Tag Archives: Australian Skeptics

The Real Australian Sceptics

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Big Placebo, General, Health, Meryl Dorey, Scam, Science by

A short time ago the Skeptic community received a delightful tickle on the collective ribcage.

A rather intellectually dishonest blog appeared with the title The Real Australian Sceptics under the pretence of “critiquing” articles. It was, predictably, Meryl Wynn Dorey’s latest shot at the ontology of her assumed foes. Those worshippers of evidence and scientific consensus: The Skeptics. It’s an old tactic. If you can’t sustain an argument attack the party that holds an opposing viewpoint.

This isn’t the post to dissect the intellectual absurdity of Ms. Dorey’s attack on Skeptics. Suffice to to say – again – this game of provocation wherein Ms. Dorey futilely seeks to alienate and besmirch skeptics has it’s genesis within stratospheric errors she has made in the wake of being held to account.

The blog itself is monumental dreck. To date it’s emerging as a rehash of all the disproved antivaccination creeds and attacks on accepted evidence. Magically, everything old is new again. The usual rules of ultra-strict comment censorship apply.

If you’re keen for your daily dose of Merylisms, The Real Australian Sceptics doesn’t disappoint, opening with an attempt at selective deception in the first sentence.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a sceptic is defined as, “a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions”.

Actually the Oxford English Dictionary entry reads:

1 a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

  • a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist.

2 Philosophy: an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

Meryl appears to take advantage of the phrase “accepted opinion”, by omission of the widely accepted opinion of theistic persuasion as a working example. Furthermore the second entry refers to philosophical denial of the possibility of knowledge or even rational belief. Having falsely defined “sceptic”, this then leaves the door open for Meryl to potter about on the very fringes of rationality and knowledge, wearing the guise of evidence whilst ranting about science.

Surely even with limited use of “accepted opinions”, we must include Naturopathy, Homeopathy, Home Birth, Vaccines causing Autism, Vaccine Dangers, Pharmaceutical bias, etc, etc. These are all irrefutably on the scale of accepted opinions. An opinion moves toward fact or mere belief based upon the amount of evidence that sustains it. The subtitle of Dorey’s blog is Accept Nothing. Question Everything. Apparently then, this is applied only to suit the author.

I think we can see, straight out of the blocks as it were, problems with her method of attack. Like two Meryls in a particle accelerator one is shooting off counter-clockwise at the speed of light confident those Wascally Skeptics will finally get theirs. Another Meryl is shooting clockwise questioning everything, accepting nothing… including the existence of the other Meryl. Eventually they collide head on in a great splattering mess.

Meryl also takes a shot at “the American spelling”: Skeptic. Wrong again. In doing this she’s really having a go at the Skeptic movement. Nothing new here, and as we’ll see her tactics are also copied and pasted from others whose beliefs have failed to endure scientific scrutiny. Skepticism is not cynicism or denial as we might associate these concepts with climate science denial, vaccine denial, HIV/AIDS denial and the steadily growing denial of conventional medicine.

Colloquially, Skeptics can be said to seek the evidence, consider existing evidence or ask for evidence when presented with certain claims. Skepticism is the rejection of predetermined ideas that aren’t supported by evidence. Skeptical activism may be described as where evidence, science and consumer and/or human rights overlap. Under What Is Skepticism? Brian Dunning writes in part:

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It’s the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion… The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don’t meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won’t often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They’re simply following the scientific method.

Okay. So Skepticism is not Accept Nothing, Question Everything. It revolves around the scientific method and evidence. Yet in attacking science Dorey clumsily raises the notion of “true scepticism”.

There are those in Australian society today who call themselves sceptics (or skeptics – which is the American spelling of that word). Yet by their actions and stated beliefs, they are far removed from true scepticism.

