The Lord works in mysterious ways
The PrayerMAX5000™ brings together an ancient desert ritual with super modern electricity. It’s POWERFUL!
Hat tip to reasonablehank
You’ve got a degree in baloney
This one speaks for itself.
Scientists, clinicians and an astronomer honoured on Australia Day
Australia Day is a more than just a public holiday in Oz.
It represents the day in 1788 when the English turned up on the banks of Sydney Cove in their tall ships and declared the country ‘ours’.
This was in spite of Aboriginal Australians having occupied the land for more than 40,000 years prior to “white” man setting foot here.
This subsequent settlement has been a vexing issue for Australia, especially since the Aboriginal population has suffered greatly ever since and as such, reflection on their plight forms a large part of the significance of the day. But Australia Day is also about catching up with friends, having a traditional bbq, playing some cricket and downing a few coldies.
Yet, there are some formalities that come with Australia Day in the form of awards which celebrate outstanding contributions and achievements of Australians. Regular readers to this blog might recall my Dad was honored with an Order of the Medal of Australia last year.
For many years, the top of the prestigous Honours list was dominated by sportsmen, entertainers and celebrities whom, although certainly do a great job, are often sufficiently honoured by other means.
So this year, I was thrilled to see a large science contingent honoured in the 2010 awards.
Australia’s first female Nobel Prize winner, Professor Elizabeth Blackburn is a scientist who was jointly awarded the 100th Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine last year for work on understanding the role of telomeres in protecting chromosomes was given the highest honour. Professor Blackburn is among four Australians named a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC).
Also recognised in the medical field is Dr Wendy Hoy, a Professor of medicine at the Centre for Chronic Disease at the University of Queensland.
She’s been honoured for her medical research in indigenous communities. Wendy told ABC radio, “I hope it gives other people the energy and confidence to press on in what’s really a difficult and unnecessarily contentious field.”
Professor Fred Watson is the astronomer in charge of the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Coonabarabran in New South Wales, and was honoured for sharing his passions about astronomy through raising public awareness about space and the universe.
I know someone else like that.
Fred told ABC radio; “As soon as you start talking to people about things like that, about the possibility, even of microbial life on Mars their interest is piqued, it’s very, very easy for an astronomer to engage with the public and engage with people generally”.
Watch an interview with Fred Watson here.
Dr Chris Kennedy, a clinician from Queensland, received an award for his medical work and education. As a doctor working with children, he understands the importance of vaccines as an essential tool in the prevention of communicable disease, particularly in third world countries.
He told ABC news that the cost of vaccines can be prohibitive for developing nations, and encouraged Australia to contribute to the costs where they are desperately needed.
Also from Queensland, Dr Will Cairns was recognised for his services to palliative medicine.
One group of entertainers who were honored for tireless services to entertainment was The Wiggles. But you can hardly not like the Wiggles, unless you are a parent who has a child obsessed (and if you are a parent then you most likely have/will have).
Happy Australia Day all!
Zap! There goes your hard earned money
Or, an exercise in the “put science words in hat and pull them out at randon” fallacy™.
A reader emailed me this site and asked me to take a look. It’s called BICOM Bioresonance Therapy and is described, “as a gentle computer modulated therapy which helps to identify and treat the underlying causes of the disease, not only the symptoms”.
In the BICOM device the disharmonious frequencies are filtered out and inverted. These inverted therapeutic oscillations are now given back to the patient. This makes no sense to me, and I am a scientist.
Has your quack alert been activated yet?
If not, it should have. Familiarise yourself with the seven signs of pseudoscience. This is a great way to learn to spot quack products and avoid yourself getting scammed (or worse, put your health at risk).
BICOM is just another one of those “zapping” devices, sometimes known as Bioresonance therapy or Vega testing, and is not a dissimiliar concept to the E-meter used for personality profiling by the Church of Scientology.
These things claim they will treat or cure just about anything, from allergies and geopathic stress (?) to cancers, but there is scant evidenc that they do any of these things. They all make similar claims, but for the sake of clarity, I will use Biocom as an example to analyse some of these claims.
Bicom fits the “junk science” label pretty well, and also has the dubious honor of hijacking scientific terminology and technology to lend legitimacy to it’s product. This has the effect of “blinding consumers with science” to make them think if it sounds sciencey, then it must work! See the diagram. Science!
