babies basal temperature by over 1 degree for nearly two weeks.  One bottle of formula wreaks such intestinal havoc that it puts these babies bacterial flora into a completely different catagory to totally breastfed babies.
        A breastfed baby has an acid ph in the gut, and its basal temperature is lower and the bacterial flora is totally different  Bottlefed baby have alkaline guts, 1,000 ties more E.Coli and different bacterial balance, no breastmilk immune system and a higher body temperature.  Bottle fed babies also sleep much longer, and are typically "zonked" after a bottle.  Put this together with sleeping on the stomach.  Stomach sleeping babies get much hotter than back-sleeping babies because there is less skin area exposed for heat exchange.
      The one thing in babies, which can and does respond dramatically to heat, is E.Coli.  The outer coating is toxic, but normally trapped by the liver and dealt with.  Humans are exquisitely sensitive to this Endotoxin, and the group of babies that have the highest numbers (one thousand times more actually) are bottle-fed babies.  E.Coli replicates in heat and alkaline conditions.  It is a heat-loving putrefactive bacteria which thrives on formula and in heat - the hotter, the better......breast-milk not only keeps e.coli at bay, and has compounds which fight it, breast milk switches on and educates the immune system of the gut, which is the key barrier between the environment and the body.  A bottle-fed baby is not only way behind the 8-ball, it is hotter, has one thousand times the number of E.Coli than breast-fed babies, and is 'deprived of the maternally supplied defences against E.Coli.  And even so, most of these babies do not die of cot death. Hilary Butler

My personal position with regard to immunisation is that I believe parents should be able to make an informed choice.  I believe that that is impossible, because most doctors have no idea what the full information is.  They THINK they do, but they don’t.   They recommend what they are told to.  The information given to parents is carefully crafted to ensure that parents are too scared not to vaccinate.  What is presented is usually accurate, but not truthful, because the information lies by omission. 17 years in this domain has also taught me that people believe what they want to believe.  This applies to journalists, scientists, doctors and parents. Vaccines and the Immune System by Hilary Butler

When I tried to see if I could get some balance into the debate, I brought these issues up with a member of the Herald staff.  (July 19th 1999.)  Pardon the language, but this is what was said:
    “Your only recourse is to write a letter to the editor, but to be frank, you are pushing shit up the hill with a stick.  People want to hear that vaccines will protect their children.  People do not want to hear that vaccines could do anything else.  And most people don’t give a damn about vaccines anyway.  I can write a piece about immunisation and get no response, but when I write one about homosexuality or the church I get inundated.  As for me, I am pro-vaccine, and for the greater good, and if the Health authorities asked me to roll up my sleeve and have all the childhood vaccines again I would.  We pay them to do a job, and they do.   And yes, we should have compulsory vaccination for children to get into schools.   It’s for the greater good.”
    The reality is that if we can’t even get high up members of the Herald Editorial staff to look at the issue factually, they are never going to publish anything meaningful, because it suits neither their beliefs not their purposes.  They are nothing but hand-maidens, and the medical lackeys they promote, know it. Vaccines and the Immune System by Hilary Butler

If tumours without HPV actually do worse, then what might be the flow on effects of using an HPV vaccine? Might cervical cancer actually become more serious and more deadly? Is this a stone that hasn’t been turned over yet?
    Have you ever seen a Public Health Worker sit down with young women, with the huge pile of medical articles which show for instance, that nutrient deficiencies (selenium and folic acid to mention only two) are a key component in the development of cervical cancer? By impressing on everyone the need to get nutrition right, Public Health Workers would not only reduce the potential development of cervical cancer from a young age, they might also slash the rates of all other cancers, infections, diabetes complications, and many other hospitalizations. [June 2007 letter by Hilary Butler re: Gardasil vaccine] Democracy, or Orson Welles' 1984?

