Category Archives: Legal

Vaccine Package Inserts: Not all you should be reading

Posted in AVN, Health, Legal, Meryl Dorey, Science by

If the AVN do make it to Canberra during this first quarter, “to lobby for changes to Federal legislation protecting the rights of Australians to choose not to vaccinate or to vaccinate selectively”, I’ll be particularly interested in the worth of item 5 on their list:

All parents to be provided with the manufacturer’s package inserts to the vaccines they are supposed to be giving their children with the ingredients, side effects and contraindications highlighted. We want this information to be provided well in advance of them having to make these decisions to allow them time to ask their healthcare providers questions about both safety and efficacy.

Of what possible use is this complex clinically relevant information to parents who need advice on vaccination? How often have we heard antivaccination lobbyists rattle off the worst of the worst as if they are guaranteed in all cases? Just who will these opportunistic “healthcare providers” be who finally chat with the wide eyed terrified parents thinking of an alternative? This particularly immoral intent of Meryl Dorey’s overall scheme to sabotage vaccination in Australia is born of connivance of such intellectual paucity as to demand it be placed in context.

Assuming Meryl will be flying to Canberra, let’s imagine for a moment, it is not vaccination but air travel that’s being targetted as dangerous and thus in need of informing passengers of all “adverse side effects” to flying. This becomes compelling when we note that deaths from MMR and attributed to DTap vaccination remain at zero. Studies examining the that myth DTap – or any vaccination – is related to SIDS found the rate of SIDS in those recently vaccinated was equal to chance.

Around 1990 Hannah Buxton was injected with contaminated MMR. 18 months later she was dead due to the contaminants, not MMR, and her parents were awarded £20,000. A BMJ article (also citing Hannah) published in September 1994 notes over 100 families had won the right to seek (operative word “seek”) compensation for the death and disability of their children following MMR. In the 1990’s vaccines were looking like big business for injury compensation lawyers and this BMJ article is cited as desperate “proof” of MMR fatality. Yet that’s a distortion of the truth. No fatalities have been attributed to MMR. Encephalitis from vaccination is so rare and from measles comparatively so common that to refuse MMR on these grounds is to be grossly misinformed.

Let’s imagine if an airline took this “package insert” logic seriously and chose to inform all passengers of all risks prior to flying. We’ll exclude specifics like metal fatigue and focus on injury and death. To cover “discussion” with a healthcare professional they might add descriptive accounts of what happens to passengers involved in accidents. It could be worked in to the pre flight briefing.

Here’s my proposed “report”, using entirely accurate information and statistics, of flying with such an airline. Airlines that believe in informed choice. Let’s say I’m in need of a decently priced flight, scanning the internet for a bargain…

——————————————–

One caught my eye. Package Insert Airlines: Where Informed Choice Matters. “Strange”, I thought. I called the number and spoke to the charming lass on the other end. Yes, they had a seat going my way at exactly the time I needed it. Good price too. Just before I hung up, I asked about the name. She explained to me that the airline had been set up by a small consortium who made their fortune printing vaccine package inserts.

“Before take off we explain everything you need to know about your safety and flying”, she gushed happily, “so you can make an informed choice about staying on board”. Wow. Sounded generous. I packed a quick bag and headed off.

After booking in I had a while to wait but before I found an uncomfortable chair, we were paged to start boarding. It didn’t take long for the airliner to fill up. A few moments later an air hostess with a name badge reading Johanna took her position as the standard safety recording started. She pointed out the exits and toilets then, keeping up with the recording, helped demonstrate the possible effects of crashing on take off.

16% of on board fatalities occur during take off, the recording informed us pleasantly. Passengers are usually burned horrifically beyond recognition in a giant fireball. The unspeakable agony felt by those not immediately toasted is at times expressed in blood curdling screams but this is hampered by inhaled high temperature air igniting throat, larynx and lung tissue, poisonous gases and melting facial tissue, particularly the nose, lips and tongue. Loved ones in the terminal are ensured an excellent view. 

Johanna did her best to imitate writhing dying passengers with melting faces, finally letting out a high pitched scream and then finished with a pleasant smile. The recording continued. 14% of onboard fatalities occur during the initial climb, usually due to catastrophic systems failure. Cabin staff will wander by lying to you that everything is just fine. The pilots are trained to try to guide the highly explosive jet-fuel filled plane in for an emergency landing. You will guess something horrible is wrong and the plane will veer dramatically as we return to the tarmac. Johanna gestured pleasantly out the window, smiling all the time.

