Australian Vaccination Network 101

Meryl Dorey of The Australian Vaccination Network says opposition to her operation is an attack on free speech. That claim however, is a simple ruse to divert attention from the reality of dangerous and illegal conduct.

A Mother’s Choice: The tragedy of the Australian (anti) Vaccination Network

HCCC Find AVN Risk Australian Health

AVN Lied To Members Over Charity Status

Poll Source

Dirty tactics when SensaSlim first copped a spray

June was a bad month for miracle diet spray SensaSlim. To date I’ve only published The Sensaslim Affair by Ken Harvey, SensaSlim Jockeying for credibility, Beware the lure of new treatments – a very pragmatic piece by Professor John Dixon and Louisa Hall’s piece – which I’ll get to.

We know that Dr. Ken Harvey is one of seven, perhaps nine, complainants and that Professor Lesley Campbell, from the St Vincent’s Hospital diabetes centre is another. As can be read in the above the complaint was simple in that SensaSlim was making ridiculous claims of efficacy. In the absence of any evidence – the much hyped “research” has still not been validated – the claims were most likely fabricated.

Almost certainly others are franchisees left out to dry with their investment. SensaSlim had promised marketing and advertising help which never eventuated. Dr. Harvey was being sued for $800,000. On June 14th the case came before Defamation List Judge, Justice Lucy McCallum, in the Supreme Court at Sydney. The following consent orders were made by Justice McCallum, and published on the Support Dr. Ken Harvey Facebook page in response to SensaSlim’s Australian manager Adam Adams’ rather biased, if not gloating account. The thread has since been deleted by Adams:

  • The plaintiff file an amended statement of claim on or before 1 July 2011;
  • The defendants file a defence on or before 15 July 2011;
  • The plaintiff file any reply on or before 29 July 2011;
  • The defendants’ notice of motion dated 24 May 2011 be dismissed;
  • The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs thrown away by reason of the plaintiff’s amendment to its statement of claim;
  • The proceedings be stood over to the defamation list on 15 August 2011;
  • The parties have liberty to relist the proceedings in the defamation list on 11 July 2011.

Basically this meant Dr. Harvey had not had the charges thrown out. The plaintiff – SensaSlim – was to file an amended claim by July 1st. SensaSlim thus had to pay Dr. Harvey’s costs because of their amended statement of claim and there was another opportunity on July 11th for potentially seeing the case dismissed. On June 17th, Louisa Hall writing for Fairfax noted the appalling situation that had allowed this action to come about.

Primarily that if any court action is underway complaints lodged with Australia’s TGA against the plaintiff can not be pursued through the Complaints Resolution Panel – CRP. This allows ongoing selling of, and profitting from, the product through it’s “outlandish” claims. Libel cases may take over a year leading to significant income for what may turn out to be a scam. This is a major flaw in TGA legislation. They will only invoke Section 30 of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Act, 1989, which would make ongoing selling and advertising illegal, when the company itself is deemed to be acting fraudulently. This would also remove SensaSlim from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. But as noted here before, presently the TGA care not if a product works: only if it considered to be of acceptable risk.

In the article by Louisa Hall SensaSlim’s legal adviser, Terry Harrison denied the entire defamation suit aimed to gag Dr. Harvey. Interestingly almost two weeks before, SensaSlim Newsletter number 42 was falling into the odd lap. Written by Adam T. Adams – Australian Manager, it contained reference to the CRP in stark dissonance to Terry Harrison’s assurances.

It gives alarming insight into the arrogant stand-over talk directed at Area Managers, who no doubt smelled a rat months before. They had threatened legal action in lieu of repayment of their investment. Adams names them all [I won’t] and claims his legal advice is that this action is fatally flawed. These poor investors were left with the sole option of trying to sell their entire Areas and then… go away. What’s interesting is that the legal team acting for the disgruntled Area Mangers had included a CRP determination from March 30th, 2011. “CHC” is the Complimentary Healthcare Council. [Bold Mine except in red]. Adams wrote in part;

But that’s not the issue I want to make. The issue I want to make is in the letter [the law firm] said has (sic) follows. One of the reasons they [Area managers] wanted “out” was:

“… determination published by the Therapeutic Goods Advertising code complaints resolution panel on the 30th March 2011, clearly found examples of inconsistencies of many representations, (our client are certain that the fact that this panel will now review SensaSlim’s responses to the complaint, which were only received by the panel on the 30th March 2011 and issue a new determination, which our clients are confident will not materially change nor effect the existing determination)”.

You will be aware that I told you that Peter O’Brien was able to have the Complaints Resolution Panel withdraw their published determination. This was mentioned in Newsletter 38, where I advised:

“On Wednesday we received a phone call from a Area Manager, “DP”, saying that the Complaints Resolution Panel had brought down a decision and published it on their website in regard to a complaint about the SensaSlim website. We mentioned this to you previously that our competitors were filing complaints with a view to hindering our progress.

David directed us to the CHC website and a report had been published. Except the report stated that the CHC had found against the company because we haven’t filed a defence. Except we did file a defence on the 25 of January and again when confronted with this crises Peter O’ Brien swung into action with his legal teams and within one hour the CHC had taken the report off their website and agreed that the report is now redundant and that they would withdraw any ruling against SensaSlim”. But back to this week…

So the lawyers for the above Area Managers said that they were ‘confident’ that a review by the Complaints Resolution Panel will not change anything. They, [names deleted]  were ‘confident’ that the company would still be found to be at fault by the Complaints Resolution Panel. Is that ‘confidence’ built on anything except negativity or pessimism? I don’t think it is.

But they were SO WRONG.  So very very WRONG.

