Unfortunately, she (Meryl Dorey) added little and took the opportunity to promote a case against the use of the pertussis vaccine based on distorted and selectively presented information.
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs, December 19th, 2011
Readers of musings and mumblings here may remember a look at one Meryl Wynn Dorey’s “ABC of immunisation lies“, following Nicola Roxon’s Immunisation Incentive announcement.
In the afternoon Dorey popped up again on ABC 666 Drive speaking with Louise Maher. Again she seized the opportunity to launch into rapid fire fiction on pertussis infection and vaccine efficacy. This trick has been picked apart a few times here. So, I shot off a long complaint with references, tables and tactics laid out. To my delight the dedicated folk at ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs waded through it and the complaint was upheld. With their permission I’ve copied the response below.
The only other point (related to media correspondence) I’d like to cover is that I also sent a synopsis of Dorey’s pertussis and autism tricks to Tiga Bayles prior to her appearance on hisLet’s Talk show. It had my name, phone number and email address. He didn’t raise any of the points as Dorey recited exactly what I’d warned him she would, choosing to feign surprise and smooth her path. He did however mention “the haters” and “sad small-minded people” who “hide behind anonymity too”.
Dorey agreed that her opponents were “cowards”, members of a “hate group” and guilty of a range of lousy transgressions, primarily around suppressing free speech. Without sounding too small minded, I did feel this was most unhelpful on Tiga’s part. Others also wrote openly to him and still more had articles published on widely read publications, such as The Drum and Mamamia. Meryl Dorey’s critics are not anonymous.
With that out of the way, we can enjoy knowing that both of Dorey’s appearances on ABC on November 25th have resulted in upheld complaints.
Reprinted with permission of ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs.
Dear Mr. Gallagher,
Thank you for your email of November 27 concerning the interview of Meryl Dorey conducted by Louise Maher on radio 666.
As your correspondence raised concerns of misleading and inaccurate content, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC’s editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in section 2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC radio.
On Thursday November 24 Louise Maher spoke to the ACT Chief Health Officer Dr Paul Kelly about a measles outbreak at a Steiner school in the ACT. The following day she looked at the government’s announcement that day that from July 2012 up to $2100 of the family tax benefit per child will be conditional on a child being immunised, and spoke to Dr Julie Leask, from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and senior lecturer at the School of Public Health at Sydney University and Meryl Dorey from the Australian Vaccination Network.
The program team believed that Ms Dorey would have something to add to the discussion about the Government’s initiative. Unfortunately, she added little and took the opportunity to promote a case against the use of the pertussis vaccine based on distorted and selectively presented information. As this was not anticipated, the presenter was not in a position to effectively challenge Ms Dorey’s assertions. To her credit, Ms Maher recognised this and acted to get expert advice to air from the Chief Medical Officer of the ACT.
That interview was ultimately aired on the following Monday. The effect of that delay was to potentially mislead listeners about the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine. This was exacerbated by the fact that the introduction to Ms Dorey did not adequately contextualise Ms Dorey’s comments by informing listeners that she is a campaigner against vaccination who has no medical qualifications and her organisation has been the subject of a warning by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission for providing misleading information to the public.
Notwithstanding the team’s efforts to address claims made by Ms Dorey, it is our view that she wasn’t introduced with sufficient context to ensure listeners were not misled by her unsubstantiated claims.
Radio management apologises for this lapse. It advises that it will again communicate to radio staff the importance of providing listeners with all relevant context and information when presenting controversial and potentially dangerous viewpoints – particularly if they propose to interview Ms Dorey again.
Accordingly, Audience and Consumer Affairs conclude the broadcast was not in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy as outlined in section 2.1 of the ABC’s Editorial Polices. Please be assured that your comments and this decision have been conveyed to ABC Radio management and the producers of the program.
Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated.
Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, http://www.acma.gov.au.