The angle of descent will be simply horrific, the recording went on. The fuselage and wings will shudder under the force of descent and you will be convinced you are about to die. Passengers must remain seated, but may pray, swear, scream and make hurried calls to loved ones not in the terminal. Due to the extreme strain placed upon the aircraft systems, small fires may well break out burning, choking and gagging you. Any fires near the fuel tanks may result in a catastrophic explosion creating quite a spectacle. Your loved ones in the terminal will have an excellent view of something like this. Johanna turned to point at a large image that had come up on the screen behind her:

Assuming we do not make it in for a safe emergency landing there is information available in small packages on the back of the seat in front of you. Please remove package insert one, instructed the recording. “Ah, Package Insert Airlines“, I mused staring at a bunch of information I couldn’t really understand. Surely this was written for scientists, or experts in this field. It was about G forces and deceleration and how much energy the cabin would absorb.

Please turn to Table One said the pleasant recording as Johanna held up an example of Table One:

Assuming we will be crash-landing and not emergency landing you should familarise yourself with the pain and suffering that possibly awaits. As we observe, up to a 40G deceleration may result in nasal fracture, compression of a vertebral body (the bones of your spine), a broken lower jaw or a fracture dislocation of the top most bone of your spine – on which rests your skull – on the vertebral bone beneath. The classic “hinge fracture”. At this point any sudden or unnecessary movement as opposed to say, lying motionless, will sever your spinal cord leaving you paralysed for life. Except for your facial muscles.

Johanna beamed and highlighted her face like she was selling moisturiser. The recording continued with Johanna doing her best to imitate horribly injured and dying passengers. “Around 50G the maxilla, or front of your face, breaks up and may pierce the skin of the face, but will certainly lacerate the upper mucosa of the lip and cheek. Bleeding will be profound. The major vessel carrying blood to and from the heart spontaneously sprouts big leaks and that can be bad.

Above 80G it just rips open and blood quickly fills your thorax or abdomen, choking you in a grotesque display of gurgling and gasping as blood forces it’s way out from the lungs to the mouth and nose. Johanna was writhing dramatically upside down over the back of a seat gagging and snotting like a trooper. Your bladder and bowel, the recording went on, if not having done so already, will empty spontaneously and dramatically. Please remain seated. I looked at Johanna expectantly but she gave a gentle shake of her head.

 Above this level as we enter 100G plus, the pelvis will fracture of it’s own accord. Please refer to package insert 1A for information on how crucial the pelvis is for ambulation, spinal health, organ protection, core stability, bladder and bowel, sexual health, reproduction, sitting comfortably… on and on it went covering every tiny detail of a fractured pelvis, pain, rehabilitation and permanent disability. People had for some time been leaving in ones and twos. A mother grabbed her baby and screamed that we were all insane before sobbing her way off the plane. I was starting to forget exactly what I was doing here myself.

Vertebral body transection means the bones of your spinal column split transversely and slice front to back or back to front, with part of the vertebra slicing through the spinal cord. This can occur at multiple points. It is important to remember, the recording intoned, that these injuries are not exclusive. So a crash landing deceleration at around 200G may include a fractured nose with the front of your face crumbling off but stuck under the skin, vertebral compression and transection with almost certain quadriplegia or paraplegia, your insides filled with blood that you gurgle and splatter from your nose and mouth and a shattered pelvis, leaving you to wallow in your own waste, until you die are burned or perhaps rescued to begin your life as a permanent patient.

Johanna had been mimicking at extraordinary speed, pulling grotesque faces, shuddering with vertebral injuries, shaking her head violently back and forth working up to a grand finale in which she gasped wide eyed, spluttered and with tongue hanging out collapsed in a heap on the aisle floor, twitching and writhing. Those of us not vomiting into the sick bags broke into a round of applause. She stood up beaming, adjusting her hair. Thinking this must surely be the end of a compelling but pointless exercise a few of us settled down until, horribly, the recording started again.

13% of fatalities occur during the latter stage of the climb once flaps have been raised. Please open package insert 2 and note injuries, suffering and death are much the same as for the initial initial phase of climb. You will note on package insert 2A we have included Total Body Fragmentation which applies to both failed ascent and descent and is pretty much what it sounds like, the soothing voice continued. We shall cover this in due course but it is important to stress that you may be killed during the latter part of ascent.

Once at cruising altitude you may be comforted to know that only 16% of fatalities occur up there in the cold, cold air. Although the same quantity as take off fatalities you may feel assured that on average, 57% of flight time for a 1.5 hour flight is spent cruising. Package insert 3 covers uncontrolled decompression. For our purposes please note Explosive and Rapid cabin decompression effects upon the body which you may experience alone or in tandem with high altitude injuries and hypothermia.