So here’s the good news. Last week Peter O’Brien was at his desk until 11pm the night before the CRP were to reconsider the matter, and back at 5 a.m., drafting, redrafting and writing a 9 page submission. With the assistance of his legal team and SensaSlim in London’s lawyers a very comprehensive submission was written stating that the CRP had absolutely no justification at law in adjudicating on the matter since the company had filed an $800,000.00 defamation lawsuit against Dr. Ken Harvey.

You see, it is written in Law that if the subject matter of the complaint is currently the subject of court proceedings, then the CRP are unable to adjudicate. I have attached a copy of the submission just so you get some understanding of the work, the very hard word that is happening behind the scenes that you never see, to uphold the good name of SensaSlim.

So when I read that Area Managers think that the management of this company would be best served if we were replaced by them, and there were others at the helm I think it is absolutely laughable. Too silly for words, really! “TB” who suggests such an action and thinks he could run the company better, is the one who said that they were confident, the CRP would find against us.

Peter O’Brien didn’t accept such a fate but together with his lawyers (by the way Robbinson Legal are the lawyers who acted for Paul Hogan in his case against the ATO, so they’re not frightened of a stoush either) found a way to defend the company. This defamation action, which could be in the courts for a year or two or even longer, basically gives an iron clad protection that nobody can raise a complaint against SensaSlim to the CRP and hurt us.

There are nine complaints that were received in a three day period two weeks ago. These were not complaints by members of the public, but clever legal crafted arguments by people acting on behalf of our competitors and big pharmaceutical companies. These are the same people who have written to the CHC to delay and hinder our progress and having our advertisements approved..and they also wrote to the TGA.

But let me say this. We will not allow their dirty tactics defeat us. We had a very big win this week with the determination by the CRP that they cannot adjudicate on any matters pertaining to SensaSlim.

It was known widely that the CRP decision was published, and then apparently removed within an hour or so. The reason given by the CRP was that SensaSlim claimed to have not been notified. That they never received email notification of the decision and thus did not file a defence. Yet above Adams is telling his own investors they did file a defence, the CHC got it wrong and Peter O’Brien “swung into action”. Confusing. We’ve also got a Big Pharma conspiracy and the lie that “competitors” are behind the “clever legal action”. Finally, there’s no ambiguity about legal action stifling complaints.

But there was more fun to be had. Over much of the first three weeks of June I was corresponding with an editor from Australia.to, a sub domain of World News site http://www.international.to/, a service of RogersDIGITAL.com, which had been “reporting” frequently and favourably about SensaSlim. Rogers Digital specialise in providing advertising techniques including brand direct response and behavioural targetting. They “deliver a diverse audience for advertisers including… women and men of all ages, shoppers, travellers and business and IT professionals”. Their advertising opportunities aim to meet “all the needs of marketers”, via websites “which reach ‘buy-ready’ customers”.

The reason for the correspondence was in response to my concern over a “news” article by a Peter O’Brien about the Jockey weight loss affair. Including;

The jockey of super horse Black Caviar has admitted using the controversial slimming spray as his secret weapon allowing him to calm his nerves, forget about food cravings and focus on Black Caviar, but critics warn that this could lead to unexpected excess weight loss and potential disqualification.

“I am aware of the law suit, but the benefits outweigh the risks,” Nolen said. “This has been a lifeline to many jockeys.”

The Thank you for suing us ad was also published. Both articles were under the sites “your say” URL’s. The advertisement, first published June 5th in The Sunday Mail, lacked a Complimentary Healthcare Council number, suggesting SensaSlim wasn’t accredited. Both the CHC and ACCC say this accreditation aims to provide;

“…. reliable and quality advice and information to our members, government, key stakeholders, the media and consumers.”

Correspondence dried up about the same time I spelled out the problems with SensaSlim’s “white paper”, and the fact Dr. Capehorn who was being used to endorse the product refuted that he made any comment supporting the jockey weight loss stunt. I also spelled out that Capehorn had quit his role with SensaSlim and issued statements through his lawyers. More so there were problems with Australia.to publishing even more articles claiming SensaSlim was represented at the 18th European Congress on Obesity in Turkey. I’ll get to that directly.

Interestingly the Thank you for suing us ad piece and the Black Caviar jockey piece by Peter O’Brien have disappeared. Follow those links and you get a 404. The following day I raised concerns with the editor about an article headed, “Obesity scientists told of SensaSlim slimming spray that has the effect of ‘Fooling the Brain’ into Thinking You’re Not Hungry” and another headed “Four Twins, a Jockey and a sensational slimming spray talk Turkey”. I received no reply. Ironically, both these articles now deliver a 404 message also.

I also asked Adam Adams to explain this claim of SensaSlim representatives attending the conference on the Support Dr. Ken Harvey Facebook Page on June 17th. By this stage most knew there was almost certainly no “evidence”, and it had become clear SensaSlim were not even at the Obesity conference. One complainant had attended the conference. Asked about the SensaSlim claims this person replied that none of the “so-called staffs said to have presented the work” could be found in the Congress abstracts. Secondly, no SensaSlim scientific presentation was witnessed. Thirdly, whilst there were outside booths at the conference at which weight loss products and devices may be advertised without any evidence, SensaSlim had manned none of them.

What happens next – June 22nd onwards – is well known, but also very funny in respect of SensaSlim’s June 21st newsletter written by none other than the elusive Peter O’Brien himself. Given time differences it would seem that the ACCC were moving to freeze SensaSlim Australian accounts at much the same time O’Brien opened his newsletter with “Hello Everyone, The  cavalry is on the way.” I’ll cover these events next with a look at the ridiculous “settlement” for the Black Caviar jockey stunt. For now a review of the ACA programme that pulls together the vital flaws in this blatant scam.

How The Australian Vaccination Network misleads Aussies on pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination

She’s doing it again.

