Dealing with the Brian Martin dilemma

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Health, Judy Wilyman, Meryl Dorey, Scam, Science, Skeptic by Paul Gallagher

Recently Brian Martin a Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, published an article in Health Promotion International.

Dealing with dilemmas in health campaigning appears to be a bipartisan analysis of social dynamics and some areas of public health. However whilst Martin relies upon science and methods employed by the scientific community to sustain his argument he demonstrates his signature ignorance of the scientific method and the import of evidence.

In short Martin has continued his campaign to elevate supporters and perpetrators of scientific fraud, pseudoscience, censorship, personal vitriol, calculated deception and dangerous scams to the status of legitimacy. Rather than admit his role in supporting and coaching Australia’s premier anti-vaccination lobby, Martin hides this affiliation behind:

I give a few examples, especially from the vaccination controversy in Australia.

I selected the dilemmas discussed here based on my studies of a large number of public controversies, including informal conversations with prominent as well as lower-profile campaigners. […]

A key aim of this paper is to make these dilemmas explicit so they can be given the scrutiny they deserve.

Health campaigners today face intractable ideological devotion manifesting as evidence denial. The resistance of certain scientifically durable realities that play important roles in the maintenance of public health, is commonly presented as “the other side”. In fact cursory examination reveals malignant intent, bogus information, illegal pursuits, frequent monetary scams and outright fraud.

Certain areas have become key targets of a persistent opposition that uses pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, evocation of public fear and the exploitation of scientific ignorance in an attempt to mask ideological persuasion as legitimate science. Whilst the intellectual paucity of these proposals are immediately apparent to scientists, and consequently dismissed out of hand, the mechanisms behind why this is so are not apparent to the lay reader.

As such, scientists face a dilemma in managing, preventing or containing what may be a disproportionately negative effect on public confidence in crucial areas of health policy. The problem with engaging vested interests that promote pseudoscience and scientific denial is that the risk of lending legitimacy to demonstrably false contention, is significantly heightened when recognised scientists (or health authorities) respond.

On the one hand the public have a right to expect reputable authorities address falsehoods in a transparent manner. On the other hand, notions such as the scientific method, scientific consensus, the impact of evidence and abuse of statistics is poorly understood by the general public. Understanding risk-benefit is a skill the largely scientific illiterate public in developed nations lack. Poor, and at times, irresponsible reporting by media outlets compounds this problem.

Recently a bogus claim by Natasha Bita of The Australian drew immediate condemnation from Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration. Influenza vaccination has been conclusively linked to no deaths in Australia. However Bita misused information from the Database of Adverse Event Notifications, to insinuate ten deaths were “linked to anti-flu vaccine”. Meryl Dorey, president of the anti-vaccination group Martin is a member of has been continually pushing the falsehood launched by Bita.

Interestingly in another of his articles, Suppressing Research Data: Methods, Context, Accountability, and Responses Brian Martin offers an excellent account of Dorey’s conduct:

Censorship, fraud, and publication biases are ways in which the availability of research data can be distorted. A different process is distortion of the perception of research data rather than distortion of the data itself. In other words, data is openly available, but efforts are made to shape people’s perception of it.

Although he’s referring to publishers, the above paragraph adequately describes how Dorey conducts herself. In Dealing with dilemmas in health campaigning, Martin raises the prospect that not engaging anti-science proponents such as anti-vaccination lobbyists may have a negative effect on public perception. Yet the complex reality of how adverse reactions are reported, accepted, documented and how they must be interpreted would be lost on the bulk of the public. The catchy, but false, ten deaths linked to anti-flu vaccine would have an impact.

More so, placing a callous, dishonest, unqualified opportunist such as Dorey alongside a genuine health authority creates the illusion that there actually is a debate to be had. Worse is that the individual lies and tricks of the anti-science identity by extension gain credibility. As I note below new research reinforces that opponents to public health and even the myths they create are best ignored when seeking to address they mess they’ve created.

Consequently, engaging such extreme minority views can be detrimental to public confidence and rather than removing respect for ideological falsehoods may well create an impression of legitimacy. Given his affiliations it is almost certain Brian Martin seeks to do exactly this in his article.

In fact the above quote splendidly describes Martin’s own generalised distortion of data. A suitable example follows. Rather than tackle the disparity between anti-vaccination propaganda and say, the risk of flying, driving, overseas travel or any day to day task he writes:

Supporters of vaccination emphasize the large benefits from being vaccinated, notably a reduction in disease, including associated deaths and disabilities. They also emphasize the social benefits, due to herd immunity, from high levels of vaccination (Andre et al., 2008). That is straightforward. But is it wise to mention that a small number of individuals will have adverse reactions, including death and permanent disability?

The advantage of sticking to positives and not admitting shortcomings is that the message is much more powerful. ‘Vaccines are safe’ is far more reassuring than ‘Vaccines are nearly always safe’. ‘Vaccines are safe’ is also clear and uncomplicated and hence far easier to sell. Furthermore, any admission of weakness is likely to be seized upon by opponents and trumpeted far and wide.

Unsurprisingly the second paragraph is without citation. What Martin is doing is constructing a faux dilemma that resonates with poor appreciation of risk-benefit. The fact is vaccines are safe. They are monumentally safe and to use such a vague term as “nearly always safe” conveys a risk-benefit somewhat more dangerous than riding high speed motorcycles on city streets.

