Tweet

The AVN were never really bothered by the HCCC public warning issued about them. Meryl refused to post it cause “she didn’t agree with it” and was happy to call the HCCC corrupt and slur their reputation far and wide. What the AVN really wanted from this Supreme Court Case was to be granted certiorari. .

What’s that you say? Put simply, this means the AVN wanted the Supreme Court to declare the actions of the charity watchdog, the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing (OLGR) in revoking their charity license, illegal.

To assert this, the AVN focused on the OLGR’s reliance on the HCCC public warning arguing that if it was deemed not valid, then it followed that the OLGR actions could be lifted. This indeed was the crux of their case.

Here’s an excerpt from the judgement

- 21 – The plaintiff submitted that its rights were not only directly affected, but also altered, by the HCCC’s decision to issue the Public Warning…It argued that the decision directly exposed it to a new hazard of an adverse exercise of public power (having its fundraising capacity revoked).

But the judge was not convinced

“However, the plaintiff could not point to any provision in the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 that made the Public Warning a mandatory relevant consideration in the Minister’s decision whether to revoke the authority.”

As a result of this, the judge made the following decision

“Accordingly there is no basis on which I could find that the Minister for Gaming is legally obliged to take into account the Public Warning. For these reasons, certiorari does not lie.”

This is the important bit. Whilst it is true that the OLGR took the HCCC warning into account when making the decision, as the judge pointed out, this was not a legal obligation and the loss of their charity license was for reasons much more serious.

An audit of the AVN by the OLGR found several serious breaches of the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 which have now been referred to the Department of Justice and Attorney General and are awaiting decisions. In revoking the AVN’s charity licence the OLGR cited three reasons; that monies had been raised for specific purposes then spent elsewhere, that monies had not been administered properly, and it was in the public interest as the AVN were dishonest in denying an anti-vaccine agenda. The final point cited the HCCC warning in support, but was concerned with the contents of the AVN website.

Meanwhile in Meryl-land

“…the OLGR had found several errors with the network’s bookkeeping system and some minor problems with the way in which fundraising income was accounted for… errors which any small, volunteer-run organisation can and does make…”

With respect to the AVN website the OLGR said,

“The Organisation’s website is misleading in that it may lead people making donations to believe that they are donating to a cause which promotes vaccination whereas the Organisation adopts an anti-vaccination position.”

(Indeed, the judge even enquired as to why the AVN were so “coy” with respect to their anti-vaccine agenda. Meryl can deny it until she’s blue in the face, but nobody is falling for that one anymore).

Then

“When requested by the HCCC to publish a disclaimer on its website the Organisation failed to do so.”

So as you can see, the OLGR did not rely solely on the HCCC warning when making their decision and as the judge stated, neither did they have any legal obligation to do so.

So as far as I can see, nothing has changed as far as the OLGR issues. The AVN are still in the shit in this regard, and I can’t see any reason why the OLGR would back down now.

The HCCC warning constituted but a small part in support of their actions, indeed as much as being cited as supporting evidence for their website being misleading. But this is by no means the only evidence that the AVN website is full to the brim with anti-vaccine canards. Just ask anyone who knows anything about the anti-vaccine movement (pick me! pick me!).

Now Meryl is not known for her comprehension skills, but even I was a little surprised by her interpretation of what I have just explained to you above. From her victory e-newsletter.

“This (HCCC) warning led to the OLGR revoking our charity authority to fundraise though they were under no legal obligation to do so.

No Meryl. It’s a bit more complicated than that.

Which brings me to another point. Meryl is now claiming that the decision yesterday found the 2 complaints used by the HCCC to investigate the AVN to be invalid. This is absolutely not the case.

The court found that the HCCC investigated the complaints under Section 7 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 which allows for an individual to complain about an unregistered health practitioner or service. This was the technicality I was referring to earlier.

The judge asserted that the Ken McLeod complaint needed to provide evidence of a person being directly influenced about their vaccination decision as a direct result of the AVN’s website (the subject of the investigation by the HCCC) in the form of one person who showed they made a decision based on the AVN website. And if not Section 7 did not apply.

From the judgement

“..all I needed to be satisfied of was that at least one person had read the plaintiff’s website and that its contents had affected that person’s decision whether to vaccinate, or have another person  (usually a child) vaccinated. It was not necessary that any particular person be identified. ”

The HCCC lawyers could not provide this evidence, thus the investigation was declared illegal and the public health warning quashed. No judgement was made about the validity of the complaints, nor the information contained within them. The judgement was purely based on the HCCC investigating the complaints under the wrong section of the legislation.

Likewise, there was no discussion about the validity of the HCCC’s conclusions that the AVN’s information is misleading and purely antivax. This still stands. The judge’s ruling was purely based on the HCCC using the wrong section of the legislation to investigate the AVN.

But over in Meryl land;

“I am just so pleased that the Supreme Court agreed with our original contention that the HCCC had no jurisdiction to investigate us based on the complaints which were not valid complaints according to the HCC Act (sic).”

Wrong again. And there’s more on the HCCC having jurisdiction over the AVN below.

So the AVN got off on a technicality. Damn nation you might shout, how can this happen? What the hell is wrong with the HCCC?

Well let me tell you some good things that came out of this case.

When the HCCC first received these complaints they were unsure how to deal with them because in the classical sense, the AVN were not a health care provider. They didn’t openly offer medical advice (but they did do it), they didn’t take blood or massage you, so they fell between the gaps of the HCCC legislation.

