Category Archives: Scam

The Australian Vaccination Network in court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or;

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

Meryl Dorey

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

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

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

Download audio. Transcript here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sound familiar?

When is it OK to steal children?

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Health, Human Rights, Legal, Media, Meryl Dorey, Scam, Skeptic, Social Media by

How Meryl Dorey exploited a family to steal $12,000 from donors

An excellent question and I’m glad you asked.

It has been posed before of course. By the same person who opined, and in circumstances similar to that which elicited, “Court orders rape of a child” after a mother was ordered in the Family court to vaccinate her daughter. Although continuing on with, “Think this is an exaggeration? This is assault without consent and with full penetration too…”, Meryl Dorey AVN president did attempt to explain herself. Or rather, offer a kind of acknowledgement of her members who were not up with the gravity of assault by vaccination and thus took offence.

I don’t won’t to hype this up as it was pretty gross. Yet it undermines the straight faced denials of being antivaccination. Indeed, of being “for informed choice”. It brings in an emotional element impervious to the very rational compromise that defines advocacy in a democracy. It moves it to the extremes of activism. The type of placard waving, spittle flying abuse of the status quo that doesn’t help anyone. And if actions speak louder than words, the August 2008 debacle that Dorey initially wrote about under When is it OK to steal children?, long ago destroyed any semblance of bipartisan credibility.

This is when the AVN usurped the actions of a family hiding an HBV positive mother, husband, newborn and 3 year old from DoCS, police and NSW health to avoid the standard HBV vaccine regimen to protect the newborn. DoCS had taken out a Supreme Court order to ensure vaccination of the neonate – but not the 3 year old. The parents kept it up long enough to ensure the six day window of opportunity for protection had expired. Then the AVN abandoned the parents to the law and the father to a possible jail sentence – only prevented by DoCS in view of family cohesion. Dorey went on to milk her members for money via a Fighting Fund which she began within 48 hours after the birth, rising to a Donation Challenge with $500 being the magic figure. With a long history of misappropriating funds, this would be easy.

Almost $12,000 was raised. The parents received none of this money. Members were coaxed along as if they were receiving funds and later congratulated for “your help” in securing a victory for the family. They were housed with a sympathiser or living in a motel and met their own costs. Dorey’s trick was to plead about more families sure to face this on a regular basis.

In fact she boasted of inside information (from the father she exploited no less) that it occurred regularly. The AVN was financially in need and had to stay open. The NSW Attorney General might pursue the family (wrong). The AVN were to lobby parliamentarians on behalf of members, over this very type of threat (still waiting).

According to NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing in a letter to Mr. Ken McLeod on October 18th, 2010, we can read on page two;

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

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

A similar case in QLD in which a 9 week premature baby was “vaccine injured” by the HBV vaccine (inexplicably leading to all three children being removed by DoCS) was set to cost the AVN $30,000. Apparently – as Meryl Dorey relays it – this family wished to refuse vaccination and so DoCS had deemed this worthy of removing all children. This resulted in “a challenge being set” by an anonymous donor and the infamous $500 Donation Challenge was born. All this just fades away as new scams arise. No accounts follow, no reports of progress, no follow up on expenditure.

This case began when a hepatitis B positive woman of Chinese heritage, married to a member of The Australian Vaccination Network gave birth to a boy in Sydney on August 19, 2008. NSW Health HBV policy directive January 27, 2005 states in part;

VACCINATION OF NEONATES
•    All pregnant women are to be offered screening for hepatitis B, surface antigen (HBsAg) and should be provided with verbal and written information about hepatitis B and the hepatitis B immunisation program. The health interpreter service is to be used whenever necessary.
•    Neonates born to HBsAg positive mothers are to be offered, hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) within 12 hours of birth and a total of four doses of hepatitis B vaccine to be administered at birth, two, four and six months of age.
•    All other neonates are to be offered a total of four doses of hepatitis B vaccine at birth, two, four and six months of age. The birth dose is to be administered using a monovalent thiomersal free vaccine, and offered within 7 days of birth. The subsequent 3 doses may be given in a combination vaccine as part of the routine Australian Standard Vaccination Schedule (ASVS).