That’s all I could think when I saw the below lie published about noon by Meryl Dorey, on the Australian Vaccination Network‘s Facebook page.

Facebook post misileading about pertussis vaccine efficacyI do mean “lie” – not misunderstanding or difference in conclusion. Dorey’s had this pointed out to her countless times – as recently as last week. This was also dismissed in 2009 by the ABC, following a complaint as a breach of their editorial guidelines for fairness and accuracy in reporting. More so, she presents this sleight of hand with obfuscation of conflicting data sets published by the same government bodies and insists on cherry picking. To make the entire sorry matter patently ridiculous, a high school student would receive a dressing down if this “mistake” was honestly made. That’s because not only is Meryl Dorey hiding the truth about pertussis infection and the undoubted success of pertussis vaccine efficacy, she is using entirely unrelated data sets.

The pertussis notification data tells us zero about the vaccine status of the notified cases. By far the bulk are adults whose vaccine induced immunity has waned. Of the 18 standard recorded age categories, 16 are after the age at which immunity begins to wane. Nor does it inform us as to the location of initial infection. As a legally notifiable disease all cases diagnosed who are from an address within our borders must be reported.

This includes returning tourists, immigrants, refugees, Australian based shipping and flight crews, travel weary business men and women, and so on. Dorey’s attempted causal link is akin to saying people who hold a drivers licence are more likely to be involved at sometime in their lives in a road accident. The more licences issued in the last 20 years, the more accidents we see. Therefore the entire licensing process is either ineffective, causal or both.

Nonetheless it would be remiss of me not to address this trick for the benefit of those with confirmation bias. The burden is on Meryl Dorey to show a robust statistical association between the data she presents. She fails to do so, because it can’t be done. To be absolutely fair, let’s use Ms. Dorey’s selected data. In fact, let’s use the very data, tables and argument she submitted on September 9th, 2009 to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission in response to a complaint about the AVN. Dorey writes on page 6;

Since the AVN was established, Australia has experienced an increase of over 23% in our rate of vaccination against whooping cough with a concurrent increase in the incidence of this disease of almost 40 times. Please refer to the Australian government graphs below:

Keep in mind, table 2 is above table 1. The 23% increase in pertussis vaccination “since the AVN was established” can be gleaned from these two tables [95.1% (Table 1) – 71.6% (Table 2 – 2001)].

In order to show that pertussis vaccination isnʼt effective, Ms. Dorey must compare vaccination status to diagnoses. Partially, fully or in need of a booster? And use a controlled single sample.

What we begin with is two separate cohorts, the lower table (1) being 2 year olds born in the first quarter of 2006, who received the trivalent Diptheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccine being fully assessed on June 30, 2008. The upper table (2) is of 0 – 6 year olds vaccinated with a monovalent (pertussis only) vaccine between 1989 and 2001.

Knowing full well that pertussis vaccination begins to wane at about age 10 years Dorey then chooses notification only (not age related) data between 1991 and 2009 – below, to secure her “40 fold increase”.

Straight off the Epic Fail factor leaps out. We cannot simply draw a line from childhood vaccination to notification in all age groups, and as I noted above from diverse backgrounds and travel habits. More so, had it been the year before, notification was less than a 17 fold increase from 1991. The two years preceding that show a 35 and 34 fold increase respectively.

In 1998 there was a 14.5 times increase from 1991. A year before was a 27.5 fold increase, whilst 1996 gives us an 11.6 fold increase – only 42% of 1997 notifications.

Clearly using even this non age related data set fails to show the claimed relation between steadily increasing vaccination and infection rates. It appears to show a regular rise and fall in infection.

Evidence of decreasing vaccination uptake and rising infection was causing significant concern in the eyes of Australian health authorities. This was clearly defined in the complaint to The HCCC. So Meryl Dorey offers another fallacy;

[Contrary to assertions] the current increase in the incidence of pertussis has nothing to do with any purported decline in the rate of vaccination. Instead, we are seeing an outbreak of pertussis despite a substantial increase in vaccination against it – an experience which is being duplicated in every country for which mass vaccination against this illness exists.

“… an experience which is being duplicated in every country for which mass vaccination against this illness exists”. Remember that. Dorey lists two references to supposedly support this. I’ll soon be getting on to how she plagiarised a WHO document graph cropping out explanatory text to replace with her own, and severely misrepresented the Netherlands pertussis outbreak. Both publications strenuously support pertussis vaccination and yes, these were the documents referenced in support of that bald faced lie.

A claim of direct causation to the vaccination regimes requires ignorance about herd immunity, pertussis strains, acellular vs live cell vaccines, periodic outbreaks or epidemics, and vaccinated vs non-vaccinated infection rates during outbreaks. Outbreaks do occur effecting unvaccinated and vaccinated children under 10 – 15 notably, whilst adults with no immunity don’t usually exhibit the classic symptoms. Certainly they are not at the risk of injury and death that infants and babies are.

But let’s look more closely at what Ms. Dorey has intentionally avoided. Age groups and the rise and fall of infection rates over the years.

From Communicable Diseases Intelligence, Vol. 32 No. 2, Figure 49 shows the rise and fall of pertussis in the ten years to 2006. Figure 50 just below it, shows notifications for 2006 by age and sex.

Zero to four years is higher than the next two age categories as it reflects the fact infants are not fully immunised until about 12 months.

We can clearly see this is a typical non outbreak year in which most cases are found in middle aged women. It’s a striking reminder that a pertussis booster is absolutely vital to protect newborn babies from infection as they are passed around family and friends or cared for by grandparents. This goes doubly for women.

