Category Archives: Anti-Vaccination Lobby

Vaccination saved us from…what, exactly?

Posted in AVN, Health, Judy Wilyman, Meryl Dorey, Science by

So goes one heading over at the No Compulsory Vaccination blog, leading to a screed of disturbingly accusatory silliness borne of the confidence from one graph.

Dr Raymond Obomsawin is one of the few to knock up a bogus graph that cites decreasing incidence of measles infection rather than the boring old general mortality we’ve come to expect from antivaxxers. The obvious conclusion of course is that lethal viruses were being tamed by clean water, less wandering poo and yummy food.

Robert Webb succinctly explains where the problems lie here and also points to a further mincing of Obomsawin by David Gorski at Science Based Medicine. I quite like Gorski’s sub-heading. Intellectual dishonesty at it’s most naked.

What surprises me still however, is just how many angles these purveyors of fiction will try. As I touched on in some satire recently, Meryl Dorey’s hilarious poker face revelation on Radio 3CR whilst chatting (or rather, lying) to Helen Lobato pre Woodford was a beauty.

A lot of the credit that’s been given to vaccines for the decline in deaths and infectious diseases has nothing to do with vaccines. Because it all happened before the shots were introduced. Engineers did more to improve the health of Australians than doctors ever have.

Whilst antivaxxers have been a little more vocal of late, they seem to have really only dug their hole deeper. If not attacking those who ask questions of them, engaging in a bit of fraud or libel, it seems to be silliness as usual. Judy Wilyman is a splendid offender with this myth, claiming there is “no historical evidence” for the success of any vaccine schedule. Her trick is to use mortality rates. Usually Judy just plonks up infant fatality rates from 1900 onwards and uses the rapid decline up till 1950 to mount her case.

Let’s ignore what two World Wars did to the birth rate and consequently infant fatalities in English speaking nations over that period, and just focus on the absurdity of mortality alone. There’s no doubt improvements in sanitation, hygiene and quality of food improved our health vastly. But did it also impact on viral behaviour and immunity as is being suggested?

Bogey sites such as Child Health Safety with Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 centuries of official statistics excel in exploiting this myth of “mortality = disease”. As amusing as such nonsense may be, it shows the lengths some go to in protecting the vaccine-autism myth. That blog provides graph after graph of fatalities which are virtually irrelevant to disease incidence. It is only once vaccines enter the timeline do we see disease incidence almost vanish.

To me, a drop in mortality coinciding with a healthier population indicates improved rate of recovery from illness. It doesn’t say much about infection other than to hint at better general immunity that comes with better health. But better immunity is not specific immunity, and this is what antivaxxers are really claiming – even if they don’t realise it.

More so, this claim would also demand rising herd immunity before widespread vaccination programmes, on a trajectory that would have matched the herd immunity achieved by mass vaccination. Acceptance of the value of herd immunity refutes the claim infection control arose from better living. That’s one reason antivaxxers deny it. Strangely, there is silence about success of the Hib vaccine, which they should be able to explain.

Being the lovers of science they claim to be, Hib has falsified the claim of improved living standards, not vaccination, controlling certain diseases. In time, perhaps shortly, we may see this repeated with a hepatitis C vaccine and I predict the antivaxxers will have just as little to say by way of explanation of their “theory”.

Yet ultimately it is antivaxxers themselves who debunk this nonsensical myth. If improved living standards controlled or wiped out vaccine preventable diseases then how do we explain this present resurgence on the back of low immunisation rates? Surely living standards haven’t dropped, anymore than they improved over the 12 years from 1993 in which Hib vaccination demonstrated it’s efficacy. Added to this is the bizarre belief that children are meant to catch these diseases. Which by the way we’re told, are harmless, even “marvellous”, in the case of returning measles.

Simply put, if improved living standards can suppress these diseases we should see them eliminated, not returning. Nor does the rise of chiropractic, homeoprophylactic, herbal and other “immune boosting” hanky panky make real sense. All of this exposes the fact that it is herd immunity sustained by vaccination that largely protects those who refuse vaccination. That’s another reason to deny the value of herd immunity.

As the lie becomes harder to sustain new myths are fabricated. The pertussis vaccine has caused the outbreak. Vaccination causes the disease it is meant to prevent. “Vaccine shedding” places the unvaccinated at risk. Viruses are intentionally released into the community. Vaccination causes immune dysfunction leading to later infection. Vaccination doesn’t provide proper immunity.