Indeed, in the early days, Meryl asserted everywhere she went that the HCCC did not have jurisdiction over the AVN because she was not a health care provider. She said it. Everywhere.

But by suing the HCCC, she has performed an epic foot bullet. She gone done and got herself legally classified as a health care service.

Here’s what the judgement says:

“Vaccination is a matter about health. The provision of information about vaccination is a health education service. It is common ground, and I accept, that the plaintiff is a “health service provider” within the meaning of s 4 of the Act since it provides “health education services”.

What does this mean? Well it means we have precedent and she now opens herself up to a whole lot more litigation as she is now officially a health service provider.

Whoops.

So prior this case, when she had been running around saying the HCCC had no jurisdiction over her? Maybe they didn’t but they absolutely and officially and technically do now.

So whilst the AVN are screaming victory from the rooftops, some of us have bothered to read the judgement and what we see is something of a hollow victory for the AVN. I certainly can’t see any evidence for the OLGR loosening their grip on the AVN’s precious charity license and this is ultimately what the AVN want back.

In closing, there are a couple of other interesting things about this case which are worth mentioning. During the lengthy discussions about whether there was any evidence for the AVN directly influencing someone to not vaccinate, the judge made the following statement

“…the health service has not been shown to “affect the clinical management or care of an individual client”. Although it might have that tendency, and although the plaintiff hopes to have that effect, I do not consider this to be sufficient to establish that it has had that effect.”

Note; “..the plaintiff hopes to have that effect..” In other words, there was no evidence that the 20 years of research and constant campaigning and thousands of Facebook posts and tweets are having any effect on peoples’ decisions about vaccinating. Jeez. That’s a kick in the face to the AVN isn’t it?

And finally, all the reports on this story have referred to the AVN as anti-vaccine, despite Meryl continuing to deny her group is. This has made made one of Meryl’s mates pretty annoyed and she wrote about it this morning (h/t Dave the Happy Singer)

From the AVN Y! Group, from Fran Sheffield of Homeopathy Plus!

–
“I think almost everyone, supporters and non-supporters, believe the AVN is antivaccine in spite of its protests to the contrary.

How can they do otherwise when 99.9% of information about vaccines released by the AVN is anti or reveals their problems? When there is not explanation why this imbalance exists?

It is possible to be BOTH anti-vaccine and pro-choice but when the anti-vaccine label is denied in the face of evidence to the contrary, it makes us look dishonest – something the judge hinted at with her ‘coy’ statement? It also places our pro-choice position in the back seat, out of people’s minds.

As far as public opinion goes, I don’t think the anti-vaccine position is the problem – they can cope with that.

The problem is that most people, even supporters in secret, now believe the AVN is dishonest and this has caused the AVN more harm than anything else. This is what will take a long time to get over, not any perceived anti-vaccine stance which they can respect even it they don’t agree.

Do we have a blind spot?

If the AVN wants to be perceived as being a truthful organisation then it has to proudly accept the anti-vaccine label or do something that explains (repeatedly) why most of the information it provides about vaccines and vaccine promoters is negative.
—

Watch out Meryl. Even your mates are seeing through you now.

PS If you are a lawyer and spot any obvious errors in my interpretation of the judgement, please leave a comment below

Please see this recent update from Reasonable Hank where Meryl claims the OLGR based their actions entirely on the HCCC warning. I have no words.

Tweet

Tweet

Odd that this should happen really, since I often get accused of not reading what the anti-vaxers have to say. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In additional to the tripe on the Facebook pages, the forums, the mailing lists and comments on news articles, I have perused the information pack for conscientious objectors, flicked through Living Wisdom and looky over there >>> a copy of Callous Disregard by Andrew Wakefield.

It’s more than I suspect they do with respect to research. Although, Meryl Dorey says she reads papers about vaccination but apparently comes away with completely different conclusions to the authors, making the exercise rather futile.

Indeed, the recent HCCC investigation concluded that whilst the AVN may cite peer-reviewed research, they quote selectively from it, often in contradiction to the conclusions or findings of the studies themselves.

Ms Dorey explained this discrepancy with the following:

“It is true that oftentimes, our information will contradict the conclusions or summaries of the studies. This is because, as opposed to most doctors and government officials, we actually read the studies and frequently, the summary and conclusion does not agree with the raw data itself…..Many times, that disconnect can be explained by the financial links between the study’s researchers and the companies whose products are being studied. So, whilst the AVN does frequently draw different conclusions to those printed at the end of these articles, it is because our analysis of the data shows that the printed conclusions do not correspond with the raw data. This is not selective reporting – it is accurate reporting.”

Raw data. It doesn’t mean what you think it means Ms Dorey. And the financial links? Oh course, the old shill canard again. When you ‘aint got nothin’ else.. (and you don’t know how to read papers).

The AVN have been in oodles of trouble lately, the most recent being for multiple breaches of copyright associated with selling material on their website without permission. Which is funny, because one of the things I came across in the information in Living Wisdom was their permission to reproduce policy:

“Whilst reproduction and dissemination of the information found in Living Wisdom is actively encouraged (unless otherwise stated), it is expressly forbidden for anyone to reproduce any of this information for the purpose of profit…”

My emphasis.

Which directly contradicts the reason they were recently in strife – for selling other authors’ material on their website, without permission.

An article from the Sydney Morning Herald describes:

“an anti-vaccination group is under fire for allegedly breaching copyright laws by selling newspaper and medical journal articles online without permission from the authors.