Meryl Dorey was in damage control mode, trying to refute that the outbreak – now epidemic – that began in 2007 – 2008 was related to declining uptake of vaccination and that certain pockets where vaccination was low presented a lethal threat to young children. This is why her trick linking notification and vaccination rates was, and still is, doing the rounds. In June 2009, three months before our self appointed guru submitted her HCCC reply, it was reported in the Journal of Pediatrics that children who didn’t receive the pertussis vaccine were 23 times more likely to catch pertussis. In 2010 the same journal reported fears over the vaccine were unfounded. What are we to make of Australia’s so-called “vaccination expert” using “sciencey” terms to convey the opposite of research published in prestigious journals that’s pertinent to exactly the topic she claims authority on?

Notification rate for pertussis by age & sex for 2008

Dorey would have done better to stick to the facts, than to defend anti-vaccination pseudoscience and hide the high levels of infection in children.

Whilst there is strong data showing higher rates of infection in areas of low vaccination, overall Australian data showed a nation wide outbreak that we now know that has culminated in disability and death in most states.

This is the tragic irony to this ongoing and oft’ debunked abuse of her readers and members intelligence. Check that 2006 graph above again and compare to the 2008 data reflecting an outbreak on the left, from Communicable Diseases Intelligence, Vol. 34 No. 3.

Horrifically, in two years there’d been over a 6 fold increase for females and almost a 5 fold increase for males 0-4 years old. Roughly a 10 fold increase in 4-9 year olds and over a 6 fold increase for 10-15 year old children. Through all this Meryl Dorey failed to advise parents on how to protect their own and others children. Incredibly she had access to this crucial data through the very National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System she used to create her original sleight of hand above. Here is the 2009 table of pertussis notifications by age and sex.

She continued to urge against pertussis vaccination, plying her members with bizarre pseudoscience and fear mongering, going as far as claiming vaccines are filled with poisons and cause cancer. This was a key element in her roving seminars as seen here in slides one, two, three and four. Denying pertussis infection was anything to be concerned about, her advice was and is to proactively catch it to build “natural immunity” and that it can “be treated homeopathically”.

Dorey refuses to admit she and the AVN (which is in fact one and the same) are anti-vaccination. Although it beggars belief that she would support what she has called “instruments of death”. The mantra is that “they” are for informed choice and provide information parents would not otherwise access, to assist in making a choice on vaccination. Why would parents not otherwise have access to it? Well for one, as we’ve seen here it is manufactured and fallacious. To refute Dorey’s claims with proper evidence however, is to be “suppressing free speech”.

Ironically, I can’t post this on Dorey’s Facebook page because I’ve been banned and had all my other posts deleted. I see this happen regularly to anyone who doesn’t march in goosestep anti-medicine fervor. Free speech was it? We’re all entitled to our own opinions but the assumed right to manufacture ones own “facts” to the large scale detriment of community health is beyond the boundary of free speech.

Be extremely wary of online sources that use grandiose titles reflecting a “national” vaccination service, an “information network”, “total” family health or particularly offering “the truth” or what you won’t be told elsewhere.

Please seek reputable advice on vaccination. Speak to your doctor or a conventional medical professional.

Update: July 8th. In a standard example of how misinformation is spread to misinformed members of the public, an AVN member at about 11am July 8th, posted the below item. It provides a link directly to the same page Meryl Dorey provided on July 4th. What makes this entire charade more absurd is that the URL leads to the NNDSS index – not the Pertussis notification table it is taken from. Our vaccine expert and Co. have so little experience with this data that simple navigation through the site is defeating them. Another high school failure.

Chiropractors: How some are creating an unconscionable con

I just recently popped in to buy a single item at the local Woolworths. As I entered I was given a free raffle ticket. A $25 gift voucher was the prize. My Skepdar scanned for the expected catch but returned a green light rating. I acquiesced and wandered off thinking I’d be long gone before raffle time.

As it turned out an announcement shortly came over that the draw was five minutes away. I checked my ticket – number 1099. As I scanned shelves the draw was announced with the winning ticket “Ten Ninety Six… 1096”. Immediately I felt a brief intuitive Doh! as if I’d come close to winning because my ticket number was a mere three numbers off. Because I’d “come so close”, I actually felt rather good and more interested in this raffle business – as though I’d done well in the great cosmic fate of ticket draws. Part of my brain was ready to believe a confidence and satisfaction just out of reach.

Of course, this all took place in a second or two, and at much the same time I marvelled at how our brains can be so easily fooled by intuition born of utterly irrelevant information. I’d come no closer to winning than any other ticket holder in the draw. For all I knew ticket 1096 could be stuffed in the pocket of the guy on the microphone. How many shoppers lingered that extra five minutes, selecting products they may not otherwise have? But what if the irrelevant information was much more complex than reasoning odds – or if I lacked the ability to analyse the true outcome? What if I was prone to go with intuition over analysis and had an emotional investment at stake? What if there was someone nearby interested in my experience, empathetic, concerned and generously explaining that all this information didn’t present a brief belief but proof I was right in feeling better, more confident and satisfied?

I’d come for one tiny item, only been there six minutes and already found myself in a privileged few – and feeling better! What then would I make of advice to persist with faith in my intuition? How far could I be led if the information was well beyond my ability to understand or critically analyse and presented as evidence that “raffles” had significant merit for my general well being? Perhaps my friends and neighbour’s were already “raffle” devotees offering glowing testimonies. In the absence of a proper grounding in or ability to analyse the credibility of information presented to me, the more likely I would be to believe testimonies, promises and trust my intuition backed by an empathic consultant.

