Category Archives: Human Rights

Drug Free Australia’s attack on Insite really an attack on individual scientists

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

A close look at Drug Free Australia’s recent attack on research supporting Vancouver’s Safe Injecting Facility, Insite, suggests a long planned attack on individual authors, not evidence.

Recently I wrote a piece on Drug Free Australia’s selective and misleading use of peer reviewed publications, government reports and pseudoscience to mislead readers with the claim of academic fraud and professional misconduct in the Lancet.

Their target was Insite, Vancouver’s Supervised Injecting Facility. Yet more specifically three authors of the Lancet piece, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr have earned the retributive ire of Drug Free Australia’s parent body, Drug Free America Foundation. DFAF’s “division”, the Institute on Global Drug Policy fund the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which is not a journal but a vehicle for lobbying against progressive drug policy primarily that which targets HIV control. The JGDPP was initially funded by the US Department of Justice, presently under investigation for corruption.

One of the co-authors of the paper was Robert DuPont. Present DFAF board member, past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, DuPont’s history is “impressive” but shamefully controversial. A champion of drug war tactics, the long debunked random drug testing of kids in schools and suppression of individual rights suggest he’d be better suited to the role of a cat-stroking super villain in a Bond movie.

The scale of human rights abuses and the litany of egregious conduct orchestrated by the ultra-conservatives drawn toward DFAF and the morally bankrupt satellite groups they inspire, is impressive indeed. DFAF was founded by Betty Sembler. Betty and husband Mel, both lacking any qualifications founded Straight Incorporated in 1976. Over 15 years this “coercive” rehabilitation programme, based upon the infamous and crime riddled Church of Synanon‘s approach, racked up hundreds of accounts of abuse of clients and their families. Synanon called it a day in 1989, by which time tax evasion, civil suits and attempted murder cases had eventually outshone their claims of Divine Detoxification.

Neither Drug Free America Foundation nor it’s pretend “Institute” on Global Drug Policy is a scientific organisation. The purpose of the IGDP is spelled out on the DFAF website:

The Institute is charged with creating and strengthening international laws that hold drug users and dealers criminally accountable for their actions. It will vigorously promote treaties and agreements that provide clear penalties to individuals who buy, sell or use harmful drugs. […] The institute supports efforts to oppose policies based on the concept of harm reduction.

Over recent years some rather spectacular junk science was produced by Dr. Colin Mangham, (then) president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. Whilst harm reduction initiatives save countless lives per year Mangham’s DPNC claims it “leads to terror, degradation and the eventual death of the addict”. Consequently Mangham writes accordingly and publishes in the discredited Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. In volume 1, issue 2; Summer 2007, Mangham wrote a critique of Insite’s “parent philosophy”.

In a stunning display of self sabotage he churned through 20 peer reviewed articles from journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet and The British Medical Journal. All articles had published positively on Insite’s potential. Primarily Mangham used largely belief, irrelevance, moral outrage and assumption to mount his criticisms. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (at that time opposed to Insite) had commissioned the review and later dismissed it themselves because it “did not meet conventional academic standards”.

It’s impossible to miss Mangham’s primary evaluation targets on his self-annointed meandering journey to Super Scientific Autonomy. Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr.

Conservative health minister, Tony Clement, desperate for even a hint of science to uphold the government’s case against Insite seized upon it as validation. In Canada’s National Review of Medicine, September 2007, Clement is quoted as saying to the Canadian Medical Association:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite.

The article continued:

But extensive research has shown Insite is successful at reducing crime and overdoses, getting addicts into treatment and saving money.

Asked what research Mr Clement still needs to see in order to make his decision, Erik Waddell, a spokesman for Mr Clement, answers, “To see if Insite is getting people to programs to help them get off drugs.” However, the NEJM study, published June 9, 2006, concluded that Insite increased admissions into detoxification programs and addiction treatment.

The piece, written by Colin Mangham, PhD, argues that the studies carried out by researchers from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and elsewhere have been flawed and misleading. Questions about the article’s trustworthiness have arisen. Dr Mangham is the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, an organization run by former Conservative MP Randy White, and has previously written commentaries criticizing the philosophy of harm reduction….

Writing in Open Medicine on September 7th, 2007 Thomas Wood noted the unscientific nature and discredited status of Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. He further highlighted that the non scientific conservative lobby group Drug Free America Foundation and it’s ill disguised front shop (the so-called Institute on Global Drug Policy) were behind this ambitiously named “new research”. Wood calmly observed:

We stand by the published findings from the evaluation and believe that the limitations of the research are well described in these published reports. We agree with Colin Mangham, however, that there are many instances where media reports go beyond what is described in scientific studies. A colourful example of this is the large amount of media attention given to Mr. Mangham’s recent essay in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice which was funded by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As scientists, we are strongly in favour of scientific debate and academic critique, but we believe what is contained in Mr. Mangham’s essay falls well short of this. The paper is fraught with a host of outright factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, which we would be happy to list should the readers of Open Medicine wish. We strongly encourage the readers of Open Medicine to read Mr. Mangham’s essay alongside the various reports examining Insite’s impacts and to judge for themselves the state of the science in this area.

Yet Dr. Colin Mangham was beyond saving. None would come to his aid. From mountain top to valley floor, from deep blue sea to desert sand, from darkened ghetto to opulent penthouse from… okay, you get the idea – his demise was complete.

By September 30th, 2007 Wood, Montaner, Kerr and Mark Tyndall had submitted to The Global Journal on Drug Policy, an article questioning the conservative Canadian government’s treatment of the scientific process and evidence. The abstract includes [bold mine]:

Although the recommendations of scientific review bodies have traditionally been free of political interference in Canada, there have recently been growing concerns raised about Canada’s new federal government’s treatment of scientific processes and evidence. This concern is relevant to the scientific evaluation of Canada’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility… […]

This commentary describes what may be a serious breach of international scientific standards relating to the Canadian government’s handling of the SIF’s scientific evaluation, and the circumstances which eventually led to a moratorium on SIF trials in other Canadian cities.

The genesis of such striking criticism was the government’s observance of a single cancer in illicit drug policy. One that had metastasised into Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, DFAF’s unscientific Institute of Global Drug Policy and the dumping ground for all conspiracy pieces by those opposed to progressive HIV control and human rights observance, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. The Australian arm of DFAF is Drug Free Australia.

