Tag Archives: AVSN Fraud

When is it OK to steal children?

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

How Meryl Dorey exploited a family to steal $12,000 from donors

An excellent question and I’m glad you asked.

It has been posed before of course. By the same person who opined, and in circumstances similar to that which elicited, “Court orders rape of a child” after a mother was ordered in the Family court to vaccinate her daughter. Although continuing on with, “Think this is an exaggeration? This is assault without consent and with full penetration too…”, Meryl Dorey AVN president did attempt to explain herself. Or rather, offer a kind of acknowledgement of her members who were not up with the gravity of assault by vaccination and thus took offence.

I don’t won’t to hype this up as it was pretty gross. Yet it undermines the straight faced denials of being antivaccination. Indeed, of being “for informed choice”. It brings in an emotional element impervious to the very rational compromise that defines advocacy in a democracy. It moves it to the extremes of activism. The type of placard waving, spittle flying abuse of the status quo that doesn’t help anyone. And if actions speak louder than words, the August 2008 debacle that Dorey initially wrote about under When is it OK to steal children?, long ago destroyed any semblance of bipartisan credibility.

This is when the AVN usurped the actions of a family hiding an HBV positive mother, husband, newborn and 3 year old from DoCS, police and NSW health to avoid the standard HBV vaccine regimen to protect the newborn. DoCS had taken out a Supreme Court order to ensure vaccination of the neonate – but not the 3 year old. The parents kept it up long enough to ensure the six day window of opportunity for protection had expired. Then the AVN abandoned the parents to the law and the father to a possible jail sentence – only prevented by DoCS in view of family cohesion. Dorey went on to milk her members for money via a Fighting Fund which she began within 48 hours after the birth, rising to a Donation Challenge with $500 being the magic figure. With a long history of misappropriating funds, this would be easy.

Almost $12,000 was raised. The parents received none of this money. Members were coaxed along as if they were receiving funds and later congratulated for “your help” in securing a victory for the family. They were housed with a sympathiser or living in a motel and met their own costs. Dorey’s trick was to plead about more families sure to face this on a regular basis.

In fact she boasted of inside information (from the father she exploited no less) that it occurred regularly. The AVN was financially in need and had to stay open. The NSW Attorney General might pursue the family (wrong). The AVN were to lobby parliamentarians on behalf of members, over this very type of threat (still waiting).

According to NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing in a letter to Mr. Ken McLeod on October 18th, 2010, we can read on page two;

During the course of the inquiry evidence of possible breaches of the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 was detected in relation to the following specific purpose appeals conducted by AVN:

 Fighting Fund – to support a homeless family, allegedly seeking to avoid a court order to immunise a child with legal and living expenses. The appeal ran for a short time in 2008 and raised $11,810. None of the funds were spent on this purpose.

A similar case in QLD in which a 9 week premature baby was “vaccine injured” by the HBV vaccine (inexplicably leading to all three children being removed by DoCS) was set to cost the AVN $30,000. Apparently – as Meryl Dorey relays it – this family wished to refuse vaccination and so DoCS had deemed this worthy of removing all children. This resulted in “a challenge being set” by an anonymous donor and the infamous $500 Donation Challenge was born. All this just fades away as new scams arise. No accounts follow, no reports of progress, no follow up on expenditure.

This case began when a hepatitis B positive woman of Chinese heritage, married to a member of The Australian Vaccination Network gave birth to a boy in Sydney on August 19, 2008. NSW Health HBV policy directive January 27, 2005 states in part;

VACCINATION OF NEONATES
•    All pregnant women are to be offered screening for hepatitis B, surface antigen (HBsAg) and should be provided with verbal and written information about hepatitis B and the hepatitis B immunisation program. The health interpreter service is to be used whenever necessary.
•    Neonates born to HBsAg positive mothers are to be offered, hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) within 12 hours of birth and a total of four doses of hepatitis B vaccine to be administered at birth, two, four and six months of age.
•    All other neonates are to be offered a total of four doses of hepatitis B vaccine at birth, two, four and six months of age. The birth dose is to be administered using a monovalent thiomersal free vaccine, and offered within 7 days of birth. The subsequent 3 doses may be given in a combination vaccine as part of the routine Australian Standard Vaccination Schedule (ASVS).

First up, let me stress staff don’t bully, harass or intimidate parents. Dorey has made much of this fallacy, yet back in 2009 when investigating the veracity of another attempt to raise money to “steal babies” I was reassured by the head policy analyst of NSW Health and many senior hospital staff (who remembered this very case) that was a rather shocking, offensive and false accusation. The policy exists for staff – not as a directive for patient outcome. To this we can add that HBV is a notifiable disease, and the circumstances would have likely been submitted as a matter of course.