It would seem it is approaching the End Game in more ways than one for this myth. It isn’t hard to answer Ms. Dorey’s question.

Vaccination saved us from the returning diseases children are not being vaccinated against.

Vaccination And Improved Living Standards

Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Legal, Scam, Science by

Meryl Dorey is shown to have presented material to the audience at Woodford that in two cases argues vaccine induced autism where there is clearly none. In one case the word “autism” has been inserted, additionally, in a descriptive or qualitative fashion on her slide yet it is not present in the court ruling or transcript from where she sourced her text. In another instance there are no cases of autism following, or because of, vaccination. One awaits an explanation from Meryl Wynn Dorey.

There is an awful amount of misinformation on Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slides. Let’s examine the fatally flawed attempt to exhume the “vaccines cause autism” corpse. This is the heading of slide 18:

Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slide number 18

Not much ambiguity there I’d say. But there was seemingly intentional manipulation of a source document providing more misinformation on that slide. Dorey has usurped the case of Bailey Banks.

Bailey was indeed compensated for a vaccine injury. Was it autism, as alleged on Dorey’s slide? No.

The US Court of Federal Claims case file states clearly in it’s opening index: “Non-autistic developmental delay”.

A search of the Claims case file yields a very similar text to that which Dorey provided to her Woodford audience. There is only a one word difference. “[Autism]”. Here is the original text on page 27 of the claims file:

The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

That is all. It seems Meryl Dorey needs to explain this striking addition that quite plainly seeks to falsify the court ruling. The evidence is damning indeed.

On page 2 the fact that compensation is not for autism is stressed implicitly [Bold mine]:

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) is a ‘subthreshold’ condition in which some – but not all – features of autism or another explicitly identified Pervasive Developmental Disorder are identified. PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply “PDD.” The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs. PDD is NOT itself a diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis. The term Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS; also referred to as “atypical personality development,” “atypical PDD,” or “atypical autism”) is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.
It should be emphasized that this ”subthreshold” category is thus defined implicitly, that is, no specific guidelines for diagnosis are provided. While deficits in peer relations and unusual sensitivities are typically noted, social skills are less impaired than in classical autism.

On page 6 [Bold mine]:

Among the physicians treating Bailey, a neurologist named Dr. Ivan Lopez personally examined Bailey and diagnosed Bailey as follows:

This patient has developmental delay probably secondary to an episode of acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis that he had at 18 months of age after the vaccine. He certainly does not ___ [sic] for autism because over here we can find a specific reason for his condition and this is not just coming up with no reason.

And [Bold mine]:

As Petitioner’s testifying expert witness, Dr. Lopez maintained, reiterated, and elaborated upon this threshhold diagnosis.

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct [i.e. technical] diagnosis.” Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum disorder.”

A footnote on page 16 reads [Bold mine]:

Respondent seems to have abandoned the earlier argument that Bailey suffered from autism, instead of PDD. The Court notes the various similarities between Bailey’s condition and autism as defined above, but nonetheless rules that PDD better and more precisely describes Bailey’s condition and symptoms than does autism. Respondent’s acknowledgment serves to reaffirm the Court’s conclusion on this point.

So, what does all this mean? The opening text of the ruling informs us that the court accepts that Bailey, “suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis” leading to PDD. The court also accepts that compensation should be paid because the court is of the view the seizure and condition would not have occurred without the administration of MMR.

Is the court right? It doesn’t matter. The legal decision must be respected. What we can clearly see is that PDD is considered quite different from autism. Bailey suffered a single traumatic event – not a gradual decline into autism as the customary antivaccination lobby tale goes. Autism is a collection of symptoms with a genetic component. Clearly in this case Bailey does not fit, nor has been found to fit a diagnosis of autism.

This makes his case no less tragic. I can’t stress that enough. What I will stress is that Meryl Dorey sourced her one liner from the same document I have quoted above. She is certain to have read that this child does not have autism and was not compensated for autism brought on by vaccination. She would have read that PDD is not the same as autism. But Meryl Dorey chose to select one line and alter it fallaciously to mislead her audience into believing compensation had been paid for autism brought on by MMR.

Meryl Dorey has again committed plagiarism and fraud in her quest to mislead the Australian public. Her disdain for this young boy is clear. Her disrespect for court proceedings and this ruling is manifest. Her callous disregard for Aussies at Woodford Folk Festival is exposed for all to see.

