Author Archives: Paul Gallagher

Sunrise hype mandatory vaccination

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health by

Firstly, there is no “push” for mandatory vaccination. Anti-vaxxers like the Australian Vaccination Network market this to garner support against Big Government.

Scheibner uses the same tune again

Yet if ever there’s an argument for mandatory vaccination it’s people like Viera Schiebner – or rather, the potential harm they cause. On this Sunrise segment, Scheibner (who keeps documents in a parsnip box) is given far too much time to sound convincing using the old “driving licence tests cause road fatalities” non-logic of correlation.

She also fails to distinguish between disease trend moving from correlating issues with polio to outbreak epidemiology with pertussis. All the while Scheibner suggests this is of course, an argument against vaccines.
Professor Robert Booy gets only a brief chance to slay her with facts. Facts that prove her to be lying.

It is not the vaccinated who die from vaccine preventable disease and he delivers the goods. The facts are clear. Risk/benefit is in favour of vaccination. Schiebner’s correlation myth and claims that disease is best for immunity are ignorant of facts and grossly irresponsible.

Channel 7 gave air time to an eccentric micro-palaeontologist intent on sabotaging vaccination regimes in pursuit of ratings. For shame, 7, for shame!

Sunrise Thu. September 8th, 2011

Peter Garrett welcomes changes to school chaplaincy program

Posted in Australian Christian Lobby, Chaplains in schools, Religion by

Catch up on other NSCP posts here.

After scamming Aussies, Scripture Union QLD continues to maintain the fallacy;

Following changes announced today to the National School Chaplaincy Program. The Australian writes;

SCHOOLS will be able to choose whether to employ chaplains or secular welfare officers under changes to the federal government’s controversial chaplaincy program.

All new chaplains or youth workers employed under the program will also have to have a minimum qualification of a Certificate IV in youth work. Existing chaplains must have at least completed the mental health and making referrals units of the course.

The changes announced by Schools Minister Peter Garrett today include renaming the scheme the national school chaplaincy and student welfare program. Previously schools were able to use the funds to hire a youth worker only if they showed efforts to find an ordained chaplain had failed. […]

The school chaplaincy program is the subject of a High Court challenge, with Queensland father Ron Williams arguing the requirement for chaplains to be ordained is unconstitutional. [….]

The program also came under fire from the commonwealth ombudsman in July.

The Australian Christian Lobby of course, wants no part of independently contributing to sound “secular” care of student welfare. The tax payer can foot the bill just as for all things biblical;

HOBART 7 September 2011. Garrett announcement welcome

The Minister for Education and Skills, Nick McKim, has welcomed today’s announcement to extend the National School Chaplaincy Program to include secular student welfare services.

Mr McKim commended the decision by Federal Minister Peter Garrett which will allow school communities to employ either a chaplain or a secular student welfare worker.
“I commend Mr Garret for his decision because these changes address much of the feedback I’ve received from school communities,” Mr McKim said.
“I am pleased the program is to be extended to ensure principals and school communities are able to choose the right person to fit the needs of their students and local communities.
“This will give schools much greater choice in deciding whether they want to employ a chaplain or secular student welfare worker.
“Growing up in today’s world has its challenges for our young people and today’s announcement will provide them with the support they need.
“There are 95 chaplains currently working in Tasmanian schools and colleges.”
“I have asked my department to ensure that all schools are made aware of these changes to ensure they are fully informed of the options now available.”

PETER GARRETT: This morning I wanted to make an announcement about some changes that the Government will be making to the National Chaplaincy Program. I want to highlight some of those changes to you but to begin by saying this has been a very popular program. It’s one that the Government fully supports, and we’ve been through an extensive consultation process to determine what changes might be applied to the program in order to strengthen it and improve it. So today I can announce that we will broaden the scope of the chaplains program to include student welfare workers or secular workers in the schools as a part of that program.