First up, let me stress staff don’t bully, harass or intimidate parents. Dorey has made much of this fallacy, yet back in 2009 when investigating the veracity of another attempt to raise money to “steal babies” I was reassured by the head policy analyst of NSW Health and many senior hospital staff (who remembered this very case) that was a rather shocking, offensive and false accusation. The policy exists for staff – not as a directive for patient outcome. To this we can add that HBV is a notifiable disease, and the circumstances would have likely been submitted as a matter of course.

NSW Health state in Hepatitis B Control Guidelines;

Public health priority: High for newly acquired cases, routine for unspecified cases. PHU response time; Investigate confirm newly acquired cases and all other confirmed cases within 3 working days. Enter confirmed newly acquired unspecified cases on NDD (Notifiable Diseases Database) with 5 working days. Case management; Investigate likely source of newly acquired cases. Contact management. Ensure that contacts of newly acquired cases are offered post-exposure prophylaxis.

HBV is a public health risk. It must be reported and entered on a database. Case management includes tracking down the source of infection. Clearly this neonates welfare was paramount and perhaps an issue for health professionals before his birth. The HBV policy directive also stipulates that the Hospital Coordinator ensures parents and health care providers are made aware of the vaccination programme. Which means benefits and risks. HBV can be asymptomatic in pregnant mothers with high viral load, hence strong likelihood of transferring the virus. We may assume hospital staff were aware of this mothers status in this regard. Later news reports suggest this is the case.

Citing baseless concerns about aluminium (aluminum) in the vaccines causing more damage than hepatitis B the parents refused. Here’s where the danger of AVN misinformation kicks in. Aluminium is the most common metal in nature. Over our lifetime we accumulate between 50 – 100mg. During the first six months of life babies do receive about 4mg from vaccines in the form of an aluminium salt. There are various aluminium salts and HBV vaccine usually contains aluminium phosphate. Aluminium acts as an adjuvant – to promote immune response, concomitantly allow less antigen per dose and decrease toxicity of antigens. It’s worth noting that babies receive 10mg from breast feeding, 40mg from formula and 120mg from soy based formula over the same six month period.

All but 1% is eliminated. Elimination rates have been gauged at 50% in 24 hours, 85% in two weeks and 96% in about three years. Exposure via vaccines is significantly less than through food. Other medications and particularly antacids also present more aluminium. Over around 70 years numerous studies have found it to be safe. One of it’s tricks as an adjuvant is to keep antigens near the injection site to be more readily accessed by immune cells. This may cause irritation. There may be redness and at worst a nodule may form due to the aluminium. In view of hepatic damage, cancer, cirrhosis and towering lifestyle challenges from hepatitis, the risk/benefit is clear. [Source]

Naming the parents “Stephen and Cassandra” Dorey wrote on August 21st;

A NSW couple are tonight in hiding after hospital doctors and the Department of Community Services took out a court order insisting that their baby, who is now only 48 hours old, be vaccinated against Hep B.

Steven and Cassandra are the proud parents of baby Jonathan, born in Sydney on Tuesday this week. Cassandra had tested positive for Hep B several years ago and so, before leaving hospital with their newborn, she was advised to give the baby a Hep B vaccination. Having done her research, she believed that her child was at greater risk from the vaccine than from Hep B. She refused the shot as did her husband. After all, vaccination is not compulsory in Australia.

Because of this refusal, Cassandra and Steven were informed by hospital staff that they were not allowed to leave the hospital until the child was vaccinated. Refusal to do so would result in their arrest and a loss of custody. Due to these threats, they agreed to make an appointment at their GP on Thursday afternoon to have the shot administered. DOCs was called in to witness the vaccination and they were sent home with a warning that they had better show up for the shot. […]

The parents are now in hiding…

On August 23rd, the SMH reported;

A SYDNEY couple was on the run with their two-day-old baby last night after the Department of Community Services took out a Supreme Court order to have the boy vaccinated against hepatitis B. […..]

Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of contracting hepatitis B from its mother and “about 30 per cent of people with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young … I don’t understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks.”