You may wonder where are all the other Baileys? Well, let’s meet 83 similar cases – an old trick of Meryl’s debunked back in May 2011 and covered here in June 2011. Just like PDD may produce symptoms like autism, so do many other types of brain injury. Add these to autistic children who are vaccinated and the language in VICP case files is easily abused.

Also on Meryl’s slide was this ambiguous claim. I’ve made it kind of easy to spot the semantics. “Associated”? Where is the cause? So, here we are almost 8 months since it was debunked and the best Meryl Dorey can manage is a semantic trick. The URL leads here to a PR Newswire article that has the same heading as on her slide.

It’s a SafeMinds.org media release. Safe Minds is non scientific and partisan. Led by parents of autistic children they seek to increase research into neurological damage from exposure to mercury in medical products.

I for one find it strange that Dorey was billed as an expert on autism yet was unable to source the original paper I’ve linked to below. Is this because she gets more bang for her buck with the tone of this heading? The article is biased in the extreme. There appears to be little doubt that the Safe Minds media release colours the issue in Dorey’s favour and away from the cautious approach of scientific inquiry.

Just how unreliable is this source from our self appointed vaccine expert? Back on June 7th, 2011 I wrote a piece called The “Groundbreaking” Vaccine-Autism Investigation Release of May 10th 2011. It addresses this caper which can only be described as an insult to her audience.

I focused primarily on the pseudoscience and demonstrably false fear mongering cobbled together under the auspices of “research scholar” Mary Holland. Mary is a vaccine-autism profiteer and co-author of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human rights, Our Health and Our Children.

I also exposed Meryl Dorey’s stupendous deception a full week later on 102.9 KOFM that “hundreds perhaps thousands of families” had been compensated because their children “have become autistic after vaccination”. That it was “a fact” that vaccines cause autism.

There had been ample media prodding in the lead up to May 10th with the word “groundbreaking” popping up quite a lot. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) had been “quietly” and “secretly” working in the shadows it seemed “paying off” vaccine injured children with autism. On May 10th itself, Meryl Dorey claimed:

You cannot hold the truth back forever. And when that dam breaks, the flood will wash away those who have suppressed these facts to the detriment of our kids. It is time for the piper to be paid.

Oh my!

The “groundbreaking investigation” turned out to be an enormous flop. As promised at high noon on Tuesday May 10th 2011 Holland’s team assembled on the steps of the US Court of Claims at 717 Madison Place in Washington DC. They were presenting a paper of sorts, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury. By the end of the lengthy live press statement, the caper had been largely dismissed and debunked as wordplay.

As you can read in the post linked above, certain media outlets were contacted by Pace Law School students, using the Pace Law School name. This was of course, news to Pace Law Administration. From Lisa Jo Rudy writing for About.com [bold mine]:

I just heard from a representative from the Public Relations department at Pace University School of Law. She wondered why a press release cited in my earlier blog would say that members of their law school had been involved with the investigation into and presentation of “Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” when there was no such involvement in either the investigation or the presentation.

I did respond to Danielle Orsino, who sent out the press release, asking the question:
Were there cases in which the vaccine court awarded a settlement for damage that manifested itself as the symptoms of an autism spectrum disorder? Was the term “autism” ever used to describe the outcome of vaccine damage (eg, “the child suffered from neurological damage resulting in autism”)?
Danielle responded quickly, saying “The study strongly suggests a link between autism and vaccines. The study found that of those who had been compensated for brain damage due to vaccines, a much-higher-than-average number also had autism. The study makes an extremely strong case for the vaccine-autism connection, which is why the study’s authors are urging Congress to investigate the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
This response seems to suggest that the simple answer to my question is “no”.

I wrote at the time, Reading the document reveals ample use of terms such as “settled cases suggesting autism”, “language that strongly suggests autistic features”, “published decisions that used terms related to autism”, “payment of vaccine injured children with autism”, and not – as Seth Mnookin pointed out – “because of their autism”. More so, the authors spend some time arguing why there should be no distinction between autism and autism-like symptoms. This is a major concession they award themselves. The paper includes caregiver opinion, parental opinion, phrases from doctors who gave evidence at hearings and provides a case table of “Language suggesting autism or autistic-like symptoms”.