Added to this was a petition signed by over 130 physicians and scientists. Released the day after Clement’s speech noted above, it condemned the government’s “potentially deadly” misrepresentation of evidence for harm reduction programs. This misrepresentation encompassed “the overwhelmingly positive evidence” of Vancouver’s Insite safe-injection site.

In September 2008 The Lancet Infectious Diseases, published Illicit Drug Addiction, Infectious Disease Spread and the need for an evidence based response, by Wood, Montaner and Kerr. It included:

To our knowledge, this is the first time a lobby group such as the Drug Free America Foundation has created for itself a venue for the dissemination of opinion essays, which to the untrained eye could easily be mistaken for a scientific journal

There is no doubt that in just a couple of years, Montaner, Wood and Kerr continually exposed and dismantled a politically driven, pseudoscientific ideology and it’s masters simply by addressing the evidence at hand. One could be forgiven for thinking these chaps might be upsetting a certain group of fundamentalists.

By this time a suit had been filed with the BC Supreme Court arguing closure of Insite would violate the Charter right of Insite patrons regarding “security of the person.” As late as May 2011 the federal government was still claiming indecision of whether to keep Insite open or not. As this was in contrast to Clement’s previous statements everybody had heard enough from the government. On May 12th the Supreme Court reserved it’s decision on whether the government could close Insite or not. On September 29th, 2011 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold Insite’s exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, allowing indefinite operation.

A win for human rights, humane disposition and indeed for evidence based public health.

Almost certainly planning revenge for months prior was a team under Drug Free Australia’s Secretary, Gary Christian. Consisting of three Aussies of biblical repute: Joe Santamaria, Stuart Reece and Gregory Pike. Also included was present DFAF board member yet past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, Robert DuPont. Finally, none other than one disgraced PhD holder, Colin Mangham.

The Lancet report, Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study published in April 2011 was compelling evidence on reduced overdoses in a vicinity around Insite, and accepted by the Supreme Court. The problem for DFAF was that three of the five authors were Kerr, Montaner and Wood. The same three who had demolished so much of the amateur ideologists and DFAF’s non scientific lobby groups.

On September 13th hoping to besmirch the reputations of these men, the team struck. They released a collection of misleading claims cobbled together in a free range “analysis” enveloped in thunderously accusatory tone. It was designed to rebuke harm reduction in general and injecting facilities specifically. In this light it inexplicably republished many of Mangham’s already debunked criticisms as if new, misrepresented existing reputable studies by comparing unrelated data sets and publishing outright falsehoods.

If we dig up Clement referring to Mangham, from the National Review of Medicine September 2007, we can almost hear the echo:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite

Fortunately history did not repeat. This re-choreographed material has been addressed more than once and found to be entirely baseless on each occasion. Despite the pollution of the material by Colin Mangham’s unprofessional accounts it becomes stranger when we note the “analysis” was conducted for Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada and REAL Women of Canada (the only supporting interveners for the government during the Supreme Court hearing).

Predictably published in the DFAF funded opinion rag Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, it’s accompanying media release included:

Three Australian doctors are part of an international team which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility, errors which nullify the study’s claim that it has demonstrably reduced overdoses in its immediate surrounding area.  The international team’s analysis has been sent by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada to the Ethics Committee of the agency which funded the Lancet study with questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.

The article was influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings of May 12 this year, where the court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian Government is rightfully able to close the facility.  The Canadian government has been trying to close Insite since 2006, but has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists.

A full two more paragraphs are spent attacking the individual researchers for acting dishonestly, much of which relies on the already debunked material from Mangham 2007. Using bitterly crude figures to inflate “overdose” deaths – including suicides and homicides – they maintain the authors “knew” they were acting dishonestly. They challenge the findings by increasing the sample area by a factor of 10, and hold this against the original sample area.

Christian’s team selectively quote the Lancet authors earlier work on displacement of users from the area due to an increase in policing. This would be a splendid point were it not that “this policing initiative ended within weeks of Insite’s opening and was not ongoing throughout the study period”. This claim was also a resurrection of Mangham’s still unpublished and disgraced 2007 academic corpse. The vicious “media release” finished:

Drug Free Australia’s Research Coordinator, Gary Christian, said, “…. Inexplicable errors and memory lapses is the price the Canadian government has paid for entrusting injecting facility lobbyists with its scientific evaluation. Activists are never likely to provide objective science and there are dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result.”

A complaint was lodged with the University of British Columbia by Mr. Christian. This and the JGDPP piece were independently reviewed and found to be “without merit”.

Yet so many questions arise as to why this apparently devastating material was not presented in court. When I first asked Mr. Christian on December 2nd he took a superior tone claiming that they could not because they did not have it available until September 2011. “It would have been a good point but for you not checking your facts”, he replied. Let’s review these facts I supposedly failed to check.

On June 8th, 2011, the (new) President for Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, Gwendolyn Landolt insisted that data supporting Insite is flawed. In an extraordinary claim (for June) she asserted in a letter to Canada’s National Post that OD’s had actually increased around Insite in most years since it had opened and thus, Thomas Kerr was in error for accusing DPNC as presenting misinformation (as he had earlier done):

Mr. Kerr tried to discredit a report from the B.C. government — which stated that since the site opened, the area has seen an increase in drug-induced deaths every year — by claiming that it included deaths unrelated to drug use

I say! That claim seems to be lifted straight from Christian’s September debacle. The one they didn’t have… until, er… September. And what do we read on page 2 of Christian’s piece about “a report from the B.C. government”, also mentioned above?

The claims of this article are very curious from the outset, simply because a review of the statistics by the British Columbia Coroner’s Service, found at clearly indicates the contrary – since Insite commenced operations on 21 September 2003 illicit drug deaths have very clearly and unmistakably increased, not decreased.

Okay, the same claim. So they had access to this data 2 1/2 years before the Supreme Court sitting in May 2011. Every other accusation – the impact of policing, the supply of drugs, criticisms from Mangham go back to 2007. Other papers and studies used are also well before 2011. That the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada is shooting off unpublished material in response to a May 30th statement by Kerr suggests they were keeping their powder dry.

I put this to Mr. Christian on the same day he dismissed my poor fact checking (December 2nd). He replied on December 10th as follows:

I have received an e-mail back from Gwen Landolt of Real Women of Canada explaining that Colin Mangham’s work was not admissable to the Supreme Court because it was not available for lower court hearing. The truth, Paul, is that there were court-imposed limitations on evidence which have nothing to do with your fanciful fabrications here.