To then suggest without breaking stride the proper description of vaccine safety makes them “far easier to sell”, is simply outrageous. This is exactly the sort of bogus information I mentioned above. It is the perpetuation of the malignant untruth that vaccines need a market and supporters of vaccines will pursue this. At one point we read an equally outrageous slur on scientists:

The most common way to deal with vested interests on one’s own side is not to mention them, relying on the belief held by scientists that they are objective, so it does not matter if corporations offer research funding and perks.

Recent research into debunking myths has underscored the perils of not only engaging proponents of evidence denial, but of simply repeating the myth itself. This material may help explain why, on the topic of scientific dissent, Brian Martin continues to give unjustified credence not only to soundly scientifically refuted notions (fluoride in drinking water, vaccination, conspiracy theory put forward as “vested interests” and even HIV/AIDS denialism), but also to the view that a “debate” may be legitimate.

Indeed not only are terms such as “debate” entirely inaccurate in a scientific sense, they at once distract from the true dynamics at play and arguably with tragic consequences, lend even more false legitimacy to what is essentially pseudoscience, abuse of science and denial of evidence.

Martin continues to place anti-science lobby groups on equal footing with public health authorities or refer to unqualified saboteurs of public confidence as “citizen campaigners” seemingly simply raising legitimate concerns. This fails to acknowledge scientific consensus, its import and value to community health, and its dependence upon the rigours of the scientific method.

In short Martin demonstrates an alarming ignorance of the scientific method and its ability to expunge in totality such ill conceived ideas that “debate” rightly applies to numerous areas of outright denial of evidence. Martin is a financial member and published supporter of Meryl Dorey’s anti-vaccination group and the PhD supervisor of radical anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist, Judy Wilyman. Yet again he has labelled volunteers who deconstruct the harmful messages of Meryl Dorey to suit himself.

Thus it is right and just to call into question Brian Martin’s acceptance or not of moral responsibility. Prior to this article he was furnished with ample facts that he’s chosen to ignore despite claiming to have been in discussion with participants. Clear demonstration of the bogus claims of the AVN that impact heavily on his subject material have been omitted. Impartiality is clearly irrelevant if not inconvenient to Brian Martin.

Amusingly he again raises the silliness of Dorey’s obsession with global conspiracies as an apparent fiction invented by her critics. After a frustrating exchange of emails over a year ago I demonstrated that yes, in their own words the AVN do believe in vaccine delivered microchips and global culling. I’m quite surprised he saw fit to republish such a ridiculously irrelevant aspect to this ongoing saga.

More seriously, the scientific community would quite rightly be justified to review reference to the bulk of scientific methodology and accepted consensus as “the dominant paradigm” or “the dominant epistemological position” in dismissive terms. Whilst it is true that scientific findings remain always open to further inquiry and challenge, this process cannot be jump-started by suggesting evidence denial constitutes scientific “debate” or that the very methods and practices that led to The Enlightenment constitute a “paradigm”.

It can be far more adequately argued that proponents of pseudoscientific beliefs and evidence denial have not, over the entire course of their existence, altered scientific consensus as it pertains to their chosen ideology. This is especially true of anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation, alternatives to medicine and the denial of HIV/AIDS.

In this light we can see such groups as disempowered and effectively divorced from scientific and genuine skeptical inquiry. With no evidence to further their belief structure or force their ideology into reality we witness a constant recycling of well documented falsehood. This is backed by predictable contrariness that is more and more prone to argue their evidence is not flawed, but suppressed or censored by a covert conspiracy. Needless to say this has never been demonstrated.

Alienated, irrelevant and left to defend overwhelmingly debunked and thoroughly refuted notions, those incapable of accepting this reality predictably lash out and attack conventional science in an increasingly extremist fashion. Clearly these groups crave acceptance by the scientific community as they continue to use scientific terminology and mimic scientific research, discussion and reasoning.

However since their inception they have never once produced material that is accepted as genuine research or conclusive evidence. Their modus operandi is to shirk genuine research and produce bogus reviews they falsely label as “critiques”. These are carefully produced selections of cherry picked data presented with a false argument.

In addition they rely overwhelmingly on the alarmist and pseudoscientific work of a small number of faux professionals, whose greatest skill is the abuse of science – not its application.

This impasse has been manifestly apparent for many years. Thus far from accepting these groups have any legitimate contribution to make it should be stressed that the areas they continue to challenge are indeed settled scientifically. Yet Martin writes:

Supporters of the dominant position often say that the existing research base is more than sufficient to conclusively support their stand. Sticking with this claim has the advantage of not admitting weakness. It also can have an economic justification: unnecessary research is avoided.

The disadvantage of rejecting calls for more research is that the critics have a continual source of complaint. When critics have little capacity to undertake their own research—at least research requiring substantial funding—they can portray the defenders of orthodoxy as stonewalling in the face of legitimate doubt.

Again this is manufacturing a dilemma. With respect to vaccination health authorities have gone to extreme lengths researching, and continue to research, every possible adverse reaction or problem with vaccines. The research called for is today unethical and methodologically impossible. Other research demanded has already been conducted. Yet the goal posts are continually moved.

Consequently it is regrettable that certain authors appear to go to extreme lengths to cast denial as genuine dissent whilst insinuating that science has, and will, progress from those who consistently attack the process that does not produce the results they seek.