It further emerged that only 21 cases came from the VICP case files. 62 were gathered by phone calls and social communication questionnaires with other compensated families. It went as far as referencing The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine and a Manmade Epidemic [2010] by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill. There was no ethics approval, and no independent evaluation. Many were children with autism who received a vaccination and reacted. Others were children with mitochondrial enzyme disorders known to lead to encephalopathy. Most were genuine cases of encephalopathy following vaccination at the rate of about 1 in 1 million. That’s up to 1,000 times less than measles induced encephalopathy.

For our purposes, we need to note that Meryl Dorey was claiming “possibly thousands” of compensation cases when only 21 already dismissed cases could be found. Then before heading to Woodford Meryl spoke to Helen on 3CR and, whilst now aware of the sample size, still falsely claimed:

Um, autism is I believe, related very strongly to vaccination… and in the United States they’ve actually paid compensation to at least 83 families who children became autistic after vaccination whilst claiming that vaccines can’t cause autism.

Meryl’s other slide – number 17 – can be dismissed instantly. Her claim on that slide is that diagnoses are rising. This has nothing to do with vaccination and everything to do with diagnostic technique. Her cited South Korean study sampled students in mainstream schools managing 12 hour days six days per week. This is indicative of how wide the spectrum is. The autism rate in Australia is officially 1 in 160. In the UK and USA it is 1 in 100 – 1%. Some research suggests 1% in Australia also.

There are five reasons posed for the rise in autism. None mention vaccination.

  • The actual frequency of autism may have increased, meaning more children have it
  • There is increased case reporting, leading to greater findings, better use of funding and hightened awareness
  • Changes in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria may account for more cases
  • Earlier diagnoses have essentially added a new younger demographic to the the existing demographic of children – ie; it spans more years
  • When we examine rising autism figures we find a corresponding drop in other types of mental disability and retardation, meaning they are now within the autism spectrum

Research using modern diagnostic criteria on adults also finds a 1% rate in adults, suggesting changes in mode of diagnosis play a huge role in perceived “epidemics”. In Brugha’s survey [ doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38] he found not one adult diagnosed with autism knew they had the condition. This tells us the criteria to diagnose them a generation ago did not exist.

All up it seems Meryl Dorey has a lot of explaining to do. Debunked scams, fraud, a useless “association” and unverified musings. It’s nice to know some things remain predictable.

For Aussies, the news remains good. Vaccines do not cause autism.

My personal request of Meryl Dorey

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Health, Immunisation, Media, Meryl Dorey, Scam, Science, Skeptic by

We (antivaccination lobbyists) are the real Australian skeptics

Meryl Dorey Jan. 4th, 2012

As many of you may have noticed, the rapidly rising pertussis epidemic in W.A. was reported by the ABC today.

This predictably sent Meryl Dorey of the AVN into histrionics. One of her ridiculous claims is that pertussis has increased “10,000%” with a 25% increase in vaccination. If you choose the figure of 332 from the very first year – 1991 – of compulsory reporting (which actually reflects sloppy reporting, gradual awareness and slow administrative changes) and compare it to today’s epidemic figure as Dorey does, it’s a dodgy trick.

A Stop the AVN member snapped this tweet from a cast iron flying pig that appeared on ABC News Breakfast

Because the “25% increase” comes from a 70% vaccination coverage in 1991 and a 95% coverage now. Strange, because a decade later in 2001, vaccination was only 70.6% and the figure of notified cases is 9,541. Sure we do have an epidemic figure for 2011 of over 36,000. But choosing a different year shows an increase of 3.8 times – not 10,000% – despite almost an identical increase in childhood vaccination.

I’ve laid it out all below. The entire method Meryl uses, and offered it back to her as actually showing a decrease of over 50% in 6 years. It’s her technique using her data sources. It’s rather silly as one cannot compare unrelated data sets. But in an attempt to draw some sense from Meryl on a fairly clear point I’ve (yet again) worked through the figures to seek a reply.

Meryl Dorey’s extraordinary claim about ABC journalistic integrity

I posted it twice today on the ABC News Breakfast Facebook page and also on Stop AVN. No “coward” stuff as Meryl alleged to Tiga Bayles. No “hiding behind anonymity” as Bayles suggested. No “suppression of free speech”. Just open and honest requests for a reply, based on evidence. Meryl’s claimed forte.

Originally I asked for a point by point response. Yet, I’m asking Meryl now, to respond to just one of my points. Just one. So far, there’s just silence. We shall see.

Summoning help, Dorey writes about: “…the rabid pro-vaxxers who would happily see all of our children dead or injured if they thought it would protect them or their families.”