This is a particular heinous modus operandi in my opinion, particularly because since these therapies are not based in evidence, they choose to
cherry pick science to suit their agenda.
So, whilst homeopaths will tell you that quantum physics explains that water has memory, on the other hand randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can’t be used on homeopathy – this is usually because the results do not turn out like they want.
*Sulk*.
Wow, looks sciencey, must be good!
Anti-vaxers on the other hand repeatedly demand RCTs for vaccine safety, but reject the mounting scientific evidence that mercury does not cause autism. Convenient hey?
But then I never claimed these people were rational or logical, did I?
But I digress, back to BICOM. I’ve picked some gems from their website as examples of junk science.
First thing you should always look for when determining if a product is a scam if it claims to treat or cure many unrelated diseases.
Bingo!
“The BICOM device detects and treats problems with Candida, parasites, bacteria, fungi, viruses, heavy metals, chemicals, miasms, allergies and food intolerances, immune system, treats geopathic stress, reduces scar interference, detoxifies, reduces pain and inflammation and regulates the hormonal system.
Programmes in the device are applied for a wide range of conditions such as smoking addiction, allergies, ankle problems, bedwetting, blood circulation, blood pressure, bowel and other digestive problems, catarrh, colitis, depression, dizziness, ear complaints, lack of energy, eye problems, fever, hay fever, hip/joint issues, impotence, liver, lymph, MS, pain, prostate, rheumatism, sinusitis, skin, spine, thyroid, warts, etc.”
I stopped counting at fifteen. Note the claims of “detects and treats”. Perhaps the Complaints Resolution Panel of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia’s equivalent of the FDA in America) would be interested in hearing about this? Just a thought.
Also, unlike the conventional science based option, this one will be completely safe, has no side effects and be non invasive.
Oh wait, look what I found.
“It is a highly effective, painfree, and non-invasive therapy without harmful side effects”.
Tick.
Next, look for any connection to quantum mechanics or quantum physics.
“Findings from the area of biophysical and quantum mechanics and quantum physics have opened up amazing possibilities and have led to impressive developments in technology. Such findings are useful to explain the basis of bioresonance therapy.”
Tick.
In the category of “pardon?”
“…it been proven that cells communicate with each other by means of “flashes of light”
No, it hasn’t. You just made this up. Cells communicate by sending messages via chemicals. Not baby fireworks.
“Every substance and therefore every cell of every part of the body (but also viruses, bacteria, pollen, etc..) emit their energy. They have a highly specific, typical wavelength or frequency with entirely individual characteristics. This is termed the ‘frequency pattern’.”
Wha? This is an example of making stuff up and chucking in “energy” to make it sound kinda sciencey. Funny, whenever you ask these people exactly what they mean by “energy” they fail to answer the question. That’s because they have no idea themselves.
This is what I like to call the “put science words in a hat and draw them out at random” fallacy.
But what about the Treatment of Pathological Oscillations? Well Bioresonance therapy can do that too.
“Many diseases start with pathological oscillations or vibrations from toxins, moulds, parasites and chemicals.”
Again nonsense. Why is the alternative medicine crowd are so taken with energy and “vibrations”?
If a therapy present testimonials in the place of evidence you should also be suspicious. Does Bioresonance therapy do this? Yes they do.
If you’re still unsure then always check for the obligatory disclaimer. Here they will tell you themselves (to cover their ass from lawyers) that their product does nothing, their website may be wrong, and don’t take advice from them.
DISCLAIMER:
This website is not designed to be used to make any diagnoses, prescribe any form of treatment or medication or order tests. The information contained is provided as an educational service. The website contains articles on many health and wellness topics; however, no warranty is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise or up to date.
Quack alert.
The BICOM Bioresonance is another “zapper*” that does nothing except empty your wallet.
*Hulda Clark sells zappers that she claims can treat cancer. She wrote the book “The cure for all cancers”. She died of cancer.
Terrifying consequences of a lapse in critical thinking
A BBC Newsnight investigation has exposed a “useless” bomb detector device currently being used at security check points in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK Government has now banned the export of the British made device and the device’s maker, Jim McCormack, has been arrested on suspicion of fraud.
The Iraqi government has spent 85 million dollars, at a cost of 40 thousand dollars each, on the dowsing-like ADE-651 devices, but there are now fears that they failed to prevent bomb attacks which killed hundreds of military personal and civilians. Sidney Alford a leading explosives expert, said the sale of the devices was “absolutely immoral”.