We will strengthen the requirements for qualifications for those who work as chaplains in the schools under the program. We’ll also make additional requirements for the chaplaincy service providers, that they have strengthened requirements for the delivery of the program, and we’ll make available an extra $4000 to increase the amount for chaplains or the student welfare workers in remote, regional or disadvantaged communities from $20 000 to $24 000, to take account of the additional costs that can apply in remote areas.

What today’s announcement is about is taking a popular and positive program and making it better, with stronger qualifications and more choice for parents and school communities. And I’m really pleased that we’ve had the opportunity to take a program which is both popular and successful and improve and strengthen it. Now, I should add that in relation to those chaplains who are already working under the program and who don’t have minimum qualifications, the Government recognises that there is a need for them to have some minimum qualifications in the areas of mental health and referral qualifications that already exist under equivalent Cert IV qualifications. That will be a requirement for those chaplains already in the program, but the Government will provide them with the assistance to get those qualifications.

This is a program which is all about giving schools the choice about having a chaplain or a student welfare worker in their school. Schools are in the driving seat in this program.  It is a popular program and it is one that the Government fullysupports and, additionally, has provided funding for another 1000 schools to take the opportunity to have these services in their schools. I’m extremely confident that the changes we’ve made will deliver a program which suits the school communities right around Australia. I know this is a very popular program. It’s one that the Government fully supports and I commend these changes.

QUESTION: Minister, there was a High Court challenge in which the judgement’s due by the end of the year. Did the Ron Williams challenge play a part in making the Government expand its secular welfare movements?

PETER GARRETT: The consideration as to whether or not the program should be expanded for secular workers was one which was made prior to the High Court challenge that considered the chaplains program. It was an issue that had been raised in the consultation process that the Government had undertaken, and it’s an issue which we’ve always known is one which some parents and some school groups and organisations have raised previously.

QUESTION: With these student welfare workers, what do you mean?

PETER GARRETT: We’re providing the opportunity for schools to choose somebody who has an equivalent Cert IV qualification, someone who’s in a position to provide support and advice in the school community, as chaplains do, but effectively is a secular worker.

QUESTION: When you say student though, are they still at uni? Or is it do you mean that as in counselling a student? A youth worker or something?

PETER GARRETT: What I’m saying here is that schools can either choose to have a chaplain delivering the services under the program or a welfare worker delivering those services under the program, and there’ll be minimum requirements for both of those capacities, whether chaplain or a welfare worker.

QUESTION: Minister, there was a concern earlier that some of these chaplains were pushing religious views and trying to convert people to Christianity. Do you have concerns about the particular conduct of some chaplains under the program previously?

PETER GARRETT: I can’t stress strongly enough that the guidelines in the program are absolutely crystal clear that chaplains are not there to provide religious instruction or to proselytise, and that definitely remains the case. It is not appropriate that this is delivering religious instruction – and the guidelines and the code of conduct expressly forbid that. In those small number of cases where charges of proselytisation have been made, they’ve been investigated. I’m very confident that this is a program that is delivering into school communities the kind of services they think benefits students.

Remember, this is a voluntary program. Schools choose whether they want to have a chaplain or, now, a student welfare worker and I’m very confident that schools will make that choice, taking into account the views of their school community.

QUESTION: When will that come in?

PETER GARRETT: We will process the opportunities for those schools that want to continue the chaplain program over the coming week. We’ll also then start to process the additional applications for the thousand schools that additionally the Government is committed to. I do want to place on record my thanks for all of those groups that participated in the consultation process, the chaplaincy service providers, the principals and parents associations, and other interested parties. The fact is that we are fully committed to making sure that we put schools in the driving seat to determine whether they want to have a chaplain working in the school to help students or whether they want to have a welfare worker working at the school.

QUESTION: Minister, Labor power brokers say that Julia Gillard has until the end of the year to turn things around for Labor or there will be a change of Prime Minister. Should Julia be dumped as leader if she doesn’t turn things around by Christmas?

PETER GARRETT: The Prime Minister has my full support and the support of the caucus. We’ll continue to prosecute what I think are the important issues that Australians do care about. That includes the announcement that I’m making today. That includes the reforms that we have underway with delivery of the National Broadband Network, the big education reforms that we’re rolling out, improving schools, making sure that kids get the best education they can. That’s what Australians are interested in us doing and that’s what I’m interested in talking about.

