Category Archives: Human Rights

Pertussis notification and vaccination status in context

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Chiropractic, Human Rights by

Across the globe it is known how important the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is in preventing both infection and severity of infection with Bordetella pertussis.

Along with vaccines for diphtheria and tetanus, then polio (1950’s), measles, mumps, rubella (1960’s) the Australian pertussis vaccine has contributed to an astonishing 99% reduction in deaths from vaccine preventable disease. Just after the turn of the century pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus vaccines alone had saved over 70,000 lives whilst the population had almost tripled since their inception. Since then pertussis vaccination alone has saved around another 10,000 Australian lives.

From the World Health Organisation, to national or state health authorities across developed nations to your local doctor, the evidence is compelling. Although anyone can catch pertussis it is babies under 12 months who are most vulnerable to infection. The disease can cause disability and death in the unvaccinated. Whilst immunisation provides antibodies to fight pertussis, it does not provide “magical protection”. For that you need chiropractors or other practitioners of alternatives to medicine.

Immunisation against pertussis does mean:

  • A significantly reduced chance of being infected
  • A significantly reduced severity of infection if infected
  • Protection of unvaccinated individuals that one may come into contact with
  • Low levels of community infection with high levels of immunisation

Pertussis epidemics follow on from reduction in immunisation across the community, leading to a drop in herd immunity. The present epidemic Australia is experiencing began in Byron Bay, an area with very low immunisation rates, and then spread to other areas of low immunisation. From the backyard of Meryl Dorey’s anti-vaccination lobby group the seeds for this epidemic were sown a decade ago. Brynley Hull and Peter McIntyre wrote in January 2003 [page 12]:

Although immunisation coverage has greatly improved over the past five years in NSW, and many areas have reached coverage targets, there are areas in NSW where the level of registered conscientious objection to immunisation is great enough to affect immunisation coverage, as measured by the ACIR. One such area is northern NSW, and the Byron Bay SLA in particular, where the rate of conscientious objection is one of the highest in the country.

Despite the crystal clear science and undoubted success of immunisation, movements against all vaccines have grown. They have kept pace with internet driven conspiracy theories, imaginary diseases, imaginary cures and new age beliefs. The most successful currency used by those opposed to scientific success is ignorance and misinformation.

An excellent example regarding pertussis vaccination is that many people incorrectly believe all vaccines, with the exception of influenza, provide lifelong immunity. With pertussis, vaccine induced immunity wanes over time and as noted above whilst it reduces the chance of infection, it is not an impervious shield. Antivaccination lobbyists have taken advantage of this to infer that the pertussis vaccination schedule itself has failed. First, we have ignorance – the expectation that immunity is lifelong. Then follows misinformation.

For example as debunked here more than a few times, figures describing vaccination levels and notification of infection are frequently misused by the Australian Vaccination Network to falsely refute the efficacy of immunisation. Yet these clumsy attempts are piecemeal and misleading. Time and again infection notification and vaccination status is highlighted and infused with qualities that serve to misinform. Placing figures in context yields a very different picture which, given that they seek to deny international trends that have existed for decades, is not surprising.

The question, or challenge if you will, is about the veracity of the pertussis vaccination schedule. Thus we must take care to ensure we elucidate notifications related to full immunisation as per the schedule. Take the following table of children between 0 – 4 years old, diagnosed with pertussis:

Pertussis notification by vaccination status 0-4 years, Australia August 2011

We see that a total of 9,333 notifications have been tabulated. 5,296 or 56.7% are fully vaccinated.

986 are partially vaccinated. 800 are not vaccinated. 754 are ineligible for vaccination. This gives us a total of 2,540 or 27.2% who are not fully vaccinated.

1,497 or 16% are unknown.

Do these figures reflect infection in the community? No, they reflect the vaccine status of children diagnosed.

Firstly as the table informs us “fully vaccinated” does not necessarily conform with fully vaccinated under the National Immunisation Program. Ineligible cases between 6-8 weeks of age that had received one dose in 2009 are included in “fully vaccinated”. Both these facts artificially inflate the “fully vaccinated” category.

Next we must accept that this table underestimates the actual number of infections in the community. The National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System relies on a passive surveillance system which does not capture every case of pertussis in the community.

Which raises the question. Who is not making notification? Can we infer anything about the vaccination status of those not recorded in the above table? If so, does this help us understand the figures in the table better? As a matter of fact, yes.

Do these figures reflect the efficacy of pertussis vaccination? In other words, is this telling us that there are over twice as many infected children in our community who have been vaccinated (56.7%), than those who have not been fully vaccinated (27.2%) and thus reflect low vaccine efficacy? No.

Far more children are vaccinated against pertussis than those who are not. 95% vs 5% in fact. Even with greatly reduced chance of infection the sheer numbers of vaccinated children mean that “fully vaccinated” will dominate notifications. These figures also reflect the greater likelihood of parents who vaccinate to take their child to a GP and follow through with reporting, and also reflect the likelihood of conscientious objectors to avoid a GP and to not follow through with reporting.

For example a USA study published in Vaccine in December last year showed that parents who do not vaccinate their children are four times more likely to take their child to a chiropractor than a conventional doctor. In Australia we already know that chiropractors are vocal antivaccination proponents with strong links to antivaccination lobby groups such as the Australian Vaccination Network. Many chiropractors in Australia actively mislead consumers on the topic of vaccination making impossible claims, actively deriding vaccination.

But we can do much better than this and begin to build a profile of parents who refuse vaccination and later choose conscientious objection. Five days ago Australian Doctor reflected on the study:

A US survey found parents who refused childhood vaccinations were four times more likely to have sent their youngest, school-aged child to a chiropractor than parents of vaccinated children. Parents who conscientiously objected to school immunisation requirements were also more likely to have strong concerns about vaccines, to distrust local doctors and to have had one or more births in a non-hospital, alternative setting. […]

Are naturopathic and complementary healthcare providers reinforcing parental concerns and ‘anti-vaccine’ opinions or promoting exemptions, or are they providing healthcare without emphasizing vaccinations?

The pattern emerging is one of anti-conventional medicine, reinforced by alternatives to medicine masquerading as “complementary healthcare”.  For our purposes we must now accept that unvaccinated children may be up to four times less likely to visit a GP when ill with pertussis. This means they may be up to four times less likely to appear as a notification. Regardless of exactly how many unvaccinated children are missed, we can see with confidence that the total is skewed away from highlighting unvaccinated children.

Thus the 8.6% of unvaccinated children noted in the table above (n=800) is possibly a significant underestimation. As parents who do vaccinate are more likely to visit a GP and report diligently, the total is additionally skewed toward the fully vaccinated. What this actually means regarding community impact is best captured in this post written by a mother whose vaccinated child was infected by an unvaccinated child who had been sent to school.

Now comes the fascinating aspect. “Unknown”. What does this mean? Really? For whatever reason, somewhere along the line the child’s vaccination status is not recorded at all, is recorded and fails to make it to the final notification table or is lost to genuine confusion or poor record keeping.