It should be noted Martin’s article has clearly been firmly edited away from his usual obvious slant in praise of scientific dissent. Its overall tone is seemingly reasonable. Nonetheless that’s not the real point.

Brian Martin has again shown he will be deceptive in the pursuit of his own interests.

31Aug2012

Natasha Bita: Award winner to crisis spinner?

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Human Rights, Legal, Science by Paul Gallagher

The TGA is concerned by assertions that a number of deaths resulted from influenza vaccinations. In fact there have been no recorded deaths from influenza vaccine in Australia.

– Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration respond to Natasha Bita’s article “linking” vaccination to fatality –

Natasha Bita published Virus in the system on May 28th, 2011.

The article presents an extended account of the heart wrenching story of Saba Button who suffered permanent brain damage due to the CSL Fluvax influenza vaccine, in April 2010. A combination of H1N1 and seasonal influenza strains Fluvax is tolerated very well by adults. However for children under five a febrile convulsion rate of 0.33% was later clearly established in the only state to involve this age group: Western Australia.

At the time the ABC reported hundreds of reactions. Of the 47 children taken to hospital, The West Australian reported 23 admissions. Saba Button was one such admission. Bita doesn’t provide these details, though to her credit does report that in 2009 fifteen kids under the age of 15 died after contracting swine flu. Each year between three and nine children die from influenza in Australia.

The situation in W. A. following the use of Fluvax on small children reflects a 2006 study in which 1 febrile convulsion was recorded in a sample of 272. What emerged as deeply concerning is that 2006 fever (not convulsion) trial data rates were 39.5%. Yet Fluvax manufacturer CSL informed the TGA of their 2005 trial data on fever. A much lower 22.5%. Public confidence in regulation, safety, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and ultimately use is vital. I’ve previously looked at the importance of holding CSL to account.

A primary reason is that such stories are fodder for anti-vaccination lobbyists. Public confidence in immunisation was at stake, and proper context was much needed. One glaring absence from Bita’s article was reinforcement of the importance of vaccination in preventing influenza. With the internet awash with dangerous anti-vaccination propaganda readers need to know that all vaccination schedules are of paramount importance.

The day Bita’s story was published anti-vaccination guru Meryl Dorey falsely claimed that “the skeptics” and Stop The AVN were “organising forces” to complain.

Meryl Dorey’s Yahoo! Twitter and Facebook libellous claims

I emailed Natasha that day seeking confirmation. After no reply I tried again on June 1st and CC’d The Australian online address. 16 days later I repeated this. Natasha eventually replied that no, she had received no complaints. Not one. However she had been away, she qualified. Strange, I thought. Was Bita suggesting that her absence equated to an inability to access emails, either later or indeed at any time?

I began to feel somewhat uneasy about Bita’s impartiality. Clearly she knew who Meryl Dorey was. She was the woman who had just hijacked her published account to falsely claim, “babies were being used as guinea pigs in a trial that was paid for by the drug companies involved.” Dorey was also harassing the Buttons by phone and had appointed herself the family’s unofficial conspiracy consultant.

Shortly after I’d finally received a reply from Natasha Bita she published an article on the very rare past occurrence of transverse myelitis following oral polio immunisation. Bita did little to quell the fear and uncertainty to follow in the wake of Virus in the system. The purpose of her piece was to report on the MJA article, A no-fault compensation scheme for serious adverse events attributed to vaccination published by Kelly, Looker and Isaccs. I was familiar with the article having referred to it myself almost three weeks earlier.

It’s inexcusable that Australia lacks such a scheme when we note Germany began theirs in 1961 and across the Tasman no-fault compensation has been a reality since 1978. Seventeen other nations have a scheme that relies upon WHO criteria for Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI). It is of even greater relevance in Australia because arguments for its implementation rely upon factors anti-vaccination lobbyists deny. Firstly that vaccination provides immunity and secondly the principle of herd immunity.

The authors write:

Any person who is injured while helping to protect the community — for instance, by contributing to herd immunity, such that there are sufficiently many people immunised to prevent widespread disease transmission within the community — should not bear the consequences of injury alone. In essence, the community owes a debt of gratitude to that person.

Natasha Bita, whether consciously or not, fed the anti-vaccination machine. The piece firmed her position as a journalist lacking in scientific literacy or having a grasp of risk-benefit ratios. She belittles the term “adverse reaction” and leaves the most crucial fact that Australia’s current inactivated polio virus vaccine carries no such risk, until the last few words. In a poorly written piece she completely misses the reality that Australia’s vaccine injury chic groupies will not back this scheme, have never mentioned it and deny the merit raised by Kelly, Looker and Isaacs.

When Virus in the system won Natasha Bita a Walkley for Sustained Coverage Of An Issue Or Event, she was embraced totally by the Dark Side. Her appearance on conspiracy and vaccine denialist site The Refusers perhaps underscored just how important a few lines reminding parents that vaccines save lives can be.

On August 3rd, as Queensland mum Katrina Day lay fighting for her life against influenza, Natasha Bita published a fraudulent article falsely “linking” 10 deaths to influenza vaccines. Bita ignored the TGA warning on interpretation of data. The article highlights how dangerous it is to allow sensation-seeking journalists to consult such information. Her headline outs her as unconscionable and callous as she proceeds to ignore any difference between correlation and causation.