QUESTION: Why shouldn’t Kevin Rudd be given another chance as Prime Minister?

PETER GARRETT: Well, again, I’m not going to provide a whole heap of commentary around these issues. I think that everybody wants to see the Government continue to deliver the reforms that we think are in the national interest and that’s what we’re going to do.

QUESTION: So will you be hoping she gets elected for another [term]?

PETER GARRETT: There’s no question about that.

QUESTION: And how long can the party afford to wait before action needs to be taken?

PETER GARRETT: Well, again, the most important thing for us to do as a government is what we are doing – making announcements such as the announcement that I’m making today, committing ourselves to improving the educational opportunities for young Australians and making sure that we continue with the significant health reforms that are out there, ensuring that we have a focus on those Australians – say, for example, in the disability area, who have not been given the level of attention that they deserve by our coalition opposition in the past and are now getting the level of attention they deserve from this government.  These are the things that count and these are the things that we’ll focus on.

QUESTION: Minister, will you be a Labor candidate for Kingsford Smith at the next election?

PETER GARRETT: I’ve always said that I intend to stand again and, at the moment, I’m absolutely relishing the opportunity not only to serve the people of Kingsford Smith, but also to bring forward policies which I think are better for the people of Australia. If Australians care about the quality of political leadership, then the Opposition Leader today should distance himself from the actions of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cory Bernardi, who is providing a great succour to an extremist politician who has dangerous views which are completely at odds with Australian culture and Australian values.

And I am extremely concerned to see that Senator Bernardi, who has consistently put a hardline view on a range of issues, has now offered support to a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, whose views are extreme and dangerous. And Mr Abbott should show some leadership, discipline this Senator, remove him from his portfolio responsibilities, and ensure that he makes it absolutely clear that there is no place in a country like Australia, where our values are values of fairness and tolerance, for the kind of actions that Senator Bernardi has embarked upon in offering to support this extremist overseas politician.

QUESTION: Well, John Howard had Pauline Hanson disendorsed from the Liberal Party in 1996. Are you saying Tony Abbott should have Cory Bernardi kicked out of the Liberal Party in 2011?

PETER GARRETT: It’s up to Mr Abbott to make clear what action he’s going to take in relation to Senator Bernardi’s dangerous and completely unacceptable offer of assistance to an extremist politician. The ball is in Mr Abbott’s court if he understands the significance of the actions that Senator Bernardi has taken, and I would like to think that he does understand the significance of them, then he ought to take the appropriate action – it’s in his hands.

QUESTION: Just a – do you support a return to offshore processing of refugees?

PETER GARRETT: I’ve already made my comments clear in relation to what I think the Government has in front of us following the High Court decision. You’ve seen the subsequent comments made by the Prime Minister and we’ll continue to deal with this issue in the most appropriate way, given the decision that the court has made. Thanks everybody.

QUESTION: I’ve just got one more question, sorry.

UNKNOWN: Just when you thought you were –

QUESTION: It’s about the chaplains or the secular workers actually.

PETER GARRETT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Where are the secular workers going to come from?

PETER GARRETT: Look, they’ll come from the community and from those areas of expertise of people who have those qualifications.

QUESTION: But the chaplains don’t get paid very much so you’re asking non chaplain workers who are supported by their churches to come and do the work with them for the same amount of money?

PETER GARRETT: Yeah. It’s the same figure for the chaplains or the welfare workers, other than that we’re providing the additional amount up to $24 000 for the remote and disadvantaged areas.  Look, I’m confident that there will be a source of people that want to come in and do this work. I know that we have people who are coming through the TAFE system, through the university system, through non government organisations and others, who have these equivalent qualifications who would relish the opportunity of working in schools, and providing assistance and support to kids in those schools.

QUESTION: For $20 000 a year?

PETER GARRETT: Well, I don’t have any doubt at all that in the same way as we’ve seen chaplains come into the schools for two days during the week normally, that the same opportunities will arise for the welfare workers.