However if parents are not registered on the ACIR as conscientious objectors or as completing their children’s vaccination schedules they are also listed as “unknown”. Thus the following from Brynley Hull and Peter McIntyre is compelling [bold mine]:

Additionally, the proportion of conscientious objectors on the [Australian Childhood Immunisation Register] ACIR is likely to be an underestimate of the proportion of parents who don’t immunise because they disagree with immunisation, particularly in more economically advantaged areas. There are some non-immunising parents who ‘object to registering’, and they will refuse to complete any government-provided form.

“Refuse to complete any government-provided form”. Such as those that question the immunisation status of one’s child? That also is where a significant number of “unknown” cases have their genesis.

In tandem with our emerging profile of anti-conventional medicine beliefs driving the decision to not vaccinate and combined with the observation that CO’s are likely to contribute to the “unknown” category by not registering on the ACIR, we are able to make a strong inference that unvaccinated out-rate vaccinated in this category.

Whilst it is impossible to make outright factual quantified claims and rewrite that table, we may conclude that placed in the context of community trends it gives a less than reliable indication of infected subjects within the community. What it does give us is a snap shot of the vaccine status of notifications. Placed in context those notifications appear to be skewed away from unvaccinated and toward vaccinated subjects.

The most significant reason is the overwhelming numbers of vaccinated children in the community. Although appearing as a notification they have a far less severe case of pertussis and are unlikely to suffer disability or death. Other reasons for this would appear to be the intentional avoidance or substitution of conventional medicine, diagnosis and reporting of vaccination status by those in denial of vaccine efficacy.

Of course, people will use these figures to attack the overwhelming evidence in support of vaccination. That’s just what eccentric parent Greg Beattie has tried. It’s simply gobsmacking to read his misleading claim that only 11% of pertussis infections aren’t vaccinated. Actually it’s only 8.6%.

But the point to be made is whilst only 5% of 0-4 year olds aren’t “fully vaccinated” they make up a disproportionate 27.2% of infection notifications. Unsurprisingly his novel mathematics have been dealt with unceremoniously by A Drunken Madman.

There is no debate here. Pertussis vaccination saves lives.

Should Australia’s Federal Health Minister be for the health or the harming of children?

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Health, Human Rights, Legal, Science, Vaxxed by

Sign The Petition to Australia’s Health Minister

No doubt this Australia day is a first in that a conspiracy theorist masquerading as a PhD candidate, has just harassed our Federal Health Minister over a delusion.

Australian Vaccination Network member Judy Wilyman has written an extraordinary piece of combined conspiracy ramble and delusion of grandeur to Tanya Plibersek, our Federal Health Minister. In it Wilyman claims to speak for “the community for whom this policy is designed”. That policy would be life saving vaccination schedules. That community would be Australia wide.

Last I checked Wilyman’s extreme conspiracy views are believed by a very small fraction of the 1.7% of Aussies who don’t vaccinate through conscientious objection. I’ve read her work and listened to her speak. Carefully crafted deception arguing that vaccines have had no effect ever, is interspersed with a very strange obsession. A type of appeal to antiquity meets appeal to authority. Eg; Russel Wallace who is considered second only to Charles Darwin in grasping the theory of evolution wasn’t keen on vaccination, borrowing liberally from the Yuk Factor to dismiss the idea.

Wilyman actually reads this stuff out at AVN gatherings. Confusing the drop in mortality that accompanied improved living standards, Wilyman mistakenly believes this is indicating a drop in vaccine preventable disease. Last November she wrote to Nicola Roxon, including:

To the Honourable Ms. Roxon, […]

There is no historical evidence that vaccines controlled any of the infectious diseases listed in government immunization policies – in any developed country. […]

There is no democracy in a country that doesn’t have a transparent government. The Australian government will be committing a crime against humanity by introducing policies that bribe the Australian public into vaccinating by offering $2000 in welfare benefits or by preventing individuals from working in clinical positions.

Both of these points are false. Aussies who choose not to vaccinate are suitable for, and advised on how to receive, all financial entitlements. The Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 dictates protection of clientele and workers. Employers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of employees, visitors and clientele. Also, employees have a responsibility to comply with a reasonable request of an employer to not endanger themselves nor place at risk the workplace health and safety of another worker.

Contrary to Wilyman’s delusional diversion, this is in accordance with the latest and best scientific advice and research. What would Russel Wallace make of it? I don’t give a toss. It’s no more a “crime against humanity” than being hindered from working on dangerous unguarded machinery, or driving a forklift with no mirrors in reverse listening to a blaring iPod, building and working on scaffolding with no ladders, trap doors and railings or running barefoot through freshly discarded used syringes.

The rest of November’s caper was claiming no proper trials exist, it’s all a Big Pharma conspiracy, science is biased and wrong and the astonishing claim that no proper monitoring of immunisation “side effects” has been done in 50 years.

To think someone claiming to be doing a PhD in vaccine legislation has not seen the reams of government incidence tables and graphs of AEFI beggars belief. Good work to her supervisor, Dr. Brian Martin. It finished with:

The community would like you to address the issues above and ensure that you can provide conclusive evidence and transparency for your policy before introducing any coercive measures into vaccination policies.

Today, much the same has been produced and thrown at Tanya Plibersek. Except Wilyman has cranked it up accusing the minister of making decisions based on corruption. Meryl Dorey claims Plibersek has “been placed on notice – stop the corruption in medicine!”. Wilyman demands the minister herself reply (emphasis hers).

It includes more community buck passing:

The community has lost confidence in the ability of the Health Department to make decisions in the best interests of the public due to the lack of integrity in the science being used and the conflicts of interest in individuals on government advisory boards. There is overwhelming evidence for this and I will list this below. As a result of this corruption of the scientific process the community has lost confidence in the Government’s Childhood Immunisation Schedule as it is clearly driven by profit and not safety.

In 2010 in W.A., speaking for the AVN, Wilyman raised the claim that vaccination policy is corrupt because “the governed” must be consulted. “Well I don’t recall being consulted” she managed incredulously then, “Do you recall being consulted?”.

She serves it up to Tanya Plibersek also:

The government requires “the consent of the governed who have the right to full participation in the decision-making process” before it implements public health policy (NRC- National Research Council, 1996). Therefore, until the issues below are addressed and consumers have equal representation on decision-making boards, the community is rejecting vaccination policy that is linked to financial benefits for parents.

Well I don’t recall being consulted for my opinion as your community member Judge Judy. How about some of that precious “balance” we hear so much about?

Wilyman then lists seven Big Pharma conspiracy themes, two of which are “hidden ties”. One between Big Pharma and peer review editors. The other between university academics and government advisory boards. Her supervisor is conspiracy theorist and post modernist “whistleblower”, Dr. Brian Martin, himself shown the door from any and everything “advisory”. One wonders if the latter is water cooler sour grapes.

