Kerryn Phelps’ support for vaccination is timely and welcome

On January 30th this year Radio National Breakfast aired a lively discussion between Professor John Dwyer, co-founder of the newly formed Friends of Science in Medicine and Professor Kerryn Phelps, President of the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association and prior AMA head.

As it so happened the AVN were delighted with the interview, discussing it on February 3rd. They immediately set to work sculpting an armour for Dr. Phelps to wear into battle for “Health Freedom”. The AVN had no doubt. If you support alternatives you would never vaccinate, their president reasoned.

In answer to an anti-medicine anecdote, Meryl Dorey commented at the time:

It just shows you [redacted], that people will pay for health but you can’t give them sickness for free no matter how hard you try. Doctors hate the competition. They know that people like yourself have left mainstream medicine because you have found something that works better. But that can’t be allowed so the scientocracy that we live in will try to control the situation so you no longer have the choice. This is what we are fighting against and it has to be all of us – healthcare consumers and healthcare organisations. If you use a natural health practitioner, get in touch with them and ask them to find out what their national organisations (CAA, ATMS, etc) is doing about this situation. It’s not the time to sit on their hands and hope it goes away. It’s time to fight!
MD

The day Dr. Phelps and Dwyer were on air Dorey published on healthcare choice, falsely accusing FSM of seeking to shut down alternatives to medicine and drive consumers into the prison of her imagined Scientocracy. I didn’t expect to revisit this article so shortly. Nonetheless… In what may be mistaken for a description of Mordor under the whip of Sauron she began:

There is an organisation in Australia which hates every natural therapy. They hate the healthcare practitioners and they hate the healthcare consumers who ‘turn their backs’ on Western medicine in favour of a range of other modalities which put no money in their pockets and take away their prestige. Worst of all, they hate anyone who chooses not to use vaccines! That is the ultimate heresy, as far as they are concerned.

But it’s OK – because they have a plan and they have the money and media backing, they think, to bring this plan to fruition. This group, the Australian Skeptics, has been instrumental in setting up the organisation, Stop the AVN.

Now, they are working on a new initiative – and this one is more ambitious then just stopping a small, parent-run community support group. Now, their goal is to stop anyone in Australia (today Australia – tomorrow the world as far as this bunch of ratbags is concerned) from learning about or using natural therapies. Their mad campaign is getting plenty of publicity too!

They have just set up a new front group called Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) which is behind the new effort to outlaw the teaching of any natural medicine course in University. This organisation ultimately wants to shut down homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathy, herbalism, ayurvedic therapies and on and on. In their unspeakable arrogance, they claim that there is no evidence for therapies which have been used safely and effectively, in many cases, for thousands of years. Instead, they say, we should all be forced to exclusively rely on mainstream medicine with its dreadful record of poor safety and effectiveness!

By February 17th, Dorey was using Kerryn Phelps as a proxy figurehead for this nonsense. As someone who uses the term “alternatives to medicine” and cringes at the “integrative” semantics, I don’t agree with Dr. Phelps on many non conventional medical issues. Yet Dr. Phelps’ Uclinic is unmistakably professional. Was Dorey serious or just ripping off Dr. Phelps’ image? Was a prior head of the AMA honestly backing Dorey’s new attack on FSM? On conventional medicine? On vaccination?

I tweeted, and seven minutes later received an honest, slightly baffled reply:

Oops. Rather tactless of me. But, as Meryl had written on February 8th:

Excellent observation. It continued to come true.

Predictably, Meryl Dorey had forged a fiction around Dr. Phelps’ role as President of the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association. It must have chafed somewhat to be reminded Dr. Phelps is a GP, supporter of vaccines, proponent of necessary vaccination rates and “diametrically opposed” to the activities of the AVN.

A close follower of the #StopAVN tag, this must have shattered Meryl’s very black and white world view of health care and practice. One is either against the evil of medicine or a skeptic and actively involved in a plot to enslave humanity to illness. At least that’s the battle cry we see in place of actual evidence to challenge evidence based medicine.

Could it possibly get any worse for Dorey? Dr. Phelps wouldn’t retweet anything from strident Dorey critic, that nasty Mia Freedman would she?

Oh.