Okay. So the material was available (despite his earlier claims it wasn’t), but could not be submitted due to “court-imposed limitations on evidence”. My “inability to check facts” had disappeared in a puff of reality, but was now replaced with my “fanciful fabrications”. Oh dear!

Of course before the Court in May, the government was armed with the figures mentioned, but had stated it had “no evidence” to submit. So, a day later on December 11th, 2011 I replied in part to Mr. Christian:

The time to strike was in the Supreme Court. Exactly why information from 2007 (Mangham) and 2008 (BC report on OD’s) was not admissible for lower court hearing in 2011 is a question best answered by your colleagues, Mangham and Landolt. If there is a genuine technical reason I would be grateful if you could provide it.

Otherwise it must remain possible, indeed probable, that it was excluded due to a.) the paucity of evidence presented by Mangham in attempting to debunk 20 peer reviewed studies from esteemed journals, and b.) that the BC report on OD’s was irrelevant as a variable effecting the efficacy of Insite and thus the SC sitting itself.

If so, this renders Landolt’s comments to the media and your own use of both sources impotent.

Failing this, you must explain… exactly why it was unavailable given 4 and 3 years respectively to craft an effective rebuttal of Insite’s success with these figures.

What were those “court imposed limitations” and why were they not mentioned in your article or your media release which explicitly referred to the [Supreme Court] decision as influenced by the Lancet article and “harm reduction activists”?

As one may expect those points have never been addressed. No-one is any more the wiser as to why this apparently cutting edge demolition of the court accepted Lancet article, was not itself either in total or in substance, presented to the Supreme Court. Are we to believe an ambiguous and unmentioned “court imposed limitation” prevented the exposing of “research fraud and professional misconduct” by five authors in one of the world’s most prestigious journals, the Lancet? That these supposed academic crimes were overlooked by the Supreme Court of Canada, as they examined the material in question itself?

Or shall we accept the demonstrable trend and tone exercised throughout the ideological attempts to sabotage Insite, is now manifestly clear as an attempt to smear researchers and their work? As the media release claimed, “dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result”.

The anti-drug brigade may be cruel but they are not stupid. I point this out to Mr. Christian very clearly above, and still await a cogent reply. An academic mirage supposedly good enough to undermine the work of five authors. But not offered in objection to their work. What then was it’s purpose?

It was clear any such opinion from known offenders would have no bearing against over 30 papers in 15 peer reviewed journals. The singular attack upon Kerr, Wood and Montaner is striking. Christian has never answered my queries, preferring to accuse me of “imaginations and suppositions” without facts. Exactly why this argument was not published anywhere until after the Supreme Court hearing has never been made clear.

Why it was not raised by DPNC or REAL Women of Canada (both for whom the final “analysis” was supposedly written) in court is unknown. “No evidence”, was the official position.

Yet Gary Christian gives the game away himself. On November 30th, 2011 I had written in response to his refusal to accept his ploy was found to be “without merit”:

You write as if Montaner and Kerr are under scrutiny. You had your chance. It and the complaint have been found to be without foundation.

He replied on December 19th suggesting conflicts of interest assumed on his part override the independent analysis of his attack. He offered two mundane sources and extraordinarily suggests intentional favouritism on the part of the University of British Columbia and independent reviewer, Dr. Mark Wainberg toward the Lancet authors:

Of course our complaint to the University of British Columbia was not progressed because Dr Mark Wainberg absolved Dr Montaner, Dr Kerr and Dr Wood of any errors in their Lancet article, claiming that it was exemplary science.

However, if you look at the relationship between Wainberg and Montaner, I think that you will find that the relationship breaches the most liberal guidelines in the corporate or political world as to who is qualified to conduct an independent inquiry. […]

Now tell me that the University of Britush Columbia’s ‘Independent Advice’ was absolutely according to the common understanding of independence.

More accusations of corruption. More suggestion of conspiracies. More of the same junk.

What were these devastating pieces of insight? At a meeting of the International AIDS society, 2009 Julio Montaner congratulates, “my friend and colleague, the esteemed Dr Mark Wainberg” on getting the conference to Durban in his capacity as IAS president. The other is a humdrum op-ed piece written with Stephen Lewis on urging the Canadian government to ensure HIV/AIDS therapies remain central topics.

To this day Gary Christian remains unapologetic and impervious to volumes of criticism and questions generated by his single opinion piece. There has been no apology, no explanation nor any correction of demonstrable falsehoods.

Attacks on Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr however, continue apace.

The “drug free” ideology is as free from compassion and evidence as it ever was.

Are Meryl Dorey’s critics really against free speech?

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

Well, they’ve (The Australian Skeptics) actually said it. It’s been said several times. We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. Many of them have said that and I have quotes on the internet, you can see it.

Meryl Dorey speaking to Tiga Bayles on Let’s Talk 98.9 FM, 19th December 2011

Meryl Dorey has never been one for facts. Recently her claim that her critics, “say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia” (Let’s Talk transcript), has lurched into full gallop. It’s always been around as a demonstrable distortion of documented facts, which I’ll get onto. It pops up on Facebook during tirades to fellow members or on her website posts where it sits in competition with “health fascism”, how “disease mongering” is profitable, that the pharmaceutical industry is in “a secret pact with mainstream medicine” or stupidly comparing herself to the bogus “Lord” Monckton.

Those of us following Woodford Festival’s ill conceived decision to host this threat to public health as an “expert” on such a crucial health topic as vaccination, will be familiar with the “free speech means free pass” argument. Dr. Rachael Dunlop made the following observation writing on ABC’s The Drum:

The argument that has been circulating in favour of letting Dorey speak at the festival has been one of free speech. But this is not about free speech.

Dorey is entitled to voice her opinions but not her own facts. And when a public health warning has been issued about her information, it is the responsibility of the festival organisers to make people aware that she is not an authority on vaccination, that her information has been deemed misleading and she does not support you getting your kids vaccinated.

You could argue suppressing my right to yell “fire!” in a crowded cinema is also about free speech, but when people’s safety is at risk, common sense must prevail.