Her scientific concerns to Plibersek are that a.) no studies exist into “the chemicals in vaccines.. causing the steep increase in chronic illness in our children.” Also b.) “… no controlled clinical study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated…”, has ever been done. Clearly no longer in Kansas Toto, she finishes with:

Until these issues are addressed the public is rejecting coercive or mandatory immunization policies that result in the discrimination of healthy individuals. I hope the Health Minister will reply to these community concerns personally.

I’m not sure which is more absurd. The patently fictitious accusations, or this notion of Judge Judy speaking for the community and advising what “the public is rejecting”. I know Judy may not be all that well – perhaps a few screams short of a tantrum in the old currency. But Margaret Court is hard evidence that living a delusion and causing community harm are not mutually exclusive.

Let’s hope Tanya Plibersek steps up monitoring of such individuals and groups along with how they exploit loopholes in legislation and academic privilege to bring harm to our most vulnerable community members.

To put this in better context AVN Facebook member, Wendy Elphinstone bragged in late November of intentionally infecting her daughter with varicella – chicken pox. This is abuse of a child, all to make a statement against artificial “health fascism” and suppression of rights. It is in effect the right to choose gone mad.

You quite rightly can’t smoke a cigarette in a confined space near anybody, much less your own children. Euthanasia is still illegal. So is pot. But you can risk your child’s life, make them sick, scared, miserable and harm them, because it’s the latest fad.

Varicella killed 0.41 per million before vaccination was instigated. MMR and DTap (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine) have no demonstrable history of fatality. This mother will not give her child MMR or DTap, but will expose her to a known risk of death via varicella. A risk of death that is about half of the risk of MMR induced brain injury that is often used as justification for denying vaccination.

Had Wendy Elphinstone’s unwelcome guest been passed on to an infant the risk of death is four times that of children aged 1 – 4. Strangely, Wendy never did explain how she controlled this.

Necrotizing Fascilitis is better known as “flesh-eating disease”. You can catch it from serious skin wounds, weakened immunity (such as associated with vaccine preventable diseases) yet also following varicella. Varicella pneumonia can occur and varicella encephalitis – although rare – can occur following infection. Any deterioration in patient health requires monitoring for neurological or super bacterial infection.

Then it lays dormant until again, it may emerge as shingles, encephalitis and potentially lead to stroke, disability or death.

Of course, Meryl Dorey went ballistic over a community member doing the right thing and acting in the interest of the child – the proxy of vaccine choice insanity. Dorey demoted varicella to almost harmlessness claiming purposeful exposure is something our “mothers and grandmothers” would have done. I mean, really Meryl? Don’t make me get out the Four Yorkshiremen again.

Just before Dorey came to Australia, she lived in a country where varicella killed 100 children per year, effected 4 million children and was behind $400 million in lost wages and medical costs annually. Half a million needed medical care and 10,000 were hospitalised. Frankly, I’d have expected more composure from “Australia’s leading vaccination expert”.

Meryl launched into accusations against the good citizen who cared enough to ensure this child’s welfare was not in serious danger. She claimed he’d accused her fallaciously of microchips and human culling. Which she er, wrote about here and then here, still later urging her members to keep it secret here.

Despite turning the issue into a “poor me” episode, in my mind it underscored just how dangerous Meryl Dorey and her AVN really are. Overtly wringing hands over unproven problems with “chemicals” and “toxins” in vaccines, buttressed by cries of no testing and poor record keeping, they now claim a right to casually infect their own children with a disease.

No doctors are involved, no monitoring follows. No possible spread to the unaware, immunocompromised or vulnerable is prevented or documented. Any notion of clinical (“allopathic”) support is derided.

But vaccination schedules are “a crime against humanity”.

Happy Australia Day.

Meryl Dorey claims that Australian Skeptics suppress free speech – Why?

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

In the lead up to the Woodford Folk Festival the pros and cons of allowing Meryl Dorey to speak on vaccination received ample coverage.

The concern was quite straight forward. Meryl Dorey has a track record of misleading the public to sway people away from vaccination, a proven record of misappropriating funds and scamming her members, harassing grieving parents of babies deceased from vaccine preventable disease and is the subject of a NSW Health Care Complaints Commission Public Health Warning.

Meryl also refuses to engage her critics and despite being shown in error time and again, continuing to repeat untruths. Lastly, she gives voice to selective and bogus information in order to discredit the science of vaccination. We are in the middle of a serious pertussis epidemic and Meryl has a well rehearsed ditty that confuses people with dodgy figures and blatant untruths.

This was not an issue of free speech, but one of community responsibility. Very serious responsibility.

Despite Meryl’s extraordinary claim that the Australian Skeptics “say we don’t have freedom of speech and you don’t have a right to say no (to vaccination)”, it is a distortion of the facts. A successful 2009 complaint to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, submitted by Ken McLeod had posed under item 5 page 6, Is the AVN protected by a right of free speech? After noting the lack of constitutional protection and citing legal precedents it concluded:

So, in Australia, one is entitled to free speech provided that one does not harm an individual or society in general.

Ms. Dorey responded extensively to this in her reply (pages 9 – 12), citing a number of High Court cases involving the running of government. Dorey argued that the AVN was engaged “in ʻpoliticalʼ discussion”, and that “freedom of communication on matters of government and politics”, included material produced by the AVN.

Having awarded herself this spectacular promotion her conclusion did quite naturally, “confirm that the HCCC has a constitutional obligation” not to implement the provisions of the Health Care Complaints Act to the detriment of the AVN. Dorey’s defence was dismissed and the complaint upheld.

This is the genesis of the “they suppress my right to free speech” myth. Mr. McLeod is not a member of any skeptic organisations or groups in Australia. Australian Skeptics have never endorsed in word, deed or by association any notion that could be construed as opposition to free speech. Ms. Dorey has subsequently scurrilously inferred this for malicious intent.

Strikingly, whilst arguing that the AVN holds the same importance as individuals involved in the running of government, Dorey failed to address the key outcome of McLeod’s self imposed query: [That] In Australia one is entitled to free speech, provided that one does not harm an individual or society in general.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. Dorey spent six times as much text unsuccessfully refuting McLeod’s conclusion, as he did formulating it. At no point does she argue that the AVN does not harm an individual or society in general. As a refutation it seeks to argue that the AVN has a constitutionally protected right to speak how it chooses regardless of consequences to aforementioned individuals and society.

As for a chronology of the Australian Skeptics’ genuine involvement in challenging claims made by the AVN, we can look back to issue 2 of The Skeptic 2005, and the article by Ken McLeod: “Anti-Vaccination Ratbaggery”. In March 2009 Toni and David McCaffery lost their 4 week old daughter, Dana, to pertussis. Unaware of the AVN’s existence the McCaffery’s made a public plea for parents to educate themselves on the dangers of vaccine preventable disease. At the same time Meryl Dorey contended that the public was being misled, seeking access to Dana’s medical records and confirmation of cause of death.

