Tag Archives: anti-vaccination

Wollongong Uni, Brian Martin & Judy Wilyman: How Far Is Too Far?

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Denialism, Health, Human Rights, Judy Wilyman, Legal, Scam, Science by

As many of you know a recent comment from one Judy Wilyman has drawn enormous attention.

Judy is a strident antivaccination lobbyist. On the matter of addressing or providing evidence, Judy’s record is arguably less than ideal. Perhaps more times than a reasonable person would accept Judy has inferred conspiratorial motives block her from exposing vaccines’ flaws.

Judy told an audience in W.A. that only “scientific research” would be presented to them. Then that the media only report on vaccine preventable fatalities in order to, “coerce us into vaccination” and as such “run fear campaigns”. It follows then that “We’re being educated by the media who have pharmaceutical interests”.

She continued with her Orwellian “science”:

There is no measure of delayed responses of vaccines or long term health studies of children monitoring the combined effects of vaccines. That’s the hard evidence that we would need to say this programme (childhood vaccination) is safe.

Writing to the Hon. Ms. Nicola Roxon [then] Federal Minister for Health, in November 2011 Judy asserted, “The Australian government will be committing a crime against humanity by introducing [immunisation incentives]”.

And that:

There is no historical evidence that vaccines controlled any of the infectious diseases listed in government immunization policies – in any developed country.

There’s a video considering this point here. Still, Judy worries over the “Conflicts of interest that exist in the science that is used in policy-development”. Or as she claimed with unusual confidence, when putting Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek “on notice” last January :

Until these issues are addressed the public is rejecting coercive or mandatory immunization policies that result in the discrimination of healthy individuals

What are these issues Judy has taken up on our behalf? You can read them in full conspiracy tilt here. Suffice it to say the lead up included:

The community has lost confidence in the ability of the Health Department to make decisions in the best interests of the public due to the lack of integrity in the science being used and the conflicts of interest in individuals on government advisory boards. There is overwhelming evidence for this and I will list this below. As a result of this corruption of the scientific process the community has lost confidence in the Government’s Childhood Immunisation Schedule as it is clearly driven by profit and not safety.

The community, for whom this policy is designed, is saying no to coercive mandatory immunization policies. Choice in vaccination in Australia exists more in theory than practice and this is not acceptable to the public. It is unethical for a Government to link considerable financial benefits to a Public Health policy involving a medical procedure which has not been proven safe or effective.

The community?! Yet this is not the view of the community. Judy signed the letter, “PhD Candidate”. She is studying at the University of Wollongong under Dr. Brian Martin – himself a defender of antivaccination “dissent”. How far is too far? Is Dr. Martin in agreement? Does the University of Wollongong condone ultimatums to our Health Minister, made in reflection of their student body?

Former Australian Of The Year and Founding Director of the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Professor Fiona Stanley, is someone who has received awards for 17 years due to her work on children’s health. Long described by Judy Wilyman and Meryl Dorey as a corrupt human being who forces what Dorey calls “instruments of death” onto children, she merely described their combined message as “bizarre” and “so misinformed it’s crazy” [Download MP3], or listen on the player below:

Interview with Fiona Stanley

Mind you, I have no problem with addressing conflicts of interest related to therapeutic goods’ manufacture, use and/or regulation. Far from it. Yet the need to ensure best practice in legislation and industry does not equate to verification of blanket corruption or hard evidence of “a crime against humanity”. The fact is that the evidence to support attacks on vaccines is simply not there.

Which raises a question of profound morality. Judy Wilyman makes much of her “PhD researcher” status. She makes excessive use of her association with the University of Wollongong. Her supervisor Dr. Brian Martin is president of Whistleblowers Australia and a professor of social sciences at the same university. Dr. Martin has been investigating “suppression of dissent” for around 33 years. He has authored a great number of articles and papers on the topic, 15 books and 5 booklets.

Perhaps Judy is selective in the conflicts of interest she rails against?

Some of you may remember the name David Lewis. He wrote a letter in response to Brian Deer’s BMJ articles on Andrew Wakefield. He chose to defend Wakefield after attending “a vaccine safety conference in Jamaica, where Andrew Wakefield discussed his research”. It was a five star extravaganza paid for by the “vaccine-safety” promoters. Wakefield was the headline act. Why was he there? Lewis is from The US National Whistleblowers Center, and was luxuriated with others similarly inclined.

In attending what was a grand conspiracy-riddled event designed to polish the evidence vacuum of “vaccine safety” into a slick profit making machine, Lewis informs us greatly as to how whistleblowers and dissent observers network, think and of course, defend those who claim innocence regardless of evidence. The US National Whistleblowers Center contact details are on Brian Martin’s website under “Suppression of dissent” Contacts. I stress strongly I am making no assumptions from a listed contact. However, one is able to identify trends emerging here.

Whistleblowers must surely hold evidence and facts above the status quo. They aim to expose wrongdoing at risk and/or great cost to themselves. As such they have contributed greatly to justice and in cases where the greater good has not been realised, have educated the public and made us aware. Yet a whistleblower is an individual. Usually focused upon one case of wrongdoing. What of those who form these organisations? Is their reliance upon dissent and whistleblowing a conflict of interest?

What of those, like Lewis, who would insert themselves into a controversial case of profound impact that has run it’s course? The whistleblowers in the Wakefield/MMR scandal were those who exposed his fraud. His colleagues who dissented, other staff at The Royal Free who were misled and of course journalist Brian Deer. Deer, asked to do a ho-hum story on the matter discovered a trail of money and wrongdoing and ultimately blew the whistle.

A glance at Dr. Martin’s publication list is informative. Understanding, defending and profitting from dissent is Dr. Martin’s life’s work. His Suppression Of Dissent website opens with:

This site deals with attacks on dissenting views and individuals. The general field of “suppression of dissent” includes whistleblowing, free speech, systems of social control and related topics. The purpose of the site is to foster examination of these issues and action against suppression. It is founded on the assumption that openness and dialogue should be fostered to challenge unaccountable power.

I do rush to add I have no problem with this. Dr. Martin claims a very neutral tone. I perhaps have more than a neutral interest. I spent many years investing huge amounts of time in defending the magnificent strides Australia made in illicit drug policy. Human Rights gave us Harm Reduction. Then suddenly, from world innovators in the mid 1980’s to the Evangelical puppetry that took hold during the great stupor of the Howard years, I saw incalculable inhumanity in my own nation.

Thus I strongly agree that “openness and dialogue should be fostered to challenge unaccountable power”. The evidence for even greater change is overwhelming. I dealt in it for many years. Similarly I was exposed to ample abuse of minority groups and am familiar with appalling abuse of power and corruption.