We’re also entering the 5th year of a pertussis epidemic which began in Ms. Dorey’s hunting grounds and from there spread across Australia. The festival attracts lovers of alternative thinking who can only be harmed by Ms. Dorey’s manipulative diatribes. As such, the organisers of Woodford Festival made an extremely poor, ignorant judgement call and are now complicit in risking Australian health.

Dorey’s talk and opposition to it have little to do with free speech. As I contended recently, her track record of scams, misappropriation of funds, exploitation of members, copyright abuse, lying to the media and much more reveal a cowardly bottom rung con artist who makes an easy living by misleading Aussie citizens and authorities. Her disdain for our laws and insult to our intelligence is blindingly obvious. Charity fraud (including misappropriation of business names), copyright abuse and non compliance with health authority legislation/regulation carry feather touch penalties.

The other fairly outrageous caper I find irksome is how Dorey lies to those who lend support. Those who trust her to tell the truth. She’s a convincing speaker, making her victims easy game. This angle to her grossness literally blossomed as Dorey took Tiga Bayles for a goose, abusing his not insignificant ignorance and blind trust almost ferociously. Tiga simply believed what she said and replied accordingly.

In a sad turn of events Tiga is denied any facts and quickly made the fool. By show’s end he’s almost worshiping at Dorey’s feet, convinced she is fighting “the haters”. Added to this is the sheer volume of effort given by Meryl Dorey toward misleading Tiga about her critics. If she has such a vital role to play in promoting “informed choice”, can’t she just knuckle down and get on with it?

Putting the AVN aside entirely, I always find it a bad sign when one agent has to define their own qualities by highlighting what are supposedly negative qualities in an opposing agent. For Meryl Dorey, the libellous and slanderous attacks on her critics have now become an indispensable binary dance of her own making.

Scarcely moments into the show Dorey misleads the audience and once again leaves little doubt as to why she must be challenged and held accountable:

We have the Health Minister in Queensland saying that it’s nonsense to look at the other side of the vaccination issue. And the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is the government body that’s involved with this, says that you have to be able to make an informed choice. So all we’re doing is trying to support what the National Health and Medical Research Council says, and allow people to make an informed choice. If doctors and the government were doing their job, we wouldn’t even have to be here. I could be off having fun with my family and instead I’m sitting here working. [….]

…. but there is an organisation called the Australian Skeptics, and they set up about three years ago a sub-group called “Stop the AVN”…. They just think everyone should vaccinate, just listen to your doctor, nobody who is not a doctor is able or has a right to talk about this information…. And they say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia, which is not correct. [….]

But people need to be aware of what vaccines they are giving their children, why they’re vaccinating and how effective and how safe the vaccines are. And this organisation, Stop the AVN, says you’re not entitled to know that. And I think that people should be aware that there is such a strong push, from a very small section of the community, to stop them from being informed.

All of this is false and Dorey knows it to be. If SAVN are recommending listening to one’s doctor, how can they also say people aren’t entitled to know “how effective and how safe the vaccines are”? That’s exactly what critics of vaccine deniers wish people to know. The show transcript is a cornucopia of infuriating lies, and we need to expose the genesis of Dorey’s musings on opposition to free speech. However, it must be said clearly that linking Stop The AVN with Australian Skeptics actually occurs only in Meryl Dorey’s mind.

SAVN was set up by a private individual after Meryl Dorey harassed the grieving parents of an infant who died from pertussis. Dorey demanded access to the infant’s medical records and contended that Paul Corben, Director of Public Health at the North Coast Area Health Service misled the public by confirming a pertussis fatality. Corben wrote to the family:

Ms. Dorey called me on the 12th of March seeking details of your daughter’s illness and death… Ms. Dorey contended that I had misled the public in attributing your daughter’s death to pertussis.

Despite Corben’s clear email to this effect Dorey simply denies it. What ensued was a vindictive letter writing campaign and visits to family members by AVN intimates. It was not until The Australian Skeptics awarded Ms. Dorey the 2009 Bent Spoon Award for the traditional annual celebration of the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, that Dorey’s hatred for all things skeptical was unleashed. Perhaps Meryl has difficulty accepting just how many critics she has. Yet I suspect painting this picture of a looming enemy is not only compulsory for conspiracy theorists, but far easier than providing evidence.

Dorey continued to mislead Tiga regarding free speech:

Tiga: […] And it’s our right as parents and family members to be making free and informed decisions, and give free and informed consent, if we disagree.

Meryl: They disagree with what you’ve just said. They say we don’t have freedom of speech and you don’t have a right to say no.

Tiga: And by the way, Phil said, no the skeptics don’t tell lies, well, he didn’t say they don’t tell lies, he said they don’t say there isn’t any freedom of speech, they might imply that.

Meryl: Well, they’ve actually said it. It’s been said several times. We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. Many of them have said that and I have quotes on the internet, you can see it.

Tiga: But even to imply it, Meryl.

Meryl: Well, it’s more than implication because they actually have said that.

A caller, Phil, had quite honestly said that it may be implied (as Dorey is doing) that freedom of speech is opposed by those who object to demonstrable falsehoods capable of harm, being voiced without contest. Here’s the exchange:

Tiga: And the skeptics… is it right then what Meryl… was Meryl correct when she said the skeptics say that we don’t have freedom of speech. Is that something the skeptics would say? In this regard?

Phil: Well, it may be implied. But this isn’t a freedom of speech issue.

Tiga: But it may be implied, Okay.

Later Dorey and Tiga excel themselves:

Tiga: What are these people, like governments, doctors, Stop the Australian Vaccination Network, the skeptics, what are these people when it’s controlling, and the haters that are out there. What’s the difference, probably even much better off under a communist system.

Meryl: That’s right. There isn’t any difference. And Stop the AVN is a hate group. They definitely are. They act like a hate group, they’re abusive, they’re bullies. So, yeah, I agree with you 100% with what you’re saying and it’s anti-democratic. You know, in a democracy we do have this right to choose, we do have the right to speak, so anyone who says we’re not is not democratic, and I think we all want to live in a democracy.

I recommend browsing the transcript. Or you may download the entire 45 minute audio here (or listen below) and make up your own minds about pre-show collusion, Tiga’s arguably conspiratorial anti-medicine beliefs and Meryl’s hilarious claims that she doesn’t lie nor object to the position of doctors defending vaccination. There’s monumental abuse of indigenous health realities from both sides. A few moments of listening hint that Tiga is far too proud to ever admit what a fool Dorey has made of him.