In fact, in a confronting article in The Weekend Australian on the high risk practice of paediatric chiropractic, we can see exactly these questions being answered. And the overall message suggests I’d be a sitting duck ruthlessly exploited and ripped off in my blissful ignorance. What’s worse I’d be likely to sing the praises of those who are misguided carers at best or unconscionable charlatans at worst. Professor Jenny Couper, head of paediatrics at Adelaide University points to evidence that shows people who consult empathic practitioners are 70% more likely to report improvement, when treated with placebo. That’s a nice way of saying 7 out of 10 people would endorse a scam if conned properly. We’ve long known about white coat syndrome and blue sugar pills being more effective than red, yellow more effective than white and “scientician” jargon. This has been great for the multitude of pseudoscientific gigs rorting gullible Aussies and by extension Australian taxpayers. But what if there was a one stop shop where everything can be maintained, improved, treated, cured or prevented?

Enter the New Age Chiropractor armed with fundamentalist mumbo jumbo a Wellness “Clinic” and the title of “Doctor”, able to tackle anything from allergies to addiction. I first encountered the bizarre, grandiose, combative and frankly offensive anti-science and anti-medicine views of these chiropractor’s when debating the merits of vaccination. More and more chiropractors were refuting vaccine efficacy, inserting themselves into debate, distributing material from their practice, offering lethal witness testimony or running evening seminars wherein they imparted the very worst of anti-vaccination propaganda. They could provide a spinal adjustment which would defy the rules of neuro-physiology, virology, immunology and optimise your immune system such that vaccination was unnecessary. In peddling such misinformation chiropractors essentially profit financially from contributing to the resurgence of vaccine preventable disease with consequent infant and child fatalities along with untold disabilities.

The Weekend Australian focuses on primary offender Warren Sipser. He distributes anti-vaccination propaganda based on debunked and dangerous far out fringe notions. If he can successfully con grateful parents to abuse their children in this way, no doubt they’ll be back for “immune optimisation” and treatment when they catch vaccine preventable disease. What’s certain is that his sleight of hand will help no-one in the sample of children who suffer terribly, endure weeks of hospitalisation, are maimed for life and who die from catching diseases he’s helping to spread. He says of his qualifications in this regard;

“It isn’t outside our role because our role is to provide information on healthcare. If there is a potential for something to harm someone, whatever that may be, I am well within my scope of practice to warn them.”

Sipser is also known in vaccine defence circles as the “expert witness” who argued in the family court against vaccination of a five year old girl. Dad had remarried and wanted the child vaccinated for her health and that of his new family. Mum was arguing the risk of vaccine preventable disease was small. Here’s where the sheer threat from people like Sipser is highlighted. Rather than explain that the risk of disease far outweighs any risk from any vaccine, he failed this mother, accepted a large fee and gave public voice to sheer quackery. This intellectual repugnance won him Fishslapper of the week – an award given by a real doctor on the Skepticbros site. Fishslapper is named after the comical health insurance advertisement, offering premiums for real treatments that featured an alternative practitioner chanting and slapping his “patient” with dead fish.

The court decision finally handed down was an order for the mother to have her child vaccinated. Many of you will remember Meryl Dorey, on and off president of the disgraced Australian Vaccination Network reacting with “Court orders rape of child… we’re talking rape with full penetration”, even disgusting her own members in an attempt to further cultivate her prison planet vaccine conspiracy. At the time various news.com.au reports noted of Sipser;

The decision shocked paediatric chiropractor and author Dr Warren Sipser. “It’s a sad situation,” Dr Sipser said outside court.

“I think it’s dangerous to impose [immunisations] on anyone when there are two opposing viewpoints and when there is credible evidence they may do more harm than good,” he said.

But there is no evidence. Far less than one in one million will suffer serious reactions from MMR vaccination. As many as one in 200 will suffer the same from measles alone, resulting in meningitis and encephalitis. Death and the brain damaging Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis – SSPE – are not associated with MMR. From measles cases the rate may be as many as one in 8,000 and one in 2,500 respectively. Blindness (rubella, mumps) and deafness from mumps is all too common to even contemplate gambling with an innocent childs health and life potential. Presently the rise of vaccine preventable disease focuses on “educated parents” making the decision not to vaccinate. Yet only the conspiracy minded can be sucked in by the vitriolic ramblings that dominate anti-vaccination sites. We need another variable – and that variable is people like Warren Sipser taking advantage of the many intuitive failings in human reasoning. The same failings I experienced with my Woolworths raffle ticket.

This new chiropractic belief system is almost endless. Seeing an opportunity to cash in on Australia’s growing alternative practice market many if not most chiropractors have long since abandoned their ethical standard. As long as 20 years ago, I had many professional experiences with unethical chiropractors promising the impossible to road trauma patients usually within a set number of appointments. As many patients had severe brain injuries resulting in compromised cognition it was a heartbreaking and deeply disturbing lesson in callousness and greed. Many of these cases however, were exaggerations of the concept of manipulation for lower back pain. A type of othopaedic magic. Bed wetting has been a staple “chiro’ cure” for at least 50 years and impossible claims about peripheral symptoms managed by spinal adjustments have grown steadily, culminating in today’s pseudoscientific everything.

Sipser rattles off  “colds, ear infections, colic, bed-wetting, hyperactivity, asthma” and reflux in a six week old. Think about that. Reflux in a six week old. It’s chilling to think he “manipulates” soft vertebra after massaging a mother’s irrational anxiety. As he told one mother he can “fix everything”. As such he represents a clear and present danger, not just to his “patients” but to public health in Australia. He argues, “… taking a proactive approach means you can see kids on an ongoing basis for body balance and even DNA repair.” The DNA myth is based on a single much debunked Journal of Vertebral Subluxation article. Professor Steven Salzberg, director of the Centre for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland notes a statistical error rendering it meaningless.