Should a large hole appear in the fuselage, perhaps due to a bomb, maintenance failure, metal fatigue, cargo door failure or just really bad luck passengers may expect explosive decompression. Contrary to the urban myth your body will not “blow up” killing you instantly and painlessly. As air escapes from the cabin in about half a second it will suck all the air from your lungs rupturing pulmonary tissue whilst you find it impossible to inhale as blood flows freely from your mouth and nose.

An extraordinarily rapid heart beat will only make this worse. Try try remain calm. Oxygen masks will drop down in front of you. Of such little pressure, they are useless and serve only to distract you in your final moments of life which are excruciatingly painful and unimaginably terrifying. Please keep an eye out for flying passengers, body parts or projectiles which will hit you with the force of bomb fragments, or slice, rip and tear your body into pieces.

As the freezing air fills the cabin the relative humidity changes rapidly, causing a dense fog to form. Depending on your distance from the cause of decompression, Johanna gestured to the front and back of the plane, you may experience the effects of rapid, not explosive cabin decompression. Blood and lung tissue is less likely to splatter in your vicinity although lung tissue damage to yourself and others is still likely. The further from the cause of decompression and the better restrained the more adverse reactions that can be expected over time and the more painful your slower demise.

Should you be unfortunate enough to be seated or standing near the decompression zone you will exit the aircraft at high speed experiencing physical decompression, pulmonary damage and bleeding, retinal bleeding, hypothermia, edema, numbness, wind sheer and insomnia. As you plunge toward the earth you may reach speeds that tear clothes, hair and skin from the body.

For those still on board, hypothermia sets in within a few minutes but not before hypoxia begins to kill off brain cells and precipitate organ failure. As you lapse in and out of consciousness you may notice the frozen vomit blocking the blood and pulmonary edema discharge from escaping the oral cavity. Limbs, hands and feet begin to swell as fluid escapes the blood stream and lymph vessels to build up in the tissues. Your retinas may hemorrhage as your body temperature rises to fever levels. Cerebral edema will creep up on you the longer you find the captain is able to control the plane through an interminably long descent. This brain swelling will lead to blinding headaches and more lapses into unconsciousness as life threatening hypothermia sets in. 

The recording continued on like this for a while with Johanna diving and falling and rolling about the cabin. She pleasantly gestured to where body parts are most likely to become wedged, and gave a realistic impression of someone trying unsuccessfully to breathe through the drop down oxygen masks. She sat in the seats most likely to accompany decapitation given the chosen place of decompression and managed a sterling performance as a hysterical young mother trying hopelessly to stop her toddler from being sucked out of an imaginary gaping hole in the fuselage.

I couldn’t see the point to all this convoluted intricate information. I suspected it had some legal purpose but I was 19 times less likely to die like this than in the car I drove to the airport. I couldn’t imagine the stupidity involved in thinking such highly specific and biased information had any bearing on flying whatsoever, beyond creating the illusion there was something to fear.

I tuned back in at times as this marathon of irrelevance continued to inform me that another 16% of fatalities occurred during descent and initial approach. 25% occurred during final approach and landing. Then they got onto multiple injury specifics. 45% of intact (Intact?!) fatalities had a spinal fracture. 47.6% of accident victims had a ruptured heart and 35% also had a ruptured aorta. Only 20% of fatalities don’t have limb fractures the recording pleasantly informed us adding that a sound knowledge of Total Body Fragmentation would help us make an informed choice.

Thorax injuries were the most common. Liver, spleen, diaphragm. GI tract injuries were the least common. Skull, brain and facial destruction was very common. Great I thought. Your turds survive but your brain is mash. Neck, spine, wrist, femur, humorous, tibia… then combinations… and fatalities… until I couldn’t think much beyond Total Body Fragmentation sucks man. “Flying Causes Total Body Fragmentation”, I wanted to yell. Which free speech suppressing scientists had been holding back such vital information? I needed to know this, didn’t I? I couldn’t just trust one of the most successful, safest industries in the world, could I?

Then I realised something. Total Body Fragmentation was an incredible rarity. So were aviation accidents. It was Informed Choice that really sucked, and looking around it had emptied a good deal of the plane, having filled people’s heads with nonsense.

I hoped they weren’t driving home.

——————————————

So, dear reader. If you’ll pardon the foray you can appreciate just how nonsensical this obsession with package inserts is. There is however, a sinister side to this apparent “information”. As I hinted at above, using it to educate people is fatally flawed. Parents need to know about the probability of adverse events of all types, including disease affecting their children. The fact that extreme events are possible is completely irrelevant to making an informed choice.