So, what is the source of Dorey’s claim that her critics would deny free speech? Would any academics or critics seriously advance such a primitive notion? Is Dorey cognizant of perhaps a different reality, that exposes this position as an intentional lie? Or could she prove (as intimated) that critics of anti-vaccination propaganda, “say we don’t have freedom of speech and you don’t have a right to say no”?

It’s possible to turn this right around and find that the evidence shows something quite different. Meryl Dorey is really about saying what she wants even if it has been shown to harm individuals or society in general.

In his complaint to the HCCC Mr. Ken McLeod addressed the issue of AVN free speech on page 6. [Item 5] Is the AVN protected by a right of free speech?

Contrary to the perceptions of an Australian public raised on a diet of Hollywood movies, there is no right of free speech in the Australian Constitution. On the contrary, Australian legislation and case law are littered with restrictions on speech, from contempt of parliament, national security, contempt of Court, sub judice rules, criminal defamation, breach of copyright, racial vilification, etc. For example, see Jones v Frederick Toben.

In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia found that Töben’s website “vilified Jewish people”, and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site. In May 2009, he was sentenced to three months in jail by Justice Bruce Lander after being found guilty of 24 charges of contempt, in that he continued to publish offensive views in defiance of Court orders {Jones v Toben [2009] FCA 354}.

Likewise, cancer quack Jillian Margaret Newlands has been ordered by the Queensland Supreme Court to cease providing her quack cancer cure and dangerous advice, such as advising clients not to seek chemotherapy treatment. [Public Statement by Qld Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading Peter Lawlor, Thursday, April 23, 2009 “Unregistered health provider ordered to stop misleading cancer patients”]

So, in Australia, one is entitled to free speech provided that one does not harm an individual or society in general. As Oliver Wendell Holmes USA CJ, put it so succinctly;

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre.” [Source]

The AVN is clearly harming individuals and society and is not protected by any right of free speech. Indeed, by explicitly including “health education” in the Health Care Complaints Act, speech is clearly not protected here, as speech is necessarily a part of the education process.

In her reply to the HCCC Ms. Dorey accuses Mr. McLeod of a “jihad-like mentality” (yet maintains taking offence at the term “quack”) and offers, Response to Section 5 of the McLeod Complaint – So Called Right of “Free Speech”;

Contrary to Mr McLeod’s ʻAmerican TVʼ version of Constitutional Law (under which he has adopted foreign terms such as “Right to Free Speech” derived from the US Constitution), there is in fact an implied freedom of communication and discussion on political and government affairs contained in the Australian Constitution and embodied within the federal system of government…. It has been found by the High Court of Australia that these sections, when read in context, provide that members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to be directly chosen at elections by the people and that therefore this requirement embraces all that is necessary to effectuate the free election of representatives at periodic elections, including the right to unfettered communication and discussion of all matters relating to government and public policy [Citation].

Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics has been determined by the High Court as being an indispensable incident of the system of representative government that the Constitution creates…. This freedom of communication and discussion is protected against the exercise of federal and state legislative and executive power and extends to all those who participate in ʻpoliticalʼ discussion (such as the AVN) and therefore is not limited only to electors and elected [Citation].

… The High Court has extended this freedom of communication on matters of government and politics extends to all non-verbal conduct [Citation], which would include content on the AVN website and all published materials of the AVN which is the subject of this complaint from Mr McLeod.

It is submitted that the HCCC should approach this complaint with this attitude of balance, and act to responsibly and lawfully when weighing up the competing interests at stake in the circumstances regarding the subject of this complaint. The High Court cases cited above confirm that the HCCC has a constitutional obligation to ensure that the ʻgag orderʼ and other similar provisions of the Health Care Complaints Act are not attempted to be implemented in response to this complain (sic) in a way that would offend or restrict the AVN’s constitutionally protected freedom of political expression. [….]

In closing on this particular subject, I submit a statement made by the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, as quoted in August 22nd, 2009 edition of the Daily Telegraph. In a speech before Federal Parliament, Mr Smith stated that, “We understand, respect and recognise free speech. We value the capacity of someone to come to our country and say things, even if we do not agree.”

The full epic ramble covers three pages most of which I have spared you. Dorey failed to address Mr. McLeods argument on free speech content that may be inherently malignant. Instead an irrelevant attempt to suggest that the AVN engages in political discussion akin to “communication on matters of government and politics”, is made repeatedly.

In aligning herself with “an implied freedom of communication and discussion on political and government affairs contained in the Australian Constitution and embodied within the federal system of government”, Dorey assumes quite some self-promotion. The citations are related to media outlets and political speech as implied by the constitution, both during and outside of election time, qualified privilege and publication without malice, amongst others.

In short Ms. Dorey seems to have little grasp on the notion of responsible free speech. Ken McLeod has made a very good case as to why free speech despite its great value must not be abused or used as a tool of demonstrable harm. Meryl Dorey sees her role as so lofty, the HCCC should stand back and make way. It’s arrogant in the extreme and speaks volumes as to how Dorey sees herself.

Nonetheless that is the source of Dorey’s repeated claims that “the skeptics”, of which Ken is not a member and SAVN, “say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia”. Item 5, page 6 of a complaint raised against Meryl Dorey. Period.

It is clear that the HCCC agreed with McLeod’s version, having reviewed Dorey’s material and finding her a risk to public health. Dorey is entirely cognizant of the above. Yet she has again chosen to misrepresent the facts in an attempt to cast opponents as malignant. At worst this is a dispute over the interpretation of free speech under the Australian Constitution.

Using free speech to lie to Tiga Bayles about free speech in such a manner as to intentionally engender ill will and hatred toward others is perhaps the most eloquent justification as to why Ms. Dorey must be stopped from speaking to the detriment of others. What she should say is:

I, Meryl Dorey believe I have a right to say what I want regardless of the consequences to individuals or society and hide behind this as “free speech”.

That is what the evidence shows and it’s backed by her conduct. In essence Dorey is shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre and wants to keep doing so.

One repetitive issue did come up again. As I’ve noted earlier, Dorey believes Nicola Roxon’s recent announcement on immunisation incentives should have led with instructions on how to become a conscientious objector. As if the health minister should be actively promoting disease, disability and epidemics. She had Tiga fired up in no time:

Tiga: So, the government is responsible also for misinformation.