Also then, I would hope I have the experience that justifies my bemusement of Brian Martin’s self righteous defence of this “Air Guitar” of suppression of dissent and claimed oppression put on by Meryl Dorey and his student, Judy Wilyman. Their endless mantra is an insult to so many tangled in corruption from the gutter to the halls of power. It is bereft of morality and I sincerely question Dr. Martin’s defence of neutral academic interest.

When it comes to critical thought and morality we have a grave responsibility. To evidence. Not the evidence that we want, but that which is.

So now we must ask more about our devotee to suppression of dissent, Dr. Brian Martin, who inserted himself in the defence of the AVN. How far is too far? Why did he attack the real whistleblower, Ken McLeod, and in doing so wrench the hearts of the McCaffery family? The whistle was blown on a cruel charity fraudster, a scam artist, a fear monger and one who had made a long living from donations gathered from members with the promise of urgent action to solve manufactured dissent.

The AVN took in $1.8 million between 2004 and 2010. It’s estimated they owe over $180,000 in unprinted magazines for which they have already been paid the subscription fees. This blog is dotted with the fraud making the AVN many tens of thousands more and numerous scams to keep fear running. Does Brian Martin seriously defend and enable such conduct with the defence of academic neutrality?

Brian Martin publishes using his title at University of Wollongong and his UOW email address. So again, how far is too far for this university to turn a blind eye to sickness, degradation and incredibly the corruption that yields a profit for the AVN? Research and academia at the University of Wollongong appear synonymous with antivaccination schemes.

At what point does dissent become denial? Or rather, why should denial ever be labelled dissent? How can a PhD supervisor support denial and antisocial tactics in the name of education? Wilyman markets herself as “currently completing my PhD in environmental health policy at the University of Wollongong“, very quickly moving on to claim against all consensus:

The diseases that have been increasing since the late 80’s include allergies, anaphylaxis, ADHD, autism, coeliac disease, cancer and autoimmune diseases (e.g. arthritis and diabetes). The medical journals and animal studies link the ingredients of vaccines as a cause of these diseases. Although the increase in these diseases correlates to the increasing use of vaccines, the government has not funded research that would prove or disprove this plausible link.

However, The Australian Immunisation Handbook notes; Research has constantly replicated no link in the following:

  • sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and any vaccine.
  • autism and MMR vaccine.
  • multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccine.
  • inflammatory bowel disease and MMR vaccine.
  • diabetes and Hib vaccine.
  • asthma and any vaccine.

If Judy Wilyman has her way, Dr. Brian Martin will turn a blind eye from evidence, from research and from moral obligation. His position at UOW brings more responsibility. Has he already jettisoned it in lieu of allowing dissent to thrive, no matter the consequence? How far is too far to move the line of ones personal interests and career over ones responsibility in academia?

If Wilyman has her way she will become perhaps the first person to receive a PhD solely from attacking successful public health policy. From lying. From selectively abusing research. From ignoring evidence. From appealing to conspiracy. Judy is doing no research as we understand it, despite the puffy chested bragging. She is reviewing literature from which she draws scurrilous error to envelope in semantics and put forth as argument.

In the last 2 1/2 years Wilyman appears to have completed 3 papers. All on the same topic. Arguing that not enough Aussie women die from cervical cancer to justify the HPV vaccine. Her 4th project was a poster – a synopsis of this argument using the same graphic. In 6 1/2 years she has published 12 times including another poster and a brochure.

Vaccines only exist thanks to corruption, Wilyman ultimately concludes in light of them having no benefit. Some dark, wicked machine that runs only to profit from making fellow humans sick. Sadly, Wilyman now adds, this includes the grieving parents of a tiny baby. Somehow in this delusion Judy includes others who value evidence, human and consumer rights and the quest for truth more than anything. “They” are all against Judy Wilyman.

This video out-take from Lateline is a quick synopsis of how Meryl Dorey sought the medical records of the same infant. 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.

This was a key reason for forming Stop The AVN and lodging a complaint. Since then slurs against and abuse of the family has been arguably frequent. Reasonablehank covers the latest in a long string of pleas from the family for compassion.

The University of Wollongong look set to bestow a highly prized academic title upon a fraud. A woman who, no matter how passionate, no matter how driven, no matter how dedicated, is quite simply wrong. How possibly can the University of Wollongong award a doctorate to an antivaccination lobbyist? In absolute dissonance to the position of the worlds medical community no less?

There is no scientific doubt. Vaccination is an overwhelming success. All that Dr. Martin and the University of Wollongong can achieve by affirming and rewarding a fraud, is to drive down vaccination rates, mislead and confuse the public, spread disease, counter public health programmes, cost Australia ongoing millions and ultimately take lives. Innocent lives.

Dr. Martin insists he has no opinion either way. Just an interest. His topic list includes ample conspiracy theory interest however. Origin of AIDS, fluoride in water, vaccination. Areas wherein “dissenters” cause harm. Indeed his article defending Meryl Dorey attacking her critics and science itself, was published with reference to The University of Wollongong.

Thus this raises their position on the support or not of Australia’s vaccination regime. The article is entitled Debating Vaccination: understanding the attack on the AVN.

Debating vaccination quote

Dr. Brian Martin: Debating Vaccination

Should Dr. Martin justify how he can defend Meryl Dorey’s conduct as “dissent” when it is not backed by evidence. At what point does Ms. Dorey’s misinformation cause harm and how does seeking to impede public harm by legislative and regulatory means constitute an abuse of free speech? As an observer or an interested academic at what point should Dr. Martin accept he has already legitamised the antivaccination stance?

What ethics apply to someone who calmly claims to have a neutral interest in what is apparently dissent? When is the outcome of Dr. Martin’s work deemed to have contributed to a demise in public health? There is no doubt persisting with the demonstrably flawed antivaccination mantra at academic levels has catastrophic effects on vaccination rates. Can Dr. Martin really claim impartiality as he contributes to the reduction in immunisation? Indeed, is defending the AVN even moral or humane?

Ms. Dorey quotes Dr. Martin on her website to justify her actions. This pseudo-neoconservative plan has worked well. Dorey’s aim has been firstly to avoid serious discussion or examination of evidence. In creating an enemy and fabricating malignant actions such as threats, bullying, abuse of venue owners, needing security and so on the illusion that Dorey is abused begins to take hold.

Secondly, by continually naming and embellishing an entity as the enemy, whilst attributing malignancy, gives a constant psychological peg for readers to identify with. So it’s constantly “skeptics, The Australian Skeptics or Stop the AVN”. Dorey argues all are linked and an abundance of funds is bent on destroying her. To the conspiracy mind this makes absolute sense.

I’ve already deconstructed Dorey’s claim that her opponents don’t believe in free speech. It is fallacious and again fills the void that should be filled by evidence confirming she is an authority on the topic.