It’s simple mum. MMR does not kill and measles is 1,000 times more likely to leave your child with irreparable brain damage. If they must, parents need to speak to a doctor about this information, not be lured into panicked confusion. Dorey’s request is just as much a statement: You are not being given safe advice. And that, is an outright lie.

Yet there’s more to consider. As I note above studies have been done on the myth of vaccine induced SIDS. This is not on package inserts, nor is Shaken Baby Syndrome. Yet Dorey insists both these causes (and others) of death are side effects of vaccination. Toxic poisoning without “prior testing on infants” is happening right now via vaccination, she claims.

In her mind extremely rare possibilities must be advertised as likely probabilities. As must a growing number of invented fictions: immune disorders, failure to thrive, leaking intestines, heavy metal build up, slow learning and almost any ailment is blamed on vaccines, water or medication. So if by chance she is granted her wish, it will only be the beginning.

I set out above to highlight what we take for granted. The fear of flying is considered irrational. A phobia. In short Dorey seeks to propagate a phobic fear of vaccines that may cripple critical and safe decision making.

Meryl Dorey is well aware that “informed choice” is in this case, “Meryl’s choice”. It is not free speech, but plain deception.

Parents deserve facts, not irrational fear.

Risk From Disease vs Risk From Vaccine

The problem with Margaret Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She wrote on his website in December 2007:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Silence Has Fallen: will the real Meryl Dorey please stand up

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, General, Health, Legal, Scam by

“We’ve always wanted a balance on this issue, we’ve always asked for this… to allow you as parents to access both sides of this information”

“What we have to decide is what’s the best way for children to stay healthy and that’s what we disagree on and it’s good that we can discuss it”

Meryl Dorey – Woodford Folk Festival, December 29th, 2011

♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣

These are encouraging words from Meryl Dorey suggesting a desire for bipartisan discourse.

Despite these words at Woodford those who have heard the audio or attended know there was no discussion but two presentations. One calm and factual. The other hyped, emotional and fictional.

Having heard Meryl’s new delight in accepting that “it’s good” we can discuss “what we disagree on” because of the importance in deciding “what’s the best way for children to stay healthy”, I assumed she would be delighted to embark upon the realisation of her new hunger for discourse.

A Silent – Defender of The Silence

It seems I was mistaken.

Since the excitement of Woodford I’ve sent Meryl two emails, tweets and invitations on Facebook.

There has been no reply. The Silence has fallen.

You see it appears Meryl and I disagree. Meryl said to a live audience that’s it’s good we can discuss it. Apparently the reality is far from that claim.

Others, as recently as tonight, have kindly raised this point during other online discussions with Meryl. Meryl was in full flight denying that her critics read “medical information” which prove her point and instead rely on “corrupt” studies.

Meryl had her attention drawn to her so-called debate forum. Then to my request. It seemed she wants to convey she had the last word:

                                               This is not debate – this is propaganda.

But as seen below, Meryl did receive a reply. She refused to publish it. Censorship, again. Then, Silence! No reply. No riposte. No denial. Just… Silence.

Let us recap how The Silence came to fall. First was the post My Personal Request of Meryl Dorey.

Then this tweet:

Then this email:

From:     Paul Gallagher
Subject:  My personal request of Meryl Dorey
Date:       5 January 2012 2:34:18 PM AEDT
To:          meryl@avn.org.au

Hi Meryl,

I hope this finds you well and easing back into the swing of things for 2012.

I just thought I’d touch base to be sure you’ve seen my extended invitation to your good self, to post or send a riposte to my claims about your pertussis statistics analysis.

You may have seen it on ABC News Breakfast’s Facebook page yesterday – twice – and also on Stop AVN’s Facebook page.

The offer to debunk the entire lot or just tackle a few pointers is still standing.

I imagine that the inability to debunk the key elements, might require on your part, some rather powerful argument/s were you to then continue to maintain your present stance on pertussis vaccination as a variable in pertussis notification. Particularly the oft’ cited large increase in 20 years, consonant with a 25% increase in childhood vaccination.

Below I show this to be false, fatally flawed and irredeemable as an argument.

It may thus follow that a retraction of your position on pertussis may be the next accepted step should you fail to adequately address these major points.

If some of your points can be sustained then only a partial retraction in your media release would be needed.

Finally, I would firmly suggest that no reply is an admission of failure and acceptance of my position in total as outlined below.

A directly contrary response is not acceptable.