NSW Health state in Hepatitis B Control Guidelines;

Public health priority: High for newly acquired cases, routine for unspecified cases. PHU response time; Investigate confirm newly acquired cases and all other confirmed cases within 3 working days. Enter confirmed newly acquired unspecified cases on NDD (Notifiable Diseases Database) with 5 working days. Case management; Investigate likely source of newly acquired cases. Contact management. Ensure that contacts of newly acquired cases are offered post-exposure prophylaxis.

HBV is a public health risk. It must be reported and entered on a database. Case management includes tracking down the source of infection. Clearly this neonates welfare was paramount and perhaps an issue for health professionals before his birth. The HBV policy directive also stipulates that the Hospital Coordinator ensures parents and health care providers are made aware of the vaccination programme. Which means benefits and risks. HBV can be asymptomatic in pregnant mothers with high viral load, hence strong likelihood of transferring the virus. We may assume hospital staff were aware of this mothers status in this regard. Later news reports suggest this is the case.

Citing baseless concerns about aluminium (aluminum) in the vaccines causing more damage than hepatitis B the parents refused. Here’s where the danger of AVN misinformation kicks in. Aluminium is the most common metal in nature. Over our lifetime we accumulate between 50 – 100mg. During the first six months of life babies do receive about 4mg from vaccines in the form of an aluminium salt. There are various aluminium salts and HBV vaccine usually contains aluminium phosphate. Aluminium acts as an adjuvant – to promote immune response, concomitantly allow less antigen per dose and decrease toxicity of antigens. It’s worth noting that babies receive 10mg from breast feeding, 40mg from formula and 120mg from soy based formula over the same six month period.

All but 1% is eliminated. Elimination rates have been gauged at 50% in 24 hours, 85% in two weeks and 96% in about three years. Exposure via vaccines is significantly less than through food. Other medications and particularly antacids also present more aluminium. Over around 70 years numerous studies have found it to be safe. One of it’s tricks as an adjuvant is to keep antigens near the injection site to be more readily accessed by immune cells. This may cause irritation. There may be redness and at worst a nodule may form due to the aluminium. In view of hepatic damage, cancer, cirrhosis and towering lifestyle challenges from hepatitis, the risk/benefit is clear. [Source]

Naming the parents “Stephen and Cassandra” Dorey wrote on August 21st;

A NSW couple are tonight in hiding after hospital doctors and the Department of Community Services took out a court order insisting that their baby, who is now only 48 hours old, be vaccinated against Hep B.

Steven and Cassandra are the proud parents of baby Jonathan, born in Sydney on Tuesday this week. Cassandra had tested positive for Hep B several years ago and so, before leaving hospital with their newborn, she was advised to give the baby a Hep B vaccination. Having done her research, she believed that her child was at greater risk from the vaccine than from Hep B. She refused the shot as did her husband. After all, vaccination is not compulsory in Australia.

Because of this refusal, Cassandra and Steven were informed by hospital staff that they were not allowed to leave the hospital until the child was vaccinated. Refusal to do so would result in their arrest and a loss of custody. Due to these threats, they agreed to make an appointment at their GP on Thursday afternoon to have the shot administered. DOCs was called in to witness the vaccination and they were sent home with a warning that they had better show up for the shot. […]

The parents are now in hiding…

On August 23rd, the SMH reported;

A SYDNEY couple was on the run with their two-day-old baby last night after the Department of Community Services took out a Supreme Court order to have the boy vaccinated against hepatitis B. […..]

Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of contracting hepatitis B from its mother and “about 30 per cent of people with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young … I don’t understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks.”

LIVING WISDOM August 22nd 2008

It’s nice that the ABC refer to the AVN as an “anti-vacccination group” – twice – which Meryl denies constantly. Disturbingly as time went by Dorey’s ignorance about hepatitis B infection, viral load, symptoms, seroconversion, vaccine ingredients – in fact all the nuances she should know of became plain. Making much of the non compulsory nature of vaccination, Dorey also writes the next day under that image of antivaccination conspiracy horror we all know and love, Family forced into hiding because of vaccination;

Whilst it is true that the mother tested positive to Hep B several years ago, to say that she suffers from Hepatitis B is wrong. She has no symptoms of disease as most people who are exposed to this and develop antibodies to it don’t have any symptoms nor will there be any long-term problems as a result of their antibody status. The lack of knowledge about this status is shocking!