LIVING WISDOM August 22nd 2008

It’s nice that the ABC refer to the AVN as an “anti-vacccination group” – twice – which Meryl denies constantly. Disturbingly as time went by Dorey’s ignorance about hepatitis B infection, viral load, symptoms, seroconversion, vaccine ingredients – in fact all the nuances she should know of became plain. Making much of the non compulsory nature of vaccination, Dorey also writes the next day under that image of antivaccination conspiracy horror we all know and love, Family forced into hiding because of vaccination;

Whilst it is true that the mother tested positive to Hep B several years ago, to say that she suffers from Hepatitis B is wrong. She has no symptoms of disease as most people who are exposed to this and develop antibodies to it don’t have any symptoms nor will there be any long-term problems as a result of their antibody status. The lack of knowledge about this status is shocking!

Yes the lack of knowledge is astounding. But on Dorey’s part. The above statement is shifting focus onto whether or not the mother is “suffering” as if this can qualify the scale of risk to the newborn. In fact it’s arguable, but not certain, that testing had revealed that this mother was presenting with high HBV DNA levels and/or was HBeAg-positive (indicating virus replication) whilst also being entirely asymptomatic.

Either way DoCS argued the the likelihood of neonate infection was high. Evidence supports action against hep B baby’s parents;

The Department of Community Services (DOCS) says it has compelling medical evidence to support the action being taken against a Sydney couple refusing to vaccinate their baby boy.

A court order forcing the parents to immunise their son against hepatitis B has been extended in the Supreme Court today.

DOCS spokeswoman Annette Gallard says it is highly likely the child will contract the illness from his mother if he is not vaccinated soon.

In all updates and gushing thank you blurbs, Dorey asks for donations. It was an ideal saga to groom members on an emotional level which is made clear by the many lies perpetrated. Like a rogue internet scam the real aim here is to make money. From Legal Update September 5th;

We are desperate to help these families as I’m sure many of you are too….. We are stretched beyond belief at this point in time and really need your assistance more than ever so please – if you have an extra few dollars there that you think you can spare, visit our web site and donate.

It contained an email that is almost too good to be true;

Dear Meryl

After the newsletter today I would like to donate more to the fighting fund. Can you let people know that if a further 10 people donate $500 each (or more) for this critical issue I will donate a further $500. Annonymously.

It could be any family in this position – if we act now it won’t be all unvaccinated families.
Thanks again for your untiring work and generosity of spirit

Kind regards
Name withheld upon request

September 2008, Update on Stephen and Cassandara;

…until we get legislation enacted in NSW specifically protecting the rights of parents to freely choose whether or not they want to vaccinate their children, this sort of discrimination will continue to occur and helpless, uninformed families will continue to buckle to the pressure to vaccinate their vulnerable children.

What will it take?

At this point, the AVN has been literally run ragged over this last 4 weeks. We have completely expended our very meagre resources and are in a very tenuous position indeed. Whilst we have raised funds to help Stephen and the other family in Ipswich (whose case is proceeding thanks to your help!) that we discussed in the last E-Newsletter, we ourselves have been left ragged and completely unfunded as a result.

Still later on September 25th, 2008 is Thank you doesn’t even come close. Something we’ve all heard before is the promise of missing magazines. But in bold is a clear breach of the Charitable fundraising act 1991;

Unfortunately, the AVN itself is not in such a good position. We have spent a lot of time and resources helping these families and it has taken a toll on both the AVN’s finances and on the production of our next issue of Living Wisdom magazine which many of you will have realised by now is running behind schedule […]

…many other families who either now or in the future may face a similar situation. We also know that many of you have been thinking – and rightly so – that if this sort of discrimination could happen to these families, it could happen to any one of us as well.

With this in mind, it is vital that the AVN stay open for business and in a strong enough position to help any other families faced with something like this.  Currently the AVN is facing the serious prospect of having to close because of financial constraints. We therefore ask that if you have donated funds to our legal Fighting Fund in recent times, you consider allowing us to use a portion of that donation for our day to day running expenses and to pay some outstanding debts.

If you have made such a donation to the Fighting Fund and would rather it remains there to be used only to pay the legal expenses of families fighting this discrimination, please let us know either by telephoning or email. If you did make a donation but we haven’t heard from you by 7th October 2008 about this matter, we will assume that you have no objection to the AVN utilising your contribution for the administrative and operational purposes of the AVN and the Living Wisdom magazine.

