Sir Paul Nurse, President of The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge [Wiki] aka The Royal Society hosts an excellent round up of some of Reason’s more blatant enemies.
AIDS denialism, climate science cynics, antivaccination lobbyists and opponents to genetically modified food research. Nurse covers this and more. He does an excellent job of scrubbing constructed controversy from the “Climategate” email tale. This includes an interview with perhaps the most famous twonk ever to profit continuously from just one story, James Delingpole of The Telegraph.
All that can be added is that at the time of filming the recent revelation of well funded, coordinated efforts to undermine climate science, were unknown. This involved leaked memos, of all things, from anti-climate science “conservative, libertarian” think tank The Heartland Institute. Blogger Anthony Watts is being paid a nifty $90,000. They want to help the lad with his new website devoted to interpreting temperature station data. Crucially this actual scandal exposed Heartland’s intent to sabotage K-12 science with it’s own “Global Warming Curriculum”.
“K-12” refers to the sum of education from Kindergarten to Year Twelve in Australia, Canada and the USA. The Guardian wrote on February 15th that this included a proposal from journalist and epistemologist Dr. David Wojick which:
…will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
The following indoctrination programme will install Christianity into your life. Please select “Continue” to begin.
CANCELCONTINUE
Please read and agree to this BIBLE before indoctrinating yourself with Christianity. Christianity is not liable for any doctrinal adversity, whether temporary, permanent, marital, financial, intellectual, morbid or mortal, provided it is covered within or can be explained by THE BIBLE, no matter how convoluted, improbable, impossible, absurd, offensive or hilarious. By clicking “AGREE” you accept the above terms and indicate you have read and understood THE BIBLE.
CANCEL GO BACK DISAGREE AGREE
Please select the destination of your indoctrination:
Entire Ontology
Belief System
Pseudoscience
Pascal’s Wager
Guilt
Fear
Parental Pressure
Non-critical Thought
I am under 10 years old
CANCEL GO BACK INDOCTRINATE
Please wait while Christianity is being indoctrinated into the selected destination. This may take a while. Please be patient. Do not ask questions of a probing nature or disconnect yourself from the source of your indoctrination during this process. If indoctrination is interrupted at any time you must select “CANCEL” > “GO BACK” and run the programme again from the beginning. To stop indoctrination simply click “CANCEL”.
CANCEL (ARE YOU SURE?) GO BACK
Congratulations! The indoctrination was successful. You must restart your life for all features of the programme to take effect. It is recommended you check frequently with your indoctrinator for updates and regularly run full reality scans. Christianity regularly issues automatic updates to guard against secularism, critical thought or non theism. It is recommended you set your life to receive these updates automatically. Christianity takes no responsibility should your life become infected with malware such as multi-faith tolerance, secularism, equal rights, humanism, rationalism or atheism. Instructions on how to repair your life from infection can be found by re-reading and accepting THE BIBLE.
50% of us will face cancer in our own lives at one time or another… we will have to face the choice of how to treat our illness – using toxic drugs or safe, effective, time-tested natural remedies… If you or someone you know is facing this issue or if you just want to be prepared for any future cancer diagnoses, this will be the best $25 you have ever spent!
So incredible that Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Medicine don’t want you to know about it. What is it that “they” don’t want you to know about? One answer to cancer. That “one answer” is based on testimonials about black salve combined with ridiculous claims about Aldara (Imiquimod). Imiquimod is accused of causing “systemic and fatal reactions” and actually causing cancer.
In fact imiquimod is successful in treating basal and squamous cell carcinomas, malignant melanomas, actinic keratosis and genital warts to name some conditions. The business about it causing cancer may well have it’s genesis in the fact imiquimod is used on subclinical lesions to promote visibility. It’s a painful approach but ensures all lesions can be successfully treated.
“They” don’t want you to know
Black salve is a type of corrosive salve known as an escharotic. If you’d like to see and read up on the sort of damage corrosive salves can do, check out Quackwatch‘s article aptly headed, Don’t Use Corrosive Cancer Salves (Escharotics). A discussion on the natural logic for their use can be found, I believe, in close proximity to the word “preposterous”.
Dorey’s copy/paste blurb includes the usual silliness about “nature’s scalpel” having been used for over 2,000 years “to treat skin cancers and other cancerous conditions, leading to a total remission of the disease.” Total remission! Wow. Of course putting profits “ahead of morality or their duty of care”, doctors and therapeutic watchdogs have ruined lives with proven Aldara all over the world, rather than promote Black Salve. Strange, because in their overview of Cancer Salves the American Cancer Society note in that killjoy Big Medicine fashion:
Available scientific evidence does not support claims that salves are effective in treating cancer or tumors. In fact, some ingredients may cause great harm. There have been numerous reports of severe burns, disfigurement, and permanent scarring from some of these salves.