Recently in preparing more work Dr. Martin sent, as is his practice, a copy for comment to critics of Ms. Dorey. I asked why Meryl censors her websites and why she had not replied to emails I had sent defeating her pertussis and autism arguments. He replied in part:

Can you give me any example of a person who has been systematically vilified, subject to numerous formal complaints and who has received threats and pornography and yet who is quite happy to open the target group’s discussion forum to people from the attacking crowd? As soon as SAVN launched its campaigns, it closed down most prospects for genuine dialogue. I think it is completely unrealistic to expect openness from targets of this sort of attack. To complain about censorship by those being attacked this way is, to my mind, to misunderstand who are responsible.

Complaints are justified and serve a larger public interest. They are a legal avenue to raise dissent – something Dr. Martin would be well aware of. The HCCC findings were not quashed by Justice Christine Adamson in The Supreme Court of NSW and accordingly remain valid. Thus, I would argue Ms. Dorey is taking an easy way out. Dr. Martin is an intelligent man. Clearly he must realise that orchestrated attacks upon a public health policy such as vaccination will be resisted.

Ms. Dorey and the AVN were found to be dishonest and pose a risk to public health. That an appeal was won against displaying a web page to this effect does not change this.

The reality is that Meryl has no evidence and even more so, less regard for authority. Asked recently to remove an advertisement promoting an illicit and dangerous therapeutic good – the subject of a TGA warning – Meryl opened an appeal for $50,000 to fight the TGA. A “legal fighting fund”.

Threats and pornography cannot be levelled at opposition to Ms. Dorey. It is a cheap shot in no way linked to those keen to engage with Ms. Dorey and Dr. Martin lowers his own image in repeating these manufactured tactics.

Dr. Martin co-authored the article Exposing and opposing censorship: backfire dynamics in freedom of speech struggles in which we note:

The normal aim of censorship is to suppress speech, publications and other forms of expression in whole or part. But sometimes the act of censorship creates more attention to and support for the censored work and its creator than would have occurred without the intervention of censors. This process, which we call backfire, is most likely to occur in societies that place a high value on freedom of expression. […]

Devaluing the target makes attacks seem less objectionable, at least to most people. Censorship of liars and thieves does not generate the same outrage as censorship of courageous dissidents. Therefore it is predictable that those who want to curtail free speech will denigrate targets and critics. […]

Devaluation of targets can be countered by arguing for the value of all people, by exposing double standards and by exposing the technique of devaluation.

In his own words then, by devaluing “the target” (SAVN) through baseless accusations of intimidation, pornography, threats, oppression and labelling legal and vital defence of public health as an “attack”, Dr. Martin can defend Meryl Dorey’s censorship. She has no obligation to provide any evidence or engage in discourse. Yet, this is defensive relativism. By coaching Dorey to continue with the plan of persecution over evidence, filling her blogs with endless self pity and insinuation of abuse, threats… etc, attention is (in theory) drawn away from the lack of evidence.

But how far is too far? It is still cowardly censorship and such defence does not fool observers. By attacking critics as “vile, hate groups, pond scum, communists, losers, paedophiles” and more, Meryl has significantly weakened the justification of the argument. If the McCaffery’s can reciprocate in a polite and pleasant manner – albeit they’re begging for mercy – may I highlight the double standard at play and simply reject this defence.

More so, as has already happened by ignoring any discourse and censoring her sites Dorey has lowered any respect that critics and other interested parties would gladly afford her. Her only avenue to integrity is by engaging with the scientific and medical communities and all families of Australia.

Clearly serious questions arise as to Dr. Martin’s very well experienced manipulation of both sides of this issue. Given the absence of evidence to support antivaccination arguments and the abundance of evidence supporting all vaccine regimes Australians have a right to ask questions. Is Dr. Martin really an impartial observer or now an active player lending academic credence to the antithesis of the Immunise Australia programme, cleverly playing off two groups for his own benefit? In the present climate documenting and publishing on the antivaccination issue would prove very interesting.

In the past Dr. Martin has avoided answering what he thinks of the abuse of the McCafferys because, “I haven’t studied the area of offensive speech sufficiently for me to express an opinion.” Thus he abstained from “a viewpoint”. Will his answer about all of Dorey’s and Wilyman’s transgressions similarly come from hiding behind the emotion of a computer terminal? Is his entire zeitgeist of human morality, compassion, right and wrong down to what he has studied?

Review the above conduct of Meryl Dorey if you wish and ask if lacking sufficient knowledge of a very specific notion would let you off the hook for moral awareness or moral obligation. How many of you studied the area of offensive speech before forming an opinion well enough to express it on the treatment of the McCafferys?

I for one suggest this is a crafty defence. In defending and enabling antivaccination fraud there is a cost to Australian health that is solely the responsibility of Dr. Brian Martin. Already he is in quite some debt.

Is Dr. Martin incapable of discerning when denial has replaced dissent and in doing so destroyed the truth? It appears he would argue so. How far will the University of Wollongong go in defending this conduct? Do both Dr. Martin and the University condone an organised risk to public health, demonstrated to mislead the public through selective use of research. One that now seeks to use it’s Fundraising Authority to fight a Therapeutic Goods Administration order to remove advertisements for a dangerous, corrosive and illicit cancer “cure”?

What is the stance of both regarding Judy Wilyman’s misguided PhD venture? Her academic freedom is of great significance but if that freedom is allowed to be abused under the auspices of Dr. Martin and/or The University of Wollongong then not only have they failed Ms. Wilyman, but made a mockery of Australian Higher Education.

We don’t need a PhD to work this out, University of Wollongong. You have an ill informed renegade student threatening Federal Health ministers, our national immunisation programme and also the health of the Australian public. Her supervisor has burned the moral bridge between personal gain and community responsibility.

How far is too far? The time for action has long since passed.

Selling Dehumanisation To The Dehumanised

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Big Placebo, Health, Human Rights, Scam, Science by

One aspect of the anti-science, antivaccination movement I find compelling is their need to sell the belief of being dehumanised, whilst at the same time mockingly dehumanising mainstream behaviour.

Added to this is implied alienation of followers who may manifest, sometimes quite trivial, independence. Thus the goal of an antivaccination lobby is to largely create the illusion that a threat to the Self exists.

Yet at the same time this threat must be far worse than the ongoing cost to the Self that followers already pay. Such as money, the cost of implied alienation, lack of independence, having no control over leadership or methods employed. 

A great deal of anti-science and particularly antivaccination rhetoric is devoted to the promotion of impending danger. Imminent compulsory vaccination. Financial entitlements being taken away.

Your “health choice” being under threat is bundled more and more with outrageous fantasies about modern medicine failing at every turn and personal attacks on the integrity of those who suffer because of vaccine preventable disease or from ignoring medicine.

The success and failure of meeting this goal also depends greatly upon how well followers can be fooled into thinking the greatest democracies on Earth are in fact dehumanising the public. Next comes selling the cost to Self as an investment, an escape from guilt, more fear or a way of belonging. Presenting themselves as persecuted helps to provoke outrage in would be donors.