Of course, no follow up of just how much money was nicked because the AVN “assume you have no objection” was ever published. Not until the OLGR informed Ken McLeod that it was 100%. The above also claims “… thanks to your help one of these cases has been settled with a positive outcome”. Well, that’s a complete falsehood. No money went anywhere. The couple remained in hiding for about four weeks. Eventually they fronted the Supreme Court and with the help of DoCS (who did not press any charges), were able to return home without the father needing to serve the prison sentence the judge dearly wanted to give him.

As for the impending forced vaccination of so many others that Dorey needed money to prevent, they simply vanish. There’s no AVN record of the couples three year old being vaccinated nor any “victory” preventing this. Perhaps she was, perhaps not. The family disappears from AVN circles, hopefully settling into sound advice.

Within four weeks Dorey shifts her attack on the HBV vaccine from forced vaccination of babies to making up stories of health workers who had no choice. They were being forced into vaccination and contacting her as a result. They had “life threatening” reactions.

These workers were eventually diagnosed with Lupus Panniculitis, Dorey tells us. Plainly she is inventing claims of evil hospitals and staff hiding the truth from these poor people. Who, of course, can only be helped by Dorey, Google and the ever-rolling donation machine. This time members are offered “Pain Free Funding”, as Dorey asks for their maternity immunisation allowance and to be nominated at Ritchies supermarkets.

It’s a sickening scam given the AVN is not responsible for any legislative structure and couldn’t lobby the entrance to a hotel;

A couple of our members have recently donated part of their Maternity Immunisation Allowance to us. They said that without the AVN’s lobbying Parliament to get legislation put through to ensure their rights to government entitlements, they wouldn’t have this money or the Childcare Allowance anyway so they felt that we deserved part of it for our support of them. We thought this was a great idea! If you are in a position to give us a portion of your Maternity Allowance, we would be very grateful – just one more idea that hopefully won’t put too big a hole in anyone’s pocket.

If you’re familiar with the AVN you can see what went on here with the HBV family. The archives are here in which you’ll find no further mention of how donations were managed or who won these dubious prize offers.

A year later, Meryl Dorey would try awakening the scam again. This time seemingly inventing the entire charade.

Paul Offit discusses Oscillococcinum

Posted in Big Placebo, Health, Scam by

Oscillococcinum is a homeopathic scam sold as a cold and flu “remedy”. Supposedly made from burberry duck heart and liver because (according to homeopaths), these are “reservoirs” for influenza virus it is in fact, sugar.

It’s an ideal example of the problems Aussies face with homeopathy regulated under our TGA. As we know homeopathic “medicines” are “often so diluted they don’t contain any of the active ingredient”. Australia’s TGA regulations on homeopathic and anthroposophic “medicines” are quite plain in that this fact ultimately dictates that homeopathic products must comply with The Australian Code of Good Manufacturing Practice –  cGMP standards. Overseas sponsors must provide evidence that this standard is met. Whether or not this is actually occurring has no bearing on the rationale.

The rationale for this is that although most homoeopathic (and some anthroposophic) medicines are diluted to the point where it is no longer possible to detect any of the original mother substance, a major factor in ensuring the low risk nature of these medicines is making sure that the mother substances are properly identified, and the dilution and succussion processes are appropriately monitored.

Translation? Some homeopathic products claim to be made from nasty and potentially high risk “mother” substances. The final product from homeo-hokery pokery actually contains no active ingredient, and the TGA is all about preventing risk. So to be certain you’re selling nothing nasty – or rather, nothing at all – your hokery pokery will be subject to cGMP. Efficacy is neither here not there when it comes to alternative “medicines”.

This is rather strange because in 2003 The Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System [ECCMHS] recommended that;

Homoeopathic medicines and related medicines making therapeutic claims be regulated to ensure they meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy.

Efficacy? Quality? Therapeutic claims? Regulation? This is simply not not what we see today, despite the fact 1600 complementary “medications” were recalled in 2003. Recently efficacy was raised again in the transparency review of the TGA. Plainly this is just not good enough.

Remember that a dilution of 1 in 100 is designated by “C” – a centesimal. Oscillococcinum is 200C. In Australia 200C is also known as “bugger all”. Yet, Aussies pay good money for this apparent remedy. This scam.

Paul Offit sums this up nicely in about 2 minutes, and I added some slides for sex appeal.

Paul Offit discusses Oscillococcinum

Child Health Safety: The Wakettes arise

Posted in Denialism, Scam by

I mentioned the blog Child Health Safety last post, alluding to Wakettism of the first order.