He told Newsnight; “It could result in people being killed in the dozens, if not hundreds.”
This comes after three recent suicide car bomb attacks in Baghdad, with one attack in December killing over 120 Iraqis.
But the ADE-651 devices had never been shown to work scientifically. The device consists of a rotating rod inside a plastic case and a “programmed substance detection card” which is “tuned into the frequency of a particular explosive”. However, when Newsnight had the cards tested by Cambridge University’s Computer Lab, they were found to be nothing more than store security tags.
Dr Markus Kuhn who tested the cards said; “There is nothing to program in these cards. There is no memory. There is no microcontroller. There is no way any form of information can be stored,” he added. Furthermore, the tags which are supposed to be the heart of such an expensive system cost around two to three pence.
“These are the cheapest bit of electronics that you can get that look vaguely electronic and are sufficiently flat to fit inside a card,” Dr Kuhn told NewsNight.
Even the Iraqis themselves are sceptical about the device. “They don’t work properly,” Umm Muhammad, a retired schoolteacher said. “Sometimes when I drive through checkpoints, the device moves simply because I have medications in my handbag. Sometimes it doesn’t – even when I have the same handbag.”
Concerns about the legitimacy of a virtually identical device were first raised by sceptic and magician, James Randi back in the late 1990s (see below). When the devices were investigated by the FBI and others agencies in laboratory tests, they found that “there were no functioning parts and the device failed very definitive tests.”
The dowsing technique used by the ADE-651 devices, is not new and is well known to be bunk. Australian Skeptics have produced a video testing the effectiveness of dowsing to find water, and after numerous tests, found its success rate was no better than chance.
Watch the full story from the BBC. It’s chilling.
As a sceptic, I have been accused of being closed minded, arrogant and rude. Yet, it seems a healthy dose of scepticism with respect to these crank devices quite possibly would have saved lives in this case.
Homeopathy websites ordered to remove misleading material
The websites Homeopathy Plus! and www.d-n-h.org have been ordered to remove information suggesting “homeopathic immunisation” is as effective as vaccination and issue a retraction following a complaint made to the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
Dr Ken Harvey, a lecturer at Latrobe University School of Public Health, who authored the complaint (read the full complaint as a pdf here), objected to claims on the website that “homeopathic immunisation is effective against poliomyelitis, chicken pox, meningococcal disease, hepatitis (all types), Japanese encephalitis, Hib, influenza, measles, pneumococcal disease, smallpox, typhoid, cholera, typhus, whooping cough, rubella, mumps, diptheria, malaria, tetanus, yellow fever, dysentery and many other epidemic diseases”.
The websites, classified as advertisements for the purposes of the complaint, also claimed that “recent research conducted at Swinburne University by Australian homeopath, Dr Isaac Golden confirmed that homeoprophylaxis provides the same degree, or better protection, than vaccines with none of their side effects or complications.”
About influenza, the websites state that the homeopathic preparation, “Anas Barbariae relieves the intensity and shortens the duration of flu symptoms better than anti-virals…..without the side effects” and “symptoms are sometimes removed in a few hours”.
In reference to the claims about the positive results of Isaac Golden, Dr Harvey noted these claims are directly contradicted by the thesis from where they are sourced. Golden’s thesis contains the statement; “the effectiveness of the homeopathic immunisation programme could not be established with statistical certainty given the small sample size..”. In spite of this, and in lieu of providing further evidence, the complainant stated (in part) that the thesis had “indeed reached a positive conclusion with a high degree of confidence”.
The findings from The Complaints Resolution Panel stated that although the complainant cited references for homeoprophylaxis, they “did not provide complete copies of the papers cited.” Further, the material on the websites was deemed “misleading”, “unverified” and “abused the trust or exploited the lack of knowledge of consumers” (my emphasis).
The Panel found that none of the material supplied by the advertiser supported claims made on the websites, and therefore the information was misleading and “likely to arouse unwarranted expectations” from consumers. The Panel ruled for Homeopathy Plus! and www.d-n-h.org to remove the misleading material and issue a retraction on their websites which is to remain for 90 days. The advertiser has 14 days to comply with the ruling.
Claims about efficacy of homeopathic immunisation are in direct contravention to statements from the National Council for Homeopathy London which “strongly supports the conventional vaccination programme..”. In Australia, The Executive Director of the Australian Natural Therapies Association said “no properly qualified natural therapist would recommend homeopathic immunisation as an alternative to conventional immunisation”.