Yours sincerely
(redacted)
Audience & Consumer Affairs
Louise Maher receiving “distorted and selectively presented information” on the use of the pertussis vaccine:
Well, they’ve (The Australian Skeptics) actually said it. It’s been said several times. We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. Many of them have said that and I have quotes on the internet, you can see it.
Meryl Dorey speaking to Tiga Bayles on Let’s Talk 98.9 FM, 19th December 2011
Meryl Dorey has never been one for facts. Recently her claim that her critics, “say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia” (Let’s Talk transcript), has lurched into full gallop. It’s always been around as a demonstrable distortion of documented facts, which I’ll get onto. It pops up on Facebook during tirades to fellow members or on her website posts where it sits in competition with “health fascism”, how “disease mongering” is profitable, that the pharmaceutical industry is in “a secret pact with mainstream medicine” or stupidly comparing herself to the bogus “Lord” Monckton.
Those of us following Woodford Festival’s ill conceived decision to host this threat to public health as an “expert” on such a crucial health topic as vaccination, will be familiar with the “free speech means free pass” argument. Dr. Rachael Dunlop made the following observation writing on ABC’s The Drum:
The argument that has been circulating in favour of letting Dorey speak at the festival has been one of free speech. But this is not about free speech.
Dorey is entitled to voice her opinions but not her own facts. And when a public health warning has been issued about her information, it is the responsibility of the festival organisers to make people aware that she is not an authority on vaccination, that her information has been deemed misleading and she does not support you getting your kids vaccinated.
You could argue suppressing my right to yell “fire!” in a crowded cinema is also about free speech, but when people’s safety is at risk, common sense must prevail.
We’re also entering the 5th year of a pertussis epidemic which began in Ms. Dorey’s hunting grounds and from there spread across Australia. The festival attracts lovers of alternative thinking who can only be harmed by Ms. Dorey’s manipulative diatribes. As such, the organisers of Woodford Festival made an extremely poor, ignorant judgement call and are now complicit in risking Australian health.
Dorey’s talk and opposition to it have little to do with free speech. As I contended recently, her track record of scams, misappropriation of funds, exploitation of members, copyright abuse, lying to the media and much more reveal a cowardly bottom rung con artist who makes an easy living by misleading Aussie citizens and authorities. Her disdain for our laws and insult to our intelligence is blindingly obvious. Charity fraud (including misappropriation of business names), copyright abuse and non compliance with health authority legislation/regulation carry feather touch penalties.
The other fairly outrageous caper I find irksome is how Dorey lies to those who lend support. Those who trust her to tell the truth. She’s a convincing speaker, making her victims easy game. This angle to her grossness literally blossomed as Dorey took Tiga Bayles for a goose, abusing his not insignificant ignorance and blind trust almost ferociously. Tiga simply believed what she said and replied accordingly.
In a sad turn of events Tiga is denied any facts and quickly made the fool. By show’s end he’s almost worshiping at Dorey’s feet, convinced she is fighting “the haters”. Added to this is the sheer volume of effort given by Meryl Dorey toward misleading Tiga about her critics. If she has such a vital role to play in promoting “informed choice”, can’t she just knuckle down and get on with it?
Putting the AVN aside entirely, I always find it a bad sign when one agent has to define their own qualities by highlighting what are supposedly negative qualities in an opposing agent. For Meryl Dorey, the libellous and slanderous attacks on her critics have now become an indispensable binary dance of her own making.
Scarcely moments into the show Dorey misleads the audience and once again leaves little doubt as to why she must be challenged and held accountable:
We have the Health Minister in Queensland saying that it’s nonsense to look at the other side of the vaccination issue. And the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is the government body that’s involved with this, says that you have to be able to make an informed choice. So all we’re doing is trying to support what the National Health and Medical Research Council says, and allow people to make an informed choice. If doctors and the government were doing their job, we wouldn’t even have to be here. I could be off having fun with my family and instead I’m sitting here working. [….]