QUESTION: Is the expansion of this to the secular workers a recognition that not everyone was happy with the religious nature of the program?

PETER GARRETT: The broadening of the program is a recognition that we want to provide schools with every opportunity to exercise a range of choice as to who they want to have operating in their school community. The fact is that the chaplains program has been a popular and positive program. It’s well supported by schools and given that it’s a voluntary program, I have every expectation that we’ll continue to see large numbers of chaplains in schools, but we’re also providing the opportunity for schools to make a choice about the kind of person they want working in their school. And if they do desire a secular worker in the school, then that opportunity is there for them.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, the $24 000 a year, that’s for ones in regional or remote areas – so is that outside capital cities? How would that criteria work?

PETER GARRETT: Look, there’s a series of definitions that the Department applies to those criteria and that will be made clear to the applicants.

QUESTION: So would the Central Coast of New South Wales be part of – considered regional or would that be part of the Sydney metropolitan for chaplains?

PETER GARRETT: Well, in terms of the Department’s definition, that’s something for them to determine but the point of the additional investment that we’re providing to the program is to enable schools that are in remote and regional areas and in disadvantaged communities as well to take advantage of this program. So the Department will have a set of indices that apply to that and the guidelines will make clear what they are and schools will have the opportunity of applying.

Thanks, everybody.

Leo Igwe talks witchcraft, Christianity & superstition in Nigeria

Posted in General, Human Rights, Religion by

Interviewed on ABC Melbourne by Lindy Burns, Leo Igwe, West and Southern African Director for the International Humanist and Ethical Union, discusses the struggle faced by skeptics and humanists on the African continent.

A regular contributor to The Skeptic magazine and The Humanist in Australia, Leo’s work is well known amongst humanists and skeptics. Facing superstitious beliefs, clever scams, exploitation and violent retribution for exercising free thought – including attacks on his family – Leo has a difficult role. Having recently spoken to Victorian Skeptics and Victorian Humanists Leo also spoke at Trades Hall in Melbourne.

One issue that stuck in my mind after hearing Leo speak is that whilst one child dies from malaria every 30 seconds in Africa frequently the cause is assumed to be witchcraft. In view of this, parents do not take the ill children to hospital but to evangelical churches where exorcisms and prayers are offered as a “cure” instead. These children die long painful deaths, although some do make it to hospital… eventually.

Yes, What’s The Harm? indeed.

[audio http://traffic.libsyn.com/firesnake/leo-igwe-interview-for-web.mp3|righticon=0xff0000|righticonhover=0xFFFFFF|loader=0xff0000]

Or download audio

Beware the ELF in the cupboard

Posted in Big Placebo, Health, Scam by

The recent report (2011-12) on the Auditor Generals performance audit into Therapeutic Goods Regulation of complementary “medicines”, is disturbing reading. It confirms that the CAM “industry” if you will may breach the Therapeutic Goods Act with little concern.

Under the authority contained in the Auditor-General Act 1997 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) undertook an independent performance audit in the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). The Therapeutic Goods Administration – part of the DoHA – has the role of regulating the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The Minister for Health and Ageing holds responsibility for the Act.

Back in June this year a Transparency Review of the TGA was published, which you can find in a separate post here. I also outlined the essential gateway that permits the wide scale manufacturing of bogus products, with bogus claims, sold for very real percentages of your hard earned money;

To register a product, sponsors use an electronic listing facility – ELF – by simply going online. Much like filling out a Facebook profile. Ingredients are selected from a drop down list. Near enough is good enough. These ingredients are already deemed riskish free by the TGA. Sponsors “self certify” under GMP requirements. Basically claiming that the goods are produced under Good Marketing Practice. Finally they tick a box indicating that they hold good evidence. Hand on heart no doubt. No checks are ever run. They pay the $600 fee and receive an AUST L number. These goods are then able to be listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

The Electronic Listing Facility software (now version 3) has the power to allow products for sale. It’s no surprise dear reader, to find that our friend the ELF features heavily in the independent audit. The Act was given extra zing in 2001 to allow easy market access of products deemed low risk because they, well, in the main don’t really do anything. It favours “sponsors” (producers) hiding true information from the public. Thus it is open to wide abuse and it seems this opening is a crowded one indeed.

