Tweet

I get emails. And recently I was reminded of one I got back in June which somehow slipped from my consciousness. With all the negative attention Nimrod has been receiving of late the response from some authorities has been, “we can’t respond unless someone reports him.” Indeed, last month, chair of the Chiropractic Board of Australia urged people to make a formal complaint against Mr Weiner after Australian Doctor posted audio of his two-hour public lecture on the dangers of vaccination.

So I went back through my emails and found a complaint from Dr John Cunningham, forwarded to me and submitted to AHPRA (then passed onto the Chiropractic Council of NSW) on April 4th, 2011. Dr Cunningham received the following response on May 31st, 2011 (my emphasis).

—

—-

Really? So it’s okay for a registered health professional to disseminate false, misleading and dangerous information under the guises of “it’s my opinion”? But what if the evidence says the opposite, which in this case it most certainly does.

If you take a look at the references Weiner uses in the 4 pages of anti-vax rhetoric posted on his website (which was the subject of Cunningham’s complaint), and his 2-hr long lecture on “18 reasons to not vaccinate” (pdf of references here) you’ll find a grab-bag of some of the most prominent anti-vaxers. He cites all my favourite loons including the AVN and their previous publication “Informed Choice”, Not-a-doctor Andrew Wakefield, Viera “parsnip box” Scheibner, Joseph Mercola, Whale.to and Vaccine Information Service Australia or VISA (amongst others).

There’s a glass and a half of crazy right there.

Weiner also drags out the some of the old favourite canards of the antivaxers. See the following paragraph as an example of vaccines cause everything;

–

“Other conditions linked to vaccination include pervasive developmental disorder (PDD), Asperger’s syndrome, eczema, encephalitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, convulsions, seizures, anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, optic neuritis, ocular palsies, retinitis, deafness, otitis media, ulcerative colitis, bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, headaches, dizziness, hearing and vision problems, arthritis, arthralgia, learning disorders, chronic fatigue, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and more.”

–

He doesn’t provide a reference for these claims.

And as usual, Weiner beats the dead horse of vaccines = autism

–

“After years of denying a link between vaccination and autism, on November 9, 2007 the US government in Court of Federal Claims admitted that vaccines can cause autism.”

–

The reference Weiner cites for this claim is David Kirby writing for the Huffington Post in 2008. Kirby is also the author of “Evidence of Harm” a book detailing the personal stories of parents of children who have autism who went onto establish the advocacy group SafeMinds. So there may be a conflict of interest in what Kirby has to say.

There also *may* have been some advances on our understanding of the evidence against a link between vaccines and autism – which have occurred since 2008, both in the courts and in the lab.

But despite the fact that Weiner claims to base his information on the latest science, he uses outdated references, claims Wakefield’s work is “sound” and uses scary language that has no basis in science.

There’s more…

–
Robert Mendelsohn, MD writes: “My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the U.S. each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given to children.”

–

My suspicion? So you don’t have any evidence for that then? The reference for this statement is simply Mendelsohn. Ibid:250 which makes no sense to me. In any case, Mendelsohn is well known for his “unusual ideas”.

For example, he has opposed water fluoridation, immunization, coronary bypass surgery, licensing of nutritionists, and screening examinations to detect breast cancer. He has a listing on Quackwatch and whale.to.

The spurious claims about vax go on for 4 pages and at last check they were still there. (I’m actually surprised it is still up given the criticism Weiner has been under of late. Perhaps his cognitive dissonance is so strong that he thinks he is right. Sadly, I suspect this is the case).

But whether Weiner thinks he is right and that vaccines are bad “in his opinion” is irrelevant when it comes to his role a health care professional, especially when dealing with kids. Remember he’s a pediatric chiropractor dealing with kids as young as one-day-old.

And science is not formed via opinion, it’s based on evidence and there is no evidence for just about everything he claims (even chiropractic subluxations actually).

The fact that the CCNSW thinks it’s okay says a lot about their responsible approach to chiros under their jurisdiction and patients.

This story was covered in Australian Doctor today and rest assured, we have not seen the last of the Weiner files. More to come very soon.

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

Meryl Dorey issued a statement as part of their newsletter;

“The complaint alleges that both the AVN and myself, Meryl Dorey are “health service providers” because we are “providing health education services to the public” for the purposes of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW).