Meryl: Very much so. And we’re going to be complaining about that, but unfortunately what happens is you complain to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman says, oh well, tell the minister for health about this. It’s the Minister for Health who’s misinforming people in the first place. So there’s really no way to complain.

Tiga: Typical.

It’s hard to find analogues to this. Perhaps media announcements on how to get exemptions from total fire bans should take precedence over any warnings? Life savers pointing out where the most dangerous rips are outside the flagged zone? SES telling residents where to hide from rescuers as bush fire tears into town? Light houses leading you onto the rocks?

Meryl Dorey’s idea of free and responsible speech is a dangerous one.

Meryl Dorey and the Woodford “free speech, democracy” thing

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Denialism, Human Rights, Legal by

The comments of Joe Stella, editor of The Daily Grind on ABC’s The Drum [December 13th, 2011] on the topic of free speech, highlights Ms. Dorey’s abuse of democratic freedoms.

He chips in here at 1:40, and the same video can be found on yesterday’s post. His blurb on Dorey’s appearance at Woodford is:

It’s up to individuals in the audience to go seek out alternative views if they so want. It isn’t a university or public school… it’s a festival. Everyone’s entitled to their views no matter how wrong. […] It’s perfectly fine in a democratic country for people to be wrong.

And I really er, obviously she’s a nutter and vaccinate your kids and that’s all very important, but the tenor of those who oppose her right to speak, saying ‘oh she should have a disclaimer on her website before she can put her views’, or ‘she shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public’, ah, I find that really unsettling in a democratic society.

Mr. Stella exhibits a poor appreciation of the dynamics pertaining to the HCCC request that Ms. Dorey place a notice revealing her anti-vaccination position on her website. The AVN qualifies as a health service in NSW and is thus subject to the HCCC mandate. This qualification as a health service has been established in the NSW Supreme Court during the AVN appeal against the HCCC decision. This was conceded in court by Ms. Dorey herself on July 28th, 2011.

The HCCC decision was backed by Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr. John Carnie, speaking on ABC’s The World Today, July 13th, 2010. Our TGA’s Complaints Resolution Panel investigates breaches of the Therapeutic Goods advertising code and when complaints are upheld, requests for notices to be published on the offending site. Would Joe Stella suggest this is also a matter of “tenor” that we should “find really unsettling in a democratic society”?

If anything, it is the toothless tiger status of health regulators that has been shown up as a problem time and again. Retraction demands are simply ignored by colleagues of Ms. Dorey, in the full knowledge the drain on public funding renders it not in the community interest to prosecute. Had Dorey doused her ego in cold water and ignored the HCCC and their public health warning her right to deceive Aussies and place community health at risk would be just as in tact as it remains today, minus the scathing public attention.

It’s almost an Aussie tradition when it comes to alternatives to medicine. They lie about efficacy or evidence, someone complains, the complaint is upheld, a request to publish a retraction or warning is made, they point and laugh at the impotent request and life returns to normal.

Ms. Dorey’s right to speak freely has never been a factor. It is her refusal to comply with authority that concerns her critics. That underscores the recklessness of providing a platform to a skilled manipulator who snubs simple laws that everyday Australians comply with daily.

In revoking the AVN’s Charitable Fundraising Licence (October 20th, 2010), the NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing acknowledged the HCCC decision and Ms. Dorey’s refusal to comply. In doing so they found that consumers may be misled into making donations, or purchasing membership “in good faith”. The import of this decision is reinforced by the fact that the OLGR found 23 breaches of the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991, following a 2010 audit of The Australian Vaccination Network. Charity fraud.

The Northern Star reported at the time that the AVN provided a media release which:

…said the OLGR had found several errors with the network’s bookkeeping system and some minor problems with the way in which fundraising income was accounted for.

And:

“Had the OLGR based its decision upon the simple errors which were found during our audit – errors which any small, volunteer-run organisation can and does make – it would have been unfair but not unexpected,” Ms Dorey said.

“What makes this decision difficult to understand is that the revocation was based solely upon a questionable decision by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) which we believe is not relevant to the OLGR’s mandate.”

So, how did we get from “errors which any small, volunteer-run organisation can and does make” to 23 breaches of the Act? Was it really “based solely” upon the HCCC decision? Here’s Dorey’s famous email to members in which she copies and pastes items a, c and f from the OLGR’s letter of revocation, forgetting that readers may wonder just what items b, d, e and any other content may have referred to.

From that day forth Dorey’s claim to members has been this consistent deceit. The HCCC do not have authority. The OLGR decision is based on the HCCC’s “illegal” investigation and thus also carries no weight. Only 6 days ago Dorey informed her rapid turnover membership, via her various internet outlets, of The attack against the AVN – a repeat of the information:

It has been brought to my attention that newer readers may not be aware of the circumstances behind the warning by the HCCC against the AVN…. The HCCC does not have the authority to recommend that the AVN put this or any other statement on its website…. The HCCC has adopted pro-vaccination assumptions and values. In other words, it has adopted a partisan position. That is not its role.

By issuing a public warning about the AVN, the HCCC overstepped its mandate…. The complaints to the HCCC against the AVN are part of a systematic campaign to shut down the AVN…. Those who have attacked the AVN have ridiculed and slandered AVN members, made false claims about their beliefs, made numerous complaints to a variety of official bodies, and made personal threats against individuals. The HCCC has allowed itself to be a tool of opponents of the AVN.

If Ms. Dorey cannot accept the “tenor” of the NSW Supreme Court and the role of public health authorities, then defending her as a matter of democratic integrity is quite ambitious. She has conceded herself that the AVN indeed falls under the HCCC mandate. Regarding the constant myth of personal threats made against her by complainants, Howard Sattler raised this with Dorey last year:

Or download audio here.

Before a group of fed up volunteers exercised their democratic freedoms, the simple fact is that the AVN and Dorey had run amok for close to 17 years. Donations had been continually asked for and received for a Bounty Bag insert that didn’t exist. Bounty Bags themselves had never heard of this and would never entertain antivaccination propaganda. On page 18 of Meryl Dorey’s trouble with the truth Pt. 1, Ken McLeod reports on Dorey’s charity fraud:

Meryl Dorey’s Yahoo! Group Message #29638 of 41210 dated Mon May 29, 2006 7:16
“Hi All,
In the latest edition of Informed Voice, we put out a call for funds because we desperately want to be able to accomplish some very specific goals of reaching more people with our information and also hopefully, getting more members/readers – you name it. The goals were as follows: Need to raise approximately $20,000 over the next 12 months to successfully lobby Federal Parliament for chages (sic) to legislation taking away the need for parents to see doctors in order to register as conscientious objectors to vaccination $17,000 would allow us to advertise our services and our magazine in the Bounty bag. This information is currently given out to every woman who births in hospital in Australia – exactly the people who need our information the most!” “your donation will go towards the ability to offer our services and our magazine in the Bounty Bag which is given to every woman who births in hospital.”

