Meryl Dorey recently joined a fledgling Facebook group called “Australians against Vaccination“.

Nothing strange about that you might say, except for the fact that she insists publicly that she is absolutely not anti-vaccination but rather “pro-choice”. She even stated as much in a recent article about the dangers of not vaccinating, published on July 18 in the Brisbane QWeekend magazine;

We are labelled as the antivaccination group but that’s simply not true,’’

Really Meryl? Then please explain why you have joined a group which describes itself as follows;

“First and foremost, THIS IS NOT A DEBATE if you are pro vax don’t even bother. This group exists to help educate the Australian public about the dangers of vaccination if you are here to learn and contribute stay, if you want to argue, leave.

Wow, now that doesn’t sound very pro-choice to me! Could it be that Meryl has not been completely transparent about her views on vaccination?


Subscribe to comments Comment | Trackback |
Post Tags: , , ,

Browse Timeline


  • Paul G

    A picture’s worth…

    http://on.fb.me/aOIeuN

  • Jared

    Wouldn’t someone who is pro-choice advocate the ‘choice’ part of ‘pro-choice’?
    Choice presumes two or more options. If someone feels strongly that there is more than one option, wouldn’t they be fighting for people’s right to chose from different options without giving one side a particular preference?
    I fail to see how anyone can say they are ‘pro-choice’ and also claim that they will not offer a balance of information on those different choices.
    .

    oh and what exactly is anyone not allowed to chose?

    .
    Last I checked, nobody was forcing me to be injected with anything. If I didn’t want the injection, fine, I couldn’t work at the hospital, fine, I was more likely to get sick in Vietnam, fine, I might get a flu, fine, I could transmit disease to fragile babies.. My choice still.
    .

    I don’t have to wear a condom either, but I don’t need some uneducated loopy fighting for my right to not wear the condom. Nobody was forcing me in the first place!

  • @Linda are you a Poe? Because kids die from other people not vaccinating. I assume you are kidding, since otherwise you are being very irresponsible.

  • Linda

    Why are people so upset over this vaccination topic – it is simply a choice…..
    If you vaccinate surely you have nothing to worry about…

  • cris

    I believe it is very useful for preventive vaccination lolgo

  • Pingback: ‘Anti vaccination’ harms submitted to HCCC | Atheist Age()

  • Michael Kingsford Gray

    Bernice:
    I suggest that you consult the definition of the Australian phrase:
    “Pushing excreta uphill”.

  • Grendel

    Bernice a couple of comments ago you stated that “AVN provides information on the negatives of vaccination as a balance to the one-sided presentation of vaccines as safe and effective with only extremely rare adverse side-effects by the scientific and medical communities”

    Vaccines are safe and effective with only extremely rare adverse side effects. The fact that the medical and scientific communities present this information is entirely appropriate as it is the truth. What the AVN presents in nonsense based on pet theories of homeopaths with no scientific basis. If there was a scientific basis then there would be some reputatable scientific literature to show us.

    I posted on an earlier thread about the use of google scholar to quickly acquire an understanding of the quantum of research that has been done on vaccines – did you try this exercise for yourself?

  • Let me get this straight:

    “Much of the medical profession is not pro-choice but I’ve not heard one state in the media that they are pro-choice. Why is Meryl required to be pro-choice but the medical profession is not?”

    First of, by your statement the medical profession is at least standing by their convictions – after all since you claim they are NOT pro-choice they are not going to the media and saying they are. Unlike Meryl. But that’s not what you meant, so I’ll let it go.

    Do you know much of the medical profession? I work in the medical profession and can categorically tell you that we are indeed required to be pro-choice. It’s why we use things like signed consent forms and getting permission from the patient to do the smallest tasks. As Dr. Rachie stated, however, we do tend to be anti-death so we strongly encourage our patients to take the recommended course of action – in this case vaccines – because we know it works! We don’t recommend crap like homoeopathy to protect against deadly diseases because it goes against our ethics, training and best practice to say “drink a glass of water and you’ll be fine”.

    Meryl is not “required” to be pro-choice. She made that statement publicly in order to advance her own personal crusade. The AVN is not a public organisation that has to adhere to a certain standard of ethics – if it did it wouldn’t exist. Since the AVN is an extension of Meryl and her beliefs, she should have the integrity to stand up and say what she really thinks instead of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. She is the very definition of a hypocrite and is costing lives.

  • Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. Sounds like Meryl wants to present one side to the public to gain support for the AVN (pro-choice), whilst privately conducting a hidden agenda (anti-vaccination). This does seem to fit the above definition of fraud. Please correct me if I am mistaken, I am not a lawyer.

    As further supporting evidence to the (possible) fraudulent nature of Meryl Dorey, I present the following post she made to the AVN Yahoo discussion group:

    ————–
    Re: [AVN] Why Swine Flu will be so virulent!