…. but there is an organisation called the Australian Skeptics, and they set up about three years ago a sub-group called “Stop the AVN”…. They just think everyone should vaccinate, just listen to your doctor, nobody who is not a doctor is able or has a right to talk about this information…. And they say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia, which is not correct. [….]
But people need to be aware of what vaccines they are giving their children, why they’re vaccinating and how effective and how safe the vaccines are. And this organisation, Stop the AVN, says you’re not entitled to know that. And I think that people should be aware that there is such a strong push, from a very small section of the community, to stop them from being informed.
All of this is false and Dorey knows it to be. If SAVN are recommending listening to one’s doctor, how can they also say people aren’t entitled to know “how effective and how safe the vaccines are”? That’s exactly what critics of vaccine deniers wish people to know. The show transcript is a cornucopia of infuriating lies, and we need to expose the genesis of Dorey’s musings on opposition to free speech. However, it must be said clearly that linking Stop The AVN with Australian Skeptics actually occurs only in Meryl Dorey’s mind.
SAVN was set up by a private individual after Meryl Dorey harassed the grieving parents of an infant who died from pertussis. Dorey demanded access to the infant’s medical records and contended that Paul Corben, Director of Public Health at the North Coast Area Health Service misled the public by confirming a pertussis fatality. Corben wrote to the family:
Ms. Dorey called me on the 12th of March seeking details of your daughter’s illness and death… Ms. Dorey contended that I had misled the public in attributing your daughter’s death to pertussis.
Despite Corben’s clear email to this effect Dorey simply denies it. What ensued was a vindictive letter writing campaign and visits to family members by AVN intimates. It was not until The Australian Skeptics awarded Ms. Dorey the 2009 Bent Spoon Award for the traditional annual celebration of the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, that Dorey’s hatred for all things skeptical was unleashed. Perhaps Meryl has difficulty accepting just how many critics she has. Yet I suspect painting this picture of a looming enemy is not only compulsory for conspiracy theorists, but far easier than providing evidence.
Dorey continued to mislead Tiga regarding free speech:
Tiga: […] And it’s our right as parents and family members to be making free and informed decisions, and give free and informed consent, if we disagree.
Meryl: They disagree with what you’ve just said. They say we don’t have freedom of speech and you don’t have a right to say no.
Tiga: And by the way, Phil said, no the skeptics don’t tell lies, well, he didn’t say they don’t tell lies, he said they don’t say there isn’t any freedom of speech, they might imply that.
Meryl: Well, they’ve actually said it. It’s been said several times. We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. Many of them have said that and I have quotes on the internet, you can see it.
Tiga: But even to imply it, Meryl.
Meryl: Well, it’s more than implication because they actually have said that.
A caller, Phil, had quite honestly said that it may be implied (as Dorey is doing) that freedom of speech is opposed by those who object to demonstrable falsehoods capable of harm, being voiced without contest. Here’s the exchange:
Tiga: And the skeptics… is it right then what Meryl… was Meryl correct when she said the skeptics say that we don’t have freedom of speech. Is that something the skeptics would say? In this regard?
Phil: Well, it may be implied. But this isn’t a freedom of speech issue.
Tiga: But it may be implied, Okay.
Later Dorey and Tiga excel themselves:
Tiga: What are these people, like governments, doctors, Stop the Australian Vaccination Network, the skeptics, what are these people when it’s controlling, and the haters that are out there. What’s the difference, probably even much better off under a communist system.
Meryl: That’s right. There isn’t any difference. And Stop the AVN is a hate group. They definitely are. They act like a hate group, they’re abusive, they’re bullies. So, yeah, I agree with you 100% with what you’re saying and it’s anti-democratic. You know, in a democracy we do have this right to choose, we do have the right to speak, so anyone who says we’re not is not democratic, and I think we all want to live in a democracy.