Bita writes misleadingly:

TEN deaths have been linked to the nation’s flu immunisation program since the 2009 swine flu pandemic, including elderly patients and unborn babies.

The CSL flu vaccine, Panvax – which taxpayers spent $131 million stockpiling for the 2009 swine flu outbreak – triggered 1716 adverse-event reports, including seven deaths.

Whilst it is well understood that seasonal influenza vaccines will not include all circulating strains (meaning one may still catch influenza) she offers:

The Therapeutic Goods Administration database of adverse events, made public this week, lists the death of a grandmother who caught the flu after vaccination last year.

This is exactly the problem faced by VAERS in the USA, which is set to be superseded. Events are reported so that trends will be picked up and viable research launched in response to perceived problems. Nonethelesss all events remain on the database. Here we have an apparent award winning journalist reporting 10 deaths “linked” to ‘flu vaccines, whilst the total is actually zero. Visitors to TGA’s Database of Adverse Event Notifications are met with:

Her article drew the following response on the same day from the TGA:

TGA is concerned by a media story that may mislead consumers and could potentially discourage them from receiving influenza vaccinations.

Vaccinations play an important role in the prevention of diseases such as influenza, which can be life threatening in some patient groups. […]

The first line of text on the Database of Adverse Event Notifications states that: An Adverse Event does not mean that the medicine is the cause of the adverse event.

The TGA is concerned by assertions that a number of deaths resulted from influenza vaccinations. In fact there have been no recorded deaths from influenza vaccine in Australia. […]

To my knowledge Natasha Bita is yet to publish a retraction, explanation or apology. On August 27th it was reported that Katrina Day had passed away after falling into a coma. The 38 year old leaves behind four children and a husband.

Yesterday new directions for the CDC were reported in Flu Creates High Risk Of Death In Children With Neurological Problems:

A disproportionately high number of children with neurologic disorders died from influenza-related complications during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, according to a study by scientists with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The report in the journal Pediatrics underscores the importance of influenza vaccination to protect children with neurologic disorders. CDC is joining with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Families Fighting Flu and Family Voices to spread the message about the importance of influenza vaccination and treatment in these children.

Influenza kills and vaccination saves lives. For certain groups this is a very real decision arising every year. In very, very rare cases adverse reactions occur. To date in Australia no fatalities have been conclusively linked to influenza vaccines, including during the CSL debacle.

It’s a shame that so-called “consumer editor” Natasha Bita has to mislead her readers to suit her own agenda.

18Aug2012

Australian Vaccination Network crashes and burns on seminar tour

Posted in AVN, Meryl Dorey, Scam, Science by Paul Gallagher

As many know, Australia’s leading anti-vaccination lobby group, the deceptively named Australian Vaccination Network recently finished it’s “tour” of Western NSW.

The tour itself was an abysmal failure. Billed Vaccination and Health Rights – a seminar for parents and health professionals it attracted mainly aged hippies and conspiracy theorists. The most compelling development was rumoured to be Greg Beattie shouldering Meryl Dorey out of the spotlight.

Subtracting the obligatory four heads of the Doreys and Beatties, attendance was likely anything from 4 to 15 across various venues. This silliness may have cost over $7,500 if food, fuel and dodgy accommodation is included. To the surprise of many it cemented the disgust which with Meryl Dorey, Greg Beattie and the other misguided members of the antivax movement are regarded.

The “fury” expressed by residents of Tamworth appears typical of the reception the AVN received. The vicious online reception that the public of Tamworth laid out and the pummeling the AVN received in the comments attached to that article ensured Tamworth attracted the highest attendance.

Another piece, Controversial AVN vaccination group in Tamworth briefly covers the event. It includes the grab for money the AVN is known for;

Participants paid $12 to attend the meeting and were given information on the AVN legal fighting fund appeal where they can donate money to help the AVN fight their own pending legal cases and also to support the “fighting fund for non-vaccinating partners.”

The group says it helps parents in court proceedings fight their ex-partners or spouses who seek orders of the court to vaccinate their children.

Sounds darn tootin’ except “the group” has never done any such thing. Nor do they have any pending legal cases. This is a bald faced lie and an outright scam. I can be no kinder.

So, their largest turnout included critical journalists and the “ninja academic”, Scotty Harrison. Scotty is an Armidale local and PhD candidate in Health Economics. Scotty – the most qualified individual on the entire tour – took the stage and worked his way quickly to evidence based figures on the history of vaccines. Within 12 minutes he had demolished the thrust of a life time of deception from Greg Beattie (video below).

Greg Beattie: His antivax lies were demolished before his eyes

Scotty didn’t just lay bare the lie that decreases in mortality before vaccination, supposedly refute the efficacy of vaccination. Improved living standards led to increased recovery – but not reduced incidence of disease. He also raised the reality of vaccine preventable disease-induced disability. Then furthermore spoke of his own struggle with ADD, asthma, allergies and eczema. There is no evidence they are due to the vaccines he received as a child, he concluded.

He makes it quite clear vaccines brought about the elimination of the incidence of disease. When pre-vaccine recovery meant a lifetime of scarred lungs or severe brain damage or being bed ridden with multiple organ damage, the onus is upon people like Beattie to convince us just how vaccines are supposedly useless. As seen below the video, even in the present day (wherein no changes in living standards have occurred) the impact of vaccination on disease is striking.