Now we can see the purpose of the second definition in the Oxford Dictionary. I doubt Meryl is aware of the metaphilosophy of True Scepticism, most commonly associated with David Hume, the 18th Century Scottish Philosopher. Nonetheless in a roundabout sort of way Meryl has painted herself into a very tight corner wherein she is seemingly defending denial of knowledge and rational belief, as a means to critiquing scientific arguments and articles.

Oh my.

We need a term for these traitors of true scepticism of course. Some time back on her Facebook page Meryl spotted the term pseudo-skeptic. She decided there and then it was “a keeper”. Unfortunately it was already being kept and here is where it all gets a little more silly.

RationalWiki has an entry on Pseudoskepticism. Interestingly is does not describe anything like Meryl’s contention. There is Legitimate use. The use by those who deny climate change science, vaccine success, etc. In fact it does a good job of describing Meryl Wynn Dorey. The description includes:

In this case the word is simply a synonym of denialism, as there is a vast amount of real evidence which is simply willfully ignored by these pseudoskeptics. The use of the phrasing “I am skeptical of X” is to sound more rhetorically reasonable that “I don’t accept X and never will regardless of the evidence”, even if the latter is more accurate.

Then there’s the delightfully headed paragraph on Usage By Woo Promoters, which also describes Meryl Wynn Dorey:

It is perhaps more often used as a loaded term by promoters of woo to dismiss skeptical criticism of their beliefs as unfounded… Given the difficulty of absolutely disproving even the most absurd hypothesis they then go on to maintain that all those who ask for evidence are “pseudoskeptics”.

Oh, snap!

We seem to have established Meryl’s hijacking of terms for the purpose of provocation and revenge. With the greatest of respect to Meryl is must truly be the nadir of her two decade assault upon scientific knowledge. The world is full of those who despise the notion of skepticism because it quite simply requires evidence for ones claims. Dorey has no evidence. She deals in falsehoods. Very lucrative falsehoods. Scams.

The abuse of authority or the demanding of privilege based upon certain claims crumbles before skepticism’s quiet and calm request for evidence. Meryl’s fraudulent donation campaigns, subscriptions for a non existent magazine, promised vaccine tests and boasts of phoney “protection” from mandatory vaccination evaporate in the presence of just one skeptic.

In some strange anger driven fever, Ms. Dorey seeks to discredit the Skeptic movement by making absurd claims about the nature of reality and science. Suddenly claiming something isn’t true does not make one a skeptic. Nor does it remotely undermine the accepted notion of Skepticism. Accepting nothing cannot be any further removed from the outcome of scientific research. Science, as skeptics understand and accept it, is not about belief. It is about conclusion. The weight of evidence.

There is nothing wrong with doubting and questioning. Far from it. Yet at some point we need a method from which to exploit our knowledge – not a mangled pseudoskepticism that denies knowledge exists in the first place. That method is the scientific method. Proper doubt and proper questions are what give us scientific consensus.

Because of doubt, questions and the demands for evidence that skeptics and scientists continually entertain, scientific consensus can and does change. Because it can change it is arguably fragile and unfairly criticised by opponents of skepticism. Yet because of what is required to change scientific consensus, it makes for an incredibly robust source of evidence. Thus “accept nothing” is naught but a position of intellectual paucity.

Accept Nothing, Question Everything is sheer, utter denial. It demands to be seen for the intellectual cowardice it really is: Shirk Certainty.

Meryl Dorey is happy to quote Hippocrates when it suits her. I hope she is aware of this quote:

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.

The Real Australian Skeptics is an emerging cornucopia of contrary, provocative nonsense based upon grossly misunderstood notions of evidence, opinion and philosophy. Whatever it is intended to be, it is certainly not a place for truth.

It is presently the very home of Ignorance.

Are Meryl Dorey’s critics really against free speech?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dorey continued to mislead Tiga regarding free speech:

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

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

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

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

Tiga: But even to imply it, Meryl.

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

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

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

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

Tiga: But it may be implied, Okay.

Later Dorey and Tiga excel themselves:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiga: Typical.