This comes at a time when NSW Health authorities have issued a warning about meningococcal disease following the death of a woman in Sydney, and a spike in cases in NSW, with eight reported in December 2009, in Sydney.
For more information about homeopathy, see the 10:23 campaign. To participate in a mass homeopathy suicide attempt in Australia, see the events page on Facebook.
I object to this reading material.
Recently, the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) had a red light special sale selling many of their books and (mis)educational material at a discount price. We took the opportunity to snap up an assortment, and as you can see, I ended up with the Conscientious Objector Pack.
What is a conscientious objector I hear you ask? In Australia, between 2 and 5 percent of parents strongly object to their children being vaccinated, either for religious reasons or because of misinformation spread by anti-vax groups such as the AVN.
In a scheme introduced in 1997, parents who complete the government schedule for childhood vaccinations receive a one off payment of AUD200. This was an incentive designed to increase the levels of herd immunity, which had fallen dangerously low, thereby increasing the risk for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.
But, if you identify yourself as a conscientious objector, you are also entitled to the money. You just need to explain your reasons to your doctor, they sign a form, (which you can conventiently find on the AVN website) and you collect your cheque too!
The pack pictured is chock-a-block full of magazine articles, opinion pieces and scientific papers (some dating back to the 60s meaning the information is seriously outdated), describing how vaccines will injure your children. This ~ 100 page A4 photocopied piece of propaganda is designed so you can arm yourself with misinformation and half truths about vaccines to bombard your doctor with, when they ask you why you don’t want to vaccinate your children.
And this organisation calls themselves pro-choice, not anti-vaccination.
Expect more updates as I bravely plough through this nonsense.
Know thy enemy.
Thanks to Pete for the pack.
A lesson in the importance of “unbiased” proof-reading
We all have a very busy life these days, with work and family and volunteering wherever possible.
Which means sometimes you might not get time to fact-check some of the things written about you before they get published. I often do talks, and organisers always ask me to send a bio or short description of my background which they publish in the programme or on the accompanying website.
Usually they ask me to send my own, which suits me because this way I can ensure it is absolutely accurate and doesn’t contain any inaccuracies.
But here is an example of one which obviously slipped by the person in question without proofreading. It’s only short but there are several inaccuracies which are immediately obvious to me. You can see a link to the web page where this bio originally appeared here.
The most obvious one is “unbiased” from “…offers her unbiased…knowledge…” (see above).
Following are a few examples of Meryl’s “unbiased” views on vaccination.
“There will come a time – I pray to God that it will happen in my lifetime – when those who have pushed vaccines upon innocent, helpless babies – doctors, pharmaceutical companies, government officials – will be proven to have lied and cheated these instruments of death into our children’s bloodstream. When that occurs, the outcry will be heard around the world and there will not be enough hiding places on the globe for these murderers to hide or enough money to pay for compensation. Of course, it will be too late for the babies, like this poor child, to be saved. But we will be able to take satisfaction from the fact that never again will anyone have to be pushed to poison their child because for once and for all, it will be known as poison and we will all wonder how it was we fell for the vaccine lie for as long as we did.”
Meryl Dorey, President, Australian Vaccination Network, AVN Yahoo group, 17 Dec 2008, message #36449
Another example of Meryl’s “unbiased” opinion/information occurred during a recent interview on Lismore local ABC radio where, despite repeated questioning she was unable to state one childhood vaccine that she thinks is “good”.
This is despite the fact the she insists publicly that she and the AVN are not anti-vaccine, but pro-choice.
Following is part of a transcript from the interview she did about her and the AVN winning the Australian Skeptics “Bent Spoon” Award for 2009.
Interviewer: “Which vaccines do you think are good then in Aust..?
Meryl: “I think that all vaccines are up to the parents and…”
Interviewer: “That wasn’t what I asked though was it. Which vaccines are good? This was the point I think the Skeptics were making is that you’ve never actually said, which vaccine is worthwhile, which scientific designed vaccine is good, worthwhile.
Meryl: “It is not, it is not my role, nor is it the role of the Australian Vaccination Network to tell anyone what to they should or should not do when it comes to vaccination. Now the Australian Skeptics have said that the um, Australian Vaccination Network is responsible for a decline in vaccination in Australia that has lead to an outbreak of pertussis and they accuse us of scientific piffle and yet..”