The Internet Archive shows that this appeal has appeared on the AVN’s website since 3 February 2007. The same appeal appeared in Meryl Dorey’s emails, in the AVN magazine “Living Wisdom” and the AVN HPV brochure. This appeal remained on the AVN website until 17 July 2010.

Well, “your donation” didn’t go toward women “who need our information the most!”. This is not free speech. This is outright calculated fraud, running for years, that highlights Dorey’s disdain for, and exploitation of her members, the Australian public and new mothers. And what does such conduct say about her ongoing claim of helping Australians make an informed choice beyond sheer mockery? More so, there has been no lobbying of Federal Parliament to seek changes in the requirements for conscientious objection.

Does Meryl Dorey seriously think her necon’ ramblings about “illegal” HCCC investigations and “a systematic campaign to shut down the AVN” can expunge the import of such outright crime? Other smaller brand names have been abused in this manner also. Added to this are breaches of copyright that Dorey put down to “ignorance”. Ignorance? Not likely. On September 1st, 2010 Kate Benson in the SMH wrote:

An anti-vaccination group is under fire for allegedly breaching copyright laws by selling newspaper and medical journal articles online without permission from the authors. […]

The packs, which were selling for up to $128, included home-made books filled with articles photocopied from journals around the world, information on drugs taken from MIMS, the medical guide used by doctors and nurses, and copies of brochures inserted in medication boxes by pharmaceutical companies. […]

Dorey continues to sell articles in the AVN shop that are available freely elsewhere online. Frequently they are available on the author’s own website. The same can be said for videos. For sale from Dorey or watch online at the click of a mouse. Of the antivaccination, conspiracy theory, HIV/AIDS denial, fluoride fear mongering, fake cancer cures and pro-Scientology/anti-psychiatry books on sale virtually all are available cheaper elsewhere.

Despite the pleas of impartiality, the rank offence and mockery is at times breathtaking. As reported by reasonablehank, Dorey recently wrote, in a pitch to sell an AIDS denialist’s DVD:

In honour of Australia winning the ‘right’ to play host to a huge international conference on AIDS and HIV, here is a DVD that will give you information on the origin of and treatments for this disease that is being blamed for tens of millions of deaths since the 1980s.

Dorey is documented as scamming her members out of $12,000 for a non-existent “vaccine-autism” advertisement in 2009. In 2008 she milked the emotion of members in a dramatic telling of a family with a baby newly born to a hepatitis B positive mother “on the run from vaccination”. Whilst the situation was factual Dorey made Peter Foster look like an amateur as she relayed “reports” from the father, took full credit for saving them from DOCS and terrified members with tales that this could happen to anyone. Unless of course, the AVN was funded. The “fighting fund” she opened immediately, made almost $12,000.

Incredibly Dorey then informed her members of her intention to breach the Charitable Trusts Act 1993:

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.

The OLGR reported [bold mine]:

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.

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.

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.

It’s anyone’s guess how many scams Dorey has gotten away with. A favourite fiction of mine is that which she launched within weeks after the family on the run story ended. She’d had calls from nurses who’d been “forced into vaccinating” despite prior adverse reactions, she lied. Their new “life threatening” reactions were mysteriously dismissed by hospital staff. But with her trusty Google, Meryl Dorey diagnosed Lupus Panniculitis. Oh my, what could be done?!

In a master stroke Dorey announced “Pain Free Funding”:

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.

I think even the silliest of us can see the HCCC decision played only a minor role in the OLGR’s revocation of the AVN’s charitable fundraising status. In view of the above it is clear that the AVN present a cleverly deceptive face to the Australian public, creating the illusion of authority and authenticity on the topic of vaccination.

Australians have a right to expect our health and charity regulators will act when culpable individuals and organisations exploit laxity in existing legislation. Particularly for their own ideological and financial benefit, with no regard for the consequences of their actions. There’s far more going on here than someone exercising their democratic right to free speech.

New Yorker Meryl Dorey snubs our legislation, exploits loopholes and publically abuses our regulatory bodies. She makes a dishonest living from scamming and lying to Aussies.

Seeking to impede or put an end to this is no threat to our democracy and no threat to free speech.

Legal synthetic drugs leading to arms race of prohibition

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Health, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal, Science by

Few things underscore the failure of the war on drugs quite like the, well… failure of the war on drugs.

Two mornings ago I read in the press Synthetic drugs banned ahead of schoolies.

Attorney-General Paul Lucas said a further 19 cannabinoids, which are used to make fake illicit drugs such as the synthetic cannabis Kronic, have been outlawed. Mr Lucas said anyone caught selling them now risked between 15 and 20 years in jail.

Ten hours later I read Synthetic drugs seized ahead of schoolies, as police raided business across the Gold Coast to remove the obvious supply of, but not the demand for, synthetic drugs. No problems. Kids can go back to buying regular pot supporting organised crime in the time honored fashion. Perhaps amphetamine type stimulants (ATS) like ecstasy (or their safer legal cousins) will soon be managed identically, literally placing kids lives at risk.

Trying to terrify a nation Detective Superintendent Steve Holahan lies, “They’ve contained pesticides, crushed glass – extremely dangerous for human consumption.” Then, even though kids will now buy from organised crime figures with corrupt connections, zero accountability, no business to legally maintain and nothing in mind but an easy quick dollar we get Poe’s Law:

“Anything that you don’t know what it contains, should sound alarm bells straight away,” he said. “I really can’t emphasise enough, don’t ingest something that you don’t know what it contains.

“People need to understand they’re taking a very real risk both for their personal health…”.

In this 60 Minutes clip examining the status of “legal highs” – synthetic drugs that do not fall under the various misuse of drugs, or drug misuse and trafficking acts – vision of police savaging illegal cannabis growers struck me like never before. The recognition of futility, posturing and wasted public money was there. Yet more and more the anger I used to feel has given way to vague annoyance toward these pitiful people dressed up in action costumes to engage in what is a demonstrably futile endeavour.