Antivaccination, anti-science and anti-conventional medicine proponents:

  • Promote the notion that governments and science institutions dehumanise
  • Promote the notion that social conformity is a symptom of dehumanisation
  • Exert retribution (usually public ostracism) upon followers who seek to express independence
  • Convince followers through guilt and fear to contribute a material cost to themselves
  • Strive to trap followers between the illusion of dehumanisation and the reality of manipulation
  • Continually refer to “an enemy” when none exists
  • Succeed in prompting followers to act antisocially thus, actually dehumanise

A short while ago Mia Freedman wrote an article on the perils of favouring Google over advice from trained professionals. Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network Inc. attacked her immediately whilst threats and abuse from antivaccination followers (Point 6 above) rolled into Mia’s social network and email accounts.

There’s no doubt that a number of parents concerned about vaccination wanted to have a say on the AVN Facebook page. Any comments that sought common ground were deleted and the person abused. The connotation was clear. There is no middle ground. No understanding, no compromise, no evidence. One member, who also enjoyed Mia’s work on Mamamia commented twice. The second included:

… why are you being so mean? You do realise that lots of people – genuinely curious people – will come to this page after reading Mia’s column? If I were you I’d be using the traffic to make a reasoned argument in a friendly forum. Mocking and insulting a well loved and popular writer (even if you disagree with her) is not doing your cause any good.

Both of this member’s comments are now gone.

In fact a thread of over three dozen comments has been culled down to 12. To top off application of Point number 3 above an administrator posted the image to the left, with a reminder not to “feed the trolls”.

One might guess it’s a bit of damage control. Having just banned genuinely curious readers and members who dared speak their minds it’s time to apply Point number 2 above.

Any reference to social responsibility or consideration of vaccination or even independence must be labelled “the enemy”. In this case the AVN want members to believe – and many do – that you could only query an AVN stance if already dehumanised. A mindless sheeple with nothing to contribute.

Another tactic to also convince members they should comply to demands for a “greater good” is the abuse of quotes from famous thinkers. I particularly like this once from scientist Albert Einstein, used to advance anti-science agendas by the AVN:

Quote abuse is simply rampant in conspiracy circles and Ms. Dorey is an obsessive user. This one from Margaret Mead is her favourite:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has

Of course a quote can be used in almost any context. Horribly, Andrew Wakefield and other “committed citizens” just like Dorey already have changed the world. If I were to use a quote by Mead it’d be Children must be taught how to think, not what to think, which is arguably the antithesis of the antivaccination approach. Much like severe religious adherents the in-group cult-like observance of the anti-science movement is on constant guard from the “dangers” of a world offering education, robust health, extended lifespan and complete freedom.

Filling their children’s heads with fear, alienation and nonsense is regrettably a symptom of deeper psychological issues that drive some parents to exploit what is a proxy of their own instability. We’ve all seen the photos of “unvaccinated and healthy” kids. Dorey is even calling for them to place on her website. Why? What type of person exploits children for a reason that a child cannot possibly understand?

The same who attend pox parties, intentionally seek out measles infection and crop their brand new babies life potential by fleeing hepatitis B immunisation despite certain maternal transmission.

Indeed it is the very presence of such bizarre movements that usurps the claim of genuine resistance against so-called foes. Foes who supposedly seek to suppress their rights of expression and choice, appear strangely absent. Consider Mike Adams “Vaccine Zombies” attack on the 90 plus percent of people who choose to vaccinate. So dehumanised are these sheeple they’re also made into zombies by the vaccine itself.

Added to the abuse of quotes is the association with giants of history, just in case you missed the nobility meme. They laughed at Galileo. The Vatican executed Giordano Bruno. Columbus was mocked as a madman.

But, then again, as Carl Sagan said:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Sagan reminds us of how ridiculous it is to believe that opposition is proof you are a genius who will one day be a household name. Or that those who patiently explain your errors are malignant forces. Yet how do you reason with groups like the AVN or Age of Autism who use terms like “health fascism”?

You’ll notice Meryl’s tags include “McCaffery”. Yes, with “Health Fascism”. Her gutter level record in attacking this family is truly shocking – as recent events indicate.

Age Of Autism

Meryl Dorey – AVN

Today Meryl Dorey managed to combine all the bullet points in one mad retributive “survey” in response to Have Vaccine Critics Made You More Of An Immunization Advocate? This piece offers some great insight into how antivaxxers are sabotaging their stated goal.

But then, what is their real goal? As is pointed out Adams makes millions from selling magical (but untested and impurity laced) “potions” and “solutions” purporting to reverse the damage vaccines do. Without vaccination his business would vanish. The amount of lead, arsenic and mercury found in “original” Chinese herbs is testament to their lack of quality control. He’s a typical con artist and crook, also harvesting and selling to spammers the email addresses readers must supply to finish his articles.

Dorey herself profits only from doom and gloom. Fighting funds abound. The more enemies identified the more reason to ask for money… to save oneself by keeping the AVN ready and willing to support your choices. Never mind that not one of these choices is under threat. From 2004 – 2010 $1.8 million in profit rolled in to the AVN. To my knowledge not one promised project  – not one – has been drafted much less completed. Where is the money?

So, wham scam thank you m’am, onto the survey.

A rather fascinating meander, is it not?

Parents who choose not to vaccinate are often better informed than their doctors on this subject. But today the effort to restrict our right to choose – not only whether or not to vaccinate but whether or not to have access to natural therapies – is being threatened like never before.

This is quite misleading. No data indicate such parents are “better informed”. Ms. Dorey has made that up. No threat to inhibit natural therapy choice exists beyond the growing requests to justify placebo based therapies (sold at exorbitant prices) with evidence.

Ironically it is a fact that the push for Conscientious Objection has backfired. Doctors actually are reporting that once provided with both sides – not just the antivaccination side – parents are significantly more likely to choose vaccination.

Yes some doctors are refusing to see non-vaccinating parents. And this is where I’m sick and tired of hearing Dorey use the terms “freedom” and “choice” specific to basic child abuse. This is not a choice being made. It is a mistake.

The survey itself is simply:

Again this is deceptive. “Informed vaccination choice” is once again code for child abuse. At best, code for “using my child to tell Big Brother to get lost”. Yet look at the final option: “I’m too scared to openly support the AVN”. I’ve no idea what it’s doing on an anonymous survey beyond pushing the notion of a non-existent enemy.

Whilst there are examples of mothers retracting stories from Facebook following attacks by Meryl, I’m not aware of the opposite trend. This is more clever manipulation to keep followers undecided, fearful of unseen and arbitrarily described “fascist”-like enemies whilst dehumanising devotees who actually believe their choices, freedoms and health are under threat.

As tragic as it seems this argument is moving on many levels well away from any dissemination of evidence. Appeals are being made to basic human instincts. Reward and ostracism of antivaccination followers is based almost entirely on acceptance and accusation respectively. Parents are being fed increasingly absurd deception, around increasingly irrelevant notions for demonstrably fallacious goals.