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

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

Dr. Rachie slays the Nine Vaccine Ringwraiths with Science

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Science by

Five Vaccine Myths in Futile Flight From Evidence

It’s official! Reports that have been coming in from Middle Earth for the last couple of days are indeed accurate. Dr. Rachie (aka Dr. Rachael Dunlop) has unleashed the power of science on the undead corpses of nine vaccination myths, expunging their essence for all time.

All good fiction-fantasies have their mythical characters and the best mythical characters are those that keep returning time and again despite being killed off. So it is with these nine. Although long dead these myths have been constantly exhumed. Script writers of the antivaccination movement, faced with oblivion, have kept writing them into the story time and again.

Known as ring-wraiths because the argument that sustains the myth is circular nonsense they have been led by the most powerful and most often killed myth, Vaccines Cause Autism. Lured to Mount Mama Mia by rumours of untapped Quantum nearby, the nine never stood a chance. Autism was the first to fall as Rachie recounted the disgrace to befall Andrew Wakefield and his fraudulent caper. It was cut down with a double reminder that, as a result of this fraud, he was now unlicensed and the work withdrawn from publication. Retracted!

Before it could summon any more lies or buy the blood of any more children, Dr. Rachie finished Autism off with the weight of 20 years research and a brand new comprehensive review. She wrote in the ancient, powerful, yet sacred runes of science:

The largest study was done in Denmark and covered all children born from January 1991 through December 1998. A total of 537,303 children of which eighty-two percent were vaccinated for MMR were examined and there was no association between vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.

Further, in August 2011, an exhaustive review of the scientific literature by the Institute of Medicine in the US concluded that overall “few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines”. …12,000 peer-reviewed articles, covering eight different vaccines were pored over by a committee of 18 experts in the largest review of adverse events associated with vaccines since 1994… there is no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

It was predictable who would fall next. Vaccines Cause Autism’s trusted side kick Vaccines Contain Mercury shrank back from the power of Science. Witnesses claim the air crackled with electricity as Dr. Rachie intoned confidently from The Book Of Evidence. She reminded the ghastly creature:

Mercury has not been present in routine childhood vaccines in Australia since 2000 and it was never in the MMR vaccine. Prior to 2000, thimerosal, an organomercury compound, was used in the manufacturing process of vaccines as a preservative.

Writhing and shrieking in despair it was finished off with more reminders that methyl mercury and bio-accumulation apply to sea foods. Then it suffered the same fate as ethyl mercury (the erstwhile preservative) does on entering the body, if it is used in adult vaccines. Total elimination.

This immediately got the attention of  journalists assembled nearby. Vaccines Contain Mercury and Vaccines Cause Autism had stopped off mere days earlier at the Magical Homeopathy Well as they travelled, they thought, in search of Quantum. It was there they spoke to a small gathering of journalists, admitting they intended to mix the magic water with the Quantum to concoct The Elixir of Everything.

“We’ve never felt more alive, more invigorated than right now”, said the King of vaccine myths – Vaccines Cause Autism

Posing for Fountain Of Beauty photo’s (left) outside the Magical Well, the pair cut a sadder spectacle than Fran Sheffield and Isaac Golden in a medical library.

Asked if they knew they were in fact, long dead and to all intents and purposes had never really existed, Vaccines Cause Autism responded confidently:

“Quite the contrary my dear fellow. We’ve never felt more alive, more invigorated than right now and both look forward to another summer of terrifying innocent parents and driving up vaccine preventable disease. We have promotional tours planned with Meryl Dorey who’s been awfully suppressed of late, poor thing… free speech and what. But with some grossly inflated figures on the number of shots kids receive before school – it’s 12 but we’re saying something like 35 – and appearances with our friend and colleague “Vaccines have never been tested”, we should have a splendid time of it. Besides chaps we don’t have a lot of say in the matter. It’s the Power of the Burning Stupid that keeps us going and with this interweb business today there’s no shortage of that, what?”