I recommend browsing the transcript. Or you may download the entire 45 minute audio here (or listen below) and make up your own minds about pre-show collusion, Tiga’s arguably conspiratorial anti-medicine beliefs and Meryl’s hilarious claims that she doesn’t lie nor object to the position of doctors defending vaccination. There’s monumental abuse of indigenous health realities from both sides. A few moments of listening hint that Tiga is far too proud to ever admit what a fool Dorey has made of him.
So, what is the source of Dorey’s claim that her critics would deny free speech? Would any academics or critics seriously advance such a primitive notion? Is Dorey cognizant of perhaps a different reality, that exposes this position as an intentional lie? Or could she prove (as intimated) that critics of anti-vaccination propaganda, “say we don’t have freedom of speech and you don’t have a right to say no”?
It’s possible to turn this right around and find that the evidence shows something quite different. Meryl Dorey is really about saying what she wants even if it has been shown to harm individuals or society in general.
In his complaint to the HCCC Mr. Ken McLeod addressed the issue of AVN free speech on page 6. [Item 5] Is the AVN protected by a right of free speech?
Contrary to the perceptions of an Australian public raised on a diet of Hollywood movies, there is no right of free speech in the Australian Constitution. On the contrary, Australian legislation and case law are littered with restrictions on speech, from contempt of parliament, national security, contempt of Court, sub judice rules, criminal defamation, breach of copyright, racial vilification, etc. For example, see Jones v Frederick Toben.
In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia found that Töben’s website “vilified Jewish people”, and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site. In May 2009, he was sentenced to three months in jail by Justice Bruce Lander after being found guilty of 24 charges of contempt, in that he continued to publish offensive views in defiance of Court orders {Jones v Toben [2009] FCA 354}.
Likewise, cancer quack Jillian Margaret Newlands has been ordered by the Queensland Supreme Court to cease providing her quack cancer cure and dangerous advice, such as advising clients not to seek chemotherapy treatment. [Public Statement by Qld Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading Peter Lawlor, Thursday, April 23, 2009 “Unregistered health provider ordered to stop misleading cancer patients”]
So, in Australia, one is entitled to free speech provided that one does not harm an individual or society in general. As Oliver Wendell Holmes USA CJ, put it so succinctly;
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre.” [Source]
The AVN is clearly harming individuals and society and is not protected by any right of free speech. Indeed, by explicitly including “health education” in the Health Care Complaints Act, speech is clearly not protected here, as speech is necessarily a part of the education process.
In her reply to the HCCC Ms. Dorey accuses Mr. McLeod of a “jihad-like mentality” (yet maintains taking offence at the term “quack”) and offers, Response to Section 5 of the McLeod Complaint – So Called Right of “Free Speech”;
Contrary to Mr McLeod’s ʻAmerican TVʼ version of Constitutional Law (under which he has adopted foreign terms such as “Right to Free Speech” derived from the US Constitution), there is in fact an implied freedom of communication and discussion on political and government affairs contained in the Australian Constitution and embodied within the federal system of government…. It has been found by the High Court of Australia that these sections, when read in context, provide that members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to be directly chosen at elections by the people and that therefore this requirement embraces all that is necessary to effectuate the free election of representatives at periodic elections, including the right to unfettered communication and discussion of all matters relating to government and public policy [Citation].
Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics has been determined by the High Court as being an indispensable incident of the system of representative government that the Constitution creates…. This freedom of communication and discussion is protected against the exercise of federal and state legislative and executive power and extends to all those who participate in ʻpoliticalʼ discussion (such as the AVN) and therefore is not limited only to electors and elected [Citation].
… The High Court has extended this freedom of communication on matters of government and politics extends to all non-verbal conduct [Citation], which would include content on the AVN website and all published materials of the AVN which is the subject of this complaint from Mr McLeod.