The packs, which were selling for up to $128, included home-made books filled with articles photocopied from journals around the world, information on drugs taken from MIMS, the medical guide used by doctors and nurses, and copies of brochures inserted in medication boxes by pharmaceutical companies.

Under the Copyright Act, articles can be copied for personal research or for use by students but cannot be disseminated widely or sold.”

In response, Meryl said she was “unaware she had breached copyright”. This is despite the fact that she is listed as the editor of Living Wisdom and therefore probably wrote the policy. Even if she didn’t, one would think it is part of her job to understand copyright restrictions as the editor of a magazine for more than a decade.

But the duplicity of the AVN is something we have come to know well. This is a recent screen capture from their website.

So it appears Meryl knew about some of these copyright rules “a couple of years ago” at least.

One wonders if the authors contacted by the Sydney Morning Herald decided to take any action against the AVN given some might be owed a nice wad of booty. Based on the AVN’s permission to reproduce policy, they themselves would be joining a queue to recoup any lost funds. So what’s good for the goose is good for the gander right?

Oh wait, except when you’re a bunch of hypocrites.

The AVN was targeted in the statement in which AMA Vice President, Dr Steve Hambleton said that recent media reports outlining the views of the AVN show that this organisation has drawn the fire of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

“While we all value freedom of speech in our society, groups that promote what the NSW HCCC has described as misleading, inaccurate and deceptive information about immunisation, under the guise of ‘pro-information’ and ‘pro-choice’, are putting Australians at risk of diseases that can be prevented through vaccination” he said.

The AVN have previously been in legal strife with the AMA. Back in 2007 they published an advertisement on mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in NSW which made some rather spurious claims about the AMA. The ad had been submitted to NSW Doctor magazine but was rejected upon the committee checking the AVN website and “finding out that we only had one medical practitioner listed amongst our Professional Members”.

So the AVN published it on their website, until the AMA’s lawyers got a gander at it. The AVN was forced to remove the ad and publish a retraction in its place which said (in part):

In particular it has been brought to the attention of the Australian Vaccination Network, the the Australian Vaccination Network accepts, that:

1- AMA (NSW) does not obtain any of its funding from pharmaceutical companies;

2- AMA (NSW) has not published any advertisement or advertorial for a pharmaceutical company in the NSW Doctor for a period of at least four years, and at no time has the advertising in NSW Doctor been almost exclusively that of pharmaceutical companies;

3- AMA (NSW) does not actively censor information made available to its members.

The Australian Vaccination Network unreservedly apologises for any offence or embarassment the publication may have caused AMA (NSW), its officers and employees.

Ads being rejected sight unseen by publishers is something the AVN are also familiar with. Remember when Sydney’s Child also rejected an ad from them back in April?

Today’s statement from the AMA is reproduced in full below. There is a link to the AMA story here.

—

Misleading claims about vaccination putting Australian lives at risk

2 August 2010 – 2:15pm

Vice President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said today that the AMA is greatly concerned that groups that are promoting discredited theories about immunisation are exposing Australians to the devastating effects of preventable illnesses.

Dr Hambleton said that recent media reports outlining the views of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) show that this organisation has drawn the fire of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

“It is important for parents to have their children immunised. Immunisation saves lives,” Dr Hambleton said.

“While we all value freedom of speech in our society, groups that promote what the NSW HCCC has described as misleading, inaccurate and deceptive information about immunisation, under the guise of ‘pro-information’ and ‘pro-choice’, are putting Australians at risk of diseases that can be prevented through vaccination.

“We are now almost two generations away from deadly diseases such as tetanus, diphtheria and polio. Our grandparents will still remember how bad it was.

“Parents who choose not to immunise their children need to consider that they are putting not only their own children at risk, but they are also risking other children, with potentially fatal consequences.

“If immunisation rates fell because many parents relied on the efforts of other families to vaccinate their children, under the misapprehension that this would provide sufficient protection to the whole community, there would be new epidemics of old illnesses.

“The last outbreak of measles occurred in a school in an area with low immunisation rates. The outbreak was so severe that it interrupted the educational curriculum.

“The NSW HCCC’s findings and concerns regarding the AVN released last month are consistent with the views of the medical profession.

“It is critical that Governments promote the evidence and benefits of full immunisation and run an ongoing public education program that informs the public about the devastating effects of diseases that can be avoided through vaccination.

“The AMA welcomes the announcement last week that seasonal flu vaccination of young children can now be resumed, and commends the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer for taking early action to investigate this matter and the latest advice, which means we can maintain confidence in our vaccination program,” Dr Hambleton said.
—

Follow the AMA on Twitter.
Image screen capped from Vaccination Awareness and Information Service

One wonders if Meryl Dorey would have saved herself a lot of bad publicity had she just quietly posted the disclaimer as requested. As it turns out, there have now been two waves of bad publicity for the AVN. The first, after the HCCC report was released some two weeks ago and now the second wave with the refusal to post the disclaimer.

It seems the tide has definitely turned in the media with respect to the AVN. Previously the majority of the reporting was staunchly about “balance” never referring to the AVN as anti-vax and generally giving Meryl a pretty easy ride when it came to her avoiding the question of “you say you’re not anti-vax but which vaccines do you recommend?”.

And if you don’t believe me, listen to Steve Liebermann – who reckons the AVN should be shut down – tear shreds off the AVN on radio 2UE.