I recently commented under the post Wakefield and MMR – Brian Deer fails to answer. Apparently my observations deserved an entire blog post, headed Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988. This was copied and pasted back as a reply ignoring the content of my comment. The thrust was to debunk my claim of no real autism epidemic. I’d used Brugha et al. “Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England.” Archives of General Psychiatry  –  doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38. This paper uses today’s diagnostic criteria and shows adults have autism at a rate of 9.8/1000 in adults.

Today’s rate is difficult to ascertain, but can be 10/1600 to 10/1000 in children. The latter is the more common – 1%, although this is probably high given other estimates. Brugha concludes no epidemic exists, but that diagnostic criteria has changed, suggesting he alludes to the 10/1000 figure. Many who point to large scale increases also support the reality of changing diagnostic criteria. Brugha’s paper is discussed here on Ars Technica, Autism Epidemic? More likely we’re just better at diagnosis which also uses the 10/1000 – or 1% figure today. Other publications discuss the findings: “Most adults with autism go undiagnosed” AlphaGalileo. “University of Leicester researchers present further evidence from first ever general population survey of autism in adulthood.” Disabled World

Our Wakette at Child Health Safety is claiming a 1200% increase in autism frequency in eight years. He chose an Israeli study – as is plain if you read his post above, with 0.84 cases per 1000 – Advancing Paternal Age and Autism by Reichenberg et al. Then he uses Baird’s well known figure of 11.6/1000 to get his 1200% increase. Just one lone paper no doubt chosen to sustain this 1200% increase claim. The three variables impacting on frequency are criteria, age of cohort and geographical location. Age and location impact on our friends mythical 1200%.

So, over to this new post I went. Now, you may wonder what the relevance of a comment stream is. However, I found this typical of antivaccination lobbyists particularly those who seek to maintain the autism myth. I’ve always wondered what made the crackpots behind this site tick. They have “secrets” on Wakefield. Brian Deer and the BMJ are the real fraudsters. “Governments” have been exposed. Typical conspiracy central meanderings.

Rather than address the clear challenges we find a challenging tone and combative presentation. Combined with false dichotomies by association, censoring of comments by deletion then eventual banning. I actually began by apologising below for sending them off in a huff. One comment (under a piece defending Wakefield) that nailed them left them pleading inability to understand. Anyway, I commented;

I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

You quote Reichenberg et al’s Israeli study from the Archives of General Psychiatry to “set a benchmark”, which you then compare to Baird’s UK figures. Yes both use DSM IV. But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory. No offence but you can’t just make up relationships between unrelated data sets without correcting for other variables. You need to show statistically why the individual sets relate to your argument. This is a common flaw. Genetics, environment, parental education and rearing techniques… etc.

Still, let’s go with it. 8.4:10,000 or 0.84 per 1000. Then Baird’s UK figures of 116.1:10,000 or 11.6 per 1000. From this you argue a 1200% increase insinuating vaccination. Yet Baird had written.

“Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear.”

Thus, you make conclusions from Baird’s work that even he did not. I shall argue you selected the lone Israeli paper for it’s dramatic impact. Now onto research that seeks to determine if any increase at all has occurred. We can stay in the UK eliminating the genetic and environmental confounding variables of Israel data. Let’s examine adults using the same diagnostic criteria.

Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England – Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(5):459-465. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38

We find 9.8 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-16.5). The author’s write:

“The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.”

It’s documented by Baird that younger children – indeed younger subjects often have a higher score in diagnosis. Using this reality we expect to see significant decreases in adults. But we have Baird’s 11.6 and Brugha’s 9.8 per 1000. Given the approximation of these figures using today’s diagnostic criteria and the huge age difference one may assume autism is falling as we’d expect to see a much lower rate in adults. More so, in 2003 Baird himself writes in Diagnosis of autism – BMJ;

“… several factors account for the increase–for example, changing conceptualisation to a spectrum rather than a core categorical condition; changes in diagnostic methods; …”

That’s probably enough. Although consider:

1 in 150 (1988-1995; Bertrand et al., 2001)
1 in 175 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2000)
1 in 85 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2006)
1 in 150 (1992; ADDMN, 2007)
1 in 160 (1992-1995; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001)
1 in 150 (1994; ADDMN, 2007)
1 in 58 (1993-1997; not published)
1 in 170 (1996-1998; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2005)

– which is markedly inconsistent with the myth of an epidemic. it is consistent with methodology. Selecting data to suit your argument will not change reality.