On the bright side, as annoying, offensive and nauseating as this now is it’s a change that will drive uncertain parents well away from the line of fire.

That of course, can only be a good thing.

Meryl Dorey’s Great “Compulsory Vaccination” Swindle

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Health, Legal, Meryl Dorey, Scam, Social Media by

Your donation to the AVN will help support freedom of vaccination choice and oppose compulsory vaccination in Australia!

Meryl Dorey 30th April 2012

Only 12 days after the AVN had its Charitable Fundraising Authority reinstated we found the very same old scams waiting to greet us.

We can trace this trick right back to early editions of the AVN’s “Doing The Rounds” newsletter. This screenshot from February 2007, hassling members for money could have been lifted from Meryl’s most recent Facebook plea.

Click to embiggen

The next month Dorey had been “meeting with our barrister in Lismore” about how to “approach this huge injustice”. Oh… and send more money!

Click to embiggen

Don’t you just love the manufactured urgency. “Frantically busy… phone calls… nursing students, medical students and hospital workers who are all up in arms because of the mandatory vaccinations….”. 

Before you could say, “Mandatory Donation”, it’s May 2007 and we read, “Mandatory vaccination for all is on our doorstep”, and “Urgent Funds” are needed (min. $2,000) to stop mandatory vaccination of girls with HPV vaccine. Meryl breathlessly tells us:

Yesterday I was told by a trusted media contact that NSW health is considering taking away the right for parents to refuse this vaccine (HPV). As many of you would know, this is exactly what we predicted would happen once vaccination became mandatory for health care workers.

Click to embiggen

Arguably, in 5 years the only constant in Meryl Dorey’s noble quest to slay the Demon-spawn policy that threatens health workers and patients with protection from vaccine preventable disease has been the flow of cash into the AVN Black Hole. More to the point Meryl takes this message on the road to her “seminars” at which psyched up Earth Mother Moonbeam types throw cash into the AVN donation tin. In the past what happened to this money? It vanished. March 2008:

From Inverell Forum March 2008

Of course we don’t need to get overheated. Surely Meryl is sticking to the facts here. It’s only about health workers facing a requirement to be vaccinated if employed in certain areas, right? Besides we can check a recent newspaper article that just happens to deal with those who argue Meryl is committing fraud.

The AVN is appealing for donations to help oppose compulsory vaccination in Australia.

SAVN claims that appealing for and collecting donations for a government policy which does not exist constitutes fraud.

In response Ms Dorey accused SAVN of libel, claiming vaccination in Australia was compulsory.

“There is compulsory vaccination in Australia. It exists for health professionals,” Ms Dorey said.

Hmmm. Fair point. It is only for health workers. On the other hand there’s not much to draw the eye of the donor to “health professionals”, in the tweet above or the slide used in her “seminars”. One could conceivably be misled. Particularly with the overarching urgency that YOU must do something. Perhaps Meryl clears this up in subsequent slides?

Ooops. That was 4 years and 3 months ago. Let’s tally up shall we?

Total correct: Zero.

It appears that an excessive amount of time is spent scaring the public about non-existent policies. Sure, Meryl can plead it’s only existing vaccination mandates in her sights. Yet the premises upon which an inducement to donate is made are what’s important here. Stop The AVN seem to have a very strong case.

Meryl also argues that vaccination of health workers places patients at risk of infection from the vaccinated staff. No evidence is ever provided to qualify or quantify these statements. Meryl also ignores that the health of nurses, doctors, assistants and other staff who qualify for vaccination is also of the highest importance to Occupational Health and Safety.

Let’s examine this notion of vaccinated staff spreading “infection”. Cases in which immunity wanes, such as influenza and pertussis, conceivably qualify for Meryl’s shocking third point above. Staff fully vaccinated against influenza may still contract another virus or a strain not present in a seasonal vaccine. Here also we can point to the doomsday scenario in red above. But quantify these rare events and they have no measurable impact. More so the word “infection” is generic.

So let’s say a health worker receives the influenza shot yet catches another viral infection or a rare influenza strain not in the vaccine. If passed on to a patient it’s likely this will be identified in short time. Or pertussis. A health worker boosted with acellular pertussis varieties may contract and pass on a weakened “strain” not present in the vaccine, producing mild symptoms in a patient. This would also be identified.

Has the vaccine caused this transfer? No. Is it in any way responsible for the transfer? No. But Meryl wants her audience to believe vaccinated staff will make unvaccinated patients sick. Vaccinating staff against influenza has been shown to halve patient mortality, according to studies well before Dorey drew up these slides. Clearly Dorey is misleading her audience to create a fallacious impression of a life saving policy.

Unvaccinated staff are required to wear masks, refrain from situations of potential infection and strictly adhere to international standards of infection control. I doubt sincerely there are no cases of unvaccinated staff spreading disease. Exactly how Dorey can make this claim remains a mystery.

One of the most sickening scams I’ve seen Meryl pull – and there have been many – is in the slide below. No NSW nurses are threatened with job loss. There is no record of this incident (or anything like it), and when challenged for source material Ms. Dorey could produce none. It does seem to be an entire fabrication.

Why didn’t Meryl cite this tragedy to the Northern Star 19 days ago? A good question indeed.

An even better question however is what would Meryl like to say about her comment during the proposed American Airlines audio-visual Executive Report? Meryl appears to be strongly denying she is seeking donations to prevent compulsory vaccination for anyone other than health workers. So, this audio transcript is seemingly out of synch’ [bold mine]:

Interviewer: The debate over vaccinations has received an increasing amount of attention in recent years as questions have been raised regarding the safety of compulsory vaccines. And joining us now to give her view is Meryl Dorey. […]

Meryl: Well, vaccination is a medical procedure and it carries with it risks and benefits. So parents need to be aware of all of the information. We need to have real access to information and vaccination should never be compulsory because it is not 100% safe, and no government has the right to say “you have to put your child’s health at risk because we have made this procedure compulsory”.

Ooops. Not much ambiguity there. Not so much as a nurses roster sheet floating on the breeze. That firms Stop The AVN’s argument that Meryl is seeking donations for non-existent policies or imminent policy changes. In fact the clincher here is what Meryl doesn’t say when placed on the spot. The above out-take is quite clear and the interview finishes with a referral to the AVN website.

Let’s tie a couple of loose threads together by hopping around a bit. Up above Dorey warns fictionally of “exactly what we predicted would happen once vaccination became mandatory for health care workers”, suggesting the same is about to happen to schoolgirls with HPV vaccine. Interestingly enough these predictions about mandatory vaccination pop up here and there. Here’s one from July 2009 at the height of the H1N1 vaccination is a plot to cull humanity hysteria, that could rightly be said to instill great unease in the gullible.