That’s awfully negative and a little alarming. In Australia the TGA did publish a warning on it’s website on February 3rd. No doubt just showing off because they can bridge the gap between Big Pharma and Big Government whilst pretending to regulate Big Medicine, the immoral profiteers abandon duty of care to warn Patients and Consumers:
The TGA strongly advises consumers and patients against purchasing or using Black Salve.
Black Salve is corrosive and essentially burns off layers of the skin and surrounding normal tissue. It can destroy large parts of the skin and underlying tissue, and leave significant scarring.
In addition to the TGA warning about the purchase and use of Black Salve, the TGA is also investigating the supply of the product in Australia.
Further, a complaint about the advertising of Black Salve on certain Australian Internet sites is currently under consideration by the Complaints Resolution Panel.
Not long ago Janelle Miles of The Courier Mail reported on this ongoing global plot to ruin lives with toxic drugs and hide, “this safe, effective, time tested natural remedy”, as Meryl called it. Interviewing Cosmetic Physicians Society of Australasia president Gabrielle Caswell, they managed to catch her out saying it was “pretty horrific stuff”, capable of causing “gross scarring”. “It’s disturbing that this product is so widely available,’‘, she added.
Later, probably trying to drive suspicion away from Big Cosmo, Caswell added:
“I wouldn’t want it on my body. I wouldn’t put it on a dog if I had a dog because I think if you have a pet, you look after them.”
Which is rather telling because apparently it is being sold for animal use. Illegally. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority are presently investigating five websites for peddling porkies to pooch. Many sites are quite happy to tell you the TGA advises against use for humans. But when you know “they” don’t want you to know, the sites may assume you know of another meaning entirely. You know?
The World Todayran a report earlier today on this issue [Audio MP3 here]. It’s clear there are appalling corrosive side effects that can ensue from using Black Salve. Yet the sheer predatory nature of those who contend that a localised agent could have any effect on a deeply invasive cancerous growth that also metastasises, (like melanoma), is appalling.
So is the claim that blood roots, zinc chloride and zinc oxide is a “safe, effective, natural” alternative being hushed up by organised conspiracy. The ABC confirm that many websites claim “that the medical establishment rejects alternative cancer therapies such as Black Salve because it’s too difficult to make money from them.”
Despite promotion of anecdotal claims and testimonials, as Ian Olver from the Cancer Council said:
If you just have testimonials, you really don’t know whether, even if it said to work whether that is one in two, one in 20 or one in 200 and that makes a big difference to whether you suggest it to anyone else.
The best twenty odd bucks you’ll ever spend? This burning stupid really burns.
Yesterday I hinted at the cost to the AVN of Justice Christine Adamson’s ruling in favour of their appeal against the HCCC.
Whilst I postulated on what the HCCC could have done to ensure that the appeal was tossed out, the fact remains that Meryl Dorey – “Australia’s foremost expert on vaccination” – has to accept that she has (Ed: in respect of this ruling, arguably) been found to influence no-one. I’m sure being legally insignificant is not the pivotal aspect of the ruling Dorey will recount to members, unless she is grasping to deny the “anti-vaccine” label.
… 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. Justice DOES work sometimes.
Not strictly true. A major part of the original contention was that the HCCC acted outside jurisdiction because the AVN was not a Health Service Provider.
By Saturday the deception was tangible. Meryl Dorey posted:
For those who have been asking about our chariity (sic) status, hopefully, I will have more information on that early next week. The HCCC decision did not automatically give us back the authority, but I am hopeful that we will get it back since the OLGR relied completely on the HCCC warning to revoke the authority. Therefore, since the warning was invalid, the revocation may be too. Anyway, I will let you know as soon as I have the information myself.
MD
I’m not sure what game Dorey is playing here. She initially made this claim 16 months ago. There’s no doubt that she has constantly manipulated the flow of information to create the illusion that the OLGR revocation followed directly from, and was based upon the HCCC ruling. Initially in October 2010, Dorey emailed members citing only sections A, C and F of the notice she received from the OLGR and claimed:
As you can see, the OLGR based their entire decision on the HCCC’s demand for us to declare ourselves as being anti-vaccine and putting their disclaimer on our website…
Strange, because as far I can see the HCCC cannot possibly have had anything to do with OLGR findings of :
Fundraising without an authority
Unauthorised expenditure
Failure to keep proper records of income
23 breaches of the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991
On Saturday reasonablehank was quick to look for any substance and I recommend reading what is a complete demolition of this myth that the OLGR “relied completely on the HCCC”.
