Montage of some of the more memorable moments of Meryl Dorey contradicting herself and offending common sense.
Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience
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.
My personal request of Meryl Dorey
We (antivaccination lobbyists) are the real Australian skeptics
Meryl Dorey Jan. 4th, 2012
As many of you may have noticed, the rapidly rising pertussis epidemic in W.A. was reported by the ABC today.
This predictably sent Meryl Dorey of the AVN into histrionics. One of her ridiculous claims is that pertussis has increased “10,000%” with a 25% increase in vaccination. If you choose the figure of 332 from the very first year – 1991 – of compulsory reporting (which actually reflects sloppy reporting, gradual awareness and slow administrative changes) and compare it to today’s epidemic figure as Dorey does, it’s a dodgy trick.
A Stop the AVN member snapped this tweet from a cast iron flying pig that appeared on ABC News Breakfast
Because the “25% increase” comes from a 70% vaccination coverage in 1991 and a 95% coverage now. Strange, because a decade later in 2001, vaccination was only 70.6% and the figure of notified cases is 9,541. Sure we do have an epidemic figure for 2011 of over 36,000. But choosing a different year shows an increase of 3.8 times – not 10,000% – despite almost an identical increase in childhood vaccination.
I’ve laid it out all below. The entire method Meryl uses, and offered it back to her as actually showing a decrease of over 50% in 6 years. It’s her technique using her data sources. It’s rather silly as one cannot compare unrelated data sets. But in an attempt to draw some sense from Meryl on a fairly clear point I’ve (yet again) worked through the figures to seek a reply.
Meryl Dorey’s extraordinary claim about ABC journalistic integrity
I posted it twice today on the ABC News Breakfast Facebook page and also on Stop AVN. No “coward” stuff as Meryl alleged to Tiga Bayles. No “hiding behind anonymity” as Bayles suggested. No “suppression of free speech”. Just open and honest requests for a reply, based on evidence. Meryl’s claimed forte.
Originally I asked for a point by point response. Yet, I’m asking Meryl now, to respond to just one of my points. Just one. So far, there’s just silence. We shall see.
Summoning help, Dorey writes about: “…the rabid pro-vaxxers who would happily see all of our children dead or injured if they thought it would protect them or their families.”
Above Meryl you write:
…it’s all across Australia – why they chose WA I have no idea? (sic)
Well Meryl, whooping cough in WA has increased by almost 500% since 2009.
ABC News Breakfast
Also Meryl, WA has the lowest rate of child vaccination in the country. According to Julie Leask, senior research fellow at the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, “Delay might be due to [WA’s] adolescent vax policy”.
Julie Leask Tweet
As “Australia’s leading vaccination expert” I thought you’d know these things, Meryl.
Anyway, as on Facebook here’s the same request for a reply. All I’ve updated from Facebook is the NNDSS pertussis notification figures accessed now, at time of writing, and changed it to a first person address.
As I stressed Meryl, failure to address this surely indicates admission that your claim on pertussis is false. You may very well believe it, but if so, it must stack up to scrutiny. No agro, no bullying, just a golden opportunity to speak freely. So, excuses to not answer are thin on the ground.
I hope that’s not too annoying and I’d be delighted to have you. Fire when ready….
Here’s the original from Facebook.
Hi Meryl.
Could you address this point by point please. It’s the same post as above, but I reckon it’s about time you helped clear the air. If not, do I assume you agree that your claims on pertussis are invalid?
Thanks very much:
Contrary to your claims, the epidemic began in your backyard with low vaccination rates and spread out from there. From SMH, October 2010:
“The highest rates of so-called “conscientious objectors” to immunisation are in parts of the north coast – such as Byron Bay – where 12 per cent of children born between 2001 and 2007 were never immunised for any condition. […]
An epidemic of whooping cough in 2008 and 2009 began on the north coast. It quickly swept across the state driven by low vaccination rates in some wealthy parts of Sydney. Low-income areas in western Sydney also had less immunisation and were linked to outbreaks, Dr Menzies said.”
Now, let’s debunk your claim of high vaccination rates causally equating to high pertussis infection, using – not other information and techniques – but your actual tables and own technique.
You source your 95% from under 2 year olds in a 2006 table (as per Woodford slides on your blog). Also, here it is – http://i.imgur.com/w9I9g.jpg. This makes up one half of 1/18th of all age groups from your next source, a NNDSS table of whooping cough notifications: http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png
These are the 2 tables you sent to the NSW HCCC in September 2009 (see p. 6 http://www.mediafire.com/?dw32azbk97obakm) to whom you made the very same claim, in response to a complaint.
You only quote absolute figures about pertussis after all – not percentages, or age groups, or if a notification is asymptomatic, or was a tourist, or international flight attendant/maritime worker/business traveller/etc.
Here’s the NNDSS age groups showing the highest infection rate is between 40 – 65 years in 2007. Before the epidemic.
http://i.imgur.com/0eGTw.png
Although now, the three age groups up to 14 years show large increases, if we add up the notifications above this we see that most notifications still come from adults who have no immunity. It has waned and they need a booster. Their vaccination (booster) rate is 11.3% – not 95%. We need to increase this by about 7 times to reach herd immunity.