Now, lets nick back to May 2007 again. In this case a nurse decides to donate her NSW Nurses Association membership fee to the AVN because, as Meryl says:

After all, we are the ones who are helping nurses (and doctors, and physiotherapists, and everyone else who works in hospitals and is going to school to train in one of these areas) so she felt that we deserved her support as well. Thank you for that and if anyone else out there would like to do the same, that would be wonderful!

Click to embiggen

My favourite piece is actually the second paragraph. Meryl claims to have lobbied Federal Government to ensure vaccine objectors continue to receive certain allowances including the Maternity Immunisation Allowance. It’s a bogus claim of course, but Meryl seizes the moment to argue that kind donors have given their allowance to The AVN because without the AVN they wouldn’t get this or the Childcare Benefit.

Then 2 1/2 years later, in October 2009, we get a very similar combination. Meryl has been overrun with nurses suffering the horror of vaccination, cruelly ignored by colleagues. She recounts this, then presents the option of Pain Free Fundraising. Once again, some kind donor suggested handing over to Meryl their Maternity Immunisation Allowance which, without the AVN lobbying away in Canberra, they wouldn’t have. And nor would they have the Childcare Benefit either. Amazing how history repeats is it not?

I’d say it’s a safe bet the AVN will continue to maintain the momentum on imminent sabotage of civil and health rights as a means to make money. Just the right amount of fear, calculated misinformation and restrictions on the truth should work out to be a nice little earner.

They are after all, rather good at it.

Scientific consensus is a myth and flu vaccine infects with influenza

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, General by

I was astonished to read this tweet today from well known anti-vaccination identity, Meryl Dorey:

Certainly, I agree that science never “proves” anything. Mathematics and logic have “proofs”, but not science. Which is why scientific consensus provides us with invaluable insight into evidence that applies to matters of science. More so, it is the flexibility of scientific consensus that gives one confidence in science. Dorey’s proposed infinite loop of unending testing is a semantic trick, designed to convey a feel of impotent stasis.

Scientific consensus provides the best explanation from the very best and most reliable of all possible theories. It has after all, extended lifespan and quality in the developed world. Surely there must be more to this reworking of reality. Facebook rewarded my curiosity.

I see. Further application of what we consulted just recently. Meryl’s Equation: < 100% = 0%.

Thalidomide was a watershed in how drug trials are conducted. The tragedy forever changed the way trials proceed before drugs are released onto the market. Vioxx – Merck’s COX-2 inhibitor – is equally concerning. Yet Vioxx represents regulator apathy and a triumphant change in scientific consensus. The FDA approved it in April 1999 and it was recalled completely by Merck in September 2004. There was no “ignoring evidence that their consensus is wrong”.

I’m not seeking to whitewash either event but they do not render scientific consensus as a valuable and crucial notion, suddenly useless.

I imagine mentioning “mercury” is aiming to cast the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines, in response to unfounded fears and a drop vaccination rates, as evidence it was causally related to autism or other horrors. In fact, speaking of consensus this remains a topical point. Many insist it was foolish to pander to the anti-vaccine lobby as it may be abused to legitimise their false claims. Such is exactly what we see here.

Depending upon what it is confirming, scientific consensus may come under attack as its relationship to the scientific method is open to exploitation and abuse. Denial of anthropogenic climate change, vaccine efficacy and promotion of intelligent design (biblical creationism), rely heavily on trying to undermine the fact of overwhelming scientific consensus. A key weapon here is in producing “their” scientists to attack the work of others and advance a sham alternative.

The relationship between scientific consensus and the scientific method is perhaps poorly understood. Thus, it befalls us to educate ourselves about the sources of proposed consensus. And by that I really mean finding reputable sources and knowing how to spot disreputable sources. I found myself recently struggling to explain these notions to a friend.

In Australia a documentary aired called I can change your mind on climate change. Presenting both “sides” (denialist rehash vs evolving facts) it was followed by an episode of QandA that offered a terribly worded poll. The question was “Would you change your mind on climate change”? By itself, my answer to that question is an unhesitating Yes. Availed of convincing evidence and a change in consensus I have no problem answering that I “would”.

Yet I suspect the question was worded to be seen in the context of the programme. In which case it should have read “Would you change your mind on climate change given the pathetically, preposterous, piffle to poke at the periphery of your predisposition to weigh dissenting views?” Er… No.

Nonetheless I spent a futile half hour attempting to explain to my friend that whilst I need no convincing of anthropogenic climate change, those very views are important to me because of the relationship between the scientific method and scientific consensus. It is because the scientific method makes scientific consensus so potentially frail, that I back the notion of anthropogenic climate change.

So it is with any consensus arrived at within science. The scientific method is the weapon of choice with which consensus is changed. Little wonder then, an anti-vaccination crusader seeks to demean both.

Prior to this another tweet had caught my eye:

This is pure nonsense. Being infected with influenza is “one of the most common side effects” of vaccination against influenza? I think not.

In fact the NCIRS have a handy Fact Sheet on influenza vaccination. Influenza vaccines used in Australia are inactive. Influenza cells in vaccines cannot cause infection. They have lost their mojo.

As Julie Leask pointed out, in what a betting person might argue was the catalyst for Meryl’s merriment, only 1% – 10% of recipients report symptoms of mild infection for “a day or two”. In fact the article entitled Monday’s Medical Myth: the flu vaccine will give you influenza also noted other reasons for claims of inefficacy-by-infection.

  1. Anyone vaccinated might get another virus that feels like influenza.
  2. Some people’s immune system does not respond to the vaccine.
  3. Anyone vaccinated may get another strain of influenza.
  4. (As mentioned) less than 10% have mild flu-like symptoms for up to 48 hours.

Other strains of influenza exist because at the time production began, the vaccine strains targeted were calculated to be in circulation months later. This isn’t always correct. Combined with the other issues influenza vaccine is suboptimal. And suboptimal is manna for application of Meryl’s Equation.

Leask points out that we under-react to the risk of influenza. Costing Australia $115 million annually, it kills 3,000 and hospitalises over 13,500 people over 50 each season.

Nonetheless a visit to Facebook was a definite must.

Writing in Science-Based Medicine about problems associated with suboptimal flu vaccination Mark Crislip touches on “vaccine goofs” prone to Meryl’s Equation (<100% = 0%).

So it’s a suboptimal vaccine.  And that’s a problem. One, because it will make it more difficult to prove efficacy in clinical studies and two, there is a sub group of anti vaccine goofs who seem to require that vaccines either be perfect, with 100% efficacy and 100% safe, or they are not worth taking.

The CDC have this to say:

At least two factors play an important role in determining the likelihood that influenza vaccine will protect a person from influenza illness: 1) characteristics of the person being vaccinated (such as their age and health), and 2) the similarity or “match” between the influenza viruses in the vaccine and those spreading in the community. During years when the viruses in the vaccine and circulating viruses are not well matched, it’s possible that no benefit from vaccination may be observed. During years when the viruses in the vaccine and circulating viruses are very well matched, it’s possible to measure substantial benefits from vaccination in terms of preventing influenza illness.