Yes the lack of knowledge is astounding. But on Dorey’s part. The above statement is shifting focus onto whether or not the mother is “suffering” as if this can qualify the scale of risk to the newborn. In fact it’s arguable, but not certain, that testing had revealed that this mother was presenting with high HBV DNA levels and/or was HBeAg-positive (indicating virus replication) whilst also being entirely asymptomatic.

Either way DoCS argued the the likelihood of neonate infection was high. Evidence supports action against hep B baby’s parents;

The Department of Community Services (DOCS) says it has compelling medical evidence to support the action being taken against a Sydney couple refusing to vaccinate their baby boy.

A court order forcing the parents to immunise their son against hepatitis B has been extended in the Supreme Court today.

DOCS spokeswoman Annette Gallard says it is highly likely the child will contract the illness from his mother if he is not vaccinated soon.

In all updates and gushing thank you blurbs, Dorey asks for donations. It was an ideal saga to groom members on an emotional level which is made clear by the many lies perpetrated. Like a rogue internet scam the real aim here is to make money. From Legal Update September 5th;

We are desperate to help these families as I’m sure many of you are too….. We are stretched beyond belief at this point in time and really need your assistance more than ever so please – if you have an extra few dollars there that you think you can spare, visit our web site and donate.

It contained an email that is almost too good to be true;

Dear Meryl

After the newsletter today I would like to donate more to the fighting fund. Can you let people know that if a further 10 people donate $500 each (or more) for this critical issue I will donate a further $500. Annonymously.

It could be any family in this position – if we act now it won’t be all unvaccinated families.
Thanks again for your untiring work and generosity of spirit

Kind regards
Name withheld upon request

September 2008, Update on Stephen and Cassandara;

…until we get legislation enacted in NSW specifically protecting the rights of parents to freely choose whether or not they want to vaccinate their children, this sort of discrimination will continue to occur and helpless, uninformed families will continue to buckle to the pressure to vaccinate their vulnerable children.

What will it take?

At this point, the AVN has been literally run ragged over this last 4 weeks. We have completely expended our very meagre resources and are in a very tenuous position indeed. Whilst we have raised funds to help Stephen and the other family in Ipswich (whose case is proceeding thanks to your help!) that we discussed in the last E-Newsletter, we ourselves have been left ragged and completely unfunded as a result.

Still later on September 25th, 2008 is Thank you doesn’t even come close. Something we’ve all heard before is the promise of missing magazines. But in bold is a clear breach of the Charitable fundraising act 1991;

Unfortunately, the AVN itself is not in such a good position. We have spent a lot of time and resources helping these families and it has taken a toll on both the AVN’s finances and on the production of our next issue of Living Wisdom magazine which many of you will have realised by now is running behind schedule […]

…many other families who either now or in the future may face a similar situation. We also know that many of you have been thinking – and rightly so – that if this sort of discrimination could happen to these families, it could happen to any one of us as well.

With this in mind, it is vital that the AVN stay open for business and in a strong enough position to help any other families faced with something like this.  Currently the AVN is facing the serious prospect of having to close because of financial constraints. We therefore ask that if you have donated funds to our legal Fighting Fund in recent times, you consider allowing us to use a portion of that donation for our day to day running expenses and to pay some outstanding debts.

If you have made such a donation to the Fighting Fund and would rather it remains there to be used only to pay the legal expenses of families fighting this discrimination, please let us know either by telephoning or email. If you did make a donation but we haven’t heard from you by 7th October 2008 about this matter, we will assume that you have no objection to the AVN utilising your contribution for the administrative and operational purposes of the AVN and the Living Wisdom magazine.

Of course, no follow up of just how much money was nicked because the AVN “assume you have no objection” was ever published. Not until the OLGR informed Ken McLeod that it was 100%. The above also claims “… thanks to your help one of these cases has been settled with a positive outcome”. Well, that’s a complete falsehood. No money went anywhere. The couple remained in hiding for about four weeks. Eventually they fronted the Supreme Court and with the help of DoCS (who did not press any charges), were able to return home without the father needing to serve the prison sentence the judge dearly wanted to give him.

As for the impending forced vaccination of so many others that Dorey needed money to prevent, they simply vanish. There’s no AVN record of the couples three year old being vaccinated nor any “victory” preventing this. Perhaps she was, perhaps not. The family disappears from AVN circles, hopefully settling into sound advice.

Within four weeks Dorey shifts her attack on the HBV vaccine from forced vaccination of babies to making up stories of health workers who had no choice. They were being forced into vaccination and contacting her as a result. They had “life threatening” reactions.

These workers were eventually diagnosed with Lupus Panniculitis, Dorey tells us. Plainly she is inventing claims of evil hospitals and staff hiding the truth from these poor people. Who, of course, can only be helped by Dorey, Google and the ever-rolling donation machine. This time members are offered “Pain Free Funding”, as Dorey asks for their maternity immunisation allowance and to be nominated at Ritchies supermarkets.