In 2006 chiropractors resurrected training in their 19th century founders’ teachings – this action alone representing an all too common theme for 21st century devotees of debunked dogma. Daniel David Palmer, a USA born magnetic healer believed that spinal adjustments unlock the body’s God-given energy flows. Known today as vertebral subluxation complex [VSC] this hanky panky sounds like homeopathy’s “water memory” or TCM’s “energy meridians” and “chakras”. It’s listed as one of chiropractic’s “core beliefs”. We’re told with a straight face VSC is the theory of tiny misalignments of the spine upsetting the “expression of innate intelligence”, and from there flows disease. From The Weekend Australian:

The fundamentalists argue that each vertebra in the spine influences corresponding internal organs, and that chiropractors can heal the body by correcting minor spinal lesions known as “subluxations” which affect nerve-flows. This theory has been repudiated by many leading chiropractors in the 120 years since Palmer proposed it; last year, Britain’s General Chiropractic Council reiterated that it is a purely theoretical concept “not supported by any clinical research evidence”.

Noting that this discipline attracts intelligent students it strains at credibility to accept they are about anything less than scamming vulnerable patients to line their own pockets. However, I’ve no doubt there are some New Age Chiropractor’s who care for their patients, want to do the right thing but are befuzzled by confirmation bias and struggling with cognitive dissonance. To this we must add the genuinely honest chiropractors such as John Reggars, past president of the Chiropractors Registration Board of Victoria and present vice president of the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia.

On May 11th Paul Smith writing for Australian Doctor, published an article that referenced a paper Reggars had written targetting the irresponsibility of RMIT University in Melbourne who offer a Bachelor of Health Science in chiropractic. RMIT run their own children’s clinic using techniques medical experts have likened to child abuse. This welcome condemnation reported in the BMJ came in support of a submission to federal health minister Nicola Roxon urging her to shut the clinic down. It was authored by former Australian Skeptic of the year, successful activist against useless and risky treatments, and vocal chiropractic critic, Loretta Marron.

The submission cited the no-nonsense opinion of David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College in London. He notes the “principles of chiropractics are no better than witchcraft” insisting that the “idea that just about any disease originates from some problem in the spine is pure rubbish”. Ian Frazer and John Dwyer were among eleven scientists who put their name to Loretta’s submission. Marron has also noted the bizarre claim by some that they can treat ADHD. Later I list articles in which astonishing claims about addiction, compulsive disorders and hyperactivity all stemming from a single successfully treatable chiropractic phenomenon are made.

Reggars was scathing toward RMIT’s teaching of pseudoscience to chiropractic students. Reggars was also highly critical of the Chiropractors’ Association of Australia – the CAA. Correctly pointing out how the CAA had abandoned science for fundamentalist ideologies, he wrote that the “all-encompassing alternative system of healthcare is both misguided and irrational”.

Quoting the article, Paul Smith wrote;

“Chiropractic trade publications and so-called educational seminar promotion material often abound with advertisements of how practitioners can effectively sell the vertebral subluxation complex to an ignorant public,” Mr Reggars said.

“Phrases such as ‘double your income’, ‘attract new patients’ and ‘keep your patients longer in care’, are common enticements for chiropractors to attend technique and practice management seminars.” Mr Reggars, who stressed his support for the “mainstream majority”in the profession, also condemned the use of care contracts, where patients signed up to a fixed number of treatment sessions.

“Selling such concepts as lifetime chiropractic care, the use of contracts of care, the misuse of diagnostic equipment such as thermography and surface electromyography and the X-raying of every new patient, all contribute to our poor reputation, public distrust and official complaints.”

“For the true believer, the naive practitioner or undergraduate chiropractic student who accepts in good faith the propaganda and pseudoscience peddled by the VSC teachers, mentors and professional organisations, the result is the same, a sense of belonging and an unshakable and unwavering faith in their ideology.”


An example of the preemptive fear mongering and pseudoscientific “scientician” jargon can be found in this Australian Family article, Building Brain Power, by marketing and advertising guru Barbara Grace. Note the seamless transition from a reasonable thesis to implausibility, all the time leading to the conclusion chiropractic “treatment” alone can help. Let’s remember visual, auditory, taste and olfactory (smell) are senses with no connections to the spinal cord. If these senses were “carried by the nervous system to the spinal cord” quadriplegics would be blind, deaf and bereft of smell and taste. [Bold mine].

During a child’s early years, some children don’t progress according to developmental milestones, with delays in learning, socialisation and motor co-ordination limiting their potential…. Neuroplasticity research shows that a child’s environment shapes brain development, with all sensory perception carried via the nervous system to the spinal cord, where it is integrated into the brain’s cortical map. Helping a child achieve full potential begins early with positive environmental experiences.

‘We are sensory organisms and we develop through our sensory experiences,’ says Dr Genevieve Keating, a Melbourne pediatric chiropractor whose research into ‘how we are who we are’ underpins her work with young children. ‘The richness of our environment wires the brain and affects motor and cognitive development,’ she says.  A baby’s brain, the most immature organ at birth, continues developing as higher brain centres integrate primitive (startle, suckle) reflexes and establish postural reflexes (for movement, balance, co-ordination) as a child grows.  ‘We know that failure to integrate primitive reflexes in the normal developmental windows is a reliable predictor for further interruption to development,’ says Dr Keating.

‘Sometimes babies won’t crawl, but move along on their bottom, an action commonly known as ‘butt scooting’ or ‘bottom shuffling’. This behaviour can indicate a developmental delay. When a child puts his or her hand on the floor to assist butt-scooting, then the child is developing asymmetry in their nervous system,’ says Keating. Strong sensory and motor pathways enhance clarity of thinking, smoothness of thought and social skills. If a child has poor social development, Keating believes that often it indicates the child hasn’t yet developed maturity in their neural pathways.

‘Children with poor social development often are unable to read other people well, they’re too ‘in your face’, or they’ll be uncoordinated and bump into other children and display inappropriate reactions.’