On August 5th 2009 Australian Skeptics published a page dedicated to evidence based information on vaccination. On Thursday August 6th, 2009 The Australian ran a full page advertisement funded by Dick Smith Foods criticising the AVN and urging parents to seek reputable information.

By early September 2009 Channel 7’s Sunday Night programme ran two episodes on pertussis and vaccination. The first, A Mother’s Choice looked at the story of the McCaffery’s and featured interviews with Meryl Dorey. In the second, a forum, it was confirmed that the McCafferys had been targetted with hate mail by The AVN. Asked about qualifications, Meryl contended that she “had a brain” and had researched vaccination for 20 years.

Although morally supported in the studio by members of Australian Skeptics, it was the personal and invasive nature of the AVN’s comments toward the McCaffery’s that motivated an individual, Daniel Raffaele, to form a Facebook page called Stop The Australian Vaccination Network. It is not funded by, nor is it a “sub-group” of Australian Skeptics. Whilst popular with some skeptics it is not an exclusively skeptic venture.

Later that year 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. The honour table presently reads:

2009: Meryl Dorey and the deceptively named Australian Vaccination Network, who spread fear and misinformation about vaccines

The McCaffery’s received the first Fred Thornett Award for the “promotion of reason”. The following year the Fred went to Ken McLeod and Wendy Wilkinson who had contributed to Stop The AVN in individual ways, realising unique outcomes. Namely the NSW HCCC public health warning against the AVN and the NSW OLGR revoking the AVN’s Charitable fundraising licence. The Skeptic Of The Year award, went to Stop The AVN itself.

It is likely that around September 2009 that the AVN turret swung in the direction of Australian Skeptics. Certainly the 2009 Merit Awards (particularly the Bent Spoon), a number of articles in The Skeptic over 2010, and the 2010 Merit Awards themselves galvanised AVN opposition to all things skeptical. Since then salvos of misinformation which attempt to portray Stop The AVN and Ms. Dorey’s individual critics as “a sub-group” of Australian Skeptics, who are also accused of being antidemocratic, have continued unabated.

But blaming “the skeptics”, Australian Skeptics or continually claiming (as in the audio below) that Stop The AVN is funded by “the mother ship”, Australian Skeptics does nothing but divert attention away from the real issue. Meryl wants to be seen as persecuted, as silenced by unseen forces, and aware of your enemy. That way she must be right because they are so very wrong. Evidence need not come into it. Action can be initiated by invoking assumed malignant motives attached to the word “skeptic”.

By linking suppression of free speech to Skeptics and repeating gems such as “They [Skeptics] say people aren’t smart enough to hear both sides of the argument”, it creates an entirely false dynamic that suggests there is another side to proper health care and the scientifically literate are hiding it. It’s the vaccine equivalent of tacitly urging people to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Individuals who may speak or write as part of their professional life, and also happen to comment or offer advice on the Stop The AVN Facebook page are targetted for their views and awarded “membership” of Australian Skeptics by Ms. Dorey. You may ask why. The answer is quite simple. By convincing potential supporters an enemy is mobilising forces against them – terms Dorey actually uses fictitiously against “the skeptics” and SAVN – it is easier to rally support or motivate people to act without thinking critically.

Let’s take one recent example. A physician wrote a piece on the topic of patient health choice vs risk. Vaccination was not mentioned. Health authorities know that with the success of medical science rare adverse events are now more common than the diseases and problems that filled cemeteries with young mothers, infants and children only half a century ago. Yet this piece had a poll. A poll on choice. Dorey wanted to influence that poll. So, here’s what she wrote to her members:

[Redacted] is a member of both Stop the AVN and the Australian Skeptics. She has just written an article for the [redacted] which I believe is free online (text below), there is also a  poll asking whether doctors should support a patient’s health choice even if they disagree with it. At the present time, 50% of those who have answered say no! That is frightening! i (sic) think if this poll is representative of most doctors, they should have a refresher course in what it means to be a health advisor rather than a health dictator.

Some nastiness on AVN’s Facebook page accompanied this. More so quite some assumption is being made. Not only is the article open to the public (anyone can vote) many doctors who defend conventional medicine also strenuously defend a patients right to choose. Ethics is perhaps not Meryl’s best subject. Eventually this was brought to the attention of the physician who, clearly not ruffled, went through the motions of seeking clarification:

Ms Dorey, I am not, and have never been a “member of Australian Skeptics.” I await your correction and apology. (Unless, of course, you were talking about somebody else, rather than just misspelling my name).

Silence.

Apart from individuals there are many blog posts and Facebook diatribes attacking “Australian Skeptics” or just “skeptics” for suppressing free speech, to not being actual skeptics, to being “pathological skeptics” for not seriously accepting the possibility of aliens. This silliness espouses ignorance of skeptics. It is not the existence of aliens that skeptics find difficult to accept. It is the quality of the current evidence for the existence and activities of aliens that has been proven unworthy time and again.

Much like that being exhumed over and again to challenge vaccine safety.

From a woman who likens court ordered vaccination to rape with full penetration, labelling vaccines “instruments of death” and claims that trusting ones doctor is “like telling a hen to trust a fox or like telling a five-year-old to trust a paedophile”, it would seem rational discourse is far from an option. Particularly when she then fictitiously claims on air to be bipartisan, and says, “we advise people to go to their doctors”.

Yet, I’m not really interested in these not infrequent outbursts at present. It is the calculated hammering of Australian Skeptics as being involved in the removal of choice, or suppression of free speech. These accusations are of course, untrue. Skeptics may seek to change minds with evidence. Yet using abusive or oppressive means of argument (evidence based or not) will drive people away, not leave them thinking.

Many requests for transparency on this point have been sent to Ms. Dorey. Most SAVN members and administrators are not associated with Australian Skeptics or the skeptic movement. Today it may function like a small organisation but time is given voluntarily and funding is from the pockets of a core group of members. SAVN does not accept any funds or readily collect donations despite claims to the contrary from Ms. Dorey:

The big question is why put so much focus on persecution? Surely the way to silence critics is just to knuckle down and get to work. Produce this “medical literature” that supports rejection of vaccine efficacy and safety. Yet there is none. Therein lies the problem. Challenging Meryl Dorey with hard evidence and arguments that undermine her claims will always be met with silence.

It is far better for her to define her apparent worth by inventing malignant intent in others. This is exactly what we saw in the lead up to Woodford. Time and again this specter of a well funded sub-group of Australian Skeptics who insist Aussies have no right to free speech was raised.

As critics of George W. Bush learned the hard way, calls for evidence and reason fall on many deaf ears when supporters are convinced an enemy is working toward obscure ends. The claim that Australian Skeptics invest significantly in opposing the AVN as part of a larger plan to impose skeptical views upon society and remove individual choice, serves admirably to draw attention away from the reality.

As for defamation, that does pose a fascinating intellectual exercise. Defamation in Australia focuses upon the individual:

You can defame someone if you say something false about them which spoils their good reputation, which makes people want to avoid them or which hurts them in their work or their profession.