Above Meryl you write:

…it’s all across Australia – why they chose WA I have no idea? (sic)

Well Meryl, whooping cough in WA has increased by almost 500% since 2009.

ABC News Breakfast

Also Meryl, WA has the lowest rate of child vaccination in the country. According to Julie Leask, senior research fellow at the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, “Delay might be due to [WA’s] adolescent vax policy”.

Julie Leask Tweet

As “Australia’s leading vaccination expert” I thought you’d know these things, Meryl.

Anyway, as on Facebook here’s the same request for a reply. All I’ve updated from Facebook is the NNDSS pertussis notification figures accessed now, at time of writing, and changed it to a first person address.

As I stressed Meryl, failure to address this surely indicates admission that your claim on pertussis is false. You may very well believe it, but if so, it must stack up to scrutiny. No agro, no bullying, just a golden opportunity to speak freely. So, excuses to not answer are thin on the ground.

I hope that’s not too annoying and I’d be delighted to have you. Fire when ready….

Here’s the original from Facebook.

Hi Meryl.

Could you address this point by point please. It’s the same post as above, but I reckon it’s about time you helped clear the air. If not, do I assume you agree that your claims on pertussis are invalid?

Thanks very much:

Contrary to your claims, the epidemic began in your backyard with low vaccination rates and spread out from there. From SMH, October 2010:

“The highest rates of so-called “conscientious objectors” to immunisation are in parts of the north coast – such as Byron Bay – where 12 per cent of children born between 2001 and 2007 were never immunised for any condition. […]

An epidemic of whooping cough in 2008 and 2009 began on the north coast. It quickly swept across the state driven by low vaccination rates in some wealthy parts of Sydney. Low-income areas in western Sydney also had less immunisation and were linked to outbreaks, Dr Menzies said.”

Now, let’s debunk your claim of high vaccination rates causally equating to high pertussis infection, using – not other information and techniques – but your actual tables and own technique.

You source your 95% from under 2 year olds in a 2006 table (as per Woodford slides on your blog). Also, here it is – http://i.imgur.com/w9I9g.jpg. This makes up one half of 1/18th of all age groups from your next source, a NNDSS table of whooping cough notifications: http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png

These are the 2 tables you sent to the NSW HCCC in September 2009 (see p. 6 http://www.mediafire.com/?dw32azbk97obakm) to whom you made the very same claim, in response to a complaint.

You only quote absolute figures about pertussis after all – not percentages, or age groups, or if a notification is asymptomatic, or was a tourist, or international flight attendant/maritime worker/business traveller/etc.

Here’s the NNDSS age groups showing the highest infection rate is between 40 – 65 years in 2007. Before the epidemic.
http://i.imgur.com/0eGTw.png

Although now, the three age groups up to 14 years show large increases, if we add up the notifications above this we see that most notifications still come from adults who have no immunity. It has waned and they need a booster. Their vaccination (booster) rate is 11.3% – not 95%. We need to increase this by about 7 times to reach herd immunity.
See p. 18 of Adult Immunisation Survey to confirm 11.3%.

You are using “unrelated data”. Just like the rise in driving licences is not causally related to the rise in road trauma, or that the best safety advice (according to your thinking) would thus be to abandon licence testing. You are wrong to quote these NNDSS figures in this way, because we know nothing about their vaccine status or immunity. All we know is that most are adults who have no immunity.

So, in effect they cannot be compared – but for the record I’ll continue on as if they can be compared.

We do know pertussis fatalities occur in the unvaccinated. Vaccinated can of course catch pertussis yet experience far milder symptoms and faster recovery. The claim that vaccination for pertussis is an impervious shield has never been made by health authorities. But the claim that it should be and if not, it’s useless, is being scurrilously made by yourself.

Okay, let’s use your method on another year.

We can see (using the same NNDSS data) that 2007 was the lowest year of infection on record since 1999 – http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png. It is also the 5th lowest year since records began.
Many discount the first recording years of 1991 and 1992 as very, very low anomalies that show a slowish start to new legislation requiring reporting of whooping cough. This would make 2007 the 3rd lowest ever. But I’m happy to take the 5th lowest year ever.

Rather different to your claim, no? But from your data source no less.

Now, looking again at your vaccination rate table (http://i.imgur.com/w9I9g.jpg) we see 2001 had only 70.6% vaccination. Infection was 9,541 Aussies. By 2007 – still using both your data tables we see 95% vaccination of babies and 4,864 cases of pertussis (http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png).