It’s a sickening scam given the AVN is not responsible for any legislative structure and couldn’t lobby the entrance to a hotel;

A couple of our members have recently donated part of their Maternity Immunisation Allowance to us. They said that without the AVN’s lobbying Parliament to get legislation put through to ensure their rights to government entitlements, they wouldn’t have this money or the Childcare Allowance anyway so they felt that we deserved part of it for our support of them. We thought this was a great idea! If you are in a position to give us a portion of your Maternity Allowance, we would be very grateful – just one more idea that hopefully won’t put too big a hole in anyone’s pocket.

If you’re familiar with the AVN you can see what went on here with the HBV family. The archives are here in which you’ll find no further mention of how donations were managed or who won these dubious prize offers.

A year later, Meryl Dorey would try awakening the scam again. This time seemingly inventing the entire charade.

Andrew Wakefield and the MMR fraud: Science Betrayed

Posted in Denialism, Health, Scam by

From the BBC’s Science Betrayed, March 16th 2011. Dr Adam Rutherford does a splendid job of investigating the scandal and ethical breaches that led to the greatest medical and public health related disaster in the post penicillin era.

Recently there’s been a push by anti-vaccination lobbyists and those horrid folk from Age of Autism to argue that the BMJ committed fraud. They have a particular angle on Brian Deer and the entire campaign smacks of revenge borne of a total lack of evidence. Mike Adams is another source of woe begotten opportunism peddling this nonsense. Meryl Dorey is piping their tune in Australia despite originally screaming Wakefield’s disclaimer in his defence: “No association proved with MMR” – something Wakefield sticks to when questioned.

“We never said there is a link to autism”, Meryl Dorey of The Australian Vaccination Network lied as Wakefield’s obliteration became complete. “Just to bowel disorders”. Of course, they quickly changed their tune to line up with the rest of the conspiracy cranks worldwide.

I feel like saying they make me sick. But that’s nonsense. In truth, they make sick children even sicker. What I find truly bizarre is that “anti-vaccination hero” Andrew Wakefield, filed patent for monovalent vaccines nine months before publishing his paper. Just as unethical is monovalent vaccine administrator Dr. Richard Halvorsen, author of The truth about vaccines. He is paid hundreds of dollars per shot. If anybody schemed to push vaccines it is these men.

In The Lancet article, Wakefield et al. wrote, “we did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described”. Yet he wrote a letter with Richard Barr one of the lawyers paying Wakefield, and representing anti-vaccination litigants, before beginning the study. Written on June 6th, 1996 it described a vaccine induced autistic and intestinal disorder. This was over two weeks before selecting the first child to be “studied” as part of The Lancet sample. It included;

Children with enteritis and disintegrative disorder, form part of a new syndrome. The evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.

Hired by lawyers with a predetermined agenda, inventing a vaccine induced syndrome at the behest of anti-vaccine activists, selecting a sample picked by the lawyers and lobbyists, filing for monovalent vaccine patents well before publishing his work, denying any link in print, suggesting this very same link in a press conference, making plans for a “treatment” centre for his pretend syndrome that he would run…

All to be abandoned by most co-author’s, struck off the medical register as callous and unethical and for his fraudulent “research” to be retracted. There can be no doubt. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud and those seeking to exhume the corpse of this despicable scam have embarked on yet another course of unique child, parent and indeed social abuse.

Although there’s a plethora of articles debunking this awful business, here’s some you may like to read.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full?sid=4d2cb324-6535-4766-8f06-6d398fc84c42

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126964.000-mmr-vaccine-not-linked-to-autism-says-us-court.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3315651/MMR-is-not-linked-to-autism-say-Japanese.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7076-autism-rises-despite-mmr-ban-in-japan.html

Australian Vaccination Network: Essential Facts

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Denialism, Health, Scam by

Balancing the fiction and propaganda of The Australian Vaccination Network against reality.

This video looks at some essential facts about the conduct, deception, insouciance and legal problems of Meryl Dorey and The Australian Vaccination Network. It covers quite a bit of ground from 2009 to the present. A serious message with a dash of dark humour in exposing the absurdity of their operation.

How Meryl Dorey plagiarised, cropped, edited then published a WHO graph on pertussis vaccination

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

Not that far back, we left Meryl Dorey and her dishonest inner circle $11,000 richer after scamming members to donate toward a non existent Generation Rescue advertisement on the non existent scam of “vaccine induced autism”. A favourite still of the Australian Vaccination Network.