Regarding organisations:

Under the old system of individual state laws, almost anyone or any organisation or company could bring an action for defamation. However, under the Uniform Defamation Law, corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue. However, be warned that individuals or groups of individuals employed by or associated with that corporation – such as company directors, CEOs or managers – can still sue if they are identified by the publication.

Not-for-profit organisations can still sue for defamation, no matter how many employees or members they have.

Perhaps Meryl Dorey had the foresight to sketch out her defence against being defamatory long ago. From page 10 of the AVN reply to the HCCC, is this part of her reply to Mr. McLeod’s query on free speech:

The High Court has determined that any common law or statutory remedy for defamation may not be granted if its exercise would infringe upon the freedom to discuss government and political matters that the Constitution impliedly requires.

Further, the courts have found that a statute that diminishes the rights or remedies of persons defamed and correspondingly enlarges the freedom to discuss government and political matters is not contrary to this constitutional implication. The common law rights of persons defamed may be diminished by statute but they cannot be enlarged so as to restrict the freedom required by the Constitution.

This means that all statutes (whether state or commonwealth) that purport to define the law of defamation are construed so that they conform with the Constitution. Where such provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution, they are invalid to the extent of that inconsistency.

The ego is breath taking is it not? From so important as to lord over the law of the land to so persecuted the nasty skeptics seek to stop her speaking. Dorey manages it all.

So, the “why” is rather clear. Inventing persecution at the hands of “the skeptics” makes this an emotional issue. It fires up other people who aren’t aware of all the facts. It fills valuable time during which Dorey may be questioned about evidence. It draws conspiracy theorists like Tiga Bayles and Helen Lobato out of the woodwork, eager for a sample. Wonderfully, it gives them someone to blame.

It gives false credence and a reason to hearing her speak. It eliminates her having to explain a massive litany of misconduct and financial mismanagement to her members. It gives a senseless reason to members to run to her rallying call. It breaks down critical thought in followers and propagates simple reaction. They need not know why they are acting, only who they are acting against. And that requires very little effort on Dorey’s part.

“The skeptics say white. Go forth and say ______”.

  • Audio out-take from 3CR with Helen Lobato December 2011.
  • Let’s Talk with Tiga Bayles, December 19th 2011.
  • December 29th 2011 at Woodford.

Download MP3

Woodford Flyover aerial banner: Funded by private citizens – not Australian Skeptics

The problem with Margaret Court

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Denialism, Human Rights, Religion by

When God came to visit Margaret Court as she scrubbed the dishes one night and told her to “go forth” and set up a church one could guess it would all end in tears one day.

A woman of incredulous beliefs, hypocrisy, charlatanism and greed she preaches a destructive supernatural creed that is considered heresy by mainstream Christendom. It is quite true that Margaret Court persecutes minority groups with the God given “love” she has for them.

Single mothers, drug users, Muslims, non Liberal voters and homosexuals all cop a holy spray. It’s no secret that protestors are at the Australian Open today to peacefully voice what is really long overdue opposition to one of Australia’s most legendary bigots. Although the claim is being made that she doesn’t cash in on her past life in tennis the truth is that she does.

One of the creepiest is messing with young school kids minds by handing out imitation Wimbledon trophy trays to those judged by the group of which she is patron, Creationist lobbyists, Drug Free Australia to have the most biblical anti-drug message. That they are anti-equality, anti-safe sex and safe drug use hence a threat to public health is a message students aren’t told.

Margaret’s journey from tennis “legend”, to psychological wreck to auditory hallucination as Jesus’ private interlocutor had been striking. Plunged to the depths of depression when adoring cheers were finally silenced Margaret could see no way forward. As psychosis lapped at the edges of her consciousness and she lay bedridden with a broken mind, Margaret made a life changing decision. She found a bible and read it from front to back, believing every word.

At about the same time Margaret was claiming she had a torn heart valve. She got hold of an anatomy book, opened it at the page depicting a heart and laid it on the hallway table. Every time she passed she willed herself with the healing power of God that this was her “perfect heart”. Not long after she reported a miraculously repaired heart valve.

Clearly, no longer in Kansas so to speak, Margaret needed help. Proper, long term clinical help. It never came. Exactly what role was played by husband Barry in creating the new Margaret Court is not clear. I have every sympathy for a chap who believed his wife was spiritually touched after such a gruesome ordeal. However the quality of associates she now chose to further her “instructions” left much to be desired.

Margaret knocked over her bible “studies” in about a year at Rhema Bible College, thus becomming a pastor. Next a hefty payment to Oral Roberts University provided her with a dodgy doctorate as a Word of Faith adherent. Word of Faith attracts extreme condemnation from mainstream Christians as it teaches accumulation of material goods and wealth is itself a path to enlightenment: Economic Materialism. Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin are well known Word of Faith profiteers.

It’s a blend of Christian Science, New Age Mysticism, Christianity and Gnosticism. Its basic foundation is that it deifies humans and diminishes God. Word of Faith practitioners believe they wield the power of God through speech – hence the name – and that God must serve them:

And they believe that they have the same power as God, to create and destroy by speaking using “the Word of Faith.” And with their prosperity doctrine, they believe that their pleasures should be filled and they should be served by God on earth (making them gods on earth).

Court herself has dangled this threat of speaking destruction to punish Australia for failing to re-elect John Howard through united prayer in 2007. In a rare moment of lucidity, Court graciously admitted it was just a reminder and when it came to unleashing Divine Power through speech, “He (God) is Sovereign”.

Yet by this time Court was a fierce Christian Zionist, enemy of Islam and close friend of Danny Nalliah from Catch The Fire Ministries. Danny is well known for blaming the February 2009 Black Saturday bush fires on divine punishment for the decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria, and for his personal visit from Jesus to confirm Howard would win the 2007 election.

She wrote on his website in December 2007:

This man stood up for the Body of Christ♠ against the vilification law; he was persecuted by many in the Body of Christ for his stand, but he pushed through for you and me so that we still have that freedom to openly share Jesus Christ.

From the Prophetic office♣ he gave direction to the Church for our Nation, but the church did not take heed to what he had said – that the Body of Christ unite in prayer and action.  (2 Chronicles 7:14)

I believe we are at a very pivotal time for our nation and for the church.

We had righteous leaders in Mr Howard and Mr Costello and how much easier it is for the church to fulfill the destiny spiritually when you have God fearing men at the top leading a Nation.  Now you have a Prime Minister who says, “that public servants will advise me, not God” to lead our Nation.  (Release:  Southern Cross Broadcasting in Melbourne, Nov 30 2007)

I was praying and God showed me we have allowed a religious spirit to come back over our Nation. God always gives me Numbers 14 for this Nation where Moses repented on behalf of the people; we need to repent on behalf of the church.  The government of this nation is on our shoulders (Isaiah 9:6) – we govern in the spirit; but a lot of the church is looking at man instead of God (Matthew 6:24-33)

I love the body of Christ; what a powerful army when we stand united together in prayer and Word. Let’s stand together for God to manifest Himself; believing and proclaiming that we are a righteous Nation, a God-fearing Nation and that His hand is on our Nation.