Delightfully, Dorey and Beattie didn’t expect any presentation that might be in dissent to their theme. They refused Scotty’s invitation to return the next night. Keep an ear out for the spontaneous applause on Scotty’s point on how poorly the vaccination “debate” is being conducted. Strange then that this enthusiasm vanishes once his content is known.

As much as one may want to support the AVN in their quest for legitimacy, “because every story has two sides”, I’m afraid that’s presently impossible.

This trip was an unmitigated disaster.

Over to Scotty…

Impact of vaccination on measles and Hib incidence in recent and very recent times

(Above) Hib vaccine introduced to Australia

(Above) Hib Vaccine introduced to Kenya, Kilifi district

(Above) Impact of diphtheria, pertussis & tetanus vaccines on mortality 1,2,3, & 4 decades after their introduction to Australia

7Aug2012

Ex-QLD police officer alleges corruption in manslaughter case

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Human Rights, Legal, Scam by Paul Gallagher

I am an ex-Sgt of Police after 20 years in Queensland. Every SIDS mother told me their babies were healthy prior to vaccines and then deteriorated and died after.

Christopher William Savage

The above is from July 29th this year.

It’s in an AVN Facebook thread that again highlights the one way street of free speech down which Meryl Dorey travels. A commenter to a Blogger post joked they wanted to throw rotten fruit at Meryl. Another commenter warned her of the obvious currency the AVN would get from this.

Nonetheless, our stalker-at-large, Liz Hempel had the persons details in moments. She’d discovered the person was a police officer and figured the lodging of an official complaint was in order. Chris Savage is also an ever-helpful conspiracy theorist and antivaccination devotee. He chimed in;

Meryl thanked her loyal minions.

The purpose for this diversion? Well, Savage’s attention to the proper conduct of serving police officers seems to be a new found concern.

On July 2nd, Chris was “being duly” and decided to weave from memory accounts of his time as a police officer that seek to lay the blame for infant and child death at the feet of vaccines.

His Statutory Declaration includes SIDS and Shaken Baby Syndrome. Predetermined agendas on the part of QLD police, illegal conduct on the part of QLD police, apparent planting of evidence, supposed denial of facts by police and more. All this comes through in a sworn “oath”.

Why did Savage not report corrupt conduct at the time? One event – tampering with a prisoners property – applies to the rights of all prisoners, regardless of the cause for arrest. What was Savage thinking? Was corruption and tampering with property so common he only deems this occasion worth recounting because it helps firm the theme of his “oath”?

In fact, by “recounting” this, Savage has confessed to a serious misdemeanor, if not crime, on his own part. One that saw an innocent man charged with the manslaughter of a 5 year old, if Savage’s oath is true as he alleges. If so and if this person was convicted and jailed he may well still be in custody. The man was charged in September 2009. This dear reader, is way beyond joking about throwing fruit.

Immediately his sworn oath becomes a sensational account of how QLD police arrested an innocent man, planted evidence and because they, “did not have any evidence against the father of foul play”, chose to label the cause of the child’s death as Shaken Baby Syndrome.

How did police get the “medical evidence” of Shaken Baby Syndrome? Was there no autopsy? Did they make it up on the spot as Savage seems to infer?

Surely the best interests of Queensland, QLD police, the person arrested, the child’s mother, the child himself and all Australians are now best served by an examination and investigation of this matter.

Clearly there are more questions raised here than just one troubled man’s opinions about vaccines. To be sure he intends to convey a link between vaccination and dangerous adverse reactions. As do countless others. Yet, what we have entered into oath are accusations that go to the very heart of the integrity of QLD police. To the very basis of justice.

I trust Christopher William Savage is willing to assist with any developments as they arise.

Below is the apparent sworn oath. A copy is available on Chris Savage’s Facebook Notes page. Item 51 includes the account of misconduct on the part of detectives and a “colleague”.

I, Christopher William SAVAGE of 160 Amamoor Dagun Road AMAMOOR in the State of Queensland Australia being duly (sic) make on oath and say:
1. I joined the Queensland Police Service in 1989 at the age of 27 years.
2. My training commenced at Oxley Police Academy in June 1989 and was completed on Friday the 19th day of January 1990.
3. One a previous Friday in October 1989 our Squad members were told to line up for Hepatitis B vaccines. I joined my squad members and we received the Hepatitis B vaccination at about 11am that day.
4. After that I went to lunch and in the afternoon I participated in the third of four Physical Training Tests. At the conclusion of the test, which lasted 40 minutes, I was totally exhausted.
5. A short time later we all went home.
6. I expected to recover from the exhaustion but didn’t. I lay in bed for the next two weeks with no energy. I could barely get up and drag myself to the toilet.
7. After a week I went to a mainstream medical practitioner and said: “I am totally exhausted all the time. Could it have been the Hep B vaccine?
8. The doctor snapped: “Oh no it couldn’t be that.”
9. I was given a medical certificate but no medication. I then went to a Naturopath and was given large doses of ascorbic acid and after a few days I felt my energy return.