NCIRS:

[In older people] influenza vaccine is about 30– 40% effective in preventing symptoms of the flu, 50–60% effective against hospitalisation due to influenza, and 70– 80% effective against death from complications of  influenza. Influenza vaccination also appears to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. When there  is a good match between the influenza strains in the vaccine and those causing current disease, the vaccine can prevent illness in about 70–90% of healthy children and adults. The vaccine is less effective in those with an impaired immune system

Certainly then there is no evidence that the influenza vaccine doesn’t work or as claimed, “causes the flu”.

I don’t quite know what sparked this most recent attack on “skeptics” and science in general but I would hope to see better from a so-called “health educator” able to raise funds as a charity.

For now the scientific consensus is sound and overwhelmingly in favour of mass vaccination.

Meryl Dorey and Australia’s pertussis epidemic

Posted in Health, Legal, Scam by

Interviewer: Are you proud that this area has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country?

Meryl Dorey: I don’t think there’s anything to be proud or ashamed of. I think I am proud that our organisation is assisting parents to get information that they would not otherwise be able to access.

Sunday Night – April 2009

Unfortunately when you’re out to derail vaccination regimes the consequences of singular pursuits can be ignored this way.

I’ve little doubt Meryl would be proud, having labelled vaccines, “instruments of death”. Apart from the standard antivaccination fare, Dorey has a unique approach to reality:

Now, we have a medical community that’s saying if you get measles, if you get whooping cough you’re going to die from it. Well where is the information from that? You didn’t die from it thirty years ago and you’re not going to die from it today. [Audio]

Well that’s certainly misinformation one would not “otherwise be able to access”. Over that same year three tiny babies died from pertussis. From 1993 – 2008, 16 babies under 12 months lost their lives to pertussis. Fatalities continue right up to the present day. In addition survivors are left with hypoxic brain damage, scarred lungs, burst blood vessels in conjunctiva and broken ribs. Adults can seriously injure themselves. Dr. Penny Adams recounts how she prolapsed a cervical disc onto her spinal cord requiring surgery to correct.

As this information is easily accessible we can appreciate why those who monitor Ms. Dorey raise serious concerns about the ethics of allowing her to speak unhindered in public. Seeking to impede someone who claims pride in intentionally spreading falsehoods that can injure and kill Australians is not an attack on free speech.

One of the earliest observations that Meryl Dorey’s antivaccination lobbying could have an effect on local herd immunity was published in early 2003. MAPPING IMMUNISATION COVERAGE AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO IMMUNISATION IN NSW was written in the NSW Public Health Bulletin, Volume 14, Numbers 1–2 January–February 2003. Authors Brynley Hull and Peter McIntyre note in the discussion (page 12) [Bold mine]:

Although immunisation coverage has greatly improved over the past five years in NSW, and many areas have reached coverage targets, there are areas in NSW where the level of registered conscientious objection to immunisation is great enough to affect immunisation coverage, as measured by the ACIR. One such area is northern NSW, and the Byron Bay SLA in particular, where the rate of conscientious objection is one of the highest in the country.

Presently Australia is in the fifth year of strikingly elevated pertussis notifications. Whilst it seemingly began in Meryl Dorey’s backyard on the north coast, we can easily trace its spread across the nation from media reports. Although not the first report, an article by Amy Corderoy on October 30th, 2010 brings the concerns of Hull and McIntyre to life, over 6 1/2 years later. From Vaccination rates spark epidemic fear. [Bold mine]:

And health authorities warn that NSW could be facing another outbreak as more cases than usual have been seen recently in the areas where the epidemic started. 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. […]

Dr McAnulty said areas with lower vaccination rates were more at risk. “If you are a parent it is so important for your child to be protected, but also for the other children in your community,” he said.

In 2007 Australia recorded 4,863 cases. In 2008, 14,290. In 2009, 29,786. In 2010, 34,793. Last year, 38,514 and already this year 3,645. For the entire time Ms. Dorey has urged against vaccination, attacking those who choose to vaccinate, mocking health authorities and distorting statistics. A request to answer a thorough deconstruction of her widespread trick to malign vaccine efficacy remains unanswered – which is answer enough for me.

However as unwelcome as antivaccine lobbyists may be, there is more to this epidemic than just irresponsible, if not unconscionable, conduct. Nation wide access to PCR testing has led to a higher number of confirmed diagnoses and this in turn is being “fed” by doctors and health staff with better diagnostic skills – especially during the early stages. It seems that added to an epidemic we’re testing more often and more accurately.

Despite the louder volume of antivaccination arguments, if they were really taking hold and driving the full epidemic we’d expect to see consonant rises in fatalities and hospitalisations. In fact despite the huge numbers of notifications since 2008 below, we’re seeing less fatalities than the epidemic in 1997. Hospitalisations have not increased in pace with notifications.

Frustratingly, increased notifications are exploited by antivaxxers as so-called proof the vaccine is ineffective. Yet if this is the case then a representative increase in fatalities and admission to hospitals should be apparent. It isn’t. This also makes claims by Dorey of “a more virulent virus” hard to sustain. She’d do better to argue a less virulent virus explains the disparity between notifications and serious cases.

Either way, it’s important to respond to abuse of certain nuances related to increased pertussis notification. For example we can dispense with nonsense such as this stunner from July 2011, which was Dorey’s partial conclusion from revelations of better testing revealing more notifications:

So not only is the pertussis shot not preventing vaccinated people from getting pertussis – it could also be responsible for the increased death rate.

Pertussis Notifications To Date

A range of factors accompany low immunisation as a factor in pertussis outbreaks and increased notifications. Nonetheless since an “epidemic of whooping cough in 2008 and 2009 began on the north coast” it’s been reported in every state in epidemic proportions. The advice is unanimous. Vaccination Saves Lives.

In January 2009 ABC’s The Pulse reported with A bad year for whooping cough. We may have found Dorey’s reason as to why “you didn’t die from it 30 years ago”. Mass vaccination:

Whooping cough used to be a disease that everyone got as kids, says Dr Frank Beard, acting senior director of Queensland Health’s Communicable Diseases Branch.

However, numbers plummeted following the introduction of mass vaccination in the 1950s. Cases fell to an all time low in the 1970s and 1980s…

By March 13th, 2009 Tasmania issued its first pertussis alert urging parents to seek vaccination for newborns at 6 weeks rather than 8 weeks of age. Vaccination Alert Following Steep Rise in Whooping Cough Cases. This followed an increase to 99 infections compared to just 4.