♠ – The “Body of Christ” is a term for collective Christians. ♣ – The “Prophetic Office” is the term used to describe a personal visit with Jesus or God.

Word of Faithers also deny a belief in The Trinity and the traditional story of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Probably finalised by Kenneth Hagin their story of Jesus’ demise is that he was crucified and died. From there he went to hell and was tortured by demons. A bit of a whimp he yelled and screamed for help until the arch–angel Gabriel swooped into hell, defeated the demons and saved Jesus’ skin.

All offences together have earned them the dubious honour of being known as heretics throughout Christendom. Their misinterpretation of the bible is legendary. Court recently said that same sex marriage would, “legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices”.

This is utter nonsense. She is referring to Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 22:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination

We know that the book of Leviticus could not have been “written by Moses” as the defence goes. And as a defence it is demonstrably absurd noting that Moses was big on genocide, slavery and the kidnapping of virgins. Whilst the origin of some material is lost in antiquity the notion of the book as “written by Moses” began sometime in the 1st century. Leviticus itself continued to be modified up until around 540-330 BCE.

This is the Persian Era and may offer some insight into why the final book is a strict book of complex rules, much like Sharia law. I’m not suggesting it is Islamic, merely that the notion of rules instructing humans in the manner of living was popular in the middle east for centuries. Leviticus is 27 chapters of rules on festivals, eating, sacrifice, sexual behaviour, cleanliness, judgement and more.

Scholars are quick to point out that the tribes-people who wrote chapter 18 on sexual behaviour were known to use male anal rape as a means in war and of civilised punishment. Homosexuality was also accepted and legal. Not only is the meaning of Leviticus 18:22 lost in translation and time, a glaring absence is that of reference to gay women.

Thus it is not an instruction forbidding homosexuality. The most widely accepted definition is that it pertains to procreation. The word “abomination” in this sense relies upon it’s meaning as a violation of law. A violation of the tribal rule (necessity) to procreate. This was the explanation I heard, with references, in a lecture from a real biblical scholar and I give it credence over that of a megalomaniac and bigot like Margaret Court.

Today Court runs Victory Life Centre in Perth piping TVangelism to over 30 South East Asian locations, making the proverbial fortune. Still patron of Drug Free Australia she may be proud that they have caused enormous damage to children, families, education, public health and illicit drug policy. There are many reasons why this disturbed ex-tennis player should be called out for the antisocial opportunist that she is.

Giving a legitimate face to archaic homophobic views based on ignorance is something Australians should resist.

Drawing from a child indoctrinated by Drug Free Australia. The knife handle reads, “John 10:10” – The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy. I have come that they may have life and life to the full. Be Drug Free And You Will Be With Me, says God (top right).

Dr. Stuart Reece: Drug Free Australia’s secret

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Drug Free Australia, Health, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal, Media, Religion by

An interesting story sits hidden away in the June 2003 edition of Focus magazine – a QLD based fundamentalist Christian publication.

On page one we meet Graham Preston who was jailed back in June 2003 for pro-life antics. His sole direction was Proverbs 24, verse 11: “Rescue those being led away to death”. 

The story on page two is about Drug Free Australia member, Dr. Stuart Reece (below). Thinking of the above proverb, it is disturbing to learn that over a period of twenty months, twenty five opioid dependent patients who sought his care, died following insertion of unregistered naltrexone implants.

Story from Focus QLD June 2003

Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist. In a 2013 position statement on naltrexone implants the Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated on page 6:

The World Health Organisation, UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) and UNAIDS (United Nations Program on AIDs/HIV) have endorsed treatment with methadone and buprenorphine. The World Health Organisation has included methadone and buprenorphine in its Essential Medicines List. Naltrexone has not been endorsed by any United Nations organisations nor is it included on the Essential Medicines List. […] The RACP does not support the routine use of sustained release naltrexone formulations (implants or depot injections) while the product is not registered with the TGA.

In 2003 when the Health Practitioners Tribunal adjourned Reece’s case indefinitely, such implants were available through the TGA Special Access Scheme. This 2008 article posing the question of safety, examines implications of the scheme and difficulty in securing sound data. The authors note:

The strong theoretical rationale for the usefulness of naltrexone in treating heroin dependence justifies further rigorous investigations. However, the uncontrolled use of unregistered products of uncertain quality hampers the development of proper clinical trials.

Above, we read that Reece was “deeply hurt” by the investigation that followed. The families of his dead patients are not considered. Incredibly, the above Focus article claims that the charges brought against Reece were “based on false reports by drug addicts”. No evidence is presented in support of this statement. No independent source has confirmed the existence of false reports. Brought by QLD Health, the charges were just and likely saved lives.

There’s a familiar, yet awkward tactic advanced in his defence. The type of logical fallacy that suggests if positive feedback is presented then to suggest otherwise is not only wrong but “false”. Someone has provided the Focus author with decontextualised data designed to be critical of methadone maintenance therapy. This argument is frequently used by the opponents of harm reduction and proponents of naltrexone. We read “590 patients died with methadone in their system”. It’s an underhanded attempt to suggest methadone was the cause of death. Note this doesn’t read, “died because of methadone overdose or complications”. 

We don’t know the cause of death, but I’m certain if methadone was the cause this article would have made it abundantly clear. These figures are pulled from toxicity data in coronial reports. They include hospital patients receiving palliative care, out-patients receiving pain relief, road fatalities, suicides, homicides, poly-drug related deaths and so on. All opioids carry risks and fatalities do occur in the opioid maintenance demographic. Nonetheless, when prescribed by a GP and dispensed in a controlled environment as is the case in treatment of opioid addiction, methadone is a safe option.

I can’t comment much on a reference to a “recently published article” without the source, other than to note that rapid detoxification can pose a significant risk of overdose. Naltrexone has been used orally to block the effects of opioids. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre note in, Mortality related to naltrexone in the treatment of opioid dependence: A comparative analysis;

Because naltrexone blocks the actions of opioids, naltrexone rapidly removes a person’s tolerance to opioids so that a given dose of opioids would have more effect than previously. The lack of naltrexone, not its presence, exposes a naltrexone-maintained patient to risk of opioid overdose. If naltrexone treatment is ceased, individuals may be at risk of opioid overdose if they choose to return to opioid use.

Regarding the safety of naltrexone in comparison to the safety of methadone or buprenorphine in the management of opioid addiction, one reads:

When considering deaths per periods of high and low risk, the mortality related to naltrexone was approximately seven times that of methadone during the period of high risk and three times the rate during the period of low risk. […]

This study also found that the mortality related to oral naltrexone treatment was higher than that for buprenorphine and methadone… whether estimated as deaths per 1000 treatment episodes or per 100 person years of risk, the death rate for naltrexone was higher and we believe the estimate provided here is a conservative one. […]

The mortality rates suggest that oral naltrexone treatment, as it is provided in Australia, can place recipients at significant risk of death, and at higher risk than buprenorphine and methadone. However, it should be noted that naltrexone treatment is a useful option in some well-motivated patient subgroups that form a minority of the opioid-dependent population.