This type of almost febrile exploitation and abuse of gullible parents was abruptly halted when Ken McLeod and others lodged two complaints with the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. Presently Ms. Dorey is mid testimony in her Supreme Court case against the HCCC over their recommendation that she publish a warning on her web site.

We’ve also previously consulted Meryl Dorey’s reply to the HCCC specific to Mr. McLeod’s complaint, exposing demonstrable plagiarism and untruths about pertussis vaccination. Basically her line is that pertussis vaccination doesn’t work because increasing notifications (in all 18 age groups) have occurred with a rise in vaccination (in the youngest 2 of the 18 age groups).

This failure supposedly occurs across the globe where effective pertussis vaccination regimes exist, Dorey claims. On July 11th I published an article on another rambling attack on the pertussis vaccine in which Dorey claimed, “So not only is the pertussis shot not preventing vaccinated people from getting pertussis – it could also be responsible for the increased death rate.”

Returning to the HCCC reply we find one of my all time favourites. Meryl Dorey’s blatant editing of a WHO graph on pertussis vaccination, cutting out explanatory text favourable to the programme and popping in her own text to make it seem like the vaccine was leading to morbidity and mortality in babies under 12 months, “as indicated by the following graph”. The article in question is Global Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases – Chapter 2, Pertussis: by Arthur M Galazka and Susan E Robertson. Part of a lengthy 1995 submission on vaccine preventable disease by these authors to the European Journal of Epidemiology.

On page 7 of her reply to the HCCC Dorey submits;

The data spans 1951, 1975, 1991 and 1993. It looks compelling. The grey bars show pertussis cases before widespread use of pertussis vaccines, the black show cases after. In both Poland and The USA babies less than one year old show markedly greater infection than children from one year and above post vaccine introduction.

Yet, what do we know of vaccine induced immunity against pertussis? Newborns cannot begin vaccination until about 6 – 8 weeks of age and this varies across nations. It can take a full 12 months to complete the regime and to gain vaccine induced immunity. Indeed babies under 12 months are considered to be partially protected or not protected against pertussis. Children one year and up are considered fully protected.

In this light we can now see that the graph reflects the morbidity pattern changes we would expect after wide spread immunisation (black bars). A marked reduction in the age groups that are protected by vaccine and a comparatively higher infection rate in the under 12 month, unprotected age group. We also know that vaccine induced immunity begins to wane at about ten years. This is exactly what we see in the USA.

Fortunately, Meryl was kind enough to not crop out the names of authors the data was sourced from. Let’s seek out the original source, shall we? I say! What’s this on pages 34-35;

Now we can read the text that Dorey expunged prior to submission to the HCCC claiming, “In fact, many studies have indicated that rather than protecting young infants… routine mass vaccination can lead to an increase in pertussis”, in under 12 month old babies, “as indicated by the following graph”.

It actually reads;

The introduction of widespread immunization against pertussis has changed the pattern of the disease (Figure 2.1). Apart from a considerable reduction in the number of cases and abolishing the endemic pattern of the disease, there has been a clear change in the age distribution of pertussis morbidity.

Perhaps the sources of data confused Ms. Dorey. Perhaps she just completely missed any explanatory text. It’s not like a pertussis vaccine critic should read research on pertussis vaccination is it? Let’s check up on Gordon and Hood (1951), Adonaijlo (1975, 1993) and Farizo et al. (1991). Perhaps it’s all their fault. Ah, on the same page Galazka and Robertson continue in the very next paragraph.

The scope of these changes differs depending on the schedule of vaccine delivery and the coverage rates achieved. In Poland, for example, the most noticeable reduction of pertussis morbidity has been among children 1–4 years of age and the peak incidence has shifted to infants. Infants represented only 12 per cent of all pertussis cases in Poland 1973, compared with 49 per cent in 1993 (Adonajlo 1975, 1993).

In the United States of America during 1980–1989, children under one year of age accounted for nearly 50 per cent of all cases; the incidence rate among infants was nearly 10 times higher than that among children of 1–4 years of age, and more than one hundred times higher than that among adolescents or adults (Farizo et al. 1992).

On page 33 under Epidemiological Aspects – communicability we read [bold mine];

Pertussis is a highly communicable disease. It is likely that no one escapes pertussis in the absence of immunization. By the age of 16 years, almost 100 per cent of children have suffered an episode of pertussis but about 25 per cent of episodes are unrecognized (Thomas 1989). This has been demonstrated by data from epidemic investigations, studies of secondary spread within families, and serological surveys.

In pertussis epidemics, attack rates in unimmunized children are high, ranging between 11 per cent and 81 per cent depending on age (Table 2.1). The high degree of communicability has been repeatedly demonstrated by secondary attack rates of 70 to 100 per cent among susceptibles within families (Gordon & Hood 1951).

