Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience

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

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.

30Dec2011

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 Paul Gallagher

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.

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:

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

Last update: 12 February 2023

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

28Dec2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24Dec2011

Second ABC complaint upheld: Meryl Dorey “distorted and selectively presented information” on pertussis vaccination

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Denialism, Health, Immunisation, Legal, Media, Meryl Dorey, Scam by Paul Gallagher

Unfortunately, she (Meryl Dorey) added little and took the opportunity to promote a case against the use of the pertussis vaccine based on distorted and selectively presented information.

ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs, December 19th, 2011

Readers of musings and mumblings here may remember a look at one Meryl Wynn Dorey’s “ABC of immunisation lies“, following Nicola Roxon’s Immunisation Incentive announcement.

Ms. Dorey kicked off deceiving Terri Begley’s audience on Mornings, November 25th on ABC 612. As covered by reasonablehank in ABC Complaint upheld – Meryl Dorey “disingenuous” and “added little” with “unsubstantiated claims”, a complaint was lodged and upheld by ABC Corporate Affairs.

In the afternoon Dorey popped up again on ABC 666 Drive speaking with Louise Maher. Again she seized the opportunity to launch into rapid fire fiction on pertussis infection and vaccine efficacy. This trick has been picked apart a few times here. So, I shot off a long complaint with references, tables and tactics laid out. To my delight the dedicated folk at ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs waded through it and the complaint was upheld. With their permission I’ve copied the response below.

The only other point (related to media correspondence) I’d like to cover is that I also sent a synopsis of Dorey’s pertussis and autism tricks to Tiga Bayles prior to her appearance on his Let’s Talk show. It had my name, phone number and email address. He didn’t raise any of the points as Dorey recited exactly what I’d warned him she would, choosing to feign surprise and smooth her path. He did however mention “the haters” and “sad small-minded people” who “hide behind anonymity too”.

Dorey agreed that her opponents were “cowards”, members of a “hate group” and guilty of a range of lousy transgressions, primarily around suppressing free speech. Without sounding too small minded, I did feel this was most unhelpful on Tiga’s part. Others also wrote openly to him and still more had articles published on widely read publications, such as The Drum and Mamamia. Meryl Dorey’s critics are not anonymous.

With that out of the way, we can enjoy knowing that both of Dorey’s appearances on ABC on November 25th have resulted in upheld complaints.

Reprinted with permission of ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs.

Dear Mr. Gallagher,

Thank you for your email of November 27 concerning the interview of Meryl Dorey conducted by Louise Maher on radio 666.

As your correspondence raised concerns of misleading and inaccurate content, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC’s editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in section 2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC radio.

On Thursday November 24 Louise Maher spoke to the ACT Chief Health Officer Dr Paul Kelly about a measles outbreak at a Steiner school in the ACT. The following day she looked at the government’s announcement that day that from July 2012 up to $2100 of the family tax benefit per child will be conditional on a child being immunised, and spoke to Dr Julie Leask, from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and senior lecturer at the School of Public Health at Sydney University and Meryl Dorey from the Australian Vaccination Network.

The program team believed that Ms Dorey would have something to add to the discussion about the Government’s initiative. Unfortunately, she added little and took the opportunity to promote a case against the use of the pertussis vaccine based on distorted and selectively presented information. As this was not anticipated, the presenter was not in a position to effectively challenge Ms Dorey’s assertions. To her credit, Ms Maher recognised this and acted to get expert advice to air from the Chief Medical Officer of the ACT.

That interview was ultimately aired on the following Monday. The effect of that delay was to potentially mislead listeners about the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine. This was exacerbated by the fact that the introduction to Ms Dorey did not adequately contextualise Ms Dorey’s comments by informing listeners that she is a campaigner against vaccination who has no medical qualifications and her organisation has been the subject of a warning by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission for providing misleading information to the public.

Notwithstanding the team’s efforts to address claims made by Ms Dorey, it is our view that she wasn’t introduced with sufficient context to ensure listeners were not misled by her unsubstantiated claims.

Radio management apologises for this lapse. It advises that it will again communicate to radio staff the importance of providing listeners with all relevant context and information when presenting controversial and potentially dangerous viewpoints – particularly if they propose to interview Ms Dorey again.

Accordingly, Audience and Consumer Affairs conclude the broadcast was not in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy as outlined in section 2.1 of the ABC’s Editorial Polices. Please be assured that your comments and this decision have been conveyed to ABC Radio management and the producers of the program.

Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated.

For your reference, the ABC Editorial Policies are available online at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf

Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, http://www.acma.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

(redacted)

Audience & Consumer Affairs

Louise Maher receiving “distorted and selectively presented information” on the use of the pertussis vaccine:

MP3 file for download here.

22Dec2011

Are Meryl Dorey’s critics really against free speech?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dorey continued to mislead Tiga regarding free speech:

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

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

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

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

Tiga: But even to imply it, Meryl.

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

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

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

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

Tiga: But it may be implied, Okay.

Later Dorey and Tiga excel themselves:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiga: Typical.

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

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

Short out take from Let’s Talk December 19th 2011:

Full episode Let’s Talk December 19th, 2011:

Losing In The Lucky Country

Skeptical musings on the denial of evidence

Category Archives: Legal