10. I then returned to the Academy to resume studies which included the promotion of the Hepatitis B vaccination program but nothing about the issue of investigating the impact of vaccines when babies die.
11. On the 19th day of January 1990 I was sworn in as a Constable of Police.
12. I was posted to Gympie Station from January 1990 to January 1991. After that I was transferred to Caboolture Station and then to Zillmere station from April 1993.
13. In July 1993, I clearly recall being called to an incident involving the death of a six month old baby boy in the division.
14. I was tasked to attend the Prince Charles Hospital where Queensland Ambulance Services had transported the baby.
15. I observed the deceased baby at this hospital. The baby had a pale white skin and a darker skin tone patches below the eyes. I completed details of a Form 4, which is Sudden Death information sheet for the Coroner. I also collected vials of samples of bodily fluids and arranged for these to go to the John Tonge Centre.
16. I then went to the residence of the mother. When I first met her I sensed she was in a state of shock and of bewilderment.
17. I took possession of the sheets, mattress and also medications. I also arranged for the mother to attend Zillmere Station so I could obtain a witness statement from her.
18. Around that time I spoke to a detective in the Juvenile Aid Bureau (JAB) who advised me to ensure blood samples were taken. I confirmed this had been done.
19. In one of the days that followed I met the mother at the Boondall Police Station. She was in her late 20’s and was a single mother.

20. I asked her to describe her life from the time that the baby was born.
21. She said “When the baby was born I couldn’t breast feed so I gave the baby formula,” or words to the same effect.
22. She also said: “The baby was eating and sleeping well,” or words to the same effect.
23. She then said: “I took the baby to clinic and there was no problems except for a sniffle, he was fine and they agreed.”
24. She also said: “After 8 weeks the clinic nurses gave him the DPT vaccine. He started crying and wouldn’t stop. That night he wouldn’t sleep properly,” or words to the same effect.
25. She also said: “I took him to the doctor and they gave me some children’s Paracetamol. I gave it to him and it seemed to help but he would vomit his food up and the poo that came out of him was black and horrible,” or words to the same effect.
26. She also said: “He would just scream sometimes so I take him to another doctor and they gave him another drug but it didn’t seem to help anymore. He would frequently wake up at night crying and I wouldn’t get any sleep,” or words to the same effect.
27. She also said: “I then went to another doctor who gave me yet another drug. It didn’t seem to do anything. He cried through the day. Hardly slept and continued to wake me up at night,” or words to the same effect.
28. I could see that the mother was beside herself with tiredness and frustration.
29. She also said: “I went to all these different doctors and they gave me all the different drugs but nothing helped. He started having convulsions as well,” or words to the same effect.

30. She also said: “I have been having terrible nights with him crying and vomiting and finally got him to sleep after he was exhausted. That was about 5am so I then went to sleep too. When I woke up at about 9.00 o’clock in the morning I checked and found he wasn’t breathing. I called the ambulance. I told the lady on the phone he wasn’t breathing. They seemed to take a long time. They arrived after about 15 and tried to revive him and then took him to hospital,” Or words to the same effect.
31. The statement ended up being about 6 pages long. She signed it and I witnessed her signature.
32. Over the next month I received a Certificate of Analysis from the John Tonge Centre.
33. I then took this document to the Government Medical Officer who advised that the levels of drugs in the baby’s blood were higher than normal but weren’t so high as to cause him to believe that it contributed to the baby’s death.
34. I also made submissions that whilst the mother appeared to have given the baby medicine slightly over the prescribed amount. At the material time the mother was suffering extreme sleep deprivation and also administering medications during the night. The mother was also confused by the variety of medication and treatments, which lacked continuity.
35. I completed my investigation and submitted a covering report, Form 4, Certificate of Death and the mother’s statement to the Coroner.
36. I had no further dealings with the matter.
37. A few months later I read a report that the JAB detective I had spoken to about samples for testing had actually criminally charged the mother with Manslaughter (killing without intent).
38. I was very surprised but it wasn’t my place to interfere in that process.
39. About a year later I received further information that the DPP had decided to not proceed with the charge of Manslaughter. I was relieved by this information for the sake of the mother.

40. In September 1993, I transferred to Biloela Police Station and remained there until October 2004.
41. In about the year 1999, Detective Sergeant Roger Lowe went to Moura 40 km from Biloela to investigate a ‘cot death’. On his return he told me something. I later viewed the Criminal Investigation Branch Occurrence Sheet and read that the mother’s baby had died this was the second baby of hers that had died from Sudden Infant Death Sydrome but Detective Sergeant Roger Lowe was conducting inquiries into criminal responsibility with reliance on medical evidence.
42. I said: ‘Have you done any inquiries as to the condition of the baby prior to and after vaccination before death?” Or words to the same effect.
43. He said: ‘No not in relation to vaccines, or words to the same effect.’
44. I said: ‘You should because I have had a case in Brisbane just before I came to Biloela where the baby suffered significant symptoms immediately after the DPT vaccine and then died a few months later. I have a video of doctors who expose vaccines can cause injury and death,’ or words to the same effect.
45. He said: ‘Ok you better get a copy to me.’

46. I left the video on his desk but he later told me that he wasn’t interested in watching it.
47. I became aware that Detective Sergeant Roger Lowe had decided not to charge the mother from Moura who had suffered the loss of two babies. I am not aware of his reasons for taking this action.
48. In October 2004, I was transferred to Townsville Station and to the Townsville Watchhouse in December 2005.
49. In about 2006, at Townsville Watchhouse I saw a young mother and father both charged over their baby’s death. The baby had died after complications that only appeared after vaccines were administered. I read the court brief and the case against these parents was largely based on ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ and attacks were made on the parent’s credibility due to minor differences in their testimony.
50. They were accused of shaking their baby but had denied doing so.