Try as you might, you will not find these authors attributing increased infection in under one year old babies to the vaccine itself. Their data on the graph is unambiguous. The jury is in. Meryl Dorey lied. On page 20 Galazka and Robertson write, under Impact of immunisation against pertussis [bold mine];

Immunization is the key to preventing pertussis. Whole cell pertussis vaccines, widely used in industrialized countries since the late 1950s and 1960s, and introduced in developing countries within the WHO Expanded Programme on Immunization in the 1970s and 1980s, are of proven efficacy.

Well, Meryl Dorey can angle this one any way she likes. The graph she sourced was literally surrounded with material reinforcing both the efficacy of pertussis vaccination and the dangers of not vaccinating. Pleading innocence is not an option. It is a clear and intentional breach of copyright, submission of fraudulent material to a government health body and rank plagiarism.

Business as usual one might argue.

Just for the record it might be worth noting the pertussis complications table Ms. Dorey also had access to in consulting this document. Pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy. It beggars belief that she can refer to this disease as “just a bad cough”.

How Meryl Dorey stole $12,000 from AVN members and/or donors

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

Back in the days just before community members were forced to take a stand against the Australian Vaccination Network for their harassment and abuse of grieving parents, things were different. Having run almost unchecked as a largely law breaking enterprise their confidence and gall in scamming the public was at an all time high.

Yet the basis of Dorey’s urgent threats (directed at parents) of compulsory vaccination for toddlers never existed. Parent’s have never been forced to vaccinate children. The many alerts such as “Action Alert – compulsory H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination just around the corner” were all scams to scare members into giving the AVN money. Dorey’s claimed funding destinations never existed. The most famous is the Bounty Bags rort. Assisted by sisters Jane and Nicola Beeby, the scam was to take donations to “fund” AVN material in Bounty Bags maternity packages. The problem was the Bounty Bags company despised the AVN and had nothing to do with them. AVN did the same with Copeland Publishing and their Child magazine – an example of which we’ll see below.

The AVN knew no bounds. They had logo polo shirts, T-Shirts boasting Love Them, Protect Them, Never Inject Them, media appearances, glossy magazines resembling competence, craftily tipping uncertain parents further into a maelstrom of doubt. “Tell them they have aborted foetal cells in them”, Dorey was want to advise her minions. Anti-freeze, immortal cells used in production lead to cancer, crushed up monkey kidney, heavy metals, mercury, mercury, mercury. Dorey zipped from community hall to community hall running the same unsubstantiated claims with photos easily dated from the 1970’s. Horrific injuries blamed on every type of vaccination. For unsuspecting Aussies they were dark days indeed. To this day, not one “vaccine injury” has been backed by evidence or accepted by ADRAC.

Until of course, selfless volunteers followed through with the laws they had flaunted for so long. Eventually The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission found that the Australian Vaccination Network website:

  • provides information that is solely anti-vaccination
  • contains information that is incorrect and misleading
  • quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.

And because of this, in their public warning about the AVN, “the Commission recommended to the AVN that it should include a statement in a prominent position on its website to the following effect”:

  • The AVN’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination, in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere.
  • The information provided by the AVN should not be read as medical advice.
  • The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider.

The AVN never complied, refuting the HCCC observation of being anti-vaccination, claiming that they are for “informed choice”. Bizarre given that academic Brian Martin writes in defence of their “dissenting” anti-vaccination stance. He echoes Meryl Dorey’s complaint that they are an essential whistle blower suffering suppression of free speech.

Below we’ll get a touch of the charity fraud. But reading the group emails of how they mocked legitimate charities associated with medical care was chilling. “I tell them I’m a charity”, boasted Dorey. Ultimately this scam fell apart. The Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing stepped in conducting an “audit that revealed breaches of charitable fundraising legislation”. From the Lismore Northern Star;

These included fundraising without authority, unauthorised expenditure and failure to keep proper records of expenditure. The AVN offices were searched by the OLGR recently and staff were interviewed.

Dorey lied at the time to the public and the OLGR – as I reveal below. Despite these serious offences she claimed that the OLGR found their donation box was the wrong size and;

…the OLGR had found several errors with the network’s bookkeeping system and some minor problems with the way in which fundraising income was accounted for… errors which any small, volunteer-run organisation can and does make…

So let’s examine one very clear example. Documented no less in their own archives – in their own words. Signed off in the applicable financial statement, no less. Orchestrated by Meryl Dorey and the Beeby sisters and the AVN committee I’d like to bring to your attention the admission and publication by The Australian Vaccination Network that they successfully raised at least $11,910 which was to fund an advertisement.