A reply broaching other areas of pertussis vaccination – such as mutations in the MT27 and MT70 strains of B. pertussis – unrelated to the content below is also not acceptable.

I invite you only to address the material below.

If any points are unclear, then please don’t hesitate to drop me a line.

I eagerly look forward to your reply and/or a reasoned debunking of my position as outlined below (what was outlined below was of course this text from a previous post).

Many thanks,

Kind Regards,
Paul Gallagher
[personal email supplied]

But nothing happened. The only punctuation was the horrible Silence. Just…. Silence!

Next came the post Vaccine induced autism: How Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience.

I knew Meryl had read it. It was on Facebook too. Surely now something would happen. Something, anything to break that suffocating Silence. It filled my ears. It bounced off the walls. It woke me at night, mocking me with quiet neighbours and no faulty car alarms. Oh how I longed for the good old days. To be called “pond scum” for no reason, just like Meryl used to was my fantasy.

Two beautiful words to shatter the Silence. Pond Scum. Glorious Pond Scum. It was the oasis to my desert. The shooting star to my blackened night sky. The Betadine to my Tinea.

Then came the story of doctors sending away unvaccinated children. The measles cases. Parents refusing to vaccinate because their fears of autism were fuelling measles. I was seized by an idea. Crazy I know. Insane maybe. But I could take this Silence… this madness, no longer. I offered Meryl Double Or Nothing. Yes, yes, oh God forgive me I did it. Prove the autism argument wrong and I’d forget about the pertussis argument. That’s right! Win one fallacy and get another entirely ridiculous fallacy free. No cost. No strings. Just stop the Silence! I posted on Facebook, a shattered, shameful wreck:


It was met with… Silence! That was it. I was sure I would go insane. Insaner. As I lay tossing throughout the night enveloped in the cruel Silence a misty apparition appeared and through it stepped the most powerful Vaccine Myth of all time. Sir Vaccines Cause Autism, Knight of The Realm of Mythology stood before me. I fell to my knees weeping and trembling. “I am not worthy”, I mumbled. “I have failed to protect your very Mythness”.

“Oh bollocks, Old Bean… may I?”, he offered as he lay back on my bed with a long sigh. “Now how about you pop on the kettle, fire up the computer and play the audio of Meryl’s Woodford speech. Nothing regenerates us dead and non existent Myths like…”.

“The Power of The Burning Stupid!”, I finished, fumbling with the keyboard until I heard the ghastly sound itself.

Over a cup of Earl Grey Sir Vaccines Cause Autism regenerated on The Burning Stupid and reminded me of what I knew all too well. The very existence of Vaccine Myths in The Realm of Mythology depends upon frequent retelling as Myths.

Any attempt to force their ontology toward reality with junk science and bogus claims was just as deadly for them as it appeared to be for us. Apparently he felt we were doing a good job. After reading Meryl’s Woodford slides, and laughing heartily over a few blog and Facebook posts, he stood up.

“Anymore Burning Stupid and I’ll be blind” he joked. “Now, here’s what you need to do dear chap. First, ignore the Silence. The more Silence you hear the more proof they have nothing to say. Do not fear the Silence for it is a sign of your victory and their cowardice. These creatures feed on angst, insult and repetition.

They define their puny worth by pretending to be in a battle with imaginary forces and without good folk to slander, would be lost. Have your say and be done with it. They are trolls, and we do not feed the trolls.

Tomorrow, follow up with another Facebook post to this Dorey woman. The next day an email and a tweet. I bet twenty bags of gold and 1,000 horses she will remain silent. She is already defeated. Hit her with facts. Facts are their enemy and their worst nightmare.

They will cower, cringe, lie and cry foul like the spineless creatures they really are. Never waver! Stop The AVN!”, he finished brandishing his sword, slicing my curtains in half and demolishing the veneer on my wardrobe.

“Farewell! Mwahaha. Mwahahaha”, he added dramatically before walking face first into my balcony door and falling back ungraciously.

“Sorry, that’s shatter-proof glass”, I pointed out. “Obviously in need of a clean and thus, looking just like your mist cloud which is actually over there”.

“I knew that!”, he said straightening his crown. “Very well. Mwaha, Tally Ho, you get the idea…”. And with that, he was gone.

So the next day I set about ignoring the silence, and posted on Facebook:

Then the next day, I set about emailing:

From:     Paul Gallagher
Subject:  Woodford autism/vaccines problem
Date:     13 January 2012 11:54:43 AM AEDT
To:         meryl@avn.org.au

Hi Meryl,

I trust this finds you well.

After listening to your Woodford presentation on autism and checking your slides it appears a number of gross errors were made, particularly concerning Bailey Banks.