51. In August 2009, I was promoted to Sergeant at the Ipswich District Watchhouse.
52. In September 2009, I was on duty as shift supervisor working from 3pm to 11pm at the old Ipswich Watchhouse.
53. At about 6pm in the evening two detectives brought a male person, about 45 years age and charged him with manslaughter of a 5 year old boy.
54. I read the facts from the Court Brief. The 5 year old child had died after he succumbed to a brain injury which had occurred at the age of 2 years. The police were alleging that the defacto husband had assaulted the child however there was no indication of there being any investigation of symptoms before and after vaccines. The father had denied assaulting the child. Medical evidence of Shaken Baby Syndrome was adduced.
55. The police did not have any evidence against the father of foul play so they relied on medical evidence relating to ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ to charge him.
56. One of my colleagues put a copy of an article by Dr Vera Schreibner into the property of that prisoner.
57. The article is titled ‘The Shaken Baby Syndrome – The Vaccination Link’…I am able to produce that document.
58. Tendered and marked exhibit…..
59. I believe it was my experiences and suffering post Hepatitis B vaccination during my training has led me to believe it is necessary to objectively investigate all evidence, especially vaccines and to encourage parents to speak out without fear of prosecution and persecution.
60. I ceased employment with the Queensland Police Service on the 21st of October 2010 at the rank of Sergeant and Registered Number 4007505.

I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, and I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every particular.

Declared at Gympie Qld Australia on Monday 2nd day of July 2012)…………………………………
Before me……………………………………………………. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

Whilst I acknowledge that Chris’ intent is – albeit with no evidence – to blame vaccines for a vast range of shocking injuries, I can’t help noticing that he glossed over the corruption of a colleague. He alleges at point 56:

One of my colleagues put a copy of an article by Dr Vera Schreibner (sic) into the property of that prisoner.

Whilst that publication and Scheibner herself are both thoroughly discredited, one cannot ignore the accusation being made. Although the chronology as to when this occurred is unclear, Savage claims that one of his colleagues placed an article by Scheibner into a prisoners property.

Why did Savage not report this absolutely black and white breach of conduct at the time? Did he observe the event? Hear of the event? Dream the event? Either way accessing a prisoners sealed property should occur in the presence of the prisoner or an independent witness. Preferably both.

That single accusation simply obliterates the intended relevance of the so-called “oath” concocted above.

Why was the article placed in the prisoners property? To infer the arrested male had schooled himself on Scheibner’s “vaccination link” to use as a defence? Did Savage’s mate aim to help or hinder the arrested male, who was charged with manslaughter? Was it done at the request of the detectives who arrested the prisoner? The detectives who, “did not have any evidence against the father of foul play”, so then relied on Shaken Baby Syndrome to charge him.

These are very, very serious accusations. More so there is an undercurrent of police apathy running through the entire “oath”. Savage can apparently remember conversations from 19 years ago. No doubt then, he can recall very fine details from just three years ago. After all he stated under oath:

I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, and I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every particular.

So what will it be I wonder? His colleagues are corrupt and (as far as we know from Savage) sought to destroy the life of an innocent man? That they planted false evidence in a prisoners property for what appears to be a self serving abuse of justice? The evidence of Shaken Baby Syndrome was used without legal justification?

Did Detective Sergeant Roger Lowe secretly watch the vaccine conspiracy video Savage gave him and, duly influenced by this video, fail to charge a mother from Moura over the death of two of her babies?

Or, Chris Savage deliberately made a false statement under oath and is thus guilty of an offence under Section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959? If so, what are we to make of the rest of his Declaration?

No doubt the intellectual repugnance of the SIDS and Shaken Baby myth will deeply offend those touched by these tragedies. From individual parents to medical staff and support agencies the impact is one of universal disgust. That vaccination is associated with a lowering of SIDS cases is widely known. In fact early social media chatter is not terribly kind to this “despicably insane former Queensland Police Officer”.

Whether Savage gets what he deserves or what he needs, it would be very helpful if he soon got some due attention.

Or words to the same effect.

23Jul2012

Meryl Dorey fights to keep misleading title

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Legal by Paul Gallagher

I have seen evidence that there was even an attempt to have me deported from Australia via complaints to the Dept of Immigration…

– Meryl Dorey adds another angle to her profile as a Freedom Fighter –

Not for the first time, a salient point was serendipitously driven home on the Facebook page Stop The Australian Vaccination Network.

Last Friday night a young lady unleashed some criticism that highlights the cunning purpose of the Australian (anti) Vaccination Network’s name.

Apologies for the overt racism in there. This is far from the neatest example but it does show how persuasive first impressions can be. No doubt this has been Meryl Dorey’s intent all along. To divert attention away from her role as an antivaccine lobbyist.

Simply claiming to not be antivaccine is rather pointless however. Years ago (circa 2005) the proud antivaccine conspiracy group Vaccine Truth made a mockery of the USA NIIC phrase. Meryl took the opportunity to lift the same phrase straight from them.

Before becomming the Australian Vaccination Network in 1996, her group of antivaccine lobbyists was the Vaccine Awareness Network. Thus I was slightly amused to see an AVN contributor suggest to Meryl they switch to “Australian Vaccine Awareness Network”. More amusingly this was supported by Meryl’s most vocal Pit Poodle.