Regarding implant technology:

A number of potential issues also relate to this form of treatment, and rigorous research is certainly required to carefully examine the potential for this delivery system to represent a viable treatment option for opioid-dependent persons. Specifically, these issues are: the lack of randomised controlled trial evidence of naltrexone implant efficacy in the treatment of opioid dependence; considerable inter and intra-subject variability in the blood levels of naltrexone resulting from an implant (and so the level of opioid blockade); the lack of good monitoring of adverse events relating to the use of naltrexone implants; and the acceptability of the naltrexone implant preparation to patients and medical professionals.

The article also identified that an existing lack of systematic data reception by coronial databases, hinders accurate assessment of fatalities related to treatment with naltrexone. In 2008 The Medical Journal of Australia elucidated on this problem when it published a paper identifying twelve hospital admissions, related to implants, to two Sydney hospitals over a 12 month period beginning in August 2006. The Abstract conclusion read:

These severe adverse events challenge the notion that naltrexone implants are a safe procedure and suggest a need for careful case selection and clinical management, and for closer regulatory monitoring to protect this marginalised and vulnerable population.

Thus, in attacking methadone as a treatment modality, Reece raises concerns with this author about his impartiality. A read of Dr. Reece’s articles in the arguably biased Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is revealing. Also, purporting that methadone causes premature ageing and cell death, without presenting a mechanism and correcting for other variables such as smoking, nutrition and other lifestyle habits is poor science. In the above Focus article this is presented, without a source, as “new research suggests”.

The Focus article was in error to claim vindication. The QLD Health Practitioners Tribunal adjourned indefinitely over the twenty five deaths. It was beyond ambitious for Reece to claim, before a Parliamentary inquiry, to “hold the world safety record” in administering this very treatment. Such comments have little to do with supporting evidence, and more to do with misinformation.

By 1999 research indicated naltrexone was potentially unsafe despite seemingly miraculous stories of recovery. As an opiate blocker, it was emerging with the promise of a quick solution. Yet controlled trials were lacking. Wodak and Hall discussed the evidence in an editorial in the MJA, that also briefly noted the role of the media in confusing community attitudes. Under Parliamentary protection Dr. Reece accused Hall of “scientific fraud”. 

In September 1999 the practice of Dr. Stuart Reece was raided following concerns with his approach to addiction treatment. Threatened with closure, he claimed that the QLD government would have blood on itʼs hands if he could not resume practise. Ultimately, he was not closed. Twenty months later, 25 of his patients were dead. ABC 7:30 reported on 4 June 2001.

KERRY O’BRIEN: When the anti-heroin addiction drug Naltrexone was introduced to Australia five years ago, it was hailed as a breakthrough.

Since then, thousands of addicts have been treated with Naltrexone, successfully breaking their deadly habit.

But despite initial expectations it hasn’t proved to be a universal remedy by any means.

Many addicts have lapsed back into heroin abuse and some have subsequently died from overdose.

In Queensland, an investigation is now under way into the practice of Naltrexone activist Dr Stuart Reece, after the deaths of 25 addicts who had undergone his program.

The investigation has already prompted a ban on the use of experimental Naltrexone implants, designed to take the place of tablets.

All had followed the Reece regimen. He was raided by the QLD Medical Board and again closed down. Rev. Fred Nile, speaking as leader of the Christian Democratic Party said at the time:

The action taken by Queensland Health is heavy handed intimidation against those who show true compassion toward heroin addicts. It would appear, by this move, that Queensland Health would prefer that addicts remain addicted to heroin. I fear that this is another step in the mounting campaign for government provided free heroin

Three months later he claimed twenty five “drug addicts” died as “part of a conspiracy”. In September 2003, The ABC featured Reece on their Sunday Nights programme:

Stuart Reece is a Brisbane doctor who finds himself in a bit of bother some of his fellow medico’s at the moment because of his conviction that faith can be instrumental in curing what ails one… The difference perhaps is that Stuart Reece is a born again Christian believer, and makes no apologies for his direct appeal to the Christian Gospel and the power of Christ.

Clearly, the largely untested naltrexone implants were in this case a problem. Had basic support, such as a contact or counselling been available, the recovering patients would have been more safely monitored. It is regrettable that there was undue faith in naltrexone combined with a moral objection to opiate replacement therapy. This is complicated further, in that had naltrexone been demonstrated as effective, financial rewards would have been significant.

In addition, the November 2009 Health Practitioners Tribunal transcript, Medical Board of QLD vs Albert Stuart Reece makes for compelling reading.  An unrepentant critic of methadone Reece chose to illegally supply opioid dependent patients with morphine. The transcript includes:

It is clear from his evidence before the Tribunal that he is also very passionate about his practice and in strong disagreement about the continued use of Methadone as a treatment for heroin addiction. […]

Particulars of the referral notice in this matter are that the Registrant on 39 separate occasions supplied Morphine intended for use by drug dependent persons without obtaining approval from the Drugs of Dependence Unit in preparation either for Naltrexone treatment or other detoxification treatment. […]

He admits to doing so and to falsifying medical records when doing so and involving third parties in this conduct. […]

But it is also clear from his evidence, and as I’ve already said that he’s a man who has a somewhat evangelical approach to this area of medicine and because of that he does appear to lack a degree of insight and objectivity in relation to the treatment of his patients. Furthermore, he seems to feel that the ends justify the means in terms of treatment of patients.

In October 2005 Christian conservative MP Tony Abbott Liberal (then Federal Health Minister) funded Drug Free Australia to the tune of $600,000. They did not adhere to conditions under which they were awarded the funding, ultimately emerging as right wing lobbyists. They are followers of Swedenʼs zero tolerance policy and the USA hardliners [open letter]. Reece, a supporter of biblically driven abstinence and a Texas trained fundamentalist, was supported by Drug Free Australia.

By April 2007 Dr. Reece was testifying to the Standing Committee on Health and Human Services (see below) that the immoral policies that permitted condoms – the real cause behind AIDS – clean needles, opioid therapy for addicts, non-punitive cannabis laws, harm reduction and general tolerance for ill Aussies would be our doom. The Senate Standing Committee looked on as Reece introduced himself by saying, “I certainly know the science”. He then displayed a photo of “the archaeological site of Sodom” and a tree with snakes instead of branches. [Page 33/FHS 27]. He explained its relevance. “There will be consequences”.

Reece attempted to explain the moral consequences of policies such as Harm Minimisation, by blaming a tsunami on Divine punishment. He added:

I was interested to discover that the actual historical site of Sodom and Gomorrah has recently been found in Israel. On the bottom right of this slide are pictures of sulphur balls that have been found there. So consequences matter, and they can destroy a civilisation quickly, as we saw with yesterday’s tsunami and so on.
 