Such confidence was clearly best suited to behind the silicon battlements of his home fortress on Mount McCarthy. Against the power of science the wraiths stood not a chance. The next to fall was Vaccines Contain Toxic Ingredients. A particularly irrational creature this one takes advantage of general ignorance. Eg, few know that whilst infants receive about 4 milligrams of aluminium from vaccines in the first 6 months of life, they receive 10 milligrams from breast milk and 40 mg from formula over the same time. Yet aluminium is essential as an adjuvant and actually allows less antigen per dose. Adjuvants work to aid the immune response making the vaccine more effective.

Dr. Rachie looks at some more myths about toxic ingredients from those exploiting ignorance to outright lies. She noted wisely that the dose makes the poison, throwing this at the creature in a blazing ball of pure, lethal fact. You may hear of how carcinogenic formaldehyde is and that it’s in vaccines. What scaremongers omit to tell you is that it’s only carcinogenic at certain concentrations. Whilst these concentrations aren’t found in vaccines they are found in particle board and other building materials. So, throw out your furniture and rebuild your house if you have an issue with formaldehyde.

Vaccines Have Never Been Tested suffers a gruesome fate. With her lab coat glowing incandescently Dr. Rachie held The Book of Evidence aloft enveloping this long dead beast in the pure light of reason:

When people claim that vaccines have “never been tested” they usually mean that they have not undergone randomized placebo controlled trials (RCTs). To do an RCT of a vaccine you would need to take two groups of kids, give one group the vaccine, and the other a placebo, then expose both groups to the disease to see which ones survive. Raise your hand if you can see the problem here…

In fact other vaccines have been tested. Remember the 2 million children who parents shoved them forward to receive the polio vaccine in a trial? Or the extensive HPV vaccination trials just finished to great success in Australia?

Vaccines Don’t Work Because Vaccinated Kids Get The Disease crumpled under the weight of evidence that crushed boulders to dust and left craters in the ground. Including the harsh reality that fatalities occur in the unvaccinated. Put simply, vaccines may not be magical or transcend the laws of reality as do vaccine myths but they prepare the immune system to fight viral infections. And in the main, some diseases making a comeback, like measles, only effect the unvaccinated. Using this argument on immunity that wanes or is specific to strains (such as whooping cough and influenza) is a darstardly trick of this myth. Keep an eye out for this ghoul. Don’t be fooled and get yourself a booster for pertussis.

Improved Living Standards Not Vaccination Reduced Disease A truly heinous beast indeed. We dealt with this one here copiously when Viera Scheibner tried it on recently, if you wish to check the video. But Dr. Rachie uses the sure fire Powerful Evidence Kill Shot to dispense with this Being from beyond. Gazes were quickly averted as sounds of cracking bones and squishing innards mixed with Mia’s cheering.

Hib incidence 1993 to 2005Since 1993 when the Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b) vaccine was introduced into the Aussie schedule there’s been a >90% drop. In fact it’s now so rare epiglottitis once a sign of Hib can’t be assumed to be so. When isolated today, lab’ tests may reveal Haemophilus influenzae not to be Type b. This is a powerful impact from a single vaccine over a time when public sanitation, access to clean water and living conditions have not changed.

Infectious Diseases Are Harmless – Children are meant to get them never saw it coming. Wearing earplugs to block out ridicule and mocking laughter, this foul demonic entity was slayed with a barrage of Truth. Amongst other great points Dr. Rachie destroyed this “right of passage” wraith – dead before it hit the ground – with a devastating:

If you still think infectious diseases are harmless, wander through your local cemetery one day and note how many children died from diseases that we no longer see in society today – stamped out largely due to mass vaccination.

Vaccines Cause or Spread The Disease They Are Meant To Prevent has always been completely mad, so this was a mercy killing in truth. Leaping and frothing about uncontrollably it’s hard to comprehend it’s intent. You may have read some annoying anti-vax blurb or Facebook post about “my sister’s, neighbour’s, butcher’s, dog’s, vet’s, accountant was off for weeks with the flu after having the vaccine”. Bollocks. Only a large scale production failure could lead to “disease by vaccine”.