See p. 18 of Adult Immunisation Survey to confirm 11.3%.
You are using “unrelated data”. Just like the rise in driving licences is not causally related to the rise in road trauma, or that the best safety advice (according to your thinking) would thus be to abandon licence testing. You are wrong to quote these NNDSS figures in this way, because we know nothing about their vaccine status or immunity. All we know is that most are adults who have no immunity.
So, in effect they cannot be compared – but for the record I’ll continue on as if they can be compared.
We do know pertussis fatalities occur in the unvaccinated. Vaccinated can of course catch pertussis yet experience far milder symptoms and faster recovery. The claim that vaccination for pertussis is an impervious shield has never been made by health authorities. But the claim that it should be and if not, it’s useless, is being scurrilously made by yourself.
Okay, let’s use your method on another year.
We can see (using the same NNDSS data) that 2007 was the lowest year of infection on record since 1999 – http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png. It is also the 5th lowest year since records began.
Many discount the first recording years of 1991 and 1992 as very, very low anomalies that show a slowish start to new legislation requiring reporting of whooping cough. This would make 2007 the 3rd lowest ever. But I’m happy to take the 5th lowest year ever.
Rather different to your claim, no? But from your data source no less.
Now, looking again at your vaccination rate table (http://i.imgur.com/w9I9g.jpg) we see 2001 had only 70.6% vaccination. Infection was 9,541 Aussies. By 2007 – still using both your data tables we see 95% vaccination of babies and 4,864 cases of pertussis (http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png).
So, using your “technique” on merely another part of the same NNDSS table we can also claim vaccination more than halved pertussis notifications in a mere 6 years.
Your data, your method, the very same tables you quote from. Why then is this not your message? Why don’t you tell Aussies that these sources show a greater than 50% drop in whooping cough in just 6 years?
Because it’s selective statistical sleight of hand, is it not? We both can’t be right. It’s a simple trick – and I’m arguing that you know it is.
You are intentionally misleading Australians. This is why the NSW HCCC issued a public health warning that you “quote selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.”
Also, it’s strange that you cite 1990 vaccination coverage of 70% vs 2006 coverage of 95%, omitting to say it dipped to 61% in the mid 90’s and had only increased by 0.6% in the 10 years from 1991. Could this be because you want to create an impression? Perhaps.
It’s all in your table. Should you not address all figures? Why do you not address all figures?
Also, a good look at any NNDSS notification table shows rises and falls in infection. Contrary to your claim of a steady increase in infection as vaccine coverage rose, pertussis always rises and falls.
In fact the first 10 years when coverage went from 70% to 61% to 70.6% corresponds to notification levels similar to and greater than the second 10 years (http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png).
1997 is almost as high the 2008 epidemic year and vaccination coverage was under 70%. So, again we must ask – are you seeking to create an impression?
Epidemics are a different ball game. Once immunisation fell below a safe level in Byron Bay it took off like lots of little fires in low immunisation areas joining to create a massive bush fire.
So, low immunisation caused this outbreak not any problem with the vaccine. The answer? Get adults immunised and ensure babies get cocooned and immunised ASAP.
There’s nothing to stop me using the very same data and going around saying Australia had one of the lowest pertussis levels since notifications began, until your, Meryl Dorey’s lobbying against vaccination led to the 2008 epidemic (and cite Dr. Menzies, plus news reports etc to back me up).
But science doesn’t make leaps like that. We’d need better research. You really don’t use science, despite boasting of such – just tricks with scientific data hoping nobody will check. Please prove me wrong.
Let’s recap: I’ve used only your tables and your own argument style to a.) debunk your claims on pertussis vaccination = infection, b.) shown how it can be used to show a vaccine induced 50% plus reduction in only 6 years [2001 – 2007] and c.) pointed out some curious gaps in your coverage of the data that don’t seem to support your claims.
I look forward to your reply,
Thank you,
Paul Gallagher
(emailed to Meryl Dorey on Jan. 7th, 2012)
Dr. Stuart Reece: Drug Free Australia’s secret
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
♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎
Vaccination Saves Lives
♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣
Imagine you’re listening to the radio one day and the discussion is on government funding and community education about road fatality and driver education.
A woman is invited to speak. You catch her name as Peryl Clawy. She’s president of The Australian Road Safety Network. Impressive. She claims to be for “informed choice” on your safety as a driver. Her only aim is to educate drivers about driving skill so they can choose what’s best for them and their family. She wants to present both sides of the argument. Sounds great. You pay more attention.
The announcer asks her about the condition of roads and of railway crossings, during peak periods. There’s been a report linking speed, poor road maintenance and traffic jams to accidents on the open road and at crossings. It’s been suggested licencing fees may increase to help cover costs to improve the condition of roads. The woman answers;
“Well, we at the ARSN would take that with a grain of salt. This fee increase – or extortion to keep your licence as we prefer to call it – seems to be just another Big Brother tactic from the government, road authorities and road-way developers to keep drivers under the impression that safer roads save lives. But who did this study, and who paid them? Was it an independent study or by someone associated with road development?