It is submitted that the HCCC should approach this complaint with this attitude of balance, and act to responsibly and lawfully when weighing up the competing interests at stake in the circumstances regarding the subject of this complaint. The High Court cases cited above confirm that the HCCC has a constitutional obligation to ensure that the ʻgag orderʼ and other similar provisions of the Health Care Complaints Act are not attempted to be implemented in response to this complain (sic) in a way that would offend or restrict the AVN’s constitutionally protected freedom of political expression. [….]
In closing on this particular subject, I submit a statement made by the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, as quoted in August 22nd, 2009 edition of the Daily Telegraph. In a speech before Federal Parliament, Mr Smith stated that, “We understand, respect and recognise free speech. We value the capacity of someone to come to our country and say things, even if we do not agree.”
The full epic ramble covers three pages most of which I have spared you. Dorey failed to address Mr. McLeods argument on free speech content that may be inherently malignant. Instead an irrelevant attempt to suggest that the AVN engages in political discussion akin to “communication on matters of government and politics”, is made repeatedly.
In aligning herself with “an implied freedom of communication and discussion on political and government affairs contained in the Australian Constitution and embodied within the federal system of government”, Dorey assumes quite some self-promotion. The citations are related to media outlets and political speech as implied by the constitution, both during and outside of election time, qualified privilege and publication without malice, amongst others.
In short Ms. Dorey seems to have little grasp on the notion of responsible free speech. Ken McLeod has made a very good case as to why free speech despite its great value must not be abused or used as a tool of demonstrable harm. Meryl Dorey sees her role as so lofty, the HCCC should stand back and make way. It’s arrogant in the extreme and speaks volumes as to how Dorey sees herself.
Nonetheless that is the source of Dorey’s repeated claims that “the skeptics”, of which Ken is not a member and SAVN, “say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia”. Item 5, page 6 of a complaint raised against Meryl Dorey. Period.
It is clear that the HCCC agreed with McLeod’s version, having reviewed Dorey’s material and finding her a risk to public health. Dorey is entirely cognizant of the above. Yet she has again chosen to misrepresent the facts in an attempt to cast opponents as malignant. At worst this is a dispute over the interpretation of free speech under the Australian Constitution.
Using free speech to lie to Tiga Bayles about free speech in such a manner as to intentionally engender ill will and hatred toward others is perhaps the most eloquent justification as to why Ms. Dorey must be stopped from speaking to the detriment of others. What she should say is:
I, Meryl Dorey believe I have a right to say what I want regardless of the consequences to individuals or society and hide behind this as “free speech”.
That is what the evidence shows and it’s backed by her conduct. In essence Dorey is shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre and wants to keep doing so.
One repetitive issue did come up again. As I’ve noted earlier, Dorey believes Nicola Roxon’s recent announcement on immunisation incentives should have led with instructions on how to become a conscientious objector. As if the health minister should be actively promoting disease, disability and epidemics. She had Tiga fired up in no time:
Tiga: So, the government is responsible also for misinformation.
Meryl: Very much so. And we’re going to be complaining about that, but unfortunately what happens is you complain to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman says, oh well, tell the minister for health about this. It’s the Minister for Health who’s misinforming people in the first place. So there’s really no way to complain.
Tiga: Typical.
It’s hard to find analogues to this. Perhaps media announcements on how to get exemptions from total fire bans should take precedence over any warnings? Life savers pointing out where the most dangerous rips are outside the flagged zone? SES telling residents where to hide from rescuers as bush fire tears into town? Light houses leading you onto the rocks?
Meryl Dorey’s idea of free and responsible speech is a dangerous one.
At risk of flogging a dead myth it’s worth keeping up deconstructing Meryl Dorey’s falsehoods as they keep arising.
In the near future on radio and most likely at Woodford, Dorey will trot out the old shuffled pertussis vaccination vs notification statistics to argue the vaccine is ineffective. The pertussis trick has been a standard for years but since September 2009, we’ve had access to her data sets when she used them in response to the HCCC regarding complaints raised about her. I’ve looked at each incarnation of this trick, which has scarcely changed.