Meryl claims that; “Neither the AVN nor myself Meryl Dorey are health practitioners as the term is generally understood colloquially nor have we ever claimed to be”.

Well that maybe so Meryl, but this is not about whether you “colloquially” perceive yourself to be a health service provider. There are in fact laws in NSW which define practitioners, and it seems to the me that both the AVN and Meryl Dorey could well fall under this jurisdiction.

Below is the relevant section of the Code of Conduct defining a health service provider, released in August 2008 by the Health Care Complaints Commission.

I think it is quite reasonable to interpret the lectures, seminars and webinairs conducted by the  AVN as “health education services”, even if the information they disseminate is deluded and verging on dangerous.

The complaint has been thoroughly and diligently prepared. I urge you to check out the entire document in pdf form here. Below is an excerpt from the AVN newsletter released today.

It is interesting to note that Meryl Dorey states that she does not consider herself or the AVN to be “health practitioners” in “colloquial” terms. The manner in which Meryl perceives the AVN is irrelevant in this respect, since the law is quite specific about what defines a “health practitioner”.

This is explained in the complaint, reproduced below;

Meryl also claims that she neither she nor the AVN “dispense advice”, despite her extensive lectures, seminars and webinars conducted on a regular basis where she tells attendees that vaccines cause the illness they’re supposed to prevent, that vaccination is not proven or scientific, and that parents who read a few articles about vaccination will know more about the subject than a peadiatrician”.

See Fuzztwin’s blog for more of the transcript to this recent webinar.

According to the statement from Meryl, she has until the end of August to address the complaints from the HCCC.

If you would like to read the entire complaint in pdf form, click here.

For many years, unregistered practitioners such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, reiki practitioners, massage therapists, iridologists and the like, have been without any accountability for selling bogus or dangerous products or services.

In Australia, we have the federally controlled Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) which is responsible for “safeguarding public health and safety in Australia by regulating medicines, medical devices, blood and tissues”. But this does not include unregistered and alternative health practitioners. In NSW, a Code of Conduct for Unregistered Practitioners was released on August 1st, 2008. The code consists of 17 sections, covering such matters as;

practitioners are to provide services in a safe and ethical manner, are not to financially exploit clients and practitioners are required to have a clinical basis for their treatment”.

The code is designed to fill a loophole for the regulation of health providers who are not covered by a registration body, meaning that although the public could lodge a complaint about a practitioner, the regulatory bodies could do little more than slap them on the wrist. Whereas this new legislation means they can be banned from practicing either for a specific period or permanently. The code is administered by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) and if breached,

the Commission has the power to impose a prohibition order and/or issue a public warning about the practitioner and their services. A prohibition order bans a practitioner from providing health services, or places conditions on their provision of health services, for a specified period or permanently. It is a criminal offence to breach the order”.

But not every state in Australia has such a code for alternative health practitioners. (One wonders if Queensland is exempt since there seems to be so much woo in this state). For example South Australia (SA) does not, but a parliamentary inquiry is currently underway which plans to change this. Labour MP Trish White set-up a Social Development Committee inquiry in 2007. Its brief was to investigate “bogus, unregistered and deregistered health practitioners” and to develop a way to regulate the growing number of people making false claims about their ability to cure. White hopes the inquiry will expose the charlatans and work out ways to stop them popping up again under different names.

The current inquiry is spearheaded by the state head of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), Dr Peter Ford, the proposal is modelled on the NSW code. The impetus for the introduction of such a code came from Dr Ford as a mechanism for regulating quacks. Dr Ford told the inquiry that the unregulated practitioners are a “relative risk to patient health and have enjoyed immunity and lack of scrutiny from the legal and regulatory authorities which apply to the medical profession”.

In his submission about “bogus” doctors, he highlights colonic irrigation, thermography, subluxation and cancer cures as some of the more dangerous alternative medicine treatments. AS previously mentioned on Dr Rachie Reports, colonic irrigation can result in tearing of the colon and septicemia, or chronic depletion of electrolytes and death.