Poor Meryl has to absorb someone with extensive experience could be a GP, proponent of non conventional medicine and conventional medicine, opposed utterly to the AVN whilst actively supporting and promoting vaccination. Still Dorey peddles homeoprophylaxis and is fanatical about the long dead association between autism and vaccination.

Last night Dr. Phelps happened to tweet in conversation:

@Havenr64 is convinced vaccines do cause autism and took umbrage to an article Dr. Phelps had written in Medical Observer ♣. Entitled It’s time we objected to conscientious objectors, it is a splendid article with excellent timing. Most importantly however is that Kerryn Phelps is a real doctor, with actual research and a life time of genuine experience backing her.

Health consumers who are cautious of conventional medicine or interested in “alternatives” would do far better to seek similarly well balanced advice. Those questioning vaccination, and not trusting their GP, would also benefit enormously from seeking advice through the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association.

The last person to trust is Meryl Dorey or her Australian Vaccination Network. Dorey profits from ensuring you will not trust vaccination. In truth your “health freedom” or choice is abused from the moment you make contact. If you believe the path to making sound choices on vaccination is to donate money to fund a “fight” between imagined forces, you have been conned handsomely.

Nicola Roxon and Jenny Macklin announced the Stronger Immunisation Incentives last November. It was a poor read of the antivaccination movement. Dorey seized immediately upon the option of conscientious objection not being promoted as the primary variable by the government. Claiming details weren’t present at all in Roxon’s announcement, they were actually prominent in the centre of the text. Still, today Dorey has exhaustively promoted how to receive the immunisation incentive without having children immunised.

Kerryn Phelps writes:

HOW far are you prepared to go to engage with so-called “conscientious objectors” to childhood immunisation?

Everyone has a line they will not cross. The line for informed consent gets very blurry when it comes to the proxy consent provided by parents on behalf of their children. […]

As GPs we are convinced of the merits of immunisation against the vaccine-preventable infectious diseases that were so feared by previous generations who did not have the benefit of effective treatments or prevention. […]

I hesitate to even mention groups such as the Australian (Anti-)Vaccination Network.., but… I feel I can mention the harm they are doing to public health with their misinformation campaign aimed at scaring parents away from immunisation.

Parents have been encouraged through various government incentives to have their children fully immunised before starting school.

However, from 1 July the system changes. The PIP incentive for doctors has been scrapped and parents will need to document that they have fully vaccinated their child in order to receive the Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement of $726.35 per child. […]

If parents want to claim the money, they have to demonstrate that their child is fully immunised, or have their doctor complete documentation that they are a conscientious objector.

One of my colleagues told me last week that she intends to be a conscientious objector to conscientious objectors. I must say the idea appeals to me.

When parents request that she fills in the government form indicating the child is exempt on the basis of parents being conscientious objectors, she will politely indicate that is against her principles and advice, and will refuse to provide the documentation. […]

It is a convincing argument. Ethically doctors wish to support their patients’ choices. Yet with vaccination, rejection of this nature is not a choice, but a clear mistake. A cursory grasp of the manipulation at play to scare parents off vaccinating their children is alarming. An understanding of the entire abusive scam should be regarded with concern and disgust.

Presently parents are objecting because many feel there is this attack on their freedom of choice. A read of Dorey’s material finds the same theme over and again. Forces seek to control. Why is the default position vaccination? You are being told what to do. Health fascism. Loss of health choices… etc. It’s an appeal to emotion, not intellect. Vaccination is cast as a mockery of individuality, of democratic freedom.

Fortunately Dr. Phelps is a voice of reason at a time when false dichotomies are used to fool those who seek more natural choices, to also fear vaccination. A wedge has been driven into Meryl Dorey’s fictional scheme. No longer is it simply “us and them” as her members pay dearly to hear. False balance need no longer be the only choice.

This isn’t unique. Most natural therapy organisations recommend conventional vaccination. Chiropractic and homeopathy are two that mislead clients about vaccination. What we certainly lack is a public voice bridging the unnecessary gulf between vaccination and non conventional medicine. It is certainly time to detach the choice of alternative medicine from refusal to vaccinate.

I for one am very grateful to Dr. Phelps for making her views known.

– ♣ Subscription to Medical Observer is free.

A Mother’s Choice, Fear and Confusion

In April and May 2009 channel Seven’s Sunday Night programme looked at the activities of The Australian Vaccination Network.