In the extensive coverage of the last few weeks, there has only been one example of television that I have seen the term “balanced” used and that was on the frothy morning show Sunrise (not known for hard hitting journalism). This morning the show interviewed both Meryl Dorey and Prof. Booy, who had both previously appeared on Radio ABC 702 Sydney. Even when Meryl got a pretty easy ride from the interviewer, there was no misunderstanding about the agenda of the AVN, as Prof Booy made it abundantly clear by referring to the AVN at least twice as the Anti-Vaccination Network.

You can watch the full story here.

And whilst there was a follow up story in today’s SMH, (following yesterdays front page criticism), interviewing Dorey and detailing her reasons for starting on her anti-vax crusade, it was juxtaposed with a series of rather loopy quotes from Dorey. In a column entitled “Dorey on vaccines” four quotations were published. Although they’re certainly not the most loopy I have seen from Meryl, they nonetheless do not make her look particularly “balanced” and “pro-information” (as she is still feebly clinging to BTW).

“I don’t see that the measles vaccine has done anything for Australia”

“Make no mistakes folks, this measles “outbreak” has been orchestrated for one reason and one reason only – to force the issue of compulsory vaccination.”

More conspiracy nonsense from Meryl, directly contradicting one of my favourite quotes from her;

“…we are already seen as rabid, idiotic fringe dwellers by so many in the mainstream, it does our cause no good at all to bring in conspiracy theories, which though we may subscribe to them, are unprovable.”

Thanks to the hard work of Steve Cannane who kicked this campaign off with the awesome report on Lateline some 2 weeks ago, the tone has been set in the media. Steve did a follow up story last night, this time covering the government’s seemingly disinterest in instigating the vaccination education campaign they have been promising for what seems like an eternity.

In the meantime the McCafferys (who have been extremely brave and stoic throughout this entire nightmare) have contributed to a website in collaboration with Professor Booy called Chain of Protection

Meanwhile Meryl continues unabated. She continues to bleat they are not anti-vax, that the HCCC does not have jurisdiction over them, that she is seeking legal advice etc etc. It’s like a broken record.

Pro-tip Meryl, saying it over and over again will not make it right. And because you arrogantly refused to put up the disclaimer, many more people now know just that.

Below is some of the coverage I have collected from the past few days. If you come across anything else, please leave a comment and I’ll add it here.

HCCC Public Warning about the AVN

SMH Anti-vaccine Group a Threat

SMH Parents who lost baby stonewalled

SMH Still No Warning on Whooping Cough

The Medical News Anti-vaccination Group Declared Unsafe

Northern Star Warning Issued About AVN

ABC News Vaccine Group Needles Opponents
Anti-Vaccination Campaigners Slapped with Warning

Meryl Dorey and Professor Booy on Sunrise (video)

New Scientist Anti-Vaccination Website Poses a Risk

International Business Times HCCC Warns Public on Anti-Vaccine Group

Medical Observer Public Warning Against Anti-Vaccination Website

Meryl and Professor Buoy on Sunrise (video)

Saturday AM with Tony Eastley

2UE Steve Lieberman interviews Ken McLeod

The public statement was issued after a fortnight’s grace during which time the AVN were instructed to issue a disclaimer on their website stating that;

• • The AVN’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination, in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere.
• • The information provided by the AVN should not be read as medical advice.

The public warning follows a 12 month investigation into the AVN after 2 complaints were received.

The Commission’s investigation of the complaints focussed on the material presented by the AVN on its website www.avn.org.au. The Commission established that the AVN website:

• • provides information that is solely anti-vaccination
• • contains information that is incorrect and misleading
• • quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.

The AVN was given 2 weeks to post the disclaimer in a prominent position on their website. When the deadline passed, the HCCC was forced to issue the public statement.

Meryl Dorey, media spokesperson and immediate past president of the AVN responded by repeating she does not believe the HCCC has jurisdiction over the AVN and she is seeking legal advice in this regard. (She has been “seeking legal advice” about this matter for what seems like the duration of the investigation).

In a blog post entitled “AVN vigorously opposses HCCC notice” Meryl (who refers to the AVN as a “consumer advocacy and vaccine safety watchdog group”), states:

“Three times since this investigation started last September, the AVN has provided the HCCC with information on their lack of jurisdiction. Each time, this information has been ignored.”

“The HCCC states that our information is misleading because we do not include data on the benefits of vaccination,…..nobody would expect……those who argue against fluoridation of the water supply to write reports about the benefits of mass medication without individual consent.”

So apparently fluoride in drinking water is “mass medication” now?

But it gets even more hilarious.

“The AVN is currently in discussions with our legal advisors….. to defend against the unsubstantiated allegations that our information is anything but complete, unbiased and fully-referenced from the medical literature.” (emphasis mine).

Unbiased and fully-referenced? Meryl, surely you jest. Even you have admitted you don’t tell both sides of the story. And as for fully referenced? Well the HCCC had something to say about that too.

Fully referenced also might not mean what you think it means Meryl. For example, copying and pasting incorrectly attributed references from whale.to is not considered “fully referenced”.

Meanwhile Meryl is still screeching “free speech” and “democracy”. A comment left on her blog offered a much more sinister reason for the HCCC “witch hunt”.

Tracy says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:51
Doctors are hired assassins for the pharmaceutical companies and the government. Paid to kill and injure … method of death and grievous bodily harm … vaccinations. I tell you, there is something very sinister going on that they are going to such extraordinary lengths to silence the truth!

Hold on to your tin foil hats people!