The ELF also provides a free text field for sponsors to wax lyrical about the astonishing qualities and safety of products. Again, like a Facebook profile you may enter whatever you like. Or omit entering what you don’t like. Although introduced in 2003 it can have no impact on products already on the ARTG prior to it’s introduction. True to it’s sleepy nature the TGA have done nothing to check if existing (pre-2003) products comply with present standards. Which may well tell us more about what the TGA think of it’s own so-called standards than the egregious risk to public health it otherwise appears to be.

In respect of “pre-market assessment” on page 77 under 3.44, the ANAO noted four matters “whose consideration could improve their integrity”:

(1) indications and claims in older products have not been checked;

(2) arrangements for scanning free‐text indications are not robust or comprehensive and require manual backup;

(3) the coded indications project—which could address both these issues by eliminating the free‐text field—has been proceeding very slowly; and

(4) some sponsors may, on occasions, be entering incorrect information into the ARTG intentionally.

If a product variation or grouping of products occurs ELF 3 will scan the records from pre-2003. Yet, this is widely known and sponsors avoid updating their records despite new research condemning effects or dismissing efficacy. Thus (for example), St. John’s Wort remains marketed as an effective depression treatment despite having no effect on endogenous depression and a poor effect on clinical depression. Fish oil sponsors continue to boast of success with osteoarthritis (OA) despite the anti-inflammatory effects only showing promise in rheumatoid arthritis. The promised “cartilage regeneration” occurs at a glacial pace compared to loss via OA, rendering it almost meaningless.

The list of “hangers on”, if you like, debunked in any manner of exercise is extensive. “Anti-oxidant” products incapable of meeting claims, detoxification kits that have negative effects actually resulting in jaundice and poor LFT’s, all homeopathic products, echinacea, dedicated preparations containing vitamins or minerals, crystal therapies, energy bands, sexual performance/libido enhancers, cognitive enhancement products, immune stimulants, herbal weight loss products and teas, etc, etc.

The TGA does no manual checking and the software cannot scan existing records for restricted or prohibited terms aiding this pseudoscientific white elephant. This is despite the fact the TGA is regularly adding new terms. So effectively;

  • Any product listed on the ARTG prior to 2003 escapes scrutiny for all restricted or prohibitive terms. Any such product escapes even the dubious self-certification standards by which new products are listed;
  • When the TGA adds a term or word to it’s list of restricted or prohibited words and terms, every single item listed prior to this is not checked for these same words or terms;
  • The TGA’s assessment system is incapable of scanning existing products and thus cannot correct for the impact of emerging research;
  • In the 8 years since implementation of the ELF the TGA has made no attempt to manually check pre 2003 listings;
  • Sponsors intentionally avoid updating information via the ELF, effectively misleading the public to continue to believe a product succeeds where it has been shown to fail;
  • Sponsors may enter incorrect information about a product intentionally and the product may still be approved for listing on the ARTG;
  • Nonetheless the TGA is working to address these shortfalls via a “coded indications” project, which the ANOA has identified at progressing too slowly.

Not surprisingly then when ANAO searched for “TGA Approved” and “safe” – the use of which is unlawful in advertising alternative products – thousands of examples were found. Of these thousands the ANAO provided “three egregious examples to the TGA” (p. 128). The TGA identified other breaches “such as ‘cancer‘”. As of June 20th, 2011 two of these three “egregious breaches” were not rectified.

Okay, so why? Well on page 130-131 we read that prosecution is the only option left to the TGA in these cases. Yet;

The TGA’s Advertising Unit is not aware of having successfully used the full range of sanctions, such as seeking a prosecution for breaches:

Due to the very low financial penalties currently available (a maximum of $6600 for individuals and $33 000 for corporations) for advertising offences in the Act and other investigative priorities for the TGA, it is not cost‐effective for the TGA to initiate a formal investigation of an advertising breach with a view to preparing a brief of evidence for consideration of prosecution by the Director of Prosecutions …

It has never been cost‐ effective for the TGA to initiate a formal investigation of an advertising breach with a view to preparing a brief of evidence.