Following the first programme – A Mother’s Choice – the producers held a live audience forum entitled Fear and Confusion.

Both episodes are below, with a final credit scroll examining the activity of anti-vaccine GP, Giselle Cooke, which led to a NSW Medical Tribunal hearing.

Drug War tactics driving up HIV/AIDS

The Global Commission on Drug Policy recently released yet another report condemning illicit drug prohibition and the War on Drugs.

Entitled The War on Drugs and HIV/AIDS – how the criminalisation of drug use fuels the global pandemic the report lists 6 key dynamics behind the trend.

1.) Fear of arrest drives persons who use drugs underground, away from HIV testing and HIV prevention services and into high risk environments. 2.) Restrictions on provision of sterile syringes to drug users result in increased syringe sharing. 3.) Prohibitions or restrictions on opioid substitution therapy or other evidence based treatment result in untreated addiction and avoidable HIV risk behaviour. 4.) Conditions and lack of HIV prevention measures in prison lead to HIV outbreaks in incarcerated drug users. 5.) Disruptions of HIV antiretroviral therapy result in elevated HIV viral load and subsequent HIV transmission and increased antiretroviral resistance. 6.) Limited public funds are wasted on harmful and ineffective drug law enforcement efforts instead of being invested in proven HIV prevention strategies.

Let’s forget “drug war” and call this problem what it is. Treating drug use as a criminal offence. Now, just by raising that image we’re into different waters entirely. Pointing to problems with the criminal model immediately evokes suspicion of compulsory promotion of illicit drug use. We’re conditioned to assume if we don’t punish drug use, it will be everywhere and bring about a host of nasty outcomes.

Mostly, we’re well conditioned to associate drug use with crime and to see it as criminal. Stitched on to this is the pop culture image from which we draw stereotypes. My favourite is one I often refer to as Quinn Martin. Quinn Martin Productions brought us Streets Of San Francisco and a host of other unrealistic 1970’s TV Cop shows. If you wanted a crime – it was drug related. A bad guy or a weak willed loser? Toss in a druggie.

Of course, I’m not suggesting we imagine this. The reality is criminals are made from associating in criminal circles and from being incarcerated, regardless of the reason. How this fits in with the drug-crime punishment model was addressed recently by eminent Australians who authored the Australia 21 Report. They state:

The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children, and we are all letting it happen

Rather than legalisation alone, that report discussed regulation, decriminalisation and de-penalisation. Far from being an open slather free ride these measures involve control, certain losses of freedom, the need to demonstrate responsibility and a major focus on rehabilitation back to a productive and useful lifestyle. What they don’t involve is the destruction of lives and sustaining criminal enterprise at huge cost to the community.

Yet in Australia we do very well managing HIV/AIDS in injection drug users [IDU]. 16 million use IV drugs globally. Almost 20% live with HIV. Fortunately, Australia managed to keep that level at 3%, and a significant number of that sample were at higher risk statistically from acquiring HIV from another high risk behaviour. This level remained stable for decades.

So the question does arise. Apart from acknowledging shocking human rights abuses, tragedy in many nations and an ongoing source of disease and corruption, what policy aspects need we mull over?

Since the Howard years Tough On Drugs initiative and emergence of groups like Drug Free Australia lobbying against expanded protective measures, the level of HIV in IDU jumped to 4%. It remains an exquisite example of how just a few years of delayed and abandoned Harm Reduction responses, increased punishment and disinformation about Harm Reduction efficacy has an immediately devastating impact on HIV control in Aussie IDU.

The fact that this collective undermining of Harm Minimisation occurred during a period when Harm Reduction services, research and supporting evidence expanded rapidly in Australia is testimony to how effective disinformation and intuitively themed attacks on evidence can actually be.

Still, as of April this year we remain extremely fortunate thanks to Harm Reduction:

HIV in IV Drug Users matched to Harm Reduction

The single greatest sabotage of Harm Reduction initiatives under the auspices of John Howard, was the suppression of a heroin on prescription trial in 1997. This had strong bipartisan support and the Federal Health Minister, four States and the ACT were excited about the decision to go ahead. Under instructions from then ANCD head Major Brian Watters – later to become a Board member of Drug Free Australia – Howard immediately vetoed the decision.