I believe the manner and timing in which the money was raised, the prompt closing of the donation window and subsequent failure to reference the fate of the $11,910 is significant. The source for this is archived editions of Living Wisdom, running from March 2nd, 2009 to June 25th, 2009. These archives may be found here.

I might stress at the outset that material in AVN archives of Living Wisdom is in dissonance to Meryl Dorey’s assertion to the OLGR that the AVN did not have access to auditors between July 2nd 2007 and June 2nd 2009, when it was without authorisation to fund raise. The February 2009 edition, under the heading The AVN needs your help, includes;

The AVN has now reached a crisis point and it’s up to you to decide whether or not we are able to continue to provide these services.
Our auditors have told us that they they have serious concerns about our financial status and our ability to continue as a viable entity…. Our debts are just over $50,000 – more than half of that co-signed for by Meryl Dorey personally…..

On October 16th, 2010 Mel McMillan wrote an article in The Lismore Northern Star entitled AVN seeking legal advice. It includes;

It is understood that between July 2, 2007 and June 2, last year (2009), the AVN was without authorisation to fundraise.
Ms Dorey admits this was true but claimed the OLGR was aware of the AVN’s fundraising status. ‘During this time we were unable to find an auditor,’ Ms Dorey said.
‘It took the AVN 12 months to find an auditor and then another year before the audit was conducted because the AVN was put at the bottom of the new auditor’s work pile’, Ms Dorey claims.

I believe this disparity suggesting a delay until mid 2010 in finding auditors, is quite pertinent. Either Ms. Dorey misled members, readers and donors or misled the OLGR. Which brings the next matter – the successful collection of $12,000 into stark consideration. The appeal began in the very next Living Wisdom publication on March 2nd 2009, 11 days after the published claim that AVN auditors had “serious concerns about [the AVN] as a viable entity”.

Regarding the advertisement, the March 2nd, 2009 edition sought donations from members totalling $53,000 by Monday March 9th, 2009. It suggested readership numbers meant a donation of $20 would suffice. The AVN had been in touch with Generation Rescue in the USA (they claimed citing no correspondence) and were “given permission” to run their USA focused advertisement in Australia. Donors could email judy@avn.org.au for internet banking or donate directly into:
Australian Vaccination Network Gift Fund Westpac BSB 032591 Account – 196282

Further ambiguity as to financial record management appears in the same issue under Your support is amazing! It is claimed that the call for $50,000 11 days earlier had allowed the AVN to “continue… for now”. It includes;

The AVN committee is in the process of working with our accountants in order to develop systems which will make our operations more sustainable. In the meantime, if there are any business mentors out there who would like to help us with advice, that would be very much appreciated.

A suspicious typing error led to Generation Rescue being referred to as Operation Rescue, and was corrected later the same day. Yet they’d just been in frequent contact with Generation Rescue, negotiating a deal…. hadn’t they? Four days later on March 6th, 2009 under Update on Fundraising for Autism Ad, the AVN’s Living Wisdom claims a total raised of $5,000.

By March 31st, 2009 the AVN Living Wisdom claims under What’s been happening? – Item 1 – that $7,000 of $53,000 has been raised. At this point the authors claim to have been seeking to; “Fund a full page ad in The Australian newspaper”. However, rather than a one off ad, they now seek;

“a full page ad in every edition of Copeland Publishing’s CHILD magazine…. This will cost $26,000 in total”.

Copeland Publishing do not accept or agree with AVN material. An advertisement claiming vaccines cause autism is factually absurd, deeply offensive, runs against the ethics and standing of Copeland and CHILD magazine, and would have lost them support and paying customers. The closest the AVN have come was a discussion online to have members flood GP offices and “sneak” anti-vaccination material into existing copies of CHILD magazine.

This attack was phase two in a 2010 revenge attack on Copeland for refusing to publish AVN propaganda, earlier reported in an “Action Alert” by Dorey herself, calling for letters to bombard Copeland Publishing. Later praised here. And still later praised as a “fantastic job”.

The next mention of the fund raising drive is in Living Wisdom, June 14th, 2009 [incorrectly headed “July 2009”] under Two weeks left – please don’t let this effort go to waste! They write (again with no citation of Generation Rescue);

We need to raise $23,000 in total and if we get 2/3 of the money, the American organisation, Generation Rescue, will give us the other 1/3. So far, we have raised $7,000 and we need to raise another $8,000 before Generation Rescue will give us the rest. I feel that we have given it a really good go, but it’s time to say there needs to be a time limit.