Thermography is a tool promoted as a way to detect breast cancer, but the AMA says it is unreliable, missing known cancers and diagnosing non-existent cancers – and further it is expensive. Chiropractic subluxations or spinal problems, can lead to other health complaints. The AMA is concerned about children being subjected to unnecessary X-rays for what is a controversial diagnosis and treatment (see here for more information). Regular listeners to Dr Rachie will remember that chiropractic manipulation has lead to death from tearing of arteries in the neck.

Dr Ford also cites fanciful claims of cancer cures as particularly insidious. And as is evidenced by some of the complaints currently being heard as part of the inquiry, it seems this is an urgent inclusion. He also cited other therapies, such as alternative massage therapies, Vega testing and coffee or chamomile enemas are “untested and potentially harmful”. Vega testing is as food allergy test, reminscent of alternative hair analysis, which claims to identify different food allergies and then prescribes you a special diet.

QuackWatch describes the Vega test as “…used to diagnose nonexistent health problems, select inappropriate treatment, and defraud insurance companies. The practitioners who use them are either delusional, dishonest, or both. These devices should be confiscated and the practitioners who use them should be prosecuted”.

Recently an article appeared in the local Adelaide press about a health practitioner treating cancer sufferers with massage, home-made remedies, and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The Favira Clinic, run by “miracle worker” Elvira Brunt uses a type of massage to change the way blood flows through the body, and this is supposed to cure terminal illnesses. Her supporters call her a gifted healer who can cure cancer. Her detractors have told a parliamentary committee that she takes money from vulnerable people, charging hundreds of dollars for a few precious minutes, paid in cash, with no receipt.

The AMA claims that she tried to convince the parents of a young leukemia victim to delay giving her treatment. The girls’ GP eventually told the committee the delays had a devastating effect;

….the interventions by the bogus practitioner served only to reduce the opportunity of giving the girl the best chance of a cure…..and when the cure could not be achieved she was deprived of optimal palliative care”.

Even more bizarre, Brunt apparently advised the girl’s father to give her the aforementioned KFC to get her kidneys functioning properly. The girl has since died. Her GP said; “People battling serious or terminal illnesses can be desperate and will sometimes hand over large amounts of money for quite useless treatments. We would like to think that the public is protected from such charlatans”.

Also reported to the inquiry is a man known as Lubo Bitelco who is alleged to have promised a woman a “50 percent” cure for cancer through a technique known as vaginal blowing, during which she had to move up and down on the bed saying “oh boy!”

In NSW, making claims of curing cancer or other terminal illnesses was outlawed in August 2008 with the introduction of the code. According to section 5, part 1 of the code; “A health practitioner must not hold himself or herself out as qualified, able or willing to cure cancer and other terminal illnesses”.

Also according to section 17 of the Code, Health Practitioners (with some exceptions such as the ambulance service and private hospitals) must display the Code and information about the way in which clients may make a complaint to the HCCC if necessary. These documents are available as easily downloadable pdfs from the Department of Health and the HCCC websites.

I am currently making enquiries as to whether it is an offence if the code is not displayed. If this is the case, it should make for an interesting visit to the Mind body Wallet festival at the end of this month, where all manner of fantastical woo is on display, with only the NSW department of health and the TGA are conspicuous by their absence.

I am personally very pleased to see the code introduced and hope that SA expect something similar. One expects Dr Peter Ford is not going to let these “wide-ranging ratbags” get off the hook that easily. He is a very active campaigner for science based medicine and features regularly on local ABC radio in SA.

What interested me most about the code is how it will be implemented. For example, can I dob in a website that claims to treat cancer with oxygen, water, sunlight and sleep? In accordance with Section 5,

health practitioners are not to make claims to cure serious illnesses”

including cancer, but do they actually have to state the word “cure” in their promotional material? What if they just infer they can cure an illness?

I was particularly interested in Section 12 which states that health practitioners are not to misinform their clients. Part 2 states that a health practitioner must provide truthful information to his or her qualifications, training or professional affiliations if asked. So, does this mean the end for people posing as doctors with bogus or on-line PhDs? One can only hope.

Section 3 is also interesting and has potentially far reaching consequences.

A health practitioner must not make claims about the efficacy of treatment or services if the claims cannot be substantiated”.

Sounds like curtains for KFC and “water can cure incurable diseases”. I will be very interested to see what impact the code has on alternative and unregistered practitioners in NSW.