Perhaps my annoyance peaked when NSW Drug Squad Chief, Nick Bingham angled to plead tough on “legal” drugs. He first admits to the difficulty of policing drugs that are not illegal then offers:

We have enough legal drugs on the market. We have tobacco, we have alcohol, we have your benzodiazapines. Why do we want to open up an avenue of all these synthetic substances to make them legal as well?

Er, firstly benzodiazapines area a prescription medication. Why not just rattle off the entire edition of MIMS there Nick? Next, there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. Which leaves alcohol – the most abused mind altering drug in the developed world clocking up a cost to public health that is approximately 15 times that of illicit drugs and once again wasting public money in policing violence. Lastly, regarding drugs that can’t be legally seized without legislative change there is no evidence anywhere of “opening up an avenue… to make them legal as well”.

Readers may remember back in June I covered the inaccurate “anecdotal” claims made by Steve Fielding on June 22nd in Questions without notice as he hassled Attorney-General Representative, Senator Joe Ludwig over what he intended to do nationally about Kronic. Fielding’s hysteria aside we still have no evidence to back his horror stories about what NSW health minister, Kevin Humphries told ABC Lateline was a “synthetic psychotic drug”. Indeed, despite years of sensational press and conservative panic the risk of chronic psychosis in people genetically predisposed to schizophrenia is roughly around one in 15,000 of regular smokers of illegal cannabis.

Of course, Fielding’s frown and Ludwig’s lament did nothing. It turns out Kronic derivatives remain legal and misunderstood. Colin Barnett, perhaps Australia’s most daring and dashing politician on the topic of illicit drugs banned Kronic in June promising maximum sentences of 25 years. Rather than understand the drugs and manage any issues we have simply enforced ignorance and expanded the supposed problem.

Surely now is the time for education and sensible regulation. In all the hype essential facts are lost and urban myths begin to emerge. “Synthetic cannabinoids” aren’t in many cases, cannabinoids. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction notes:

Although often referred to simply as synthetic cannabinoids, many of the substances are not structurally related to the so-called ‘classical’ cannabinoids, i.e. compounds, like THC, based on dibenzopyran. The cannabinoid receptor agonists form a diverse group, but most are lipid soluble and non-polar, and consist of 22 to 26 carbon atoms; they would therefore be expected to volatilize readily when smoked. A common structural feature is a side-chain, where optimal activity requires more than four and up to nine saturated carbon atoms. The first figure shows the structure of THC, while the others show examples of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists, all of which have been found in ‘Spice’ or other smoking mixtures. The synthetic cannabinoids fall into seven major structural groups…

This clip spends ample time allowing Matt Bowden, NZ’s incredibly successful legal drug producer to chat with Liz Hayes. With ATS we all know the status of mephedrone as illegal in Australia. Yet smart chemists have enough formulas for both ATS and cannabinoids to keep the production-ban-production-ban arms race going for some time. Slowly the rhetoric is changing. Less and less are we terrified with stories of mashed neurons, instant madness and blokes who ripped off their scrotum. It’s pretty simple. Impairment. Drugs, like alcohol, cause impairment. And no, we don’t want those we care about going about their business impaired.

We need open and honest discourse. Proper scientific understanding and advice strikes me as the only sensible, critical next step. Users do not deserve to be scared witless to the point of hiding and lying about what is in essence simple human behaviour. More to the point the action to ban synthetic cannabinoids announced the presence of such legal drugs to Australians sending sales to unprecedented levels.

The history of banning previously legal substances is one of failure. Perhaps we might like to not repeat this particular aspect.

Stephen Fry extended interview

Posted in Atheism, General, Human Rights, Religion by

Stephen Fry talks to Tony Jones of ABC Lateline about his many interests, passions, convictions and roles.

He discusses his vice-presidency of the auspicious conservation group Flora and Fauna International, a responsibility Sir David Attenborough convinced him to assume. He expresses his love for “indifferent nature” and evolution and ponders his interest in saving the planet, in view of the fact that as a gay man he isn’t prone to leave genes behind. He offers his views on gay marriage, the “teenage years” of the gay rights movement and the human yearning to love and to be loved.

This brings up Molly Lewis’ open letter to Stephen Fry in which she sings her offer to act as a surrogate mother to pass on his genes. He touches on his friendship with and the mortality of Christopher Hitchens, whose academic genius and brilliantly expressed atheism has contributed to his rising stature over the past decade.

…one of the things that was most perhaps galling, if I can put it like that, for him is that his life seems to be on the verge of being snatched away from him at a time when he has most achieved.

An atheist himself Fry offers his more gentle appraisal of religion in general yet reserves no particular escape clause for the folly of theistic belief and theology. In view of the real world struggle for life in nature this seems to strike him as incomprehensible. Although fond of the art religion has inspired, he agrees with Jones that, “…there’s no proof contained in this of the existence of God”;

And no, I don’t believe in God. To me there is no difference between someone who believes in Allah or Yahweh, or God, the Christian God, or Christ, than someone who believes in Pan and Hephaestus and Zeus and the gods of the Greek myth.

They’re wonderful constructs and they allow for marvellous art because they tell great stories of the human collective unconscious at a time before we had science to articulate an expression and an explanation of the world.

We can’t disprove the existence of God anymore than we can disprove Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot:

On the other hand, it is absurd to believe that it exists. And it’s more than absurd to predicate a whole system of moral codes on the basis of that unprovable thing. It is actually wicked to do so.

So, yes, you can never disprove God. Of course you can’t. And you can’t disprove the teapot, but to all intents and purposes, if there is a god, it is clear that he’s capricious, wilful, mean, treacherous, a liar, unkind, prepared to see suffering of the most shameful kind.

Whilst life is “beautiful” it is also “unbelievably cruel. It’s only about passing on the genes”:

And so, you have to dispense with any sort of Victorian idea of this benign, loving god, this brown-eyed Jesus, this Holman Hunt knocking at the door…

…by all means say that there is a god, but don’t tell me he loves me. I mean, that’s just silly.

There’s no shortage of the charm, wit and warmth we’ve come to associate with this admirable, adorable and wonderful chap. May he delight us all for many years to come.