The article then broaches plagiocephaly, the asymmetrical distortion of any skull bones. It may result from intrauterine conditions or from sleeping on the back, particularly due to SIDS awareness. It’s true that the SIDS sleeping campaign has increased the incidence of plagiocephaly. It is more than adequately treated with physiotherapy and occupational therapy (the arch nemesi of credibility poor chiropractors), sometimes requiring a customised orthopaedic band. Nonetheless, the above article misleads by selectively referring to a “recent” paper by Miller and Claren. “… published in the prestigious journal Pediatrics, showed that 39.7 per cent of babies with this condition later required an individual education plan involving speech education, physical therapy, occupational therapy or special education services.”

When you read about an unreferenced “recent paper” in such publications you may arguably be assured it isn’t. Miller and Claren were published in February 2000 – Long-Term Developmental Outcomes in Patients With Deformational Plagiocephaly. [Pediatrics, Vol 105 No. 2, Feb. 2000 doi: 10.1542/peds.105.2.e26 ]. Miller and Claren are also cited frequently in physiotherapy journals, and I stress again the important clinical role of physiotherapists in managing plagiocephaly. A General Practitioner or paediatrician may assist with a referral to a physiotherapist skilled in this area. The most important point is do not ever subject your children to the pseudoscience of chiropractic. Dangerous advice given by chiropractors, specific to plagiocephaly, is to sleep babies prone. This is in direct contravention to the SIDS safe sleeping campaign. A far safer approach is to increase “tummy time” when babies are awake and can be monitored.

The harvesting of research and the cherry picking of data by chiropractors is designed to convey a fear of brain dysfunction, as if the brain has been adversely effected by skull shape. In fact the paper is describing routine occupational, speech or physical therapy. As the bones begin to reshape, babies are beginning to vocalise. With cheek and jaw bones moving into place it’s vital that the bad habits or coping techniques previously learned are not carried into the phase of speech development. But why not forget that, take a swipe at conventional medicine and praise the magic of the paediatric chiropractor instead?

Many medical practitioners, including GPs and pediatricians, assume a ‘watch and wait’ procedure when parents express concern over their child’s development, which without intervention can delay a child’s development by up to a year and seriously impact on ability to learn.

Dr Sharon Pedersen-Jones, a chiropractor on the Bellarine Peninsula agrees. ‘Once we assess a child and begin adjustments, parents often report an improvement to their child’s literacy skills and attention span as pressure is released from nerves in the neck. This release allows for optimal brain communication, which can improve a child’s concentration and overall energy levels.‘

Or as Professor Jenny Couper said above, 70% of people will report favourably with no evidence of any change. There’s ample nonsense here, but I found the appalling distortion of the development of proprioceptive attenuation almost hilarious. As children grow it takes time for the growing body to be properly represented in the sensory motor cortex. The constant feedback on joint and limb position is accurate but the fact it represents a changing limb part is a catch up duty for the brain. Tripping over feet or miscalculating leg length is simply a part of growing up. In Building Brain Power, we read;

Petersen also comments that while stumbles and falls are a natural part of childhood, ‘the body’s pain receptors don’t fully mature until 16 years of age, meaning the body will adapt if there’s been a shift in a bone’s position.

‘This is why spinal problems often go unnoticed in children. Pain often presents when a child is older, hosting problems developed much earlier in their lives.’

It seems a pattern for these arguably unconscionable con artists is to turn routine everyday normality into pseudo-pathology, whilst misinforming the public and undermining conventional medicine. A visit to the one stop chiro’ shop however will work like magic.

Not much is beyond them. Addiction treatment has been redefined years ago as “Reward Deficiency Syndrome”. A truly spectacular abuse of the neuropharmaco-kinetics and dynamics of the nucleus accumbens aka the “drug pleasure reward system”. The Chiropractic Journal once reported a Discovery Channel documentary on the topic.

The Brain Reward Cascade and RDS explain how persons can manifest a deficiency in their state of well-being, which interferes in their potential and quality of life. This work was eventually published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs….. Although RDS is estimated to be as high as 30% of the general population, persons suffering from addiction best represent RDS, as RDS is responsible for most addictions and compulsive disorders. The five addictions include work, eating disorders, sex, gambling and drugs. Compulsive disorders include Attention Deficit Disorder, ADHD and Tourette’s Syndrome.

Eh Gads! Almost a one in three chance of having RDS which is best represented by “persons suffering from addiction”. You could already have it! And what type of parent would take those risks? Drugs, sex, gambling, food and work. Or porn as we see below. Probably Gonzo Porn. Could you imagine what would happen if Gail Dines found out about this!? Hooley Dooley, a 30% chance of being addicted to the horrors of entwined flesh, bottom spanking, appalling music and lack luster plot lines.

Only 11 months ago Fighting Addiction With Chiropractic Care was published in Australia. In Beating Addiction – Chiropractic we read the fallacy;

In a randomized clinical trial with 98 addicts designed by Robert Duncan, Ph.D., biostatistician at the University of Miami School of Medicine, Dr. Holder found that daily chiropractic adjustments five times a week over a 30-day period increased the retention rate to 100%. “This is unheard of; it’s never happened before in addiction treatment,” Dr. Holder says. At a national average of only $40 per chiropractic adjustment, this rate of success costs only about $800 per month. Add to this $50 for a one-month’s supply of amino acids and $240-$400 a month for four addiction counseling sessions, and you have a total program cost of $1,100 to $1,250.

“This is unheard of; it’s never happened before in addiction treatment.” No kidding? And in Super Healthy, we read about “Super Recovery”. This guy kinda goes off the rails somehow, even squeezing in autism as a compulsive or addictive “behaviour”;

It could be a minister of religion gripped by an addiction to online pornography; it could be a housewife who covers her emotional and physical pain with prescription and over-the counter pain and anti-depressant pills….