Cat got your tongue Meryl?
You can hear the full audio here.
If you spot any more inaccuracies, and can support them with evidence (no defamatory statements please), then please leave a comment. Perhaps Meryl would appreciate the feedback so that her next bio is not quite so misleading. If only for the sake of her members, and other parents seeking advice on vaccination, who trust they get accurate information from the AVN and Meryl.
——
Thanks to Steve for the tip-off. Audio courtesy of the Vaccination Awareness and Information Service.
Alternative medicine trumps science, resulting in tragedy.
Regular readers of this blog might remember the tragic story of Tamar Stitt, the 10 year old girl whose parents smuggled her out of Australia following a court order that she receive chemotherapy, to seek treatment for her rare liver cancer with alternative medicine.
Her story was featured on Channel 7s Sunday Night and I previously blogged about it here.
Well, today I was informed that tragically Tamar succumbed to her cancer on November 12th, 2009 in San Salvador where she was undergoing treatment with natural therapies, including hours of mud-wraps. There is little information on this at the time of going to press, except to say that my source tells me they contacted a journalist involved in the story, who confirmed this was the case and that Tamar passed in hospital. Google searches are also turning up very little, however I did find a comment from someone on a news site, dated December 31 st 2009, stating
“Tamar died a month or so ago in el Salvador. Towards the end the mother was taking her for chemo treatment but it was too late. Her death was reported on the news here two days ago – the hospital in el salvador has confirmed it.”
According to the 3news.co.nz story from October 12th 3009, doctors in Perth
“say a seven week course of chemotherapy will give Tamar a 50 to 60 percent chance of survival. Without it she will suffer a long and painful death.”
But her parents are devout Christians, and say God will decide her fate.
“I don’t want to lose my daughter, but it is God’s decision,” says Tamar’s father Trevor Stitt.
“Who am I to fight against it?”
Trevor also left a comment on the same website stating;
14 Oct 2009 8:17p.m.
Hello to all of you, yes I am Tamar’s Father.Channel 7 came into our lives to supposedly portray 2 sides of the story, sadly they’ve lied and left out half the truth that they filmed. They were supposed to interview people (Doctors)and natural healers who’ve cured people of cancer successfully, but “pulled the pin” on the interviews because it would topple their one-sided story.They also ommited to say that I trained at Guy’s Hospital, London and worked as an Operating Dept Practitioner in Anaesthesia in the UK for 10 years before coming to Oz in 1998,worked at Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London and so have quite good research engines at my disposal. I have seen “clay wraps” cure my Tamar of asthma at 2 yrs when PMH only offered steroidal inhalers, she’s never had an attack since.If 7 had’ve told the truth about what they saw without overdramatising the San Salvador situation and others for sensationalism, then maybe folks would know more of what we are doing for Tamar, who IS getting a little better each day.I have to say I don’t really know who you are Josie, you say you know us,do you have another name?
I guess the struggle is just beginning (and I don’t speak about Tamar’s condition here)those “orthodox”people will not be happy, google Roy Rife, see what happened to him.Remember Patch Adams? (a true story)didn’t fit in to orthodox practice, too happy,he had a proper bedside manner (taboo in today’s conventional medicine). “There are none so blind as those who will not see”- with the eye of faith you don’t only see, you begin to LIVE!Thanks to All who support us and also to those who don’t.
This is a terribly tragic case, especially if it is true that Tamar’s mother did eventually take her for chemotherapy, as suggested by the comment above. Even more so, because her father apparently has a medical background including working “…as an Operating Dept Practitioner in Anaesthesia in the UK for 10 years before coming to Oz in 1998,worked at Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London……so have quite good research engines at my disposal.” (see above). Despite this, Tamar’s parents still chose to seek out alternative remedies as oppose to those supported by evidence.
Cases such as these where religious beliefs and faith in alternative medicine result in (often) avoidable deaths are tragically, not uncommon. It is also important to consider the desperation and vulnerability of a person faced with the imminent death of their daughter, therefore one can sympathise that you might be inclined to try anything. Similar to my Mum’s friend who passed 6 months ago from cancer also, but in her final months fell victim to all kinds of useless therapies including hair analysis which I have previously blogged about here and here and vega testing.