The misleading name has secured media attention and a cornucopia of false balance. Genuinely concerned and in-need parents have been fooled. People have donated money believing advanced safety testing of vaccines was an AVN priority. They scored a Charitable Fundraising Authority. Life was quite comfortable until Stop The AVN formed and exposed schemes, scams, fraud and theft.

This led in part to an investigation by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. It found that the AVN website:

Provides information that is solely anti-vaccination
Contains information that is incorrect and misleading
Quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous

Under the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, the HCCC had recommended the AVN put an unambiguous disclaimer on its website to convey:

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

Whilst the AVN insist that the HCCC findings were “overturned” on appeal, this is not the case. A Supreme Court ruling found the HCCC had acted outside it’s jurisdiction in posting a public warning. Ms. Dorey’s aim to have the findings abolished was firmly rejected. The HCCC public warning was removed.

The AVN disclaimer is available here, which essentially covers the points sought by the HCCC. There is thus no doubt. The AVN is an antivaccination lobby group. They are antivaccine, against vaccination, purport to offer alternatives to vaccination and falsely claim to posses a “data base” of vaccine injuries.

Recently as Dorey promoted her latest conspiracy-themed seminar series there was renewed focus on the salient point in question. What Jane McCredie has referred to as:

This country’s most prominent anti-vaccination group, the confusingly named Australian Vaccination Network…

Medical Observer recently reported under Anti-vax lobby rejects AMA call for a name change:

Australian College of Midwives executive officer Ann Kinnear told MO her organisation forwarded an email invitation to an AVN event to about 1400 NSW members before angry midwives told her the Health Care Complaints Commission had in 2009 declared AVN an anti-immunisation lobby.

“Subsequent information that’s come to hand has made me realise it’s a mistake,” Ms Kinnear said. […]

“If a major health organisation understandably is taken in, members of the public would have little hope of realising that they were not accessing independent, credible advice,” AMA (NSW) CEO Fiona Davies said.

Dr Brian Morton, chair of the AMA’s council for general practice, said AVN’s name was “duplicitous, it confuses the public, they are anti-vaccination and they certainly don’t report the evidence”.

Last weekend a suitably tabloid themed heading from the Sunday Telegraph carried some further developments. Doctors unite to smash the anti-vaccine group:

NSW Health Minister Jillian Skinner and Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts have been urged to force the change on the NSW-registered group in a letter signed by Associate Professor of La Trobe University Dr Ken Harvey.

His call is backed by experts from the Australian Medical Association and the University of Sydney.

As the AVN is registered with the Office of Fair Trading the government can in fact order a name change.

Dorey of course continues with the line the AVN is not antivaccination but “pro-choice”.

Predictably Ms. Dorey has afforded her critics ownership of the term “smash”, despite it appearing only in the headline of the story.

She must have been delighted. In a rambling, stumbling diatribe Dorey included:

They would have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to date trying to “Smash” our small, volunteer-run organisation… We are David to their Goliath and because we stand for truth, freedom and democracy… […]

The idea that a group of doctors can unite to SMASH an organisation that questions a medical procedure sounds more like economic protectionism than true concern to me.

Wait. Economic protectionism? As in restriction of international trade? Subsidising locally produced goods or produce? Taxing imports via the application of tariffs? I think, comrade, that Meryl has been hanging out with her fellow freedom fighters at Conspiracy Central a bit too much.

Which gets to the reasons a name change has become more and more an issue of public safety. The AVN has become less and less about opposing vaccines and merely spreading fear and confusion on the topic. This is the result of a hard working group of volunteers, concerned GPs, medical organisations, certain journalists, reputable parenting forums and the self sabotage of the AVN by Meryl Dorey herself.

Today Meryl Dorey can be found on conspiracy podcasts playing laser tag warriors with some of the more unhinged members of society. If not skepgoating individual skeptics as part of an organised hate group, it’s absurdities such as the above claim that, “hundreds of thousands of dollars” has been spent targetting her alone.

The constant criticism of conventional medicine is commonplace, as is quite evident in this “media release” . Setting out to send a message of defiance on name change, it again squeezes in the notion of being “under attack”.

Let me choose one example to drive home how antivaccine Ms. Dorey really is. Here’s an ABC article warning on the dangers of co-sleeping, including Baby Talk audio. On July 6th, the ABC also reported criticism from the Victorian coroner regarding inconsistent warnings. Almost half of all sudden infant deaths involve co-sleeping. The coroners criticism was welcomed by experts in the field.

Here is Meryl Dorey advising a member of her group in November last year:

Yesterday Meryl sought to encourage another member to contact the families of SIDS cases to “find out if the children were vaccinated before their death”.

Dr. Ken Harvey would appear to be completely correct in his observation that, “The deceptive name of the organisation has potentially deadly consequences”.

Quite so, and this is simply one example that carries a single insight into how far out of step Dorey is with safe advice. More so, the AVN is less and less representative of adherents to alternatives to medicine and even genuine vaccine opponents. As polarising as certain choices clearly are, few Aussies accept there is a war to be fought or that General Dorey is their leader. Added to this is the reality that many new parents are now well aware of the AVN’s lethal, conspiratorial approach.

I’m not sure what the AVN should be called. Something in ancient Sanskrit maybe? Just don’t dare suggest they’re antivaccine.

What would ever give you that idea?