Before it vanished in a puff of smoke Dr. Rachie marched up to the wretched odourous thing, and inscribed on it’s forehead magical runes using the Quill Of Logical Legend:

Experiencing a slight temperature and/or a sore arm after getting a vaccine is actually a good thing. While some people misinterpret this as “getting the flu after the flu vaccine” it simply indicates that your immune system is responding…. This means next time you come across the disease in the environment your body is ready with an arsenal of antibodies to attack it before it can make you really sick.

My Child’s Immune System Will Be Overwhelmed is a rather pathetic little myth with low self esteem and a profound lack of confidence. And you can see why. With a mighty heave it was tossed into the Glare Of Truth under the rays of which it crackled and sizzled and finally shrivelled to a blackened crisp:

The amount of immune challenges that children fight every day (2,000 — 6,000) is significantly greater than the number of antigens in any combination of vaccines (about 150 for the entire vaccination schedule).

Well, that’s nine dead ringwraiths. All thanks to Dr. Rachael Dunlop, using nothing but Science. But like any good story they can be revived with another telling. So do be on the lookout. There are more goodies over in the article which is one I highly recommend following up on. There’s some great links and if you reckon there’s more myths (and there are) you can dig up some evidence based answers there to strike down these ghoulish zombies when they stagger into view.

For those aware of anti-vax tactics, there’s a jolly good comment from Mia who has no time for them or their deceptive ways. Striding across the drawbridge from her castle she cast a withering eye upon the Anti-vax Orcs, cowering below mumbling the same spells over and over. Undeterred by their putrid breath or horrid ugliness Mia spoke:

NOTE: looking through the hundreds of comments in the backend of the site, I can see the Anti-Vaccination people are up to their usual dirty tricks of linking to bogus crap research and commenting many many times under different names to try and make their cause seem better supported than it is.
People? VACCINATE your babies. Give your children boosters. And get a booster yourself.
And no, I don’t respect other people’s choices to not immunise their kids when they have the potential to kill other people’s babies.
It’s like respecting other people’s ‘right’ to drink and drive.
Bollocks to that.

Now if only we could work that into a public service announcement….

Nine Vaccination Myths Killed Off Once Again

Oh, Oh, Oh, O’Brien of SensaSlim gives us more hanky panky

Posted in Big Placebo, General, Health, Scam by

Peter O’Brien, SensaSlim director and rumoured buddy of Peter Foster seems unable to break the back of his attention seeking behaviour.

Peter O'Brien

Firstly however, the good news is that the initial defamation case brought by SensaSlim for $800,000 against Ken Harvey was dismissed on Monday. Harvey was awarded costs but with a mere $280,000 in the SensaSlim kitty, he is unlikely to see any returns. There is quite a queue for payments from SensaSlim who misled investors on return potential. It turned out to be zero.

Five days ago we had a SensaSlim saga update which included reference to the press release-masquerading-as-news-until-you-read-the-disclaimer, of O’Brien’s intent to sue Ken Harvey for $1 million dollars. Like all the other articles O’Brien authored on international.to it is now a mere 404 page – and I’ll get onto that. There’s a section in the above post along with most of the disclaimer. It was a kind of desperate sales pitch, personal attack on Harvey and attempt to defend SensaSlim as a genuine product because TGA regulations are geared to prevent harm, not provide efficacy.

He’s right on the last point and the very fact this nonsense continues is a black mark against the “self certification” process of the TGA. This was raised during the recent transparency review of the TGA which you can read and catch up on here. With luck O’Brien has done Aussies a favour by exploiting this appalling hole in our supposed regulatory body for therapeutic goods. Frozen assets, links to crime figures, non existent research from non existent institutes, false claims about a dud product, duped investors, defamed obesity experts, fraud, [all earning ACCC charges of misleading and deceptive conduct under Trade Practices Act 1974], defamation cases dismissed, contempt of court (I’ll get to that also) and the product still remains listed with the TGA.