The size of penalties attached to criminal offences may also mean that it is seen as not in the public interest to proceed. This view is consistent with legal advice provided to the Advertising Unit about specific breaches.

The TGA has also observed that “prosecution is currently the only available option where administrative requests fail to achieve compliance”. There have never been any cases that have been referred for prosecution action and accepted. As a consequence, the prospect of using prosecution action against non‐compliant behaviour, and as a deterrent, seems limited.

Alrighty then. So it’s not cost effective or “in the public interest” to enforce regulations. Sponsors and manufacturers would know of this stunning record of no successful prosecution. They must be trembling in their Whitsunday banana lounges, dear reader. 80 of 82 complaints pertaining to the Advertising Code this year were upheld by the TGA. The two failed complaints were “between” competing companies. Yet there’s no way to follow through and prosecute for non compliance. That’s quite absurd in anybody’s reasoning.

In 2010 a DoHA review found 90% of products reviewed were found to be non-compliant with regulatory requirements. The infamous 31 products selected at random yielded 68 breaches;

  • 20 medicines had labelling issues such as non‐compliance with labelling requirements and/or breaches which may mislead consumers.
  • 12 included incomplete and/or inappropriate information on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).
  • 22 were found to have manufacturing and/or quality issues.
  • 14 did not have adequate evidence to substantiate claims made about the medicines.

This comes on top of the 2003 recall of 1600 Pan Pharmaceutical products. In 2006 the TGA found 75% non-compliance with regulations. However, the TGA doesn’t use information gathered from post market reviews to sharpen up the prodding stick for frequent offenders or even the most frequently occurring characteristic of regulatory breaches. This is a major issue in presenting transparency and setting in train practices that would better inform the public.

Since 2005 it’s been government policy for the TGA to collect from sponsors a summary of evidence, for the purpose of informing the public. Sponsors are required to have this summary. The TGA inexplicably assumed this process of collection would be legislated for under the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency. The ANZTPA process initially faltered and as the TGA is wont to do it consequently did… nothing.

But by golly, in May this year it “took steps” – yes “steps” dear reader – “to restart implementation of this policy”. Yes! To “restart” the policy. Which to me sounds like bureaucratic blubber indicating a pre-emptive attempt at damage control, if we scrutinise the dates of the auditing process.

So here we are still waiting to know what comes out of those magical places that use our little ELF. On top of the Transparency Review we may conclude there is little transparency for the public. If you’re not in the habit of reading research or taking an intellectual interest in alternative product dynamics (which indicates you’re almost certainly immune to hanky panky), you’d make a perfect customer. Ignorant, misled and unable to access proper information. All in all it’s pretty tragic.

Do be my guest and have a read.

Auditor Generals Report: Therapeutic Regulation of Complementary Medicines

The Australian Vaccination Network in court

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Big Placebo, Health, Legal, Scam by

Today Meryl Dorey returned to the Supreme court NSW to resume her fight to overturn the NSW HCCC decision that the AVN should place warning notices that it provided anti-vaccination information on it’s website.

She was cross examined for 20 minutes and the court convened. She returns in another 2-3 months;

Dorey has claimed that the HCCC investigation was “illegal” as the AVN was outside HCCC jurisdiction being not a health care provider or health educator under the HCCC Act. Dorey also claims the investigation was flawed because it was not independent, but by a government organisation that “set out to support government policy which is pro-vaccination”.

Whilst still publically maintaining lack of jurisdiction to members today, referring her members to this denialist conspiracy rant, I understand that Dorey and the AVN are certainly within HCCC jurisdiction. The AVN conceded so in court on July 28th. Unseen developments aside this is likely to remain.