The court ruling specifically states Bailey does not have autism. Indeed PDD is not autism – something that is basic knowledge.

I have significant concerns that you claimed his ruling supported your case of vaccine induced autism when this is not the case. Indeed the index page of the ruling clearly states, “Non-autistic developmental delay”.

On page 7, Dr. Lopez (acting for Mr. Banks) stated that “Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.”

Added to this are many other quotes also dismissing autism as a diagnosis, and I am concerned you have read these yet intentionally misled the audience.

Furthermore, the 83 VICP cases you cite are also not related to autism beyond the clumsy attempt by Pace Law School students under the auspices of vaccine scare profiteer, Mary Holland to argue “autism like symptoms” (despite having a clear aetiology) are in fact autism.

Only 21 reported cases were sourced from the VICP files. The other 62 phone interviews and communication questionnaires with biased parties, were not verified nor had ethics approval.

This leaves a total of zero cases. More so your slide only claims “associated” with, and the Pace School media rep’ Danielle Orsino has only ever argued a “suggestion”.

All in all, there is no evidence in your presentation to suggest a remote link between vaccines and autism.

Can you please clarify this asap.

More information here:

https://luckylosing.com/2012/01/06/vaccine-induced-autism-how-meryl-dorey-misled-her-woodford-audience/

Many thanks,

Kind Regards,
Paul Gallagher
[personal email supplied]

And then sent this tweet:

Of course, as predicted there has been nothing but Silence! Then tonight Meryl Dorey excelled herself, proving what Sir Autism had said. They feed on repetition, insult, angst and are cowards with no evidence and no real purpose beyond insulting well meaning folk.

Tracey from Stop The AVN had caught Meryl out on her own blog, making false claims in a superior tone:

Meryl either agreed that she was indeed “proved wrong” or was simply unable to offer a cogent reply. She ignored every point and answered:

Tracey responds, yet strangely her comment still awaits moderation. The perpetual complainer of free speech suppression is still, as ever, hard at work censoring the truth. Tracey has generously mentioned my first request of Dorey.

Apart from the above, with some retweets there have been a few mentions on Facebook. Meryl Dorey has probably had over a dozen opportunities in as many days to acknowledge this. Presently her lack of words are answering all my queries.

In public Meryl seemingly wants to be seen to be legitimate, gushing pleasantly about discussion for the benefit of others. Take her up on this and the Silence remains. The persecution returns. There appears to be only one person Dorey wants to benefit. Despite the obvious humour that hovers over this patently ridiculous spectacle, there is no long term joke. Children get sick and die, AVN members are schemed out of money and Aussies are being misled time and again. But “it’s good that we can discuss it”.

Will the real Meryl Dorey please stand up.

Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Legal, Scam, Science by

Meryl Dorey is shown to have presented material to the audience at Woodford that in two cases argues vaccine induced autism where there is clearly none. In one case the word “autism” has been inserted, additionally, in a descriptive or qualitative fashion on her slide yet it is not present in the court ruling or transcript from where she sourced her text. In another instance there are no cases of autism following, or because of, vaccination. One awaits an explanation from Meryl Wynn Dorey.

There is an awful amount of misinformation on Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slides. Let’s examine the fatally flawed attempt to exhume the “vaccines cause autism” corpse. This is the heading of slide 18:

Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slide number 18

Not much ambiguity there I’d say. But there was seemingly intentional manipulation of a source document providing more misinformation on that slide. Dorey has usurped the case of Bailey Banks.

Bailey was indeed compensated for a vaccine injury. Was it autism, as alleged on Dorey’s slide? No.

The US Court of Federal Claims case file states clearly in it’s opening index: “Non-autistic developmental delay”.

A search of the Claims case file yields a very similar text to that which Dorey provided to her Woodford audience. There is only a one word difference. “[Autism]”. Here is the original text on page 27 of the claims file:

The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

That is all. It seems Meryl Dorey needs to explain this striking addition that quite plainly seeks to falsify the court ruling. The evidence is damning indeed.

On page 2 the fact that compensation is not for autism is stressed implicitly [Bold mine]:

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) is a ‘subthreshold’ condition in which some – but not all – features of autism or another explicitly identified Pervasive Developmental Disorder are identified. PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply “PDD.” The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs. PDD is NOT itself a diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis. The term Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS; also referred to as “atypical personality development,” “atypical PDD,” or “atypical autism”) is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.
It should be emphasized that this ”subthreshold” category is thus defined implicitly, that is, no specific guidelines for diagnosis are provided. While deficits in peer relations and unusual sensitivities are typically noted, social skills are less impaired than in classical autism.