Not only do the Australian public now know the true nature of the AVN‘s agenda, Meryl appears to have got herself in some hot water over scanning and posting a pro-vaccine magazine article on her blog. The article, published in Cosmos Magazine, got her ire when she was apparently misquoted after declining to be interviewed. The publishers are now seeking legal advice about the breach of copyright and will be taking action to have the article removed.

And in another schemozzle, Meryl appears to have passed on the email list from her subscriber base to a third party, which breaches email privacy laws in Australia. Although in a blog post published today she denies this is the case.

This came about with the distribution of a media release from the International Medical Council on Vaccination, announcing their support for the AVN and “condemning the attempts of an Australian Government body to censor and suppress their work.” It was signed by well known anti-vaxers Sherri Tenpenny, VacTruth, Moms Against Mercury, and even Judy Wilyman, amongst others.

AVN readers have already begun to write to the HCCC complaining about the findings. One suggested:

• “The HCCC’s purpose is to provide misleading information about the importance and efficacy of vaccination, in order to perpetuate the substantial amount of one-sided, pro-vaccination information available everywhere.”

Or perhaps the science tells us that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks? There’s no debate about that.

Meryl is in town for her second anti-vaccination seminar at the WA State Library. I tweeted it so everyone else could experience the joy of Meryl’s inaccurate and misleading information about vaccines (share the love and all that).

My tweet was seen by someone on Howard Sattler’s show and Howard asked Meryl if she knew of a “Dr Rachael Dunlop” who has been tweeting that she was on. Meryl said she did know of me and I was “not a medical doctor”.

Well no, I’m not and I’ve never said I was Meryl. My qualifications are not hard to find.

Which leads me to enquire, what kind of doctor are you Meryl?

*crickets*

You can hear the full audio here.

It includes the same nonsense we have come to expect from “Australia’s leading expert on vaccination” including the corker that vaccines are not sugar water, then applauding a parent for choosing sugar water (ie homeopathy) to vaccinate their kids.

Meryl, you keep bleating about “freedom of speech” and “democracy” but when people’s health is at risk these things do not apply. What if I want to exercise my right to free speech by yelling “BOMB!” on a plane? Well I can’t (and I wouldn’t) because it potentially puts people’s lives at risk. Same goes for yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded cinema when there is not one. Laws exist in our society for the safety of the masses and this includes HCCC rulings about what constitutes medical advice.

The HCCC has ruled against you Meryl. This doesn’t mean you can’t spout your opinions – you just have to make everybody aware they are opinions and should not be construed as medical advice. And hey, if you want that to change enrol in uni, do a post-grad medicine course. With 20 years of research behind you already it should be a doddle.

Initially I was somewhat disappointed to learn the ruling from the HCCC was no more than a requirement to post a disclaimer on the AVN website, but as the news has spread, I am somewhat buoyed by what has been happening.

The HCCC ruling states that the AVN has 14 days to post a disclaimer clearly stating their website is anti-vaccine and that any information on the website should not be construed as medical advice.

—-
For more detailed information go here and here.

The McCafferys have posted a media release here where you can also find a statement from Ken McLeod who submitted the original complaint.
—-

Seems like a slap on the wrist right? At first yes, but since the story has spread across the webosphere, an unexpected result has emerged and one that makes me very pleased indeed. (I even happy-danced with @skepticzone in Las Vegas airport yesterday, apologies if you had to witness it).

Everywhere across the media, the AVN are now being referred to as anti-vaccine. Australia’s anti-vaccine organisation, the anti-vaccination network, and asked repeatedly why they are anti-vaccine. Regular readers of this blog will shrug and say, yeah we already knew they were anti-vaccine Maggie, so what? But what you may not know is that many people, especially vulnerable non-science educated parents and the media did not.

Like the majority of anti-vaccine groups, the AVN have gone to great lengths to conceal their true beliefs from the public and especially the media – and the reasons why are obvious. Their rhetoric generally consists of “we are pro-choice”, “we want to empower parents to make a decision by providing both sides of the story”, “we provide a balance”, “we are pro-information, blah blah informed choice” etc. You know the drill.

And although it has been blindingly obvious to anyone who knows how to use teh internets, for many busy producers, journalists and the like, the AVN has been their first port of call for “balance” (or rather false balance) simply because they didn’t know any better. Well, never fear dear readers, things they are a-changing.

Even before the HCCC fallout, Meryl appeared to be concerned about the public perception of the AVN. In July 2009 (Yahoo! Group message # 44295) she wrote;

“….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…”

But as they say, the truth eventually comes out and it seems the game is up for Meryl “I’m pro-choice” Dorey. Even the normally sympathetic morning television host Kerry Anne Kennelly, whose show consists largely of light entertainment and info–mercials, apparently asked Meryl twice why she was anti-vaccine.

In an email sent to her Yahoo Group, Meryl described how she had initially refused to appear on the show, eventually relenting under the condition that she was given 6 minutes to discuss the HCCC findings and that she was to have the questions ahead of time.

(Coincidentally the website 6minutes were the first to break the news of the HCCC report and wrote a less than flattering piece about the AVN).

But according to her email the questions were changed;

“Turns out not one of the questions they read to me last night was actually asked and kerri anne asked me twice why we were anti-vaccine!”

Why the exclamation mark Meryl? I’ve mentioned this before, but remember when you appeared on radio to defend your Australian Skeptics Bent Spoon Award?