On July 26th, 2010 the HCCC published a public health warning following the AVN’s failure to post warnings that it was anti-vaccination. Prior to this the HCCC had investigated two complaints that the AVN provided false and misleading information. The HCCC concluded it’s investigation on July 12th and gave the AVN 14 days to publish the following on it’s website:

  • 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;
  • The information provided should not be read as medical advice; and
  • The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider.

As you can see this is markedly more tame than the public health warning. There’s no mention of;

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

Or;

… the AVN provides information that is inaccurate and misleading. The AVN’s failure to include a notice on its website of the nature recommended by the Commission may result in members of the public making improperly informed decisions about whether or not to vaccinate, and therefore poses a risk to public health and safety.

Meryl Dorey

So to spell out the obvious, most of what Meryl Dorey is railing against is by her own hand. All this effort to pretend she’s not anti-vaccination need never have been wasted. The hysteria over her being a risk to public health, quoting selectively from research, giving incorrect and misleading information leading to improperly informed decisions was all her own doing. I cannot stress that enough. The difference between what the HCCC requested and what Dorey created is huge.

Also her claim of not being under HCCC jurisdiction and not giving medical advice somewhat deconstructs itself by her refusal. By refusing to inform readers information shouldn’t be read as medical advice, we may infer that she believes it should. By refusing to support consultation with a health care provider she is in effect denying sound medical advice. Later ramblings about suppression of her right to free speech are as good as incomprehensible.

This initial decision was backed by Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr. John Carnie, speaking on ABC’s The World Today, July 13th, 2010:

Download audio. Transcript here.

On July 12th – HCCC announcement day – the AVN having metamorphosed into a watchdog popped out a cracker of media release from “media spokesperson”, Meryl Dorey: Vaccine Safety Watchdog to Fight Government Censorship;

Consumer advocacy and vaccine safety watchdog group, the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), has announced that it will be investigating all options in order to respond to the outrageous attack on free speech inherent in the recent allegations made against it by a NSW state authority, the Healthcare Complaints Commission (HCCC). The HCCC, in a report just released, has deemed the AVN to be a ‘healthcare provider’ and, in this capacity, stated that it has published ‘misleading and dangerous’ information on the risks of vaccination [….]

You can’t make this stuff up. Even members were baffled by her position. “But Meryl, we are anti-vaccination… just comply”, was a position expressed. Nonetheless, this gave birth to the “attack on free speech” lie that gradually drew in our friend with intellectual wanderlust, Dr. Brian Martin. Consider this taste of (if I may be so bold) a deluded and paranoid attempt at rationale, to mislead members. Pay particular attention to claims that the OLGR found no evidence of fraud. You know, like this missing $12,000 or even this other missing $12,000;

As you all would be aware, the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) illegally ‘investigated’ the AVN, and asked us to put a statement on our website to say, amongst other things, that we were anti-vaccine. We refused to do so and, as a result, they released a statement that we were providing deceptive and misleading information and were a danger to the public. The implications of this action are much further-reaching than the AVN as I will explain a bit further on.

This HCCC decision has been used by many other organisations and the media to defame and slander us – and why is that? Because we provide help and support to a sector of the Australian population that the government wishes didn’t exist – those who question authority, think for themselves and make health and wellness choices that go against the government’s and the medical community’s wishes. People like us should not exist as far as these bodies are concerned and they see the AVN as one of the ‘ringleaders’ if you will, of this sort of thinking. [….]

Right now, we are blocked at every turn because of this HCCC finding – and that was the whole idea behind this. Even the [OLGR] which openly admits that they found no evidence of fraud in the breaches they discovered in our operations – breaches of a purely administrational nature – have said that the HCCC findings will influence their final decision which is due out shortly.

And the HCCC had no jurisdiction to investigate us. Three lawyers, two barristers and a QC have all said this is the case. The HCCC acted outside their jurisdiction and outside the law.

It is certainly not the first time the HCCC has acted in an incorrect manner and this body, set up to protect the people of NSW from incompetent and dangerous doctors, seems to have a long history of being partial to the medical profession whilst coming down hammers and tongs against those in the natural health arena.