Her claim begins by pointing out that in 1989-90 just before compulsory notification of pertussis began in 1991, immunisation was 71% (figure 1). This figure is sourced from the top table below, which provides figures from 3 ABS surveys of children 0 – 6 years. [Zoom resolution here].
The bottom table shows that coverage has risen to 95% for the cohort January 1st – March 31st, 2006 in children 2 years and under. It’s from Communicable Diseases Intelligence 2007;31:333. It also informs us the assessment date is June 30, 2008. You can find the same here in Dorey’s submission to the HCCC on page 6.
Figure 1
In replying to the HCCC Dorey referred to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) figures for pertussis which now includes data to 2011 (Figure 2). [Zoom resolution here]. Her claim continues on, using the two data sources. Although retold countless times, I’ll be scrupulous and quote from Dorey herself on page 6 of her HCCC reply:
Since the AVN was established, Australia has experienced an increase of over 23% in our rate of vaccination against whooping cough with a concurrent increase in the incidence of this disease of almost 40 times. Please refer to the Australian government graphs below:
For our purposes these “government graphs” are figures 1 and 2. Sure enough, as we can see below the notification rate in 1991 is 332 and the rate in 2008 is 14,292. But… 2007 has a rate of only 4,864, 2006 has a rate of 9,764. 2005 has a rate of 11,165. And 1996 (12 years earlier) has a rate of 12, 237.
What we see going back are the peaks and troughs associated with pertussis infection and control familiar to the developed world. We also know the present epidemic began in 2008. Before this, 2007 had the least notifications in eight years. In fact according to this table (pertussis per 100,000) it’s the lowest since 1992.
Figure 2
The operative words here are “concurrent increase”. Ms.Dorey frequently palms this off as a steady, correlating increase in infection when the figures show nothing of the sort. There are many problems with this approach. She is using entirely unrelated data sets. The NNDSS data tell us nothing about vaccination or immunity of subjects. There are 18 age groups in NNDSS data. One of Dorey’s vaccination tables in figure 1 covers two age groups only, the other table covers half of the youngest NNDSS age group.
The 1991 and 1992 notification figures are so low as to be anomalies. This is the normal when a disease is placed on the “notifiable” list and practitioners adjust to new requirements.
But now, let’s return to the ABS pertussis vaccination figures Dorey kindly provided. After a slight drop from the 71% she kindly points out, we reach 2001 – a full decade after notifications began – with a pertussis vaccination rate of only 71.6%. This is most cunning on Dorey’s part.
A 0.6% increase in ten years. Why even bother with the first decade? Why not choose 2001 with a notification rate of 9,541 (almost twice that of 2007)?
Clearly it is rank selection of data to convey a falsehood about pertussis vaccination. Exactly as the HCCC have stated. Applying Ms. Dorey’s logic to 2001 and 2007 vaccination and notification rates one can argue a reduction of almost 50% in pertussis infection, with virtually the same increase in immunisation levels. We can see with rising vaccination there has been no “corresponding increase in the incidence of this disease”.
In fact, we have 71.6% coverage in 2001. And 95% in 2006. Both provided by Dorey. That’s five years, but she chooses to cite the 1990 figure of 70% from the upper table, and the assessment date of June 2008 in the lower table of figure 1. Why? Because the initial year of notification (1991) is absurdly small, and 2008 is the beginning of an epidemic.
Indeed, a close look at notification rates in Figure 2 shows comparable rates in the first and second decades, excluding only the epidemic which began in 2008. Ms. Dorey really needs to explain how these figures can be expected to justify her claim.