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…”

Blah blah blah, rhetoric, rhetoric, deflecting the question. (You can hear the full audio here).

But c’mon, I’m just being a big meany. And afterall this is only one example. And as a scientist I require repeatable results. Oh wait a sec..

In an email sent to the AVN Yahoo! Group on Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:08 pm Message #36449 Meryl wrote:

“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”.

Does that sound like a pro-choice message to you?

Or how about this one? The t-shirts they sell on their website say;

“Love them, protect them, never inject them”.

And another; Yahoo! Group message #44295 sent Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:24 pm

“This is a sort-of off-topic question. I would like to donate to the efforts to help in Haiti but I don’t want ANY of my money going towards vaccines so that red cross and Unicef are out. Does anyone know of an organisation doing work on the ground there helping without vaccines?”
(Thanks to Scott Lewis and Podblack for alerting me to this one)

From a quick perusal of the blogosphere parents and babies’ blogs are also starting to cotton on. Mia Freedman who blogs at Mamamia, writing “A website of deception” described her reaction as she watched the Lateline story;

“I watched the report with tears in my eyes and my jaw dropped somewhere near the floor. Tears for the McCaffery family whose baby Dana died of whooping cough at only 32 days, and dropped jaw for the extraordinary cruelty and misleading dogmatism of the Australian Vaccination Network.”

Since then the story has been lodged with news aggregator AAP, meaning it will soon be distributed even further. And so far, every story I have seen refers to the AVN as antivax. Here are just a few of the headlines I have collected:

Anti-vaccine group rapped for false information
.
Anti-vaccine group accused of harassing parents
.
Top doctor backs disclaimer for anti-vaccination site
.
Warning order for anti-vaccine website

So not only are parents finding out that the AVN has not been completely truthful about their agenda, they also harassed the parents of a 4 week old baby who died from complications associated with a vaccine preventable disease.

Pro-tip: this is unlikely to endear you to parents Meryl. Just saying’.

If you haven’t seen the Lateline piece, DOET NOAW. It is a thoroughly researched and sensitively compiled piece by award winning journalist Steve Cannane (insert fan-girl squeeing here).

In addition, Meryl was totally pwned on radio 2UE where she was asked repeatedly why she was anti-vaccine and tried to avoid the question by saying the AVN does not tell parents what to do, but simply offer the “other side of the story”.

Interviewer: “Are you medically qualified Meryl?” “What on earth gives you any sort of qualification to make any informed comment on this at all..”
.

Meryl Dorey: “20 years of research”
.

Interviewer: “Well, 20 years of research? Well big deal, give me a break, please.”
.

“You’d know a guy called Andrew Wakefield? Do you guys still support him?…..he was struck off the UK medical register…”
.

“What qualifications do you have to disagree with the HCCC here in Australia and the UK medical registry? All of a sudden what you are saying is far superior that what these two credible worldwide organisations are?”

Man, it is refreshing to see the credulity gone from the media with respect to the AVN. Only a few months ago, they were unquestionably called upon to offer the “other side of the story” (in other words, false balance) to the vaccine “debate” (there is no debate – the risks from contracting a disease far outweigh the risks of having an adverse reaction to a vaccine).

But, I gotta hand it to Meryl, she is nothing if not consistent. That is, consistently wrong and consistently dogmatic. She continues to wheel out the canards like the incidence of communicable diseases fell before vaccines were introduced, whooping cough notifications are at their highest levels despite equally high levels of vaccination, Big Pharma Shill, conspiracy, vendetta, septics, etc…

*Boom*

That was the sound of Meryl’s head asploding. And the AVN’s house of cards crashing down.

—-
Congrats to Ken McLeod for compiling the HCCC complaint and to everyone who submitted supporting material along the way and to the HCCC for carefully considering and responsibly ruling on the complaint. To Stop the AVN for all their hard work, all the other bloggers and tweeters who have constantly kept the pressure on, and to Steve Cannane for the brilliant story on Lateline.

Lets keep slamming that oyster shut. One day it might get permanently jammed.

The commission concluded that the AVN provide misleading information about vaccination and must post disclaimers on their website clearly stating they are anti-vaccination.

The report found evidence that the AVN misleads readers by using reliable and peer reviewed literature but selectively quotes from it, often in contradiction to the conclusions or findings of the studies. The AVN also gives non-peer reviewed and anecdotal material the same authority as peer-reviewed literature.

Ms Dorey responded to these accusations by saying:

“It is true that often times our information will contradict the conclusions of studies. This is because, as opposed to most doctors and government officials, we actually read the studies…that disconnect (between the data and conclusions) can be explained by the financial links between the study’s researchers and the companies whose products are being studied…This is not selective reporting, it is accurate reporting.”

Wow, talk about a disconnect. Firstly, it’s the old Big Pharma conspiracy theory again. When you got no evidence to support your claims, its time to roll out the Big Pharma Shill canard. *Yawn*

But this is interesting – she claims to have actually read the studies? This was not the impression Tom Sidwell gleaned when he analysed one of Meryl’s responses to the HCCC a few months back. Unless she intended to copy/paste mistakes, which were traced back to whale.to and other anti-vax conspiracy websites.

From Tom’s article: “At best she hasn’t read the papers she cites and includes them out of ignorance, and at worst she is being deliberately deceptive – and I spelled this out very clearly in the analyses I sent to the HCCC.”