It reminds me of a quote from an essay written by Michael Baum and Edzard Ernst in the book “Healing, Hype or Harm” about ethics in alternative medicine;
“Even treatments which by themselves are not harmful, will become life threatening if they are used as an alternative to effective treatments of serious diseases.”
Cancer Victoria produces a booklet warning cancer patients about “quack” therapies. You can read about it here.
Several sources have advised me that there will be a follow up story on Today Tonight this coming week.
—
Thanks to Tony for letting me know about this. Please see Tim Farley’s comprehensive website What’s the Harm? for more such cases.
Paul Offit, Wired and Amy Wallace sued for defamation.
I was recently tipped off to a defamation case which was lodged on December 23rd by Barbara Loe Fisher, from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) for USD1 million against Paul Offit, Amy Wallace and the publishers of Wired magazine, Conde Nast Publications in the United states District Court.
You can read the entire case as a pdf here.
The case revolves around the article written by Amy Wallace called ‘An epidemic of Fear, One Man’s Battle Against the Anti-Vaccine Movement’ (pdf here) published in WIRED in November 2009. The offending paragraph which Fisher is claiming has defamed her character appears below (quoted from the lawsuit);
20. The following passage contains the principle attack on Plaintiff Fisher’s honesty, character, and integrity, culminating in the per se libel (quoted from Offit) that Plaintiff Fisher “lies:”
‘”Kaflooey theories’ make him (Offit) crazy, especially if they catch on. Fisher, who has long been the media’s go-to interview for what some in the autism arena call ‘parents [sic] rights,’ makes him particularly nuts, as in ‘You just want to scream.’ The reason? ‘She lies/ he says flatly.
And
21. Plaintiff Fisher is not a liar. The statement “she lies” is without a basis in fact. Plaintiff Fisher depends on her reputation for honesty and integrity in all of her business, professional, and personal relationships. During her 28 years at the center of the vaccination debate, Plaintiff Fisher has never made a representation that she knew to be false and has scrupulously told the truth. In fact, Plaintiff Fisher is well known for taking special care to document the written statements she makes about vaccination with numerous references from original sources in an effort to be accurate, transparently honest and trustworthy. The accusation that Plaintiff Fisher is a liar is malicious, spiteful, the product of ill-will, and is an overt attempt to discredit and destroy her reputation for honesty and integrity out of Offit and Wallace’s zealous commitment to mandatory, universal vaccination.
The overall tone of the suit is one of Fisher as the underdog fighting for the rights of children damaged by vaccines whereas Offit, (co-inventor of RotaTeq the vaccine against rotavirus) is driven purely by profit, is deeply in the pockets of Big Pharma and promotes anyone who opposes vaccination as; “ignorant of science and negligent, placing all others in society at risk of illness, injury or death”.
The reasons for Wallace also being sued are detailed here;
Before publishing the article, Wallace engaged in a lengthy interview with Plaintiff Fisher by phone and in communications with her via electronic mail. She never questioned in that interview Plaintiff Fisher’s honesty or integrity and did not thereafter confront her with the Offit charge that she was a liar and invite her to respond.
In confirmation of Wallace’s bias against those who oppose mandatory, universal vaccination, Wallace wrote and published the libel specifically choosing it as the climax of her article’s characterization of Plaintiff Fisher and following her defamatory positioning of Plaintiff Fisher as “the brain” for an entire vaccine
safety and informed consent movement which Wallace deliberately mislabeled as “anti-vaccine”
and that she condemned as unscientific and opportunistic.Wallace knew Fisher not to be opposed to the availability and use of vaccines but to be opposed to forced use of vaccines and to vaccination without fully informed consent, yet falsely described her as a leader of the “antivaccine movement,” thus associating her within the article as a vaccine opponent who is unscientific, opportunistic, and dangerous to society. Wallace published the statement “she lies,” quoted from Offit, with knowledge of its falsity. Wallace aided and abetted Offit’s aim to discredit, debase, and defame Plaintiff Fisher by accusing her of being a liar.
Further;
After labeling supporters of informed consent and vaccine risk awareness as irrational individuals blinded by fear, after identifying Plaintiff Fisher as the “movement’s brain,” and after lionizing Offit as the leading expert on vaccination whose views the public should trust, Wallace portrays Plaintiff Fisher, in reliance on a quote from Offit, as a liar, impugning her honesty, character, and integrity.
I’ll keep you updated on further developments as they come to hand.
Tip o’ the hat to Michael