Next comes age groups, and our understanding as to why Dorey never mentions them. Most infections in Australia are in adults with no immunity. Her 95% in figure 1 applies only to under 2 year olds. This is half of one age group out of the 18 provided by the NNDSS. We know immunity begins to wane certainly by about age ten (if not earlier) and that adults are definitely in need of a booster. In effect most pertussis notifications are from those with no immunity. Figure 3 is pertussis notifications for 2007 (pre-epidemic) by age and sex [Zoom here]:
Figure 3
In any year (including epidemic years) most notifications come from adults. Rather than pointing to total figures Ms. Dorey should be honest and admit that most infections come from the adult population with an immunisation rate of only 11.3%. See page 18, Adult Immunisation Survey. This is insufficient to provide herd immunity.
Adults may show no symptoms or very mild symptoms and not seek any care. What this means is that adult infection levels are higher than notification levels. It’s important to stress that Meryl Dorey will cite infant or childhood vaccination levels, but most notifications come from adults. Ms. Dorey’s claim of total infections casting doubt on 95% of childhood vaccination is again found wanting.
The fact that 0 – 4 is the highest childhood age cohort and comparable with adults of over 30 is due to newborns being unvaccinated and not completing the schedule for many weeks. This places them at extended risk.
So, even giving Dorey’s dodgy data sets a fair run they still fail on a number of fronts to deliver the goods. In fact they undermine her so-called proof. Infections come from non immunised, and as we’ll see below reduction in childhood immunisation is catastrophic. She has some explaining to do.
We know the pertussis vaccine is not a magic bullet and that vaccinated children can catch pertussis as immunity wanes. In general they develop much milder symptoms and are not at risk of death and disability as are unvaccinated infants and small toddlers. It is crucial to ensure vigilance against waning immunity. Boosters should be considered.
Low immunisation levels have been linked to the present outbreak. Tragically it’s been known for quite some time that this epidemic is likely to have begun in Meryl Dorey’s backyard – where she has her greatest influence. The SMH reported in 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.
California is also experiencing an epidemic on the back of reduced immunisation levels. Dorey recently posted this Californian article about waning pertussis immunity on Facebook, claiming it indicated an ineffective pertussis vaccine. She omitted Dr. Carol Baker:
PARENTS who refuse to vaccinate their children are contributing to the worst whooping cough outbreak on record in Queensland, with notifications likely to exceed 7000 this year.
Four to 8 per cent of children on the Sunshine Coast are registered as so-called “conscientious objectors”, meaning their parents refuse to immunise them. […] Whooping cough is deadly to babies who are too young to be vaccinated. One in 200 babies who contract whooping cough will die.
The advice from all states and federal health authorities is to immunise and ensure immunity is up to scratch with boosters. The outbreak in Australia is due to low immunisation levels and waning immunity in children who have been vaccinated.
This woman is so laughably wrong that it almost seems cruel to get stuck into her… but when kids don’t get vaccinated, kids die”.
Cassandra Wilkinson, ex Labor staffer
Steve Canane hosts Cassandra Wilkinson, Joe Stella and Peter Black in a discussion on the merits of vaccine denier and “obviously crazy…. nutter” Meryl Dorey’s booking to speak at the upcoming Woodford Folk Festival.
Presently Australia is experiencing a major whooping cough (pertussis) epidemic.
It’s been in epidemic proportions since 2008-2009. Interestingly 2007 was the third lowest year on record since notification became compulsory in 1991. 2009 was a notably bad year for pertussis. A major contributor to epidemics is low pertussis vaccination rates, as evidenced here, in the UK and the USA. Adult boosters are crucial in combating this.
Contrary to certain claims this epidemic is not due to the pertussis vaccine nor does it demonstrate inherent flaws in the efficacy of pertussis vaccination. We do know that the age at which pertussis vaccine induced immunity wanes has fallen. Exactly how this relates to the acellular vaccine vs the older whole cell vaccine and the bordetella pertussis bacteria, is complex. However, there is a basic account here, along with interviews on The World Today and some musing on the error in blaming vaccine efficacy.
