http://on.fb.me/aOIeuN

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!

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?

“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.

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?