See The Truth Behind the AVN Claims for the full details

—

The complaint, authored by Ken McLeod, included accusations such as:

• The AVN claims to support “informed choice” but only provides information designed to dissuade people from vaccinating

• State on their website that there are links between vaccination, autism, Crohn’s disease irritable bowel syndrome and shaken baby syndrome

• Cherry picking data to suggest that Gardasil has killed young women

• Bacterial meningitis has increased since the introduction of the meningococcal vaccines

• Autism is caused by mercury in vaccines

• Vaccination is unnecessary since homeopathy can be just as effective

• Misrepresenting the facts surrounding the death of Dana McCaffery and harrassing her parents

—–

The AVN are considered Health Care providers under the public health act

This case was somewhat of a test for the HCCC, since it was not immediately clear if the AVN even fell under the HCCC legislation. Initially the Commisssion had to establish if the AVN could be classified as “health care providers”.

Mrs Dorey had this to say;

“The complaint alleges that both the AVN and myself are “health service providers” because we are providing “health education services to the public” for the purposes of the health care complaints act 1993…Neither the AVN or Meryl Dorey are health care practitioners as the term is generally understood colloquially or have we ever claimed to be.”

Yet the commission disagreed with this, noting “the provision of health education was evident” on their website and also “Mrs Dorey participating in pregnancy discussion groups and in lecturing at universities” did indeed constitute health education.

Even more embarrassing for Dorey was her own constitution which stated the purposes of the AVN were “the advancement and promotion of education and learning amongst the public”.

Plus, the legislation is quite clear about the definition of a health care educators/provider, nothing “colloquial” about it. Yet, despite the Commission findings and the fact that she lectures at uni, Dorey still denies they are considered health educators. From the Lateline report;

“We do not agree that the HCCC has jurisdiction over us and we have been saying this from the very beginning and we are seeking legal advice over this issue.”

She now claims to be seeking legal advice on this caveat, despite the fact that she has already had 12 months to do so? Odd.

—-

The Commission focussed cheifly on the issues raised by Mr McLeod and Mr and Mrs McCaffery in relation to the AVN website. Here they examined the post “10 reasons why parents question vaccination” which consists of such statements as “vaccines have never been tested”, “vaccines contain toxic additives and heavy metals” and “vaccines do not necessarily protect against infectious diseases”. They asked Mrs Dorey to provide evidence for these claims.

The Commission analysed references provided by Mrs Dorey and noted many were not relevant to her claims, she was guilty of cherry picking or omitting data to support her claims and other information was demonstrably false.

Of note is her citation of an article about Gardasil from Natural News. com – yes that guy – where she omitted paragraphs to reinforce the claim that the vaccine had been linked to deaths in young women.

On other vaccines the report stated; “The AVN has selectively quoted information to suggest vaccination against meningococcal disease has been ineffective when there is no evidence of this”.

And “The AVN claims that vaccination is linked with a range of long term side effects however has provided no evidence to support this”. (My emphasis)

The AVN is anti-vax and must declare this on their website

The Commission has recommended that The Australian Vaccination Network include an appropriate statement in a prominent position on its website which states;

1. The Australian Vaccination Network’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere
2. The information provided should not be read as medical advice
3. The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider

If the AVN fails to comply the commission will issue a public statement. Of course we had hoped the HCCC could have done more to limit the dissemination of false information by the AVN, but at least the resulting media coverage will shine some light on the true nature of the AVN.

Surprisingly, in her own response to the Commission, Meryl Dorey in fact admitted to being anti-vaccination, stating there is a need to provide an alternative to mainstream vaccination information.

According to the final report:

“In her response to the commission Ms Dorey conceded that provides anti-vaccination information. Ms Dorey stated there is a need to provide information about vaccination, alternative to that disseminated by the government.”

No longer can Ms Dorey hide behind “we are not anti-vax we are pro choice” which has always been her public persona.

Meryl has already issued a press release stating that the report constitutes an “outrageous attack”; “the threat to freedom of speech and the implications regarding loss of medical choice inherent in this decision make this an issue that cannot go unchallenged”. Interestingly, all references to skeptics with a capital “S” (thereby inferring Australian Skeptics) have been removed and replaced with Stop the AVN and their supporters.

The story has also been reported on 6 minutes here which contains a link to the full article as a pdf.

There is already a comment from Age of Autism UK editor John Stone, the same website who recently referred to the action as “fascist“.

—-

UPDATE #1

Apologies for any errors in the initial post, I am currently at TAM8, and am suffering from severe sleep deprivation! Plus, the post was written between the hours of 2 am and 5 am Las Vegas time (yawn).

Since then, I have had 4 hrs sleep and made some changes, plus others have now blogged the story.

See the story on YouTube
Podblack has a report here
ABC news has a related story here
Orac chimes in
Adelaide Now
Northern Star
Mia Freedman’s Mamamia
Immunisation – getting the right advice audio on 2UE
The World Today Top doctor backs disclaimer for anti-vaccination site
AAP story from Danny Rose

Dodgy devices to be regulated 25-May-2010 By Michael East

THE manufacturers of shonky devices used by alternative therapists to carry out what they claim are diagnostic tests will soon have to provide clinical evidence that they work under new Therapeutic Goods Administration regulations.
.

The changes, which will be introduced in July, are in response to growing concerns about the number of in-vitro diagnostic devices employed by alternative therapists.
.

Among the products advertised on the internet is the “Hemaview”, which, according to its manufacturer, uses one or two drops of blood projected onto a video screen to diagnose “nutritional deficiencies, organ dysfunction and certain biochemical imbalances”.