California experienced a severe epidemic in 2010, confirming the problem with waning immunity. Often used as a trick by antivaccination lobbyists to claim “the vaccinated” mostly get pertussis, the reality is different. Vaccinated individuals can catch a much milder form of pertussis, yet unvaccinated patients experience severe illness, disability and even death. In this same article, under Waning Pertussis Immunity Comes as No SurpriseDr. Carol Baker writes in part:
The California epidemic was caused by underimmunization of some children, and by waning immunity in fully vaccinated children. It showed that we are not where we need to be to have herd immunity. The 2010 California outbreak caught everyone’s attention.
Recently in Australia claims were made about pertussis vaccine inefficacy on ABC which I looked at here. It’s a favourite theme of the AVN and if you’re keen to look at exposing tactics it has popped up here, and here involving abuse of WHO data whilst we even have a cameo from Viera Scheibner pushing much the same at about the 6:45 mark.
Regarding adult boosters of 1 dose, the NCIRS fact sheet on pertussis (below), backed by citations states [my bold]:
The efficacy of the pertussis components of dTpa vaccines administered to adolescents and adults is inferred from the serologic results obtained in infants immunised with paediatric DTPa in pertussis efficacy trials. For both dTpa vaccine formulations, the immune responses to all pertussis vaccine antigens in adolescents and adults 1 month after a single dose of dTpa were non-inferior to those of infants after 3 doses of DTPa.
A large clinical trial in adolescents and adults demonstrated overall vaccine efficacy against confirmed pertussis of 92%, and a clinical trial in adults demonstrated prolonged immunogenicity from a single dTpa booster dose, with pertussis antibodies remaining above pre-booster dose levels in 85% of participants for 5 years after immunisation.
It’s widely known pertussis boosters are or have been available free in many states and territories. This may vary between new parents, family members, foster parents and other adults as a view of this Immunise Australia page suggests. It’s probably best to contact your own health department or just call the local GP. So, how are adults going keeping up with boosters?
An estimated 11.3% of Australians aged 18 years and over had received a pertussis vaccination as an adult or adolescent. Uptake was substantially higher among parents of infants aged less than 12 months old (51.5%).
Hmmm. It seems we can certainly lift our game. If you haven’t had a booster for 4-5 years please get one. If you’re an adult likely to be in contact with a newborn then definitely get one.
If you’re none too happy with the conduct of the antivaccination lobby the single greatest effect you can have against them is to get a pertussis booster. As adult herd immunity rises less infections will be passed to at risk children, non-immunised infants, other adults and there will be less notification in total. This will serve to deflate the claim that rising diagnoses are ipso facto proof that childhood vaccination is a failure.
The Australian Vaccination Network wrongly compares 95% pertussis vaccination rates in young children (11% of diagnosed age groups) with 11.3% of adult vaccination (89% of diagnosed age groups). Then claim total population infection (100% of all diagnoses) is due to ineffectiveness of childhood vaccination alone.
For example Meryl Dorey compares vaccination rates of small children – which are around 95% – with diagnosis across all age groups – which include adults at around 11.3% – to secure high notification levels. Of the 18 age groups making up notifications only 2 correspond to the 95% vaccination rate. 16 age groups fall outside that at which immunity begins to wane (the 11.3% vaccination rate). Including numbers of infants too young to have completed pertussis vaccination, it’s clear Dorey’s figures come most primarily from the unvaccinated and non immune.
Today, ABC AM interviewed a parent who lost a four week old to pertussis. She said:
I hadn’t had a booster and the most heart-wrenching thing for us is that we were not warned, there was meant to be a yellow warning sticker go on [her] blue book in the hospital, we didn’t get one.
We didn’t know about adults requiring boosters, nor did any of the adults around us, none of our family or friends knew and we also didn’t know that the area I was living in was in the grip of an epidemic.
Well, now we do know. There’s really no excuse if you’re able to be vaccinated.
Losing In The Lucky Country 