On page 6 [Bold mine]:

Among the physicians treating Bailey, a neurologist named Dr. Ivan Lopez personally examined Bailey and diagnosed Bailey as follows:

This patient has developmental delay probably secondary to an episode of acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis that he had at 18 months of age after the vaccine. He certainly does not ___ [sic] for autism because over here we can find a specific reason for his condition and this is not just coming up with no reason.

And [Bold mine]:

As Petitioner’s testifying expert witness, Dr. Lopez maintained, reiterated, and elaborated upon this threshhold diagnosis.

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct [i.e. technical] diagnosis.” Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum disorder.”

A footnote on page 16 reads [Bold mine]:

Respondent seems to have abandoned the earlier argument that Bailey suffered from autism, instead of PDD. The Court notes the various similarities between Bailey’s condition and autism as defined above, but nonetheless rules that PDD better and more precisely describes Bailey’s condition and symptoms than does autism. Respondent’s acknowledgment serves to reaffirm the Court’s conclusion on this point.

So, what does all this mean? The opening text of the ruling informs us that the court accepts that Bailey, “suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis” leading to PDD. The court also accepts that compensation should be paid because the court is of the view the seizure and condition would not have occurred without the administration of MMR.

Is the court right? It doesn’t matter. The legal decision must be respected. What we can clearly see is that PDD is considered quite different from autism. Bailey suffered a single traumatic event – not a gradual decline into autism as the customary antivaccination lobby tale goes. Autism is a collection of symptoms with a genetic component. Clearly in this case Bailey does not fit, nor has been found to fit a diagnosis of autism.

This makes his case no less tragic. I can’t stress that enough. What I will stress is that Meryl Dorey sourced her one liner from the same document I have quoted above. She is certain to have read that this child does not have autism and was not compensated for autism brought on by vaccination. She would have read that PDD is not the same as autism. But Meryl Dorey chose to select one line and alter it fallaciously to mislead her audience into believing compensation had been paid for autism brought on by MMR.

Meryl Dorey has again committed plagiarism and fraud in her quest to mislead the Australian public. Her disdain for this young boy is clear. Her disrespect for court proceedings and this ruling is manifest. Her callous disregard for Aussies at Woodford Folk Festival is exposed for all to see.

You may wonder where are all the other Baileys? Well, let’s meet 83 similar cases – an old trick of Meryl’s debunked back in May 2011 and covered here in June 2011. Just like PDD may produce symptoms like autism, so do many other types of brain injury. Add these to autistic children who are vaccinated and the language in VICP case files is easily abused.

Also on Meryl’s slide was this ambiguous claim. I’ve made it kind of easy to spot the semantics. “Associated”? Where is the cause? So, here we are almost 8 months since it was debunked and the best Meryl Dorey can manage is a semantic trick. The URL leads here to a PR Newswire article that has the same heading as on her slide.

It’s a SafeMinds.org media release. Safe Minds is non scientific and partisan. Led by parents of autistic children they seek to increase research into neurological damage from exposure to mercury in medical products.

I for one find it strange that Dorey was billed as an expert on autism yet was unable to source the original paper I’ve linked to below. Is this because she gets more bang for her buck with the tone of this heading? The article is biased in the extreme. There appears to be little doubt that the Safe Minds media release colours the issue in Dorey’s favour and away from the cautious approach of scientific inquiry.

Just how unreliable is this source from our self appointed vaccine expert? Back on June 7th, 2011 I wrote a piece called The “Groundbreaking” Vaccine-Autism Investigation Release of May 10th 2011. It addresses this caper which can only be described as an insult to her audience.

I focused primarily on the pseudoscience and demonstrably false fear mongering cobbled together under the auspices of “research scholar” Mary Holland. Mary is a vaccine-autism profiteer and co-author of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human rights, Our Health and Our Children.

I also exposed Meryl Dorey’s stupendous deception a full week later on 102.9 KOFM that “hundreds perhaps thousands of families” had been compensated because their children “have become autistic after vaccination”. That it was “a fact” that vaccines cause autism.

There had been ample media prodding in the lead up to May 10th with the word “groundbreaking” popping up quite a lot. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) had been “quietly” and “secretly” working in the shadows it seemed “paying off” vaccine injured children with autism. On May 10th itself, Meryl Dorey claimed:

You cannot hold the truth back forever. And when that dam breaks, the flood will wash away those who have suppressed these facts to the detriment of our kids. It is time for the piper to be paid.

Oh my!