Director of the Alfred Hospital’s department of haematology Professor Hatem Salem said users of the device were “pulling the wool over people’s eyes”.
.

“The notion that one can diagnose all sorts of ailments by examining a drop of blood on a video screen is both ridiculous and plain stupid.”
.

Currently the TGA is only able to regulate diagnostic devices included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, including those that test for HIV and hepatitis C, as well as those used in the home.
.

However, many of the in-vitro diagnostic devices used by alternative therapists have been exempt from scrutiny because they are not considered medical devices.
.

From July the makers of all in-vitro diagnostic devices will then be required to show clinical evidence that their products work but will have four years to fulfil the new requirements. They will also have to make clear to the public the potential risks of the devices.

.
I’m afraid I’m sceptical. Required to show clinical evidence? To whom? Unfortunately the TGA does not have a very good track record of policing things like this.

Remember the homeopath who made all sorts of outrageous claims about magic water as a substitute for vaccination? Fran Sheffield of Homeopathy Plus! simply didn’t agree with TGA findings that her claims were misleading, so chose to ignore a ruling to remove such material from her website. And in an example of laughing in the face of the law, the day after she was exposed on ABC1′s Lateline programme by Steve Cannane, she jumped the shark.

In a post entitled; “Lateline: Can homeopathy safely protect against epidemic and infectious diseases? Can homeopathy treat serious diseases such AIDS and cancer?” she went even further, claiming that water could safely treat AIDS and cancer.

So, whilst I applaud this legislation in principle, how does the TGA, or other relevant health authorities plan to police it?

I regularly attend the Mind Body Spirit/Wallet Festival in Sydney where there is a plethora of snake oil salesman using Hemaview and collecting money hand over fist from gullible clients. It’s a perfect set-up; let us diagnose you with some allergy or somesuch and then when I reach over here, I have a bucket of powder for the special price of way-too-much which will fix you right up!

In NSW in 2008, legislation was introduced to regulate unregistered health practitioners, that is, those who are not already represented by a regulatory body like doctors or dietitians. Section 17 of the Code of Conduct states that a health practitioner must display the code and a document that gives information about where clients can complain to the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) if necessary.

I have dutifully trotted off to the MB$ four times now, will my code clutched tightly under my arm and as yet, I have not once seen the code displayed. It’s now become a bit of a joke between my friends and as such, we have nick-named our futile search “Code of Conduct Bingo”.

This “festival” had enough quackery and snake oil to start a factory. (As an aside, one also has to wonder how much of the takings are declared to the tax department at the end of the four day love in). Make no mistake, a large amount of cash is collected, when you count up the magic scalar energy infused Fusion Excel Pendants for $150-$200 (available from Alibaba.com for 6 bucks a pop) or the $45 for a 20 minute reading with a psychic (queues last week extended half way across the exhibition hall). Or the dangerous and useless ear candles, which you can buy wholesale for 20 cents a pop, or pay about 15 bucks for three at the MB$ (after you pay your 16 bucks to get in). Or how about a $60 Power Balance Bracelet (available from Alibaba.com for between 50 and 80 cents).

In the two years I have been attending, I have not been aware of any representatives from relevant health bodies lurking around – this doesn’t mean they are not there of course. It would hardly make sense to walk around declaring your identity if you wanted to catch people in the act.

But certainly, I’ve been mistaken for such as person, at a Hemaview stand in fact. A colleague and I were asking for published evidence for the statement “clinically tested” which was splashed all over their stand, when the pamphlet he was holding was rapidly snatched out of his hand and the previously helpful assistant demanded, “are you Doctors?? Why do you want to know?…ARE YOU FROM THE TGA?”

Thou doth protesteth too much methinks.

It becomes very difficult not to lose your temper with these people, particularly when you know they are blowing it out their arse.

The first time I was exposed to a Hemaview/Live Blood Analysis person at the MB$, I was carefully shuffled away by my friend as my voice began to break and my ears to steam. It took him a good 10 mins to calm me down from the tidal wave of bullshit that had passed over me. You see, as a scientist I knew the terminology spewing from the representatives gob was real, but the deceit of peppering sciencey sounding words into a spiel about woo, to make it sound legitimate was too much for my science educated brain. She was right when she observed, just before I was escorted to the nearest corner, that I had been “affected by what she said”.

It’s just it was not in the way she presumed.

Another time at another Hemaview stand, I was with a nurse colleague when we were surreptitiously moved on with a nod the boss man. I guess he had twigged we were onto their profitable little scam.

It is interesting nonetheless, to observe the way woo-purveyors react to being challenged on their claims. After a fair bit of experience, I’ve come up with a theory. The ones who get angry and ask you to leave, are probably knowingly deceiving the punters. You might call them frauds or con men. The ones who genuinely try to answer your questions, even if their explanations are completely implausible and off with the fairies, are probably genuine, even if they are deluded.

It’s a bit like the psychics who spot you in the crowd, knowing who you are, and point out there are a lot of fake psychics here today.

I’M DEFINITELY NOT A FAKE, but look over there – he is!!!

So, personally, I am not confident this new legislation with have much of an impact of the alternative medicine industry. And it also seems odd that they are given four years to comply. Why so long? One thing is for certain though, the addition of legislation designed to clean up the industry will lend it unwarranted legitimacy. Imagine how happy snake oil purveyors will be to declare that their quantum energy box has been approved by the government.

The TGA is failing the Australian public. It’s a disgrace.