So, using your “technique” on merely another part of the same NNDSS table we can also claim vaccination more than halved pertussis notifications in a mere 6 years.

Your data, your method, the very same tables you quote from. Why then is this not your message? Why don’t you tell Aussies that these sources show a greater than 50% drop in whooping cough in just 6 years?

Because it’s selective statistical sleight of hand, is it not? We both can’t be right. It’s a simple trick – and I’m arguing that you know it is.

You are intentionally misleading Australians. This is why the NSW HCCC issued a public health warning that you “quote selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.”

Also, it’s strange that you cite 1990 vaccination coverage of 70% vs 2006 coverage of 95%, omitting to say it dipped to 61% in the mid 90’s and had only increased by 0.6% in the 10 years from 1991. Could this be because you want to create an impression? Perhaps.

It’s all in your table. Should you not address all figures? Why do you not address all figures?

Also, a good look at any NNDSS notification table shows rises and falls in infection. Contrary to your claim of a steady increase in infection as vaccine coverage rose, pertussis always rises and falls.

In fact the first 10 years when coverage went from 70% to 61% to 70.6% corresponds to notification levels similar to and greater than the second 10 years (http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png).

1997 is almost as high the 2008 epidemic year and vaccination coverage was under 70%. So, again we must ask – are you seeking to create an impression?

Epidemics are a different ball game. Once immunisation fell below a safe level in Byron Bay it took off like lots of little fires in low immunisation areas joining to create a massive bush fire.

So, low immunisation caused this outbreak not any problem with the vaccine. The answer? Get adults immunised and ensure babies get cocooned and immunised ASAP.

There’s nothing to stop me using the very same data and going around saying Australia had one of the lowest pertussis levels since notifications began, until your, Meryl Dorey’s lobbying against vaccination led to the 2008 epidemic (and cite Dr. Menzies, plus news reports etc to back me up).

But science doesn’t make leaps like that. We’d need better research. You really don’t use science, despite boasting of such – just tricks with scientific data hoping nobody will check. Please prove me wrong.

Let’s recap: I’ve used only your tables and your own argument style to a.) debunk your claims on pertussis vaccination = infection, b.) shown how it can be used to show a vaccine induced 50% plus reduction in only 6 years [2001 – 2007] and c.) pointed out some curious gaps in your coverage of the data that don’t seem to support your claims.

I look forward to your reply,

Thank you,

Paul Gallagher

(emailed to Meryl Dorey on Jan. 7th, 2012)

Vaccination Saves Lives

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, Science by

Stop The AVN Media Release

♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣

Imagine you’re listening to the radio one day and the discussion is on government funding and community education about road fatality and driver education.

A woman is invited to speak. You catch her name as Peryl Clawy. She’s president of The Australian Road Safety Network. Impressive. She claims to be for “informed choice” on your safety as a driver. Her only aim is to educate drivers about driving skill so they can choose what’s best for them and their family. She wants to present both sides of the argument. Sounds great. You pay more attention.

The announcer asks her about the condition of roads and of railway crossings, during peak periods. There’s been a report linking speed, poor road maintenance and traffic jams to accidents on the open road and at crossings. It’s been suggested licencing fees may increase to help cover costs to improve the condition of roads. The woman answers;

“Well, we at the ARSN would take that with a grain of salt. This fee increase – or extortion to keep your licence as we prefer to call it – seems to be just another Big Brother tactic from the government, road authorities and road-way developers to keep drivers under the impression that safer roads save lives. But who did this study, and who paid them? Was it an independent study or by someone associated with road development?

The reality is that study after study shows that dangerous driving on difficult surfaces is an excellent way to improve driving skills, and more to the point we at the ARSN have thousands of reports of people killed and maimed whilst driving on perfect roads, under perfect lighting, in perfect weather conditions whilst under the speed limit. Despite big auto promising to make cars safer we have reports of children decapitated by air bags and adults sustaining crushed ribs and perforated lungs from seat belts, during accidents. The overall effect of all this safety is to deny the body’s natural driving skill from maturing.

Before the road safety industry began these highly lucrative fear campaigns urging people to listen to the police and to these so-called scientists, cars had no seat belts or safety devices and roads were made of dirt and sand. Children were carried on their mothers laps, and windscreens were clean non-toxic glass. Now, we’re trapped behind toxic lamination full of chemicals, that break away and float about the interior of the car causing illness, cancer and failure to thrive in children. They also poison breast milk. Since the baby capsule and booster seat laws came in the number of babies killed in motor vehicle accidents has increased ten fold and babies dying from SIDS in Australia has almost tripled.