I apologise for having such fun with your bag of errors. It was an appalling reply and a ridiculous blog post however. The above post is very plain in showing that you’re inventing a phenomena not supported by research nor even by Baird himself. Autism rates have not changed. Diagnosis has. A decrease is most likely.

Thank you.

And;

Your comment in blue above:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

… is meaningless. I stressed this in another comment but you couldn’t answer. Let me be quite plain. Compensation for encephalopathy or general brain disease is due to vaccination. It may be accompanied by…. autism. It may also be accompanied by blue eyes, blonde hair or bad breath. None of these are due to vaccination. This comment is one of many that stress compensation for vaccine induced autism has never occurred. Even Poling had a predetermining mitochondrial disorder.

As I stressed elsewhere. Only reading something like; “This child was compensated due to autism developing directly as a result of vaccination”, will sustain the allusion above. As I said elsewhere, defeating your ability to reply – Even the recent Pace Law school student foray into 21 VCIP cases and over 60 biased phone call interviews offered “it strongly suggests” a link. (Quoting Danielle Orsino media rep).

That paper is “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury”. But as Orsino says, there’s a “suggestion”. Period.

You contention is demonstrably flawed on many levels.

Thank you.

Apparently no point to answer exists;

Paul @ 2011/08/20 at 2:01 am

I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

Really? In an earlier comment elsewhere you drew our attention to the letter in the peer reviewed Journal of the Israeli Medical Association which draws attention to the figures from the Paternal Age paper. Thanks for that. We did not know and have added a reference to this article so it now can draw on authority of a peer reviewed journal.

You seem not to be able to agree with any medical experts. That’s fine. We are letting you let off steam here.

And;

Paul @ 2011/08/20 at 3:02 am

“Your comment in blue above:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

… is meaningless.”

Oh dear. You just cannot trust governments can you? The US Health Resources Services Administration give a quote to a journalist of a national TV news broadcast network confirming the US government has compensated cases of children who developed autistic conditions from vaccines and paid out lots and lots of dollars to them and it turns out to be meaningless.

LOL. Back to the drawing board for everyone.

I replied;

I think you have seen the flaw. That comment is all over the place here. Yep – meaningless.

“Autistic conditions” are not vaccine induced autism. You’re at least changing language – the first step in accepting facts. Sadly, there’s no LOL. I’m glad you think it’s funny. One in 1 million children suffer encephalitis from vaccine reactions. They are compensated as is just. Many have autism. The comment is debunking the very untruth you seek to make.

“…. may be accompanied by an array of symptoms”.

Until you can produce “compensated because of their autism”, you have no case. The facts and government positions are against you. Global research is against you. From ethyl mercury to vaccines to numbers of vaccines no link can be shown.

Accept it.

Thanks again.

Then horror upon horror, they clicked on my URL and delivered;

LOL, Rant on Paul.

We are content to rely on a peer reviewed journal. Thanks for drawing our attention to it – so we could add the link to the article.

You might as well let everyone know you are a friend of Peter Bowditch and the “skeptics” crowd who are happy to victimise and attack people personally on the web, spread misinformation lose legal actions and then claim they have not. Similarly Terry Polevoy – Terry Polevoy vs Ilena Rosenthal.

Birds of a feather flock together. What a lot of flockers.

Those nasty skeptics all linked up like a hive… I tried again;

I thought this was about debating and/or defending the premise of your post?

I think given the tone and lack of substance of your replies, it’s clear I’ve upset your apple cart here. Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year. Why can’t you address this simple reality? The above reply is most unbecomming.

Yes I know of Peter and enjoy the skeptic community. So, you clicked a link to my site. Welcome. I’m ignorant as to the case you refer to or Polevoy. I do know Peter posts everything on his site so is unlikely to spread misinformation. Either way I could be head of GSK yet I still have a valid argument you avoid. No laughing matter. Autism is decreasing if we involve your figure from Baird.

Also, go back to my original comment. You have much work to do. Don’t feel embarrassed – science is all about being proven wrong. No need to turn aggressively defensive. I’m not judgmental.