The reality is that study after study shows that dangerous driving on difficult surfaces is an excellent way to improve driving skills, and more to the point we at the ARSN have thousands of reports of people killed and maimed whilst driving on perfect roads, under perfect lighting, in perfect weather conditions whilst under the speed limit. Despite big auto promising to make cars safer we have reports of children decapitated by air bags and adults sustaining crushed ribs and perforated lungs from seat belts, during accidents. The overall effect of all this safety is to deny the body’s natural driving skill from maturing.
Before the road safety industry began these highly lucrative fear campaigns urging people to listen to the police and to these so-called scientists, cars had no seat belts or safety devices and roads were made of dirt and sand. Children were carried on their mothers laps, and windscreens were clean non-toxic glass. Now, we’re trapped behind toxic lamination full of chemicals, that break away and float about the interior of the car causing illness, cancer and failure to thrive in children. They also poison breast milk. Since the baby capsule and booster seat laws came in the number of babies killed in motor vehicle accidents has increased ten fold and babies dying from SIDS in Australia has almost tripled.
I had a mother call me recently saying she picked up her sleeping baby from a capsule one night, placed her in her crib to sleep and the next morning discovered she was dead. Who takes responsibility for this? The baby capsule manufacturers? The road safety authorities? The media who continually hush up these cases? I mean I believe every life lost on the roads is tragic but why are babies who die in a crash whilst sitting on their mother’s laps front page news, and those that die from baby capsule induced SIDS never even reported? Children’s health in all nations with mass production of safer driving practice and so-called better roads is under attack. Chronic disease is at an all time high.
The fatality rate 80 years ago in Australia is a fraction of the total today. When they first made cars they just allowed the public to buy them. Now they fill them with dummies and crash them at full speed recording in detail every bit of damage that can happen to the human body. But do they tell you this when you buy a car? Do they show you a dummy and say, “See. this is what happens when you crash this car wearing all the safety gear”? No, of course not. Back then many drivers didn’t even have licences. More so, look at the percentage of drivers killed on our roads who hold full driving licences. It’s something like 99.99999%. If we look at the rise in licences over the past few generations we also see a steady increase in fatalities. So, it’s clear this licencing system plays a significant role in fatalities. And these aren’t my figures these are the government’s own figures.
We also have thousands of licence induced injuries on record. Humans are born with natural driving skills, just the way we’re born with the ability to walk, but these are trained out of us when we sit for a drivers licence. Now, we’ve been asking the government to run a trial of licenced vs unlicenced drivers with natural driving skills for years now to see whether artificial – or “learned” as they call it – skills are really better than those with natural or “unlearned” skills. But they don’t care. The government just doesn’t care.
So licencing and the teaching of driving skills has never been tested properly. The gold standard of science is the randomised control trial. Yet no studies actually exist that compare unlicenced driver skills in dangerous conditions, vs licenced driver skills in dangerous conditions. People are just expected to follow along and listen to road traffic authorities, ignoring their own instincts along the way. What’s worse is not only is there no evidence licencing doesn’t kill drivers, but they hold off allowing the unlearning of natural skills and the learning of unnatural skills until the late teens.
So the normal skills and curiosity all toddlers and children show as they’re growing is suppressed when it comes to driving a car, when study after study shows that children learn so much from interacting with their environment. We’ve also asked the government to run trials comparing toddlers and children who are allowed to play-drive for a few years with adults who have been forced into the artificially taught skill set, but again the government just doesn’t listen. They obviously just don’t care.
When I arrived in Australia almost 30 years ago there were no boom gates or lights at railway crossings and all the roads were unmade and full of pot holes. But since the bitumen has gone down and crossings have been developed fatalities have slowly increased. Now, we have all these scientists saying if you drive over the speed limit without a seat belt or drive through a railway crossing with flashing lights without looking you could die from it. Well, you didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you’re not going to die from it today.
Plus there’s now hate groups who insist we don’t have the right to say these things, to tell the other side of the story. The Australian skeptics, they set up a group call Stop The Australian Road Safety Network and they say that we don’t have free speech in Australia and that you have no right to get access to both sides of the story. They don’t want you to have this information, despite the risks of not knowing. They say you aren’t allowed to ask questions about driving or what might be best for you.
They just argue that it’s better to seek out “reputable” information and do what your driver instructor tells you or what your advanced driving skills instructor tells you. You know, um… pay attention to road conditions, adjust your driving for lighting and weather, observe the speed limits, take care in unknown areas, ensure your car is road worthy and has good tyres. Don’t think for yourself or follow what you think is best for your children – despite the carnage and the licence induced injuries.
So, it’s all about suppressing free speech and free choice. Just like in a communist country. Science doesn’t have all the answers so why we should trust science with something as valuable and potentially dangerous as driving is a mystery. Not one car is 100% safe and even the manufacturers admit this. But they don’t tell you up front. It’s time Australians stood up and raised their voice about these Licences Of Death, forced acceptance of so-called safety standards and returned to the old ways of doing things naturally. Free from interference and free from the lies of big auto backed by big government.”
The announcer quietly says thank you and hangs up.