We cannot get the media to cover this issue from our side at all. They still insist that there is no evidence that children are becomming autistic as a result of vaccination. We know this is not the case. The US vaccine court knows this is not the case. But the average Australian mum and dad still has no idea. It is vital that we get this information out there. It will blow the roof off of the claims by our government, our medical community and others who want to continue the cover-up of this issue.

Please, if you have not already donated towards this cause (please click here [Ed: no longer functioning] to read more about this effort and to see a copy of the ad), do so today. If you can, forward this letter (using the link below) to your friends, family, workmates or anyone else who has an interest in child health.

Today, is Monday, June 15th. We will give it until Monday, June 29th to raise the rest of these funds. Your help and support are very much appreciated.

Oh, one other VERY IMPORTANT thing. When you make your donation via our website, please use this link [archive] so we will know to direct your donation towards this fundraising appeal? It is for a $20 donation. If you want to donate more, just change the quantity (in other words, if you want to donate $100, just change the quantity to 5 and that will be 5 X $20 or $100 in total).

A fund raising closure date of June 29th is now set.
The bank deposit account details change to;
Westpac Account Account name – Australian Vaccination Network, Incorporated BSB – 032 591 Account Number – 188223

At this point the total sought is $15,000 – $7,000 raised plus $8,000 needed. On June 25th – 11 days later – an additional $4,000 is reported, bringing the total raised to $11,000. They write in Living Wisdom;

We are entering the home stretch folks. On June 14th in our last e- newsletter, I put out an appeal for the final $8,000 needed to get our ad regarding the connection between autism and vaccination into all of the Copland Publishing magazines (Sydney’s Child, Melbourne’s Child, etc.). We have raised about 1/2 of that $8,000 but, like the saying goes (sort of!), you can’t be a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead. $4,000 won’t get the ad in these publications – we need another $4,000 and we only have 3 days to get it.

Based on the last receipt of $4,000 in 11 days, or indeed the initial $5,000 in four days, if the fund raising was extended for a short time past the final 3 days, the $15,000 sought may have been achieved. The outcome of this fundraising attempt or the promised advertisement is not noted again. According to the OLGR it reached $11,910.

No mention is made of monies raised over the final three days in which donations would have continued coming in – perhaps the $4,000 sought. Nor indeed was there any mention of whether the AVN itself could contribute with the help of accountants the AVN claimed were making “our operations more sustainable”.

Donations appear to have been made, or at least called for, into two separate Westpac accounts. The AVN Gift Fund and The AVN Incorporated. No mention of trust account deposits is presented to members. Monies raised in this manner are legally bound to be placed in trust accounts and members notified.

The $11,000 is not mentioned again in subsequent Living Wisdom editions. The only reference to money (two weeks later) are calls to buy tickets to seminars, sign up for membership or subscribe to Living Wisdom. The at least $11,000 is by their own admission, in AVN hands. Money raised immediately after a separate appeal for $50,000 to keep the organisation afloat. After financial auditing found “serious concerns about [the AVN] as a viable entity”. The latter being acknowledged again on March 2nd, 2009.

Of course I informed the OLGR of how this “minor problem with how fundraising was accounted for”, by Dorey and most likely the Beeby’s. Both Meryl Dorey’s and Jane Beeby’s signature’s are on the annual financial statement covering this period. Again, in their own words they damn themselves. The question must be asked: Was there ever a real appeal to fund an advertisement? Or was it a ploy targetting readers touched by autism? The average Australian mum and dad still has no idea. It was a government and media cover up.

The evidence is overwhelming. The money appears as good as stolen. Dorey denies accountability to the OLGR, claiming their motivation to act is derived from the HCCC whose motivation was derived from “forces” intent on suppressing their civil rights. To point out these scams is according to Dorey and the likes of Dr. Brian Martin, suppressing their right to free speech.

I’m afraid I beg to differ.

On October 18th, 2010 the NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing wrote to Mr. Ken McLeod in response to his many complaints about AVN breaches of the charitable fund raising act 1991. It included, along with 17 confirmed breaches of the Act:

During the course of the inquiry evidence of possible breaches of the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 was detected in relation to the following specific purpose appeals conducted by AVN: [….]

2. Advertising Appeal – initially this was an appeal for the specific purpose of raising funds for an advertisement in the Australian commencing in March 2009 and concluding July 2009. The specific purpose was changed during the course of the appeal to fund advertisements in Child magazine. This appeal raised $11,910. None of the funds were applied to the specific purposes. It is noted that AVN did spend some $15,000 during the period December 2009 to July 2010 on various forms of advertising.

Two days later the Minister for Liquor, Gaming and Racing revoked the fundraising authority held by the AVN.