    Yes, I agree! While we are already seen as rabid, idiotic fringe-dwellers by so many in the mainstream, it does our argument no good at all to bring in conspiracy theories which, though we may subscribe to them, are unprovable.

    We have mountains, acres and incredible numbers of medical journal articles that prove our case – why weaken it by bringing up something that will turn 99.9% of the population off of what we are saying? Stick with the facts and our cases will be strong.

    All the best,
    Meryl
    —————

    Meryl makes it abundantly clear in the above post that they are working to a private agenda (involving conspiracy theories) and intentionally misrepresenting their true aims to gain public support (and financial gain for the organisation in the form of advertising). Is this legal? Is it ethical? It is appropriate for an organisation claiming charitable status?

  • Shelley

    As far as I am aware, the term “pro-choice”, when used with regard to vaccination, is an advent of the anti-vax crowd. Medical professionals don’t claim to be pro-choice (or anti-choice, for that matter), because these terms apply to emotionally-based lobbying, not science-based medicine. Asking a medical professional where they stand on the vaccination debate is like asking a Formula One driver what they think of speeding laws – all well and good on public roads; pointless in the professional arena.

  • Maybe she has adopted this pro-choice position publicly in order to obtain a greater ability to access mainstream media, which are all to quick to label people aginst vaccine as the lunatic fringe.

    She lied about her beliefs in order to get on tv. She has no credibility left, IMHO.

  • That’s funny because I was at the Channel 7 show recording and her and her flock continually bleated that they were pro-choice, including Dr Giselle Cook who wasted most of her air time screeching she was pro-choice then went on to say that she has not given a vaccination for 18 years.

    Regarding your quote about the medical profession that you seem so keen for me to answer, I ask where is your evidence? They are not pro-choice because they are pro vaccinations/anti-death in my experience.

    Thank you for clarifying that Meryl apparently lies to the public about her beliefs regarding vaccination.

  • bernice l.

    Maggie, I believe I’ve already offered my opinion as to the reasons why Meryl chooses the pro-choice label rather than the anti-vaccine one when she is wearing the AVN hat rather than her private citizen hat. I believe it is a strategic decision. I’m not sure what you want me to reply to. As for not having the strength of her convictions to declare it to the media, I believe she declared her personal opposition to vaccines quite unambiguously in the Recent Channel 7 show. Are bureaucrats required to be pro-elected government? Now can you please answer my question posted above. To quote “Much of the medical profession is not pro-choice but I’ve not heard one state in the media that they are pro-choice. Why is Meryl required to be pro-choice but the medical profession is not?

  • Because Meryl states it over and over again until she is blue in the face. Read it Bernice, it’s in black and white.

    “We are labelled as the antivaccination group but that’s simply not true,” Meryl Dorey.

    Please explain why you think it okay to be dishonest in this regard. Or perhaps the newspaper where this quote was sourced is making it up, or lying?

    If she is so convinced that vaccination is bad why not have the courage of her convictions and declare it to the media for all the hear?

  • bernice l.

    In addition to above. I should have said that Dana’s death was actually central to their activist platform.

  • bernice l.

    Personally, I’m at a loss to understand the importance attached to the classification of Meryl as either pro-choice or anti-vax. I think it is quite clear from the Channel 7 Story on pertussis that on a personal level she is anti-vax for herself. On the other hand AVN provides information on the negatives of vaccination as a balance to the one-sided presentation of vaccines as safe and effective with only extremely rare adverse side-effects by the scientific and medical communities. If that makes Meryl anti-vax rather than pro-choice well so be it. Maybe she has adopted this pro-choice position publicly in order to obtain a greater ability to access mainstream media, which are all to quick to label people aginst vaccine as the lunatic fringe. Why does it really matter anyway? It wouldn’t change her message. Much of the medical profession is not pro-choice but I’ve not heard one state in the media that they are pro-choice. Why is Meryl required to be pro-choice but the medical profession is not?

  • Meryl is so pro-choice she is even a member of the Facebook groups, Australians against vaccination and THE VACCINE RESISTANCE MOVEMENT.

    No confusion there.

  • So which is she Bernice? Pro-choice or anti-vax? Seems strange to me that publicly she is so vehemently pro-choice. Perhaps because it looks really bad to declare publicly that vaccinations are evil? Since by the way, essentially she is the AVN.

  • Luke Weston

    Let’s go and ask this new Facebook group about the Illuminati microchips 😛

  • bernice l.

    I don’t think it’s hypocritical that Meryl is against vaccination on a personal level. That is her individual preference, and the decision she has made about her family. In her role at the AVN she is pro-choice.

  • Michael Kingsford Gray

    Oh dear!
    Meryl caught indulging in clear hypocrisy?
    Colour me (not at all) shocked.