I am standing for Wairarapa DHB because I have a passion
to see real improvement in health and health care.
I shall add material to this site over the coming months
so please check back as we head towards the elections.
First, my candidate statement, slightly condensed, which
will appear with your voting papers (or you can scroll
straight down to the Aims section):
I stand for better service and focused management.
- reduced working hours for doctors
- wage increases for nurses and aged care staff
- the Scottish Childsmile programme for children's teeth
- the better Long Term 2 (LT2) Standard for water
- cessation of chlorine dosing to reduce cancer and heart
- antioxidant treatments for cancers, for improved
- expanded mental health services and magnesium glycinate
- reduced air pollution to lower the incidence of breast
cancer in women
and heart failure in men.
I support lower salaries for the CEO and Board members.
I am 64, married, and my tertiary qualifications are
Dip.BS (Building Surveying) and B.Arch (Architecture). I
have many years experience in project and contract
management, and have the skills necessary for fiscal
responsibility at Board level.
As part of my campaign I am refraining from including my
mug shot. So you'll be pleased to know that I expect you
to judge me on policy.
Aims of the Wairarapa DHB:
The aim of our DHB is: "Our performance is measured
against national health targets...(which) provide a focus
for action and are reviewed annually to ensure they align
with government health priorities.
There are six national health targets:
1. Shorter stays in Emergency
2. Improved access to elective surgery
3. Shorter waits for cancer treatment
4. Increased immunisation
5. Better help for smokers to quit
6. Raising healthy kids."
An effective goal might consist of "Aim" (what health
improvement are we seeking?), then "Method" (how might we
achieve this, which can be by multiple means?) and then
"Review" (are we achieving the desired health
The budget of our DHB is around $153 million per annum.
This does relate to aim, we just need some numbers first:
The $153m breaks down, roughly, to:
$11m (subsides to "cap" fees, etc)
$40m (see below)
Leaving aside my desire to see the books, the big
discrepancy is the "IDF outflow" - which stands for
Put another way, the elephant in the room is the enormous
cost of sending cancer patients to other hospitals for
treatment. If this wasn't so high, we usefully could do a
great deal better in terms of supporting staff and
providing a better service, all within budget.
The goals or aims, as guidance from the Ministry, don't
address this issue. If we look at (3) above, "shorter
waits for cancer treatments," it is apparent that this is
a Method. We might guess the Aim is improved survival
rates after treatment. If we look at (5) above, "better
help for smokers to quit," again this is a Method if we
presume the goal to be preventing lung cancer.
So goal (1) and goal (5) are aspects of the same unstated
Aim of less cancer victims.
If we reduce the number of smokers, lung cancer will not
go down proportionately. Benzo-a-pyrene from cigarette
smoking attaches to DNA to form mutations because the DNA
is oxidised. In the absence of benzo-a-pyrene, another
carcinogen will fill the same role. It is just that
benzo-a-pyrene preferentially attaches to DNA
because it loses the most amount of energy in the
Too much information?
It means most cancers are caused by oxidation of DNA from
our faulty drinking water treatment processes.
If our Aim was to cut cancer admissions in half, and not
spend, say, $20m on IDF outflows, then we would need to
alter water treatment processes. That would be a seriously
uphill battle, but an achievable first step would be to
reduce the alkalinity of drinking water in our Wairarapa
towns. For example, a change of 0.3 on the pH scale is
proportional to a halving in cancer incidence (the pH
scale is logrithmic).
Not sure? Eyes rolling? The incidence of cancer in
Masterton is 4 times that of Wellington. It is 9 times
higher than it was in 1968 before the chlorinator was
installed. Halving cancer rates isn't an impossible dream,
it is the bare minimum we should expect to do.
So my point is that the elephant has to be acknowledged -
and our aim has to be to get cancer rates down and
ultimately this means going to the LT2 Standard.
Having set out my thoughts, and no doubt invited criticism
(where is Open Parachute these days?), I invite you to
read further, if you wish, from the following peer
al. This paper is brilliant for the size of
the sampling and control of confounders. It clearly
demonstrates what we already know, which is that
chlorination doubles the incidence of cancers, on average
(that large sample). So our 9 fold increase puts us to
on chlorination. This copy is from the Federal
Register and sets out the confirmed side effects of
outdated chlorination processes.
and Pauling. One of my favourite articles.
These two rather clever people (well, Pauling has a Nobel
Prize) took terminal untreatable cancer patients and
achieved very good results. I think they might know
something about oxidation!
This is only a brief list, so on to mental health:
Eby et al.
Small study, but outstanding results. This suggests a
trial of magnesium glycinate as supportive therapy should
be a high priority. Of note is the comment that drinking
water treatments strip magnesium out of water supplies,
suggesting that high cancer rates and high rates of
depression go hand in hand.
et al. The counter opinion that alkalinity and
magnesium protect against heart disease, but tactfully
concludes that the effect is really due to magnesium alone
(to avoid criticism from commercial interests, probably,
such as the Chlorine Chemistry Council).
And to air pollution.
of Health. Research contracted out, Massey
University mainly. Tested for Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated biphenols,
dioxins and furans in mothers' milk. Insecticides are
sources (decreasingly), as well as burning rubbish
(increasingly). An example would be burning waste on a
farm and mum drinking water from roof water collection,
and smoke drift from towns entering the food chain via
contaminated pasture. These POPs are passed on to baby
with resultant developmental problems.
So, the Aim is?
In this election there is an opportunity for a clean
sweep. The current model of governance has done remarkably
well considering just how overloaded our DHB has become -
but it cannot continue, in my opinion, without earning the
frustration of the Minister who expects fiscal
responsibility and governance with vision.
Vote 1 for Butcher and do your bit to support new policy
and a revitalised DHB.
face on our DHB:
vote 1 for BUTCHER