"Could the increase in all forms of meningitis and other infectious disease complications and deaths be because for the last 40+ years, the first thing parents do at the slightest sign of temperature is push paracetamol?  I believe so."--Hilary Butler (VRAN Newsletter Jan-March 2003)

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency, failure to thrive, or any ill health..........If it's not acceptable to vaccinate babies with any possible health problem in any vaccine study, why does it become acceptable after the vaccine has been licensed to vaccinate premature babies? Or to vaccinate at birth, babies from at risk mothers who have exactly these problems that excluded them from the study in the first place, or babies who have just come out of intensive care?......That's why the data which say vaccines are safe, looks so good.......Think about this for a minute.  Think about those animal safety tests as well.---- [Book June 2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p118, 120, 121

Most people don't realise that the findings from these trials always include a no public disclosure clause, and you are not allowed to see the data gleaned from these clinical trials.  Even the FDA or CDC in the USA gets to see only the filtered final statistics....The IAS requested all information.....relating to the Meningococcal Meningitis B vaccine.....Almost everything we asked for, even the protocols, were witheld under confidentiality provisions...of the Act. ---- [Book June 2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p 121

It pays to also know that orthodox treatment in those days, of most of the diseases we know of today, was not just laughable, it was plainly ridiculous. For example, a common treatment of measles5 was to "withdraw 25 c.cm. or so of blood from the parent's arm and inject this intramuscularly into the child's buttock, putting half into each side."
    Similar treatment was used for polio. Worse than this was a different letter commenting on the use of: "anti-measles serum from the placentas of normal women, which had been tried out on 4000 children, and was found to be quite as good as, if not indeed better than, convalescent serum."
    Until 1928, another universally useless method of treating disease was the use of alcohol for diphtheria. It was only in 1927, when a British hospital decided not to use alcohol, and found that the mortality rate became much lower, that doctors realized alcohol increased myocardial degeneration. Yet very few listened. In 1935, standard alcohol-infused treatment was still pretty appalling:  "Every case of diphtheria is put on to a mixture of digitalis and squills . . . and also given calcium by mouth or intramuscularly . . . with the sudden onset of cardiac arrest camphor oil given intramuscularly . . . acts like a charm. In regard to toxaemia the solution is the administration of Pituitrin . . . brandy too is valuable both by mouth and intramuscularly. Post diphtheritic paralysis . . . port wine and other such stimulants, even in children, give apparently valuable results."  [Book June 2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p227

In the same year, the Washington Post (3) published the fact that Ritalin which is prescribed to very young children had never been tested on that age group (under 6's) and yet, between 150,000 - 200,000 children between the ages of 2 and 4 were prescribed Ritalin. Hilary Butler letter to BMJ 2004

Unfortunately for some of us, the media used Wakefield to derail the real issue. To those who really know the A - Z of the issue, MMR is simply, for some children, the straw that breaks the two-humped camel's back. Other children don't need an MMR to get vaccine-provoked disintegrative disorders. The real issue is that vaccination in the first few months of neonate"hood", increases mercury levels in the blood of infants (1) Hilary Butler letter to BMJ 2004

In a page no longer available, but which I printed out, the BBC reported on 13 February 2001, under the heading "Newborns 'face higher drug risks' "that""A missing gut chemical (cytochrome P450) means babies are at far higher risks of side-effects from drugs designed for use in adults or children. The research, at Sheffield Univerisyt adds weight to arguments for fuller testing of adult medicines before they are declared suitable for much younger children. ... currently 40% of drugs used to test children are not licenced for that purpose - while 65% of those used on babies are being prescribed outside the terms of their licence, or ar not licenced at all."  Hilary Butler letter to BMJ 2004

It seems that the media just doesn't "get it". By and large, they tow the "party line". Whatever that is. Right now, is "bash anything to do with vaccine alerts"  The reason that the media got on the Andrew Wakefield bandwaggon, was that at the time, he looked like "part of the party". And being part of the party, surely the issue had some validity. And great eye-catching, "caring" headlines, implying that "we the media, love our children". This looked to the media like "win/win journalism". Which means that the issue wins, and the media gets to look good, and sell lots of papers. The media hates "lose/lose" journalism. Which is why people like me know not to go to the media. And which is now why most are bagging Andrew Wakefield. He is "costing" them too much, in the eyes of the medical profession. Again, the "party" matters most. Hilary Butler letter to BMJ 2004

"Without hesitation, everyone except Dr Taylor said yes. Dr Taylor refused. You would think that if he was as certain as the others that his science was absolutely rock solid, there would have been no hesitation. But with this issue, we are not talking about medicine or children’s lives – we are talking about politics. And I would go further and say that in my opinion those vehemently denying any association between MMR and autism have scant regard for the children involved – they seem to fixate solely on the percentages vaccinated, and their own self-defence – the impact of negative articles on their reputation, prestige, and validity of previously published comments, and Wall Street shares."--Hilary Butler