The holy grail of this HCCC appeal can be gleaned from Dorey’s erroneous claim. She wanted the OLGR decision overturned. But how? Certiorari is the legal term for an order given to set aside a decision. The decision is quashed and expunged from the record. Originally Dorey had named the Minister for Gaming and Racing as a second defendant. On July 5th, 2011 she discontinued proceedings against the Minister.
Dorey then sought to have the HCCC Investigation, Recommendation and Public Warning not only ruled as outside jurisdiction as per the HCC Act – ultra vires – but also sought certiorari to quash the HCCC determination to issue the warning. This would mean the decision was made unlawfully and not just outside jurisdiction as granted under the Act as it pertains to complaints. So what did the AVN put to Justice Adamson as unlawful? What rights had the HCCC abused? Adamson wrote:
When asked to identify the discernible legal right which was affected, counsel for the plaintiff said:
“The damage to its reputation by being labelled a public risk to health and safety.”
I realise it’s looking rather obvious but in plain speech this is where Dorey got to say, I’m not a risk to public safety and I deserve to retain my right to be a health charity. Adamson continued:
The plaintiff submitted that its rights were not only directly affected, but also altered, by the HCCC’s decision to issue the Public Warning and that certiorari is accordingly available… It argued that the decision directly exposed it to a new hazard of an adverse exercise of public power (having its fundraising capacity revoked).
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. 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.
The implications of this are huge. With denial of certiorari the linking of the AVN’s fundraising capacity revocation to the HCCC ruling has no basis. The court did not find that the AVN is not a risk to public health and safety because it also did not find that the HCCC erred in its conclusions or that the complaints are unfounded. The significance of Dorey’s clinically impotent insignificance is worth noting.
The AVN is left with the reality that the HCCC acted outside of jurisdiction in its Investigation, Recommendation and Public Warning. Because in this instance, the AVN in effect influences nobody in any significant way.
Also a lot of attention has now been drawn to this “anti-vaccination” group. This led Dorey to complain which led Fran Sheffield of Homeopathy Plus to comment on Dorey’s dishonesty, confirming that the AVN were anti-vaccine.
Fran then backed it up 45 minutes later with something that echoes point one of the HCCC’s pre-warning request, which read: 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 availableelsewhere. The other two points were (2) The information provided should not be read as medical advice and (3) The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider.
Sheffield wrote:
I think if the AVN placed a statement clearly on its website that people saw on first visiting – that it is providing the ‘missing’ information, or the information government and health departments should provide but don’t, then it would explain why weight of information the AVN carries makes it appear to be anti-vaccine.
In what must be one of the most hypocritical replies Dorey has ever managed, she then argued that the “AVN code of ethics” forbade judging anyone on their decisions. It might be harmful to their cause to openly say they were anti-vaccine. She “could not care less what others do” once the AVN have given them information doctors and the government withhold. Then amazingly Dorey herself echoes point one of the HCCC’s pre-warning request:
We provide information on the negative aspects of vaccination in order to balance the purely one-sided information given by the government and the medical community. We provide balance – we don’t tell people they should not vaccinate and we never will.
On Friday the NSW Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Australian Vaccination Network’s appeal against the HCCC’s public health warning.
Based on Justice Christine Adamson’s interpretation of the HCC Act, the HCCC did not act within jurisdiction. This means the HCCC warning is no longer valid. The outcome also means that the HCCC recommendation for the AVN to post warnings as to it’s antivaccination, non-medical and non-governmental stance are void. Complaints upheld by the HCCC can no longer stand.
Whilst congratulations rightly apply to the AVN their “victory” has come at the price of conceding any real community impact and the denial of certiorari (crucial to Dorey’s promised OLGR appeal). Confirmation of being a Health Care Provider may bring complications for the usually free falling AVN.
Initially Dorey’s argument was that the HCCC investigation was “illegal”. That they did not fall under HCCC jurisdiction because the AVN is not a health care provider. Dorey conceded in the Supreme Court on July 28th 2011 that the AVN did fall under the HCCC jurisdiction as a health care provider.
Because the HCCC jurisdiction to investigate requires a complaint, the court ruling then focused on interpreting the HCC Act under section 7(1) – What can a complaint be made about? The HCCC had upheld two complaints against the AVN. The judge deemed that section 80 of the Act provided specific functions of the HCCC that ruled out dealing with complaints “per se”.