Exactly how many HIV cases, ruined lives and deaths this led to is impossible to estimate, and I would err toward a minimal estimate. Still, 15 years later we can assume the body pile is now somewhat impressive. In what is unique insight into how Howard in turn manipulated the zealots who tried to manipulate him, he never flinched on needle exchange.

To his credit he continued to fund over a thousand outlets across Australia, with some specialising in bulk dispensing, others in hard core risk management. Abandoning these programmes was insanity, despite conservative lobbyists being convinced he might do so. Yet to Howard, being seen to usher in heroin prescription – “free heroin” – as shock jocks called it was political suicide.

Despite strong support for our official policy of Harm Minimisation, which accommodated extreme spending against smuggling (Supply Reduction), this is how he presented his thoughts in 1998:

The policy of zero tolerance of drug taking in this country is a wholly credible policy and policy that ought to be pursued more vigorously by government and by people who are concerned about the problem.

Of all the lies he told, this remains one of my favourites. There was no such policy beyond words. He seemed to despise everyone equally. Which was essential for the politician he became. All that mattered to Howard was Howard, and securing votes. Manipulating drug workers, users, science advisers, policy experts and voters over what was a social crisis at the time was pure business.

British Columbia did introduce heroin on prescription in 2005. 5 years later the effects of the combined measures on HIV were compelling:

British Columbia: HIV infection matched to Harm Reduction initiatives

Similar success from heroin on prescription is found in every nation to usher in trials and programmes. Sadly, Australia was ready before the Howard years. We were in fact, world leaders. Now it’s a different story. We have one Medically Supervised Injecting Facility that ran as a successful trial for 11 years.

Seven of those 11 years were due to disinformation and sabotage from conservatives. In October 2010 the Kenaelly NSW State government passed a Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment bill to ensure the Centre became permanent. 11 years of moral panic was, at least legislatively, silenced.

Whilst actually attacking Harm Reduction initiatives, confusing methadone and buprenorphine with illicit drugs and muddling the lot in with AFL drug policy, Alan Jones delighted us with his wisdom on “Harm Minimisation”, in mid 2007 [MP3 here]. Obnoxious, offensive and completely ignorant of facts it is also somewhat representative of Aussie views today:

So today Australia has a long, long way to go before we do, if ever, fully recover from the rise of anti-drug conservatives under John Howard. They did far more damage than just raise HIV infection by 1% in injection drug users. Our fluency with progressive policy and public maturity has been undermined. Australia waits, on pause.

33 million people live with HIV today. Outside sub-Sahran Africa IV drug use accounts for 1/3 of new infections. For almost 15 years annual HIV infections have been falling on a global scale. Except for seven countries wherein HIV infections increased by about 25% primarily due to IV drug use.

The “drug war” is full on in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and unsurprisingly 5 of these 7 countries are in these boundaries. In the last decade people living with HIV in these areas has close to tripled. Russia has resisted Harm Reduction measures keeping methadone illegal and charging users for needle possession. As this demographic is actively abused by law enforcers the motivation to use needles based on access convenience and minimal time is heightened. The results are clear:

HIV infections – Russian Federation

Thailand has impressively cut HIV infection in workers in the famous tourist attracting sex industry from 40% in the mid 1990’s to around 5% today. This pulled male clientele infection rates down in parallel. At the same time fierce drug war tactics led to 2,500 “death squad” murders in 2003 and HIV is up to 1 in 2 IDU in some regions. A comparison of different demographics for HIV infection is compelling:

THAILAND: HIV infections per demographic

In a splendid example of stupidity the USA reinstated it’s 21 year ban on federal funding for needle exchange programmes only 2 years after ending it. A stark lesson for Australia, constantly under the assault of disinformation from anti-drug group Drug Free Australia, can be found on page 9 of the GCDP Report.

Recently in reviewing the history of Harm Reduction and HIV, I noted the stark difference between not just nations, but regions within nations favouring HR as a powerful controller of HIV spread. Similarly today it can be seen that in nations with extreme law enforcement, and regions within the USA with the most intense law enforcement that HIV levels are higher than those with low law enforcement.

For instance, a study of the 96 largest US metropolitan areas found that measures of anti-drug “legal repressiveness” were associated with higher HIV prevalence among injectors and concluded: “This may be because fear of arrest and/or punishment leads drug injectors to avoid using syringe exchanges, or to inject hurriedly or to inject in shooting galleries or other multiperson injection settings to escape detection.”