Speaking of the OLGR after this is over comes the appeal against the OLGR investigation and ministerial decision.

Dorey also dismisses the OLGR investigation and October 20th, 2010 revocation of their charitable fundraising status (authority to fundraise) by the Minister for Liquor, Gaming and Racing as “based on the HCCC decision”. [Letter here] More than anything, her conduct after this changed the view of Dorey as just an anti-vacccination crank and exposed the money making angle. Whilst not in the Sensaslim league, tactics are similar. Lie, feign outrage, produce confident media releases “clarifying” the egregious and erroneous mistakes of authorities, boast of confidence in being found not guilty and above all control the flow of information. Also simply inventing falsehoods and failing to deliver on legally obtained income such as magazine subscriptions.

Dorey also reported the OLGR audit findings as typical of any small, volunteer run organisation – size of donation tins, receipt giving and keeping of copies, etc – and had reported confidence that no fraud would be found. They also reported not having an auditor during the time they were found to be fundraising without a licence. During a rather delightful discovery it turned out the AVN had admitted having auditors over the time they told the OLGR that they did not. This was inadvertently admitted as part of a scam to raise money over a non existent advertisement.

In fact the OLGR found 17 breaches of the fundraising act including offences that carry fines and deliberate misleading of the public. Sadly penalties for charity fraud are quite lenient, which renders the creatures responsible as cowardly as they are reprehensible.

So, what of this line Dorey feeds over and again to her members and the media? The OLGR are flawed because they relied on the HCCC. Because of the deceptive nature of AVN website presentation – which led to the HCCC request – the OLGR also concluded individuals may donate in good faith and “noted the HCCC decision”. That’s where it ends. The OLGR in no way “based” it’s decision on the HCCC, but arguably had the AVN complied initially the OLGR may have ruled somewhat differently. Perhaps a suspension of authority, I really don’t know.

Either way, Dorey can only blame herself and her arrogance for the HCCC public notice. As for the OLGR decision, in light of the evidence, this thief, liar and scam artist who has also lived on the takings from her loyal if clearly misguided members has really already won so much. The fact she believes she can legitimately trade as a charity again and has been wronged tells us far more about the psychology of Meryl Dorey than about the dynamics of her crimes.

From an OLGR letter to Ken McLeod, October 18, 2010:

During the course of the inquiry evidence of possible breaches of the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 was detected in relation to the following specific purpose appeals conducted by AVN:

1. Fighting Fund – to support a homeless family, allegedly seeking to avoid a court order to immunise a child with legal and living expenses. The appeal ran for a short time in 2008 and raised $11,810. None of the funds were spent on this purpose.

2. Advertising Appeal – initially this was an appeal for the specific purpose of raising funds for an advertisement in the Australian commencing in March 2009 and concluding July 2009. The specific purpose was changed during the course of the appeal to fund advertisements in Child magazine. This appeal raised $11,910. None of the funds were applied to the specific purposes. It is noted that AVN did spend some $15,000 during the period December 2009 to July 2010 on various forms of advertising.

3. Bounty Bag Program and Vaccination Testing – for a number of years AVN has solicited for donations generally in a manner where, despite it not being AVN’s intention, one specific purpose was created in that donations could only be spent on one or more of four purposes, including funding the provision of AVN material in the Bounty Bag program and testing of vaccines. No funds raised have been spent on these two purposes.

The amount raised for the Bounty Bag scam and promises of independent vaccine testing is reportedly around $308,000 over 3 years and 8 months [page 13].

On top of that are numerous other scams based on the same technique one of which called for members to consider donating their Maternity Immunisation Allowance. This kicked off almost two months to the day after her first media release on the topic mentioned in item 1 above. Dorey claimed others were doing so, because without AVN lobbying to “ensure legislation” for the MIA and Childcare Allowance, they wouldn’t have it anyway. This is entirely bogus. Presently Dorey is calling for help to read the policy documents on the Healthy Kids Check. Yet somehow just can’t quite report the facts to her members.

Sound familiar?