Low immunisation behind South Australian whooping cough outbreak, wrote Tory Shepherd on November 5th, 2009:

SOUTH Australia is experiencing its worst whooping cough outbreak on record – and babies are the main victims of the potentially fatal and highly infectious disease. […]

A four-week-old NSW baby who died in March was the first fatality from the disease in a decade. Since then it is understood two other children have died.

By August 31st, 2010 the epidemic was hurting QLD. Whooping cough epidemic gains pace, wrote Amelia Bentley:

Health authorities have warned a whooping cough epidemic is spreading throughout Queensland.

The Sunshine State has the most people in Australia falling ill with the infectious disease, prompting a state-wide call for children and adults to be immunised.

Seventeen days later the Danny Rose reported in Victoria’s Herald Sun. Fourth baby dies of whooping cough:

THE death of another baby in Australia’s slow-moving whooping cough epidemic underscores the importance of broad immunisation coverage, an expert says.

The five-week-old boy died in the intensive care ward of an Adelaide hospital earlier this week, and Professor Peter McIntyre said this was the fourth child death in a pertussis outbreak which started in 2008.

The infant contracted the bacterial lung infection when he was too young to receive the whooping cough vaccine, which can be administered after a child is six weeks old.

Adults represent most notifications and are a common source of infection for children and infants. Presently adult booster rates are around 11.3%, which is too little to be effective. Whilst adults aren’t as vulnerable to harm as babies are, the longer the epidemic has gone on the more the percentage of adults contributing to notifications has become. Comparison of age groups shows a significant increase in adults particularly from 2010 – 2011.

By December 10th, 2010 the Northern Territory Department of Health published, Central Australians urged to protect against whooping cough:

More than 220 people were diagnosed with whooping cough in Central Australia during the past twelve months, according to Coordinator of the Centre for Disease Control for Alice Springs and Barkly regions, Dr Teem-Wing Yip.

“The majority of cases occurred in older children and adults,” Dr Yip said.

“Adults with whooping cough may feel unwell from an annoying cough, but the highly infectious disease can be much more serious in young children,” she said.

“Symptoms of whooping cough in adults may be as minor as an annoying cough, but can cause significant illness. In very young children, the disease can be very serious,” she said.

Fear over whooping cough epidemic, wrote Julia Medew in Victoria on October 21st, 2010:

Jenny Royle, a paediatrician with the hospital’s immunisation service, said Victoria had experienced an unusually sustained epidemic since 2008, with the disease affecting thousands of people, young and old.

This prevalence was now putting newborn babies’ lives at risk.

She said the hospital had seen 19 babies with the disease since August, including three aged six to 12 weeks who ended up in intensive care.

”This is really unprecedented … A baby died in Adelaide a couple of weeks ago with whooping cough, so we’re very concerned about the number of cases we’re seeing here,” Dr Royle said. ”We are worried that we’ll see deaths here too.”

In late January 2011 Victoria’s Chief Medical Officer published an Advisory for health professionals. But the fear felt and prediction of death only weeks earlier was all too real. On February 17th, 2011 Fairfax reported on an infant death in Melbourne. Death Sparks Vaccine Appeal wrote Julia Medew:

THE death of a newborn baby from whooping cough in Melbourne this week has triggered a call for Victorians to vaccinate against the highly contagious disease. […]

Dr Jenny Royle, a paediatrician with the immunisation service at the Royal Children’s Hospital, urged Victorians, young and old, to check they were up to date with their whooping cough vaccinations because the epidemic was putting babies’ lives at serious risk. […]

Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, can cause minor cold-like symptoms for adults but is fatal for about one in 200 babies infected. In infants, it can cause coughing fits that deprive the brain of oxygen, leading to brain damage and death.

On the same day, ACT Health published a Health Alert on pertussis. In order to protect your baby you could:

  • Ensure your baby is vaccinated on time, this can be done from 6 weeks of age.
  • Keep your baby away from anyone with a coughing illness.
  • Ensure everyone in your household is up to date with their vaccinations.
  • Be on the lookout for symptoms of pertussis and consult your GP if concerned

Back near ground zero, four years on, pertussis was still effecting the community. Meryl herself was not happy that grassroots volunteers had slowed her pace, revealing perhaps more legal irregularities than intellectual ones. Vaccination was now likened to “rape with full penetration”. Those with questions were members of “hate groups” seeking to suppress her democratic freedom as an expression of “health fascism”.

Despite her “martyr for the cause” act, the true intent and impact of the likes of Dorey was not lost on Australians. Both online and regular media had taken interest in this person now the subject of a public health warning. On May 15th 2011 Jane Hansen reported in The Sunday Telegraph, Doctors warn parents to keep newborns at home as whooping cough epidemic escalates:

DOCTORS have warned parents to keep newborn babies at home to protect them from a whooping cough epidemic triggered by the “chardonnay set and alternatives”. […]

“With vaccination rates so low in this area we say to the mothers of newborns, do not take them out in the community,” local paediatrician Dr Chris Ingall said.

“We’re appalled at how many kids are getting whooping cough because the chardonnay set and the alternatives don’t vaccinate their children.”

Areas with low vaccination rates had 300 per cent more cases of whooping cough between 2008 and 2010, according to figures from NSW Health.

On September 16th, 2011 the importance of vaccination in preventing pertussis was reinforced by Dr. Julie Leask in Clear and present danger: how best to fight the latest whooping cough outbreak.

Tasmania’s Public Health Alert was last updated on November 9th, 2011. Again it reinforced the importance of vaccination and proper conventional care.

By January 4th, 2012 ABC Online reported, WA facing whooping cough epidemic:

Health authorities in Western Australia are warning that the state is on the brink of a whooping cough epidemic.

A record number of more than 3,500 cases were reported last year, more than double the 2010 total. Four babies have died from the infection in as many years and the Health Department is urging parents to be prepared for more cases. […]

“Measles kills, whooping cough kills. All of those diseases that you can now get a vaccination to stop, can kill children.

“So please make sure your children get vaccinated.” [said Paul Armstrong of W.A. Health]

So it isn’t hard to find this epidemic mentioned over and again in every state of Australia, with a repeat of the necessary advice for the community.

The pertussis epidemic that probably began due to low immunisation rates in Byron Bay in 2008/2009 and again in October 2010, likely wreaked havoc and heartbreak across NSW and parts of QLD. Exactly how much can be attributed directly to Meryl Dorey, is impossible to tell but low herd immunity in Lismore and surrounds has been devastating for some. I’m sure people have never heard of Meryl Dorey nor care to, yet still refuse to vaccinate. Sadly, she glows with delight when asked the question that assumes she is responsible for local immunisation denial.

Ranging out across Australia there are far too many factors to consider and many pockets of low immunisation for a number of reasons. Outbreaks chronologically followed the initial Byron Bay outbreak and that’s all that can be said using a rough media guide. A virus of thought can spread faster and further than a viral or bacterial infection.

It is this that makes the likes of Meryl and other enemies of reason the danger that they are, and that requires concerted efforts to address.