"It is interesting to note the changes in ‘incidence’ of these (Rubella) complications over the years. In 1980, the incidence of encephalitis was 1/100,000 clinical severe cases (NZ Med. J. August 13, 1980, p. 104), by 1985 it had climbed to 1/50,000 (J. Inf. 1985, p. 240), in 1989 it was 1/20,000 (NZ Med. J. 26 April 1989, p. 202). Now it is supposedly 1/6,000 (Krugman, 1998)..As with measles and mumps, the risk statistics of each era seem to alter to suit the medical opinion of the moment, dependant on whether there is a perceived need to further promote a "fix-it"."--Hilary Butler

"But in the meantime we live in a medical world which delights in saying things like the following:’ “Since there are virtually no contraindications to measles vaccination, measles vaccine should be administered regardless of the patient’s health status.  Measles vaccination is particularly important for malnourished children and for those with chronic illnesses, as they are at increased risk of complications due to measles.  An exception to this recommendation are children, who, on admission, are so ill that they are at serious risk of dying.   Although administration of measles vaccine is not dangerous in such cases, parents may incorrectly attribute a death to the vaccination.”  (Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 1997: 75 (4) pgs 367 – 375)"---Hilary Butler http://www.whale.to/vaccines/butler.html

"A perusal of the abstracts of papers presented at the 23rd annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiological Research … made me wonder whether epidemiology, in the absence of epidemics, is not a misnomer for scaremongering made respectable by the use of sophisticated statistical methods, and whether one of the reasons for this state of affairs is not a high prevalence of epidemiologists when the incidence of problems solvable by epidemiological methods is low."---Hilary Butler quoting Petr Skrabanek http://www.whale.to/m/butler4.html

"One bottle of formula is enough to change a baby’s gut dramatically, and it takes two weeks of breastfeeding to return the gut back to normal. (Personal communication, Dr Robert Reisinger) How can this happen? E Coli is the main culprit. This bacteria is a putrifactive protein loving bacteria. The protein content of human breast milk is lower than in any other mammal, and the protein content of formula or any other milk supplement has a direct influence on the numbers of E Coli in the gut . Not only does the acid gut and very low protein content of breastmilk provide a more hostile environment for E Coli, but breastmilk also contain neutralising factors against E Coli.
    Several studies have shown that babies who died of SIDS have a high prevalence of E Coli in the flora of the gut. Some suggest that the E coli "have acquired a plasmid which confers toxigenicity" (Med J Aust, 1989, Vol 151, pg 538) But E. Coli is intrinsically toxic. The outer coating (lipopolysaccharide) is the toxic component, but the key to the toxicity level is the speed with which it can multiply, given the right circumstances. These factors include bottle feeding (which results inmore gram negative bacteria, and a protein and alkaline level favouring E Coli), stress, overheating, viruses, vitamin deficiencies AND the suppressive actions of vaccines on the reticuloendothelial system.
    In 1974, Dr Robert Reisinger presented a paper at an International SIDS conference. He quoted many authors who found SIDS predominantly among bottle-fed babies. Included in the authors quoted (but not referenced) was Shirley Tonkin from New Zealand:
"Tonkin reported that in her series of 86 SIDS cases, only two were breast-fed. Since twenty-five percent of her control population were breast fed, she should have had 21 cases of SIDS in breast-fed infants if the risk were the same in both breast-fed and bottle-fed."
"Coombs stated that if SIDS were relatively as common in the breast-fed as in the bottle-fed infant he should have had 17 breast-fed cases in his series, whereas at that time he had not one."---
Hilary Butler

"Take this classic sequence from the Senate hearing on April 6th this year about MMR and autism. Professor O’Leary from Ireland was confirming that his evidence proved that Dr Andrew Wakefield was right. Our friendly Dr Paul Offit showed his true colours with this response: "He cannot have found something that suggests a link between autism and vaccines, because of the possible consequences of such a finding." Consequences to what? Paul Offit’s cushy job flying around the world teaching doctors vaccines are safe? …… Paul Offit’s pharmaceutical shares?…….. Paul Offit’s professional reputation? Paul Offit’s self-esteem? ……… Paul Offit’s……… vaccine patent?  What is worse, he, and most others representing the pharmaceutical companies which keep their families well heeled, have no knowledge or interest in the hundreds of vaccine disasters previously written up in their own skeleton ridden history books. If you showed them, they either wouldn’t believe it, or they would laugh and say "But that was then…. We know everything now."---Hilary Butler