DFA fallaciously – and skillfully – report the exact opposite. Similarly DFA urge for dedicated Harm Prevention measures, described already on this blog as crude behaviour modification. Whether through blind or biblical force the aim is to do just that: force drug users to stop by changing behaviour. Forget the addiction and crush the symptom.

The easiest way to do this is control the environment. Enter compulsory detention. What DFA have called “compassionate detention”. The models they are considering are terrifying. Not only is HIV infection spread through these centres, they fail to offer any addiction treatment. Forced abstinence is associated with high fatality relapse.

Once infected with HIV criminal and punitive approaches act as a disincentive to testing and treatment. Requirements to be drug-free in order to receive treatment (as in Sweden) and denial of certain rights like child custody and employment correlate directly to higher HIV/AIDS fatalities. Confidentiality breaches and stigma impact frequently due to law enforcement regardless of country.

This leads to higher circulation of HIV in the community as treatment has been shown to reduce HIV transmitted via blood and body fluids. As such it is vital all demographics in all communities can be reached through treatment which ultimately leads to prevention.

Incarceration also increases HIV infection and Australia is heading toward a USA type model which has 25% of prisoners listed as HIV positive. Fortunately our initial lower levels in the IDU population will protect us significantly from such a nightmare. Unusually, prison needle exchange is resisted strongly. DFA play the key lobby role nationally and prison guard unions seem intent to deny evidence in favour of their health.

Australian prison guards profit enormously from selling syringes to prisoners. Secondary to money is the control of prison dynamics, control of prisoner behaviour and the essential control of these transactions in corruption entire. A syringe is power in the prison setting. The sooner we remove this tool from guards and protect prisoner health with clean exchanges, the better.

Resources spent on law enforcement are resources not spent on health initiatives generally, on a global scale. With drug crime and infection encouraged by the former and lessened by the latter, it is clear we face a major global challenge. Public health is the first principle of drug control.

Settings where HIV prevention measures have been curtailed as a result of economic concerns have been particularly vulnerable to increases in HIV risk among injection drug users. For instance, a greater than 10-fold increase in newly diagnosed HIV infections among injecting drug users has recently been reported from Greece during the first seven months of 2011.

Australia remains incredibly lucky and indeed most fortunate in this global picture. What cannot be ignored and what must be cautioned against is our slow morphing into a landing pad for USA styled conservative disasters. DFA is an arm of Drug Free America Foundation and act at their bidding. DFAF have their “division”, the Institute on Global Drug Policy who fund the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice.

This is no journal but a vehicle for lobbying against progressive drug policy primarily that which targets HIV control. All get together and play at the Swedish based World Federation Against Drugs which similarly is nothing like a “world federation”. What they strive for is patently out of this world.

As today’s most brilliant minds accept the evidence condemning prohibition, the global Drug Free Whomever groups seek to defend the UN Drug Conventions that originated in 1961.

Fortunate we may be, but complacent we cannot afford to become.

Dumb and Dumber: Making antivaxxers look good

Sometimes what may seem like a good idea can backfire horribly because well, it really wasn’t much of an idea at all.

So it was with a post headed Australian Vaccination Network Seminars on the irreverent and uniquely themed blog, JABS, Loonies – Justice, Awareness, Basic Support and Mind Blowing Stupidity. Keep that last bit in mind – mind blowing stupidity.

Now, I get this blog. No problem. It’s giving voice to no-nonsense criticism using colourful language. The author, Rebecca Fisher or just Becky, set out to post a daily comment from JABS to reflect the tenuous grip on reality we see accompanying top shelf antivaccination beliefs. Then, to Becky’s horror JABS seemed to moderate the “loonies”. Enter Age of Autism and The Australian Vaccination Network. An excellent choice, I concur.

Becky sprinkled the above post with plenty of swearing and foul ridicule. If you know how Becky writes and appreciate her style, it may well be quite funny. I personally enjoyed the description of Greg Beattie’s book. Not that I’d describe it that way, but because Beattie is a smug, attention seeking liar happy to profit from the harm he inflicts on other Aussies. His book is banally deceptive dreck, the title of which is not worth repeating.

So, “used bog roll” does suffice although I would query the ultimate value of additional swearing. After all, describing the real Greg Beattie is far more shocking, sickening, disgusting and of course hilariously funny, than any colourful delivery could hope to accomplish.