The judge rejected the HCCC submission that section 7(1)(b): a health service which affects the clinical management or care of an individual client, was an alternate source of jurisdiction to that provided under 7(1)(a): the professional conduct of a health practitioner. The HCCC submission that the word “affects” should be read broadly, was not accepted. The judge ruled that the HCCC did not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints not concerning subject matter encompassed in section 7(1) entire. The ruling included:
In my view, the use of the words “the clinical management or care of an individual client” evince an intention that only a complaint concerning a health service that has a concrete (even if indirect) effect on a particular person or persons is within jurisdiction. Complaints about health services that have a tendency to affect a person or group, but which cannot be shown to have had an effect, would appear to be excluded.
I’m sure many of you have wrapped your thinking lobes around this outcome by now. Not being a lawyer my opinions are varied. Given that the Act was written in 1993 I think the HCCC inferred somewhat reasonably where Justice Christine Adamson wrote:
The HCCC submitted that I ought infer that the information the plaintiff has published on its website about vaccination has affected the decisions of people to vaccinate themselves or their children.
However the reality of legislation lagging behind lives deeply influenced by online access and communities is axiomatic. In this light perhaps the HCCC could have sought to cover all bases. This question becomes more relevant when we note that with a good deal of legal help Dorey wrote to the HCCC in December 2009 “again asking for information on jurisdiction”. Page 1 and 2 deal explicitly (and strikingly) with interpretation of the Act just as we saw it eventually impact upon the final judgement. Page 2 includes:
It seems however that the HCCC is seeking to interpret section 7 of the Act in a way that extends its jurisdiction beyond the reasonable (and legislatively established) limits set out in section 7(1)
The HCCC had earlier argued (14 December 2009) via correspondence that a complaint may be made under 7(2) “unrestricted in any way”. Regrettably, and with the help of hindsight over two years later, one can now see that section 7(1)(a) and (b) must be taken together. In fact if no tendency to have a direct affect upon the clinical management or care of a person or persons can be shown then jurisdiction does not apply. Adamson again:
In my view, the use of the words “the clinical management or care of an individual client” evince an intention that only a complaint concerning a health service that has a concrete (even if indirect) effect on a particular person or persons is within jurisdiction.
Should the HCCC have ensured this aspect was covered? Arguably yes. The very problem it would face in court had been laid out before them by the AVN well in advance. The Act dictates how the HCCC function and this entire matter had grown from complaints – the subject of section 7.
So yes, the HCCC should have been prepared. Could “direct affect” upon clients have been established?
There are many written examples of individuals attesting to the AVN having a direct affect upon clinical management or care. A small few include the first letter here republished by Meryl a year ago. A proud dad not vaccinating his daughter last month. An extended admission in support of Dorey speaking at Woodford, last December. This one even popped up just yesterday:
I’d not give these absolute credence in court, but a certain volume would be hard to ignore. However there are also doctors, paediatricians, neonatal nurses and many more who may well have confirmed this in a legal declaration. Justice Adamson herself noted the ease with which the HCCC could have accessed proof of direct affect from one of the complainants. She then wrote:
However, the ease with which it might have done so is not the test. It did not do so. As I have found, the evidence adduced before me is not sufficient to bring the complaints within s 7(1)(b) of the Act.
Yes. It appears that direct affect upon clinical management or care could have been established by the HCCC. I wonder if Adamson’s original draft has “head desk”, scribbled in the margin?
Let’s not forget who we’re talking about here. Dorey isn’t just anti-vaccine but pro-disease.
While this became news locally, how many West Australians were killed by medical error, adverse reactions to properly prescribed medications and hospital-borne infections. (sic) Why isn’t that written up in the newspapers? […]
But no – a mother who exposes her child to chicken pox – a disease that has never been considered deadly… an action that all our mothers and grandmothers would have taken – is threatened with police action or child protection because a man who considers vaccination to be a sacrament of medicine, reported her to the authorities and they didn’t laugh him down.
Keep in mind that giving someone a live virus vaccine (chicken pox, measles, mumps, rubella) is already deliberately infecting them with the virus.
Now that the AVN is a Health Service Provider under the HCCC’s jurisdiction one wonders just how much more feral ranting can go unnoticed. There can be no doubt what influence on care is intended by that article.
To this we can add the sum of the rubbish Dorey sells online as alternative health choices and natural cures. The very purpose of such material is to influence clinical care. It is reasonable to suggest the HCCC missed an opportunity which cost it a case.
Yet exactly how much of a “victory” it has been for the AVN has not yet been decided.
Losing In The Lucky Country 