"The use of Hib vaccines has displaced haemophillus as a cause of disease and death, but other organisms like the far more serious, and more untreatable pneumococcus or other bacterial meningitis types have risen to take the place of Hib as causes of meningitis."---Hilary Butler

I find an anomaly which to me is very interesting.  In every country that has used the Hib vaccine, including USA, Finland, Belgium, UK, and also New Zealand, though no-one here has publicised the fact, the use of the Hib vaccine was followed in all cases, with either medical articles , or newspaper articles (or both) which stated very plainly, that medical    " authorities were puzzled at the sudden increase in Pneumococcus infections. The first in your country was The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Newsletter, June 1992.--Hilary Butler

"Capps R.B.et al (1955) stated DPT caused temporary liver dysfunction in infants similar to that caused by viral hepatitis. Anser S and Habig W (1990) showed DPT vaccine endotoxin significantly disrupts P-450, and other microsomal and cytosolic enzyme activities (which detoxify endotoxin) in mice. Since gastrointestinal E.coli is detoxified by the liver, any suppression of the RE (Reticulo endothelial) system by vaccines places a baby at risk of death by endotoxin effect. Rook, G.A.W (1997) details other ways vaccines disrupt the immune system."---Hilary Butler

"I accused doctors of still failing to give women detailed information about the immunological benefits to babies of breastmilk, at which point the only woman paediatrician got very upset at me, and said that was a mother’s choice, just like abortion. I looked her square in the face and asked if she had children, and her answer was "Yes" I then raised my eyebrows and "Who you bottlefed, right?" She instantly got up and left. I think the unspoken implications got through loud and clear."--Hilary Butler

"These are injected into new-born babies, through a needle, by-passing all normal search and destroy, or Th1, portals of entry. They have the potential to skew the immune system to an abnormal Th2 system. They do not in any way, shape or form resemble an inhaled or swallowed bacteria or virus which may provoke signs of a specific disease, because they are changed, attenuated, and presented as multi-antigens, directly into the body along with heavy metal derivatives, other contaminants and antibiotics."--Hilary Butler

"Take the new Rotavirus vaccine, which was withdrawn from the market in 1999 on suspicion that it causes bowel obstruction in babies. Parents were told that "It’s just against a nasty wee diarrhoea bug, and we’’l just give these wee drips the natural way, in the mouth." (No-one was be told that breastfed babies don’t get Rotaviral diarrhroea).....But it is sufficient to say that injectable vaccines by-pass not only the Th1 immune system, but also the primary guard of a baby’s supplementary immune system – breastfeeding, and oral vaccines seek to disturb the normal process, and add in compounds which are not normally associated with the "little wee bug" in the first place. Vaccines are in every sense of the world unnatural, and cause the baby to produce immunity which is back to front. Yes, there might be antibodies (no guarantee), but the body does not deal with vaccines in the normal order. Not only are they not simple little jabs, they are a cocktail of defined and undefined impurities, each component being an antigen in its own right, to which a separate immune response is required. "---Hilary Butler

"The cot deaths increase occurred THREE MONTHS after the introduction of the nationwide blanket administration of the first Hepatitis B vaccine immediately after birth."--Hilary Butler

"It is a brave or a foolish medical person who dares to question the wisdom of this wonderful scientific advance (vaccination), for to do so is to challenge one of the sacred cows of modern medicine. .....Any doctor who dares to suggest that there might possibly be a dark side to this wonderful miracle is pilloried by the medical establishment and subjected to threats and ridicule........the attitudes of public health specialists and paediatricians to immunisation indicates that there will be little progress from them in this area. For most of these doctors, belief in the beneficence of immunisation is absolute and to question this has become the professional equivalent of mortal sin. Thus any opposition is dismissed as myth as Begg and Nicoll have shown in demolishing Kyles’s theory without attempting to refute it scientifically. In the same way adverse reactions are denied and opponents are classified as cranks. The worry about this is the science implies refuting the status quo and that, if there were to be any future problem with immunisation, it would never be detected, at least by these groups."-----Hilary Butler quoting Professor Campbell Murdoch

"I made the comment to the doctors that poliomyelitis, as a clinical entity was vary rare prior to the compulsory vaccination law around 1874. I said that my gut said that there was a link, because up until that time polio had floated around happily giving everyone natural immunity with just the very odd, amazingly rare clinical presentation. After 1874, there was an explosion in paralysis, and all the things so emotional shown in old news reels. And more people got paralytic polio with the use of the toxin anti-toxin diphtheria horse serum in the 1890’s."--Hilary Butler