I await your reply with eagerness.

All the best now.

Next, missing the point of Brugha’s comparison to contemporary childhood figures;

Paul @ August 21, 2011 at 2:04 am

Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year.

Shame you have not read either paper or maybe you have and you know you are talking rubbish. Comparing chalk and cheese just like your mates Bowditch and Polevoy to lie about the facts. Baird was dealing with children. Brugha was dealing with adults. So you are saying the same children Baird covered became adults in one year and 13.7% of them simultaneously were cured.

LOL. Nice one.

Pretty good refutation we think. But then that is just the style of Bowditch, Polevoy and friends.

The old, “tar ’em with the same brush trick”, eh? I continued self flagellating;

I may have been generous with my stats. It’s a 13.79% decrease. My bad… apologies.

Pretty much a 14% decrease in autism in the same nation in one year. Geographic location is a plus. Age is a plus. Criteria is a plus. The 3 variables effecting frequency of autism. You still need to address your “theory” using Israeli data to compare to a different location & age group.

All the best.

Things deteriorated along those lines. More allusion to “Bowditch and Polevoy” and whatever case of which I had no knowledge. Sadly, my dear comment protagonist first began censoring comments that refuted his ongoing claims, then banned me altogether. Perhaps referring to “the awesome Ben Goldacre” was pushing my luck. Back in 2007 he’d written an excellent article. Clearly whomever it is holding the reins at Child Health Safety has a thing about Polevoy and dear Peter Bowditch. He/she/they did have one point. I mentioned Brugha as “citing” the 10/1000 figure of todays frequency vs his adult findings of 9.8/1000. I was in error. Brugha studiously avoids picking any of the many autism frequencies out there today.

Yet Brugha’s 9.8/1000 in adults advanced as showing no change to todays child frequencies of 10/1000 (the widely used 1%) leads me conclude it’s safe to argue with the 10/1000 figure. That’s rather clear in the post deleted but found here. Also Brugha et al. wrote;

The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.

From Alpha Galileo we have;

Dr Brugha said the new scientific article confirms the already published report from the survey (2009) that 9.8 per thousand adults in England meet official diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. There was no evidence of an ‘autism epidemic’ of marked increase in people with the condition.

He said: “Overall our findings suggest that prevalence is neither rising nor falling significantly over time. This favours the interpretation that methods of ascertainment (case finding) have changed in more recent surveys of children compared to the earliest surveys in which the rates reported were considerably lower”.

I could have chosen the 10/1600 figure, rendering Brugha’s finding more compelling. It’s fascinating to consider that adults today may present at 9.8/1000 vs children at as little as 10/1600. Knowing that increases in cohort age correlate to a reduction in frequency diagnoses, and adults have learned many skills that also lower overall score, we’re left to consider an actual drop in autism over the last generation. How wonderful if that were true and perhaps due to the protection from measles induced encephalitis due to MMR vaccination.

In conclusion, this poor author has unwittingly proven my point. Had he shown the courtesy of reading my sources he’d have noted studies devoted to examining the very question, don’t support an epidemic. Had he even read Baird’s papers he’d have seen Baird herself doesn’t claim an absolute increase but stresses causes are unclear and changing diagnostic criteria are a variable. I guess what got up my nose is fishing for an obscure study, comparing it to Baird’s work and using this to conclude there’s a 1200% increase in autism due to vaccination.

Not only is this not repeated anywhere no attempt was made to eliminate confounding variables. No understanding of using unrelated data sets or attempt to justify correlation between them exists. Just a very low figure plucked out and used “as a benchmark”.

Moving away from Baird and Brugha we find a range of diagnostic papers that fail to support the contention of a steady increase. I’ll give the last word to Ben Goldacre from 2007, writing About that surge in autism, in The Autism Crisis;

Autism advocates are free to seek that recent surge in autism–that catastrophic epidemic–in anecdotes, in education numbers or the CDDS, in sensationalist headlines and so on. This is all in keeping with the rotten standards of science and ethics they’ve imposed on autistics, and with their own steadfast resistance against verifiable information. But on the off-chance anyone’s interested in the published, peer-reviewed data, I thought I’d go fetch some. If anyone finds any factual errors in the information I’ve presented, I’d greatly appreciate knowing. Accurate information is always good for autistics.

Indeed.