This slide shows a tree with snakes, which to my mind is a lot of the stories that you hear from harm minimisation. Methadone, syringe giveaways, injectingrooms, medical cannabis, heroin trials all those are catered for by the same people. But, on the other side of the tree, you have all the downsides, the side effects, which are not talked about in this culture. It is of extreme concern to me that medical science which is known and understood overseas is not understood and not talked about and given no airplay whatsoever in this culture.
 
These are old slides I made several years ago, charting a lot of these behaviours: this is condoms and the AIDS risk, charting the parallel between condoms and AIDS deaths.
 
Ms GEORGE (Senate committee member): Sorry, I do not understand. What are you saying – condom protection andAIDS deaths are correlated?
 
Dr Reece: Yes, condom sales and AIDS deaths. I am saying that there is a statistical association between the two.
 

As reported in Crikey by Ray Moynihan Reece decided the “disease drugs, sex and rock-n-roll” was the problem. Asked about the safety of naltrexone, Dr. Reece chose instead to attack internationally renowned scientist, Dr. Alex Wodak [Page 59/FHS54], who specialiseʼs in blood born viruses and epidemiology. Put differently, this means Wodak supports condoms, clean syringe access and used syringe collection: dire threats to our very civilisation, contended Reece. Yet Australian communities with dozens of dispensaries and hundreds of clients report no methadone deaths.

How did Committee Chairperson react to this? Bronwyn Bishop abused public health scientists (who had outlined the success of decriminalisation in Europe), yet she gushed in support of Dr. Reece. A pre-determined agenda in what was billed as the most important family-relevant inquiry of Howardʼs government spoke volumes. Bishop’s final report was rejected nationwide by all but religious fundamentalists and Christian lobbyists. Not one publically funded treatment or advocacy agency missed the opportunity to criticise the report. Bishop went on to call for the removal, and adopting out, of the children of parents struggling with addiction. Should parents conquer their addiction there would be no chance of reunion:

Their [Liberal-led House of Representatives] controversial plan – which also includes compulsory treatment for teenage addicts, restrictions on methadone programs and withdrawing funding from drug programs that promote harm minimisation – was dismissed as “a disgrace” and “frightening” by some anti-drug campaigners.

Gordon Moyes, the “Christian voice in politics” is also quoted on rumours in Drug Free Australia’s recent attack upon Lancet authors, of which Reece is a co-author. This involves quoting Moyes, who is quoting drug addicts he happened to speak to. Moyes also praised naltrexone despite the concerns of our medical community about it remaining unregulated. Regrettably, regulators have not prevented its use by the same people year in, year out.

When the Medical Journal of Australia exposed the fact these same prescribers were not reporting adverse reactions, despite TGA requirements under the Special Access Scheme, Drug Free Australia published a rebuttal. It made direct reference to Dr. Stuart Reece himself. Offensively, it reported that Reece “studies” death rates post naltrexone treatment. It was titled, Australia could be the biggest loser.

Dr. Reeceʼs motivation is arguably reflected in his obsession with teenage and childhood sex and sexual assault, murder, violence… all due to “the depraved advertising industry” which catalysed “the disease sex, drugs and rock-n-roll”. Advertising womenʼs nudity, outside of “a strictly medical context” is “incredibly powerful pornography”, he has observed.

Today, a decade plus since this evidence-free pursuit began, Reece is arguably a pin up boy for religious fundamentalism. Five or more years ago he promised Parliament that his results were “statistically powerful” and “revolutionary”. Of course, there are no results. Itʼs the same certainty that only faith can sustain. If prayer cures homosexuality, addiction is a certainty. His latest work “proves” naltrexone is safer than opioid therapy.

As reported on ABCʼs 7:30 Report,  in 2006 multiple disciplinary teams have steadily found naltrexone has a fatality rate over four times that of opioid therapy. Dr. Reece, and others who seek funding and likely lucrative contracts seem to have a formula no others can find. More recent work with implants by his colleague, gynecologist George O’Neil, show ambiguous results, despite claims of success.

Regrettably this work is tainted with poor practice and again, Christian healing. Their biggest problem is the fraud published in the MJA surrounding suppression of negative outcomes – some almost fatal. Failure and coercion to boost sample numbers seems to be the norm. W.A.’s Freshstart clinic observes on its website chaplaincy page:

Our Christian Beliefs

The Nature and Character of God: we believe in one God, who has existed forever as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a community of pure and eternal love.

The Fresh Start Statement of Belief embodies the second of the core commitments of the organisation:

The Creation of Humanity: men and women were created in God’s likeness with God-given dignity and worth in order to know, love and serve him forever.

Sin and Evil: sin came into existence through human rebellion against the good purposes of God. Sin is self-centred opposition to the love of God that separates humans from God and leads to death and eternal lostness.

Etc, etc….

There is no problem with having a strong faith. Yet there’s a difference between faith based welfare and faith based practices. When the supernatural impinges on your objective reasoning in managing the lives of others, no amount of friendly lobbyists can assuage this conflict of interest.

Today, Drug Free Australia bill Reece as “an expert in naltrexone” and in fatalities. Is this a joke? I honestly don’t know. What’s certain however is that his role in the recent DFA misleading outing to attack Vancouver’s Insite and the research backing it is not based upon any skill in harm reduction.

Drug Free Australia have many secrets. This one is quite shameful.

  • Comments posted online from a relative and a friend of Reeceʼs patients.

Just Jules says: June 5, 2010 at 6:01 am Ahhh there is none so blind as those who can not see .. Dr Reece in my eyes is a discusting (sic) human being .. I am the mother of a child he treated .. He also treated my daughter in law and the mother of my first grand child .. If you want to see what his methods leave you with, go see my daughter in law who for the last 11 years has been in a home for the severely brain damaged .. In is own words to me ” they are just reoffending drug addicts”. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and should of been stopped before he started.

Vicki PS says: July 5, 2010 at 12:02 pm I came across this site looking for help for a friend of my daughterʼs. This young woman has been increasingly unhappy with her treatment under Dr Reece. He is treating her addiction with Suboxone, a subutex/naltrexone combination drug. Her big concern is that this unethical, immoral disgrace to the profession reduces her dosage if she has not been to church! This girl is now in early pregnancy and is scared that she could miscarry if this idiot messes around with her medication to suit his pathological world view. I find it frankly incredible that Dr Reece is still permitted to practice.

References:

  1. MORTALITY RELATED TO NALTREXONE IN THE TREATMENT OF
    OPIOID DEPENDENCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – NDARC (HTML) (Download PDF)
  2. Unplanned Admissions to two Sydney Public Hospitals after Naltrexone Implants – MJA. (HTML) (PDF)
  3. IMPACT OF ILLICIT DRUG USE ON FAMILIES: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – Tuesday, 3 April 2007 (Download PDF)

 

Last update: 12 February 2023

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