The “groundbreaking investigation” turned out to be an enormous flop. As promised at high noon on Tuesday May 10th 2011 Holland’s team assembled on the steps of the US Court of Claims at 717 Madison Place in Washington DC. They were presenting a paper of sorts, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury. By the end of the lengthy live press statement, the caper had been largely dismissed and debunked as wordplay.

As you can read in the post linked above, certain media outlets were contacted by Pace Law School students, using the Pace Law School name. This was of course, news to Pace Law Administration. From Lisa Jo Rudy writing for About.com [bold mine]:

I just heard from a representative from the Public Relations department at Pace University School of Law. She wondered why a press release cited in my earlier blog would say that members of their law school had been involved with the investigation into and presentation of “Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” when there was no such involvement in either the investigation or the presentation.

I did respond to Danielle Orsino, who sent out the press release, asking the question:
Were there cases in which the vaccine court awarded a settlement for damage that manifested itself as the symptoms of an autism spectrum disorder? Was the term “autism” ever used to describe the outcome of vaccine damage (eg, “the child suffered from neurological damage resulting in autism”)?
Danielle responded quickly, saying “The study strongly suggests a link between autism and vaccines. The study found that of those who had been compensated for brain damage due to vaccines, a much-higher-than-average number also had autism. The study makes an extremely strong case for the vaccine-autism connection, which is why the study’s authors are urging Congress to investigate the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
This response seems to suggest that the simple answer to my question is “no”.

I wrote at the time, Reading the document reveals ample use of terms such as “settled cases suggesting autism”, “language that strongly suggests autistic features”, “published decisions that used terms related to autism”, “payment of vaccine injured children with autism”, and not – as Seth Mnookin pointed out – “because of their autism”. More so, the authors spend some time arguing why there should be no distinction between autism and autism-like symptoms. This is a major concession they award themselves. The paper includes caregiver opinion, parental opinion, phrases from doctors who gave evidence at hearings and provides a case table of “Language suggesting autism or autistic-like symptoms”.

It further emerged that only 21 cases came from the VICP case files. 62 were gathered by phone calls and social communication questionnaires with other compensated families. It went as far as referencing The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine and a Manmade Epidemic [2010] by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill. There was no ethics approval, and no independent evaluation. Many were children with autism who received a vaccination and reacted. Others were children with mitochondrial enzyme disorders known to lead to encephalopathy. Most were genuine cases of encephalopathy following vaccination at the rate of about 1 in 1 million. That’s up to 1,000 times less than measles induced encephalopathy.

For our purposes, we need to note that Meryl Dorey was claiming “possibly thousands” of compensation cases when only 21 already dismissed cases could be found. Then before heading to Woodford Meryl spoke to Helen on 3CR and, whilst now aware of the sample size, still falsely claimed:

Um, autism is I believe, related very strongly to vaccination… and in the United States they’ve actually paid compensation to at least 83 families who children became autistic after vaccination whilst claiming that vaccines can’t cause autism.

Meryl’s other slide – number 17 – can be dismissed instantly. Her claim on that slide is that diagnoses are rising. This has nothing to do with vaccination and everything to do with diagnostic technique. Her cited South Korean study sampled students in mainstream schools managing 12 hour days six days per week. This is indicative of how wide the spectrum is. The autism rate in Australia is officially 1 in 160. In the UK and USA it is 1 in 100 – 1%. Some research suggests 1% in Australia also.

There are five reasons posed for the rise in autism. None mention vaccination.

  • The actual frequency of autism may have increased, meaning more children have it
  • There is increased case reporting, leading to greater findings, better use of funding and hightened awareness
  • Changes in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria may account for more cases
  • Earlier diagnoses have essentially added a new younger demographic to the the existing demographic of children – ie; it spans more years
  • When we examine rising autism figures we find a corresponding drop in other types of mental disability and retardation, meaning they are now within the autism spectrum

Research using modern diagnostic criteria on adults also finds a 1% rate in adults, suggesting changes in mode of diagnosis play a huge role in perceived “epidemics”. In Brugha’s survey [ doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38] he found not one adult diagnosed with autism knew they had the condition. This tells us the criteria to diagnose them a generation ago did not exist.

All up it seems Meryl Dorey has a lot of explaining to do. Debunked scams, fraud, a useless “association” and unverified musings. It’s nice to know some things remain predictable.

For Aussies, the news remains good. Vaccines do not cause autism.

Dr. Stuart Reece: Drug Free Australia’s secret

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

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

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

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

Story from Focus QLD June 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding implant technology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Christian Beliefs

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

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

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

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

Etc, etc….

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

 

Last update: 12 February 2023

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