I had a mother call me recently saying she picked up her sleeping baby from a capsule one night, placed her in her crib to sleep and the next morning discovered she was dead. Who takes responsibility for this? The baby capsule manufacturers? The road safety authorities? The media who continually hush up these cases? I mean I believe every life lost on the roads is tragic but why are babies who die in a crash whilst sitting on their mother’s laps front page news, and those that die from baby capsule induced SIDS never even reported? Children’s health in all nations with mass production of safer driving practice and so-called better roads is under attack. Chronic disease is at an all time high.

The fatality rate 80 years ago in Australia is a fraction of the total today. When they first made cars they just allowed the public to buy them. Now they fill them with dummies and crash them at full speed recording in detail every bit of damage that can happen to the human body. But do they tell you this when you buy a car? Do they show you a dummy and say, “See. this is what happens when you crash this car wearing all the safety gear”? No, of course not. Back then many drivers didn’t even have licences. More so, look at the percentage of drivers killed on our roads who hold full driving licences. It’s something like 99.99999%. If we look at the rise in licences over the past few generations we also see a steady increase in fatalities. So, it’s clear this licencing system plays a significant role in fatalities. And these aren’t my figures these are the government’s own figures.

We also have thousands of licence induced injuries on record. Humans are born with natural driving skills, just the way we’re born with the ability to walk, but these are trained out of us when we sit for a drivers licence. Now, we’ve been asking the government to run a trial of licenced vs unlicenced drivers with natural driving skills for years now to see whether artificial – or “learned” as they call it – skills are really better than those with natural or “unlearned” skills. But they don’t care. The government just doesn’t care.

So licencing and the teaching of driving skills has never been tested properly. The gold standard of science is the randomised control trial. Yet no studies actually exist that compare unlicenced driver skills in dangerous conditions, vs licenced driver skills in dangerous conditions. People are just expected to follow along and listen to road traffic authorities, ignoring their own instincts along the way. What’s worse is not only is there no evidence licencing doesn’t kill drivers, but they hold off allowing the unlearning of natural skills and the learning of unnatural skills until the late teens.

So the normal skills and curiosity all toddlers and children show as they’re growing is suppressed when it comes to driving a car, when study after study shows that children learn so much from interacting with their environment. We’ve also asked the government to run trials comparing toddlers and children who are allowed to play-drive for a few years with adults who have been forced into the artificially taught skill set, but again the government just doesn’t listen. They obviously just don’t care.

When I arrived in Australia almost 30 years ago there were no boom gates or lights at railway crossings and all the roads were unmade and full of pot holes. But since the bitumen has gone down and crossings have been developed fatalities have slowly increased. Now, we have all these scientists saying if you drive over the speed limit without a seat belt or drive through a railway crossing with flashing lights without looking you could die from it. Well, you didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you’re not going to die from it today.

Plus there’s now hate groups who insist we don’t have the right to say these things, to tell the other side of the story. The Australian skeptics, they set up a group call Stop The Australian Road Safety Network and they say that we don’t have free speech in Australia and that you have no right to get access to both sides of the story. They don’t want you to have this information, despite the risks of not knowing. They say you aren’t allowed to ask questions about driving or what might be best for you.

They just argue that it’s better to seek out “reputable” information and do what your driver instructor tells you or what your advanced driving skills instructor tells you. You know, um… pay attention to road conditions, adjust your driving for lighting and weather, observe the speed limits, take care in unknown areas, ensure your car is road worthy and has good tyres. Don’t think for yourself or follow what you think is best for your children – despite the carnage and the licence induced injuries.

So, it’s all about suppressing free speech and free choice. Just like in a communist country. Science doesn’t have all the answers so why we should trust science with something as valuable and potentially dangerous as driving is a mystery. Not one car is 100% safe and even the manufacturers admit this. But they don’t tell you up front. It’s time Australians stood up and raised their voice about these Licences Of Death, forced acceptance of so-called safety standards and returned to the old ways of doing things naturally. Free from interference and free from the lies of big auto backed by big government.”

The announcer quietly says thank you and hangs up.

You wouldn’t listen to this rubbish, so why bother when “safe driving” is swapped for “vaccination”?