Could Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) be the common psychological thread that links a myriad of compulsive and addictive behaviors? What single trait is shared by… addiction to drugs (be they alcohol, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or cigarettes); sugar and carbohydrate bingeing; pathological gambling; sex-related addictions; ADHD; Tourette’s Syndrome; Autism; Anorexia and Bulimia; Being a Workaholic; Risk-taking behaviors; and even many of the compulsive disorders?

In 2008 lacking evidence to support the claim of ability to treat colic – something science writer Simon Singh referred to as “bogus”, the British Chiropractic Association filed against him for libel. This rightly prompted England’s most senior judge to comment, “The opportunities to put this right have not been taken… I’m just baffled. If there is reliable evidence, why hasn’t someone published it?” He was also critical of the BCA’s inability to provide evidence of their ability to treat “childhood asthma and other ailments”.

These are exactly the claims being made by Warren Sipsis and his ilk, and I can assure readers there remains not a jot of evidence to support the notion of this lucrative one stop shop. What followed in the UK was that a full 25% of chiropractors fell under investigation for making unsubstantiated claims following the backlash from Singh supporters, the launch of Keep Libel Laws out of Science by Sense About Science and eventual dropping of the libel case against Simon Singh.

A major problem in Australia remains our toothless Therapeutic Goods Administration. Rubbish treatments and phoney diagnostic aids are approved on a risk basis – not an efficacy basis. This sees tricks like “crystal therapy” rated in the highest class for heart valve failure, electrical field treatment second and evidence based surgical replacement rated three categories on in the lowest. Therein lies another issue with sham treatments – the exploitation of practitioner and “patient” gullibility. Sipser has paid a small fortune no doubt, effectively for a “Machine that goes ‘Bing'” – used to fool the medical administrator in Monty Pythons The Meaning of Life. Fortunately The Weekend Australian captures the “sciencey” calming of intuition perfectly;

[Sipsers’ wellness practice has an] Insight Subluxation Station, which Sipser uses to diagnose patients. It employs surface electromyography (EMG) to detect electrical impulses in muscles, along with information on heart-rate and temperature which is fed through a computer to produce a chiropractic diagnosis. “It measures how much activity is in the muscles, and the thermal reading measures activity in the autonomic nervous system,” explains Sipser. “It shows how the nervous system is communicating with the organs.”

Reggars believes this is absolute nonsense. “Surface electromyography as typically used by chiropractors is just a gimmick and sales tool to encourage people to have chiropractic care,” he says. There is absolutely no evidence that surface EMG yields any information about internal organs, says Reggars, an opinion shared by Sydney University’s co-ordinator of musculoskeletal physiotherapy, Andrew Leaver. “I don’t know of any research that has even looked at the link between EMG results and organ pathology,” says Leaver.

For a parent concerned about her child’s health, however, watching the computer-screen’s horizontal graph-lines turn from dangerous black to benign white is reassuringly scientific. “I do like it because it’s something black and white, you can see the changes in the body,” says Liz van der Slot, whose children receive an EMG every six months.

Warren Sipser’s arrogance however, shows through in his dismissal of Reggars evidence based stance and focus on musculoskeletal problems. “That’s a very small part of the profession and they sometimes get publicity because controversy sells newspapers and television shows,” he says. “In truth, their numbers are so small that we can’t gauge what effect they are having”, he says. It’s a pity the same cannot be said about pseudoscientists like paediatric chiropractors. I’ve little doubt there are many like Sipser, and if the ranting of my anti-vaccination interlocutors is any sign as to how they cling to their demonstrably false beliefs there’s a genuine malignancy in Australian public health.

Ultimately there must be concerted efforts to complain about and deconstruct the false claims and grand promises of this fundamentalist new age money spinning hanky panky. It appeals directly to the “worried well” and insults collective intelligence by attacking conventional medicine. There’s no nice way to put it, but a great many chiropractors are perhaps liars and charlatans who make it up as they go. Others are sincerely misled with a high risk tendency to draw conclusions where there can be none. From a health care standing they are all to medicine what theologians are to astrophysics.

Finally the ball as ever is in our regulators court. The TGA must enforce much stricter standards on fake diagnostic tools and supplements that adorn chiropractor reception areas. The federal health portfolio must seek to take away as much rubbish, as it does add and reinforce genuine services.

Perhaps however, the greatest impact will come from science advocates, skeptics and mainstream medical activists using social media and large scale networking to call this scam to account.

Rachael Dunlop talks homeopathy

Dr. Rachael Dunlop, Vice President of Australian Skeptics, chats on 4MK about homeopathy in Australia [approx 11min].

Rachael touches on the harm caused by homeopathy – the denial of evidence based medicine. Specifically, baby Gloria Thomas and Penelope Dingle – wife of the unimaginably unethical Dr. Peter Dingle.

Dingle, a professional “toxin” fear monger made a pact with a homeopath to write a book about the hoped for “cure”, gambling with his wife’s life. Feel free to read the inquest below. Page 40 begins the evidence and demolition of the lies of homeopath Francine Scrayen. The bald faced lying of Dingle himself begins on page 61. The brutality of the pairs callousness defies description. The State Coroner of Western Australia dismisses the veracity of both their testimonies.

It’s true that Penelope believed homeopathy would work. Yet, the decision to save her and follow medical advice was refuted by Peter Dingle and Scrayen time and again. Soon to be on ABC’s Australian Story – watch promo. Below that is a confronting video on baby Gloria, who died of eczema after her parents dismissed medical advice or failed to follow through. They were jailed for manslaughter.

What’s The harm: Gloria Thomas Sam