Like the other person Becky ridicules, Meryl Dorey, he denies the origin of HIV/AIDS in favour of the notion it’s a vaccine wot dunnit. When Dorey’s “invitation” to genuine medical practitioners to present at these “seminars” was knocked back, Beattie “volunteered” to take the place of high caliber professionals. Managing in the same offer to personally sneer at another doctor. In accepting this mockery, Dorey cut her potential attendance figures significantly.

Jane Hansen admirably describes the Greg we all know and love in action at Lismore:

In the absence of a balanced debate, anti-vaccination author Greg Beattie says he is going to try to convince everyone that vaccinations are great. He confesses he did a 15-minute Google search on the benefits. “We see these recurring themes ‘vaccines saves lives, medical miracles, diseases used to kill children’,” he says, but his tone is dripping in irony. […]

He’s done a lousy job of explaining the benefits of immunisation. We did not hear, for example, that diphtheria – the biggest killer of Australians in the early 1900s – has virtually vanished. Or that the 150 deaths in Australia in 1963-64 became zero by 1998, or that the only recorded death recently was that of young woman from Queensland who was not immunised as a child. Her immunised boyfriend carried the disease back from an overseas trip. She died, at 20.

It’s plain from the petulant lead up and the reality described by Hansen that all Dorey’s propaganda on pro choice and respect for medical advice – she called one aspect “a crock” – was forgotten for what is essentially deceit. No doubt Becky is well aware of this, and in her unique way summed up Dorey’s sociopathic and narcissistic personality disorders by labelling her f***ing evil.

What Becky might not realise is that Dorey and her minions live for this very type of insult. In fact, whilst writing “in character” if I may employ a phrase, it’s easy to “hear” the tone in which it’s intended to come across. It may resonate like Penn and Teller. Or well known stand up comedians who leave us doubled over in tears, merely capable of nodding in agreement.

But the gamble is, will your audience always appreciate it? Well no, and I’m sure Becky is not that gullible nor rightly gives a toss for prudish criticism.

The problem we arrive at however is that Dorey will use this “attack”, as her personal academic-in-waiting documents such criticism, to garner sympathy with the very people Becky was hoping to persuade against tolerating such seminars. The bigger problem is that it’s a kick in the guts to those who have been tackling the AVN for years. Whilst it’s true antivaxxers use a similar template, AVN in-group management is a strictly coordinated affair.

Recently the AVN has been caught with little more than false tales of persecution. Turn up the brightness on this mess and it can be seen that their manufactured dissent is truly ridiculous, whilst a quick tally of vile outbursts, scams, intimidation and bullying puts the AVN in a league of it’s own. For the first time in two years, Dorey has not invented stories of being hassled and threatened by “the skeptics” prior to her seminars.

Well, now she doesn’t have to. The reaction to Becky’s post was swift. Cunning from the outset, notice Dorey doesn’t (or can’t) refer to herself. She claims the post is “attacking someone who believes in informed vaccination choice…”. No. It attacks only Dorey and Beattie. But almost exclusively Dorey. There’s some weird depersonalisation issues at play in that troubled, dangerous psyche.

Someone has just sent me a link to this blog Dorey announced on Facebook. And:

 – which is the foulest, most vile piece of rubbish I’ve yet to read from the pseudo-sceptics. This blog is written by a person who can’t seem to write a sentence without both attacking someone who believes in informed vaccination choice and calling them a 4-letter word.

Great. “Pseudo-sceptics” is Dorey-code for actual skeptics, science advocates and devotees of scientific skepticism. In using the term Dorey makes a mockery of herself because the definition encompasses AIDS denial, vaccine denial, indeed evidence denial in general:

Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves “negative hypotheses” – theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong – without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.

RationalWiki take it further such that one almost expects to read Meryl Dorey’s name as a famous pseudoskeptic. In effect, Dorey has confused notions from Hume’s philosophy of True Skepticism with a Facebook post an antivaxxer made one day using the term. Dorey delightfully called it “a keeper”, and along with her inability to research the rest is history.

Yet, as incredibly wrong as she is, her response to Becky’s post indicates a shift toward blaming her regular critics for being vile and foul mouthed attackers. Horribly she gets a free kick for that appallingly misleading “informed vaccination choice”, to describe the lockstep of vaccine conspiracy.