O’Brien need only insist that the ingredients have been proven and used in weight loss products (and he is), point to the TGA listing (and he is) and feign unfair criticism thus defamation on Dr. Harvey’s part (and he is) to keep making money from a useless product that was a scam from day one. The Australian reported on Tuesday that he is seeking $1.75 million in damages and costs. Check The Australian Skeptics for information on donations to help Ken Harvey or head on over directly to the designated PayPal account.

A TGA representative confirmed the SensaSlim listing as it has “no unsafe products”, and in a typical bureaucratic promise of a glacially paced plan, proffered;

However, the TGA is considering a number of matters regarding the listing of Sensaslim Solution on the Australian Register of Therapeutic goods.

Nonsense. Until the suit against Dr. Harvey (which is another S.L.A.P.P.) is finalised the Complaints Resolution Panel can do nothing. O’Brien continues to profit with the TGA’s blessing. On this point there is a brand new Get Up campaign launched by the founder of The Celestial Teapot skeptic group. Calling on state and federal governments to provide consumer protection from quacks and health scams. It’s a compelling argument and thankfully includes calling to account that Victorian government bastion of all things scam-worthy and useless The Better Health Channel – which tax payers fund. Other states have similar insults.

Back to O’Brien. Yesterday it emerged that the ACCC was launching contempt of court proceedings against Peter O’Brien. It was postulated he has sent more of those ridiculous and at times thuggish “newsletters” he and Adam Troy Adams favoured to franchisees, this time warning that cooperating with the ACCC might be financially costly. Yes you read that correctly. Cooperating with the ACCC to get back money SensaSlim scammed from them might be costly. However we now know the ACCC has been granted an injunction stopping this latest rather ambitious attempt to still scam his already hurting victims. O’Briens cavalry seem to have gotten lost.

Some welcome clarification emerged also. I’ve written a couple of times about some correspondence with an editor from international.to, which is owned by RogersDIGITAL marketing. I’d complained about the content of articles written by Peter O’Brien and glowing comments published beneath. They were eventually deleted, and correspondence ceased which as I said was fine by me. It was their call to resume any exchange. I’d argued elsewhere on the deletions, “…I doubt due to my objections, but rather their own integrity given the balance of developments”.

So a refreshing development came to pass. The “Greg” singing off emails is Greg Rogers from RogersDIGITAL, who was responsible for the impossible to miss disclaimer under O’Brien’s last piece. Not only was O’Brien none to happy with this piece of honesty, but had long been advising Rogers to delete email correspondence. Fairfax write;

Simon White, SC, for the commission, said Greg Rogers, of the online news and classified websites business Rogers Digital, had contacted the commission, concerned at emails from Mr O’Brien telling him he should delete every email after reading it, and warning of the confidential nature of business relations.

”If at any time in the future [he was questioned] you can honestly say every email was erased,” one email said.

Another said he should ”never admit you are paid for a story”.

If Mr Rogers agreed that he would delete all correspondence with himself, SensaSlim and another director, Adam Adams, we can ”move forward and do a lot of business”, Mr O’Brien wrote.

He said if Mr Rogers was interviewed by the ACCC voluntarily then ”you are doing so in violation of confidentiality, both real and implied”. ”I ask you immediately erase all communication.” [….]

“Greg, I have been reading very hostile comments on sites supporting Ken Harvey,” Mr O’Brien wrote. He queried a disclaimer on the story headlined ”Sensaslim director files million dollar law suit against Dr Ken Harvey” [sic] on a Rogers Digital website.

Oh my. All in all things aren’t presently looking up for Peter O’Brien. Although according to one report he has been listed as a creditor by SensaSlim administrators.

One awaits further developments.