For impact Dorey copied in Becky’s list of top search results, then continues:

Notice the addition of “small hate group”. Suddenly Becky is a hate group? No. Dorey may follow this up with a letter blaming Stop The AVN and The Australian Skeptics. Directly pointing the finger for suppression of free speech, threats and footnoted with Dr. Brian Martin’s “research”. It’s vintage Dorey, twisting anything to her advantage and tutoring her minions to the nth degree.

Suddenly she’s gone all patriotic. One day Australia is a Health Fascist Scientocracy. Next we have our American loiterer, hell bent on destroying Australian public health, actually telling Aussies what the RSL stand for. Incapable of independent thought the flying monkeys screech into action:

Until then, Dorey hadn’t been urging her minions to write to the RSL or other Services clubs. Perhaps however, other diligent health advocates were in touch with various venues. Perhaps directing them to various accounts of Dorey’s first effort and her vicious ranting screeds in response to criticism.

Now these same clubs or individuals will read the far more offensive and pointless attack against Dorey, and associate every cautionary warning with that outburst. Those making the decision are unlikely to know the first thing about antivaccination deceit. They are far more likely to be the type of prudish critic Becky would not attract to her blog initially.

Dorey will win the sympathy vote and the persecution meme is off and running again.

The flapping, swooping and screeching actually gets worse. In this thread is a “Chris Savage” who earlier lied heroically:

I am an ex-Sgt of Police after 20 years in Queensland. Every SIDS mother told me their babies were healthy prior to vaccines and then deteriorated and died after.

So Dorey’s Darlings – and particularly stalker, poor Liz Hempel – are grabbing screenshots. Hempel has stalked one woman who jokingly said she’d throw fruit, found out she is a police communications officer from her blogger profile and urged for a complaint. Sergeant SIDS likes the idea and has chimed in with the details on where to lodge a complaint.

Now, I think that’s as pathetic as everyone else does. On a positive note it helps my steadily increasing dossier on how AVN members are demonstrably attacking people well outside of any “debate” that Dr. Brian Martin purports to be documenting.

I’ll spare you any more of the thread. It’s full of fawning and worship. At one point Meryl is likened to a giraffe and Becky’s post to a skinny, malnourished, barking chihuahua.

Whilst Meryl’s head is certainly in the clouds the problem with Becky’s post is not the suggestion to forewarn venues and certainly not the points listed. Meryl is indeed a liar, thief, scam artist, criminal and so disturbed on so many levels she appears to not care if children live or die or are brain damaged for life.

All these points can be made on merit. Not with abuse. Abuse only feeds into Meryl’s diversionary tactics and tend to lend credence to her schemes by lowering the tone of her opposition. Dorey has no evidence and that is plain. All evidence on vaccination shows her to be dangerous and all evidence on herself bears out what I just described above.

Now however, a very good opportunity to at the very least have her scrutinised at these venues has either been lost or markedly tainted. The tiresome and scratched record of persecution and abuse gets a new lease of life. Every audience will now hear of this “most vile piece of rubbish”. Every attendee will be told this is how all of her critics behave.

Personally I have no problem with Becky’s post. I think it’s entirely proper to place irrational enemies of reason in their proper place. That does include ridicule and free speech makes that everyone’s prerogative. What I am concerned about is the outcome, which was entirely predictable.

So what’s been achieved? Nothing. Backward steps. Unless one has personal contacts within the RSL it would be damaging to now write to them. Letters critical of Dorey will be associated with a senseless foul mouthed rant. The “loonies” Becky wants to launch into have a new lease on life and have bonded splendidly, reinforcing their beliefs. That is exactly what we don’t want.

There’s no doubt that abusing someone over their beliefs reinforces those beliefs. This holds true for onlookers and is actually helping Dorey. That’s bad for upcoming generations. It’s also true Dorey exploits abuse and criticism by injecting it with a dose of fiction. I doubt she’s finished with this one yet.

Doing the right thing for people that the Dorey’s of this world have abused – many of them now “loonies” themselves – doesn’t require mockery and ridicule. Garnering support and protecting children and future generations from the damage these creatures do is something that can, if not must be done on merit. Meryl Dorey might be cowardly, cruel and callous, but she still knows how to score points.

That’s no joke.