Following a complaint to the ABC in the wake of a 12 August interview with the founder of Reignite Democracy Australia, Monica Smit, Audience and Consumer Affairs concluded that it was a “serious editorial misjudgement”.
They found that ABC Far North Drive breached the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy, harm and offence. A correction has been published and, after the finding is reported to the ABC board, it will be published under upheld complaints.
A post here on 18 August, examined in depth a series of bogus claims made by Smit (pictured), and touched on the importance of editorial accuracy. On 13 August I’d submitted a complaint to the ABC summarising the most significant points made in that post.
As mentioned in the post under Editorial Standards?, after the interview, presenter Adam Stephens did clearly outline his reasons for having Smit on. He thought it is interesting people hold such views and that, as evidenced by RDA pamphlet drops, some residents around Cairns had been swayed by Smit.
He also added:
Whether you wanted to hear from Monica or not there are people that are listening to her message, and sometimes it’s… I think worthwhile in actually learning about the motivations of some of these groups in our community, and some of the people that feel strongly enough to actually join groups like this and distribute their information.
This sounds reasonable, but the problem is that Smit is a skilled manipulator. She is well versed in faux justifications for anti-vaccine, anti-mask and anti-lockdown claims. The RDA site leaves no doubt that they present harmful and divisive claims backed up by legal loopholes and the misrepresentation of studies. At the time, Smit had already incited a number of illegal protests. It was clear she had no regard for community safety. It is a factor that ABC management should have proactively made clear to programme producers across the country.
In an ideal world, disinformation would be refuted on the spot. In reality, because Smit (and others like her) cover such a range of topics, and use obscure details, this is impossible. The answer is to never provide air time. A decade ago, anti-vaccination activist Meryl Dorey was given ABC air time to discuss an immunisation incentive. She used both opportunities to spread disinformation. Complaints were upheld and Dorey hasn’t been on the ABC since. Let’s hope a similar fate awaits Smit.
ABC Far North: On 12 August, ABC Local Radio Far North Drive interviewed a member of anti-lockdown and COVID-19 conspiracy group Reignite Democracy Australia (RDA). The program failed to explain that the interviewee had no medical or pandemic expertise; and that the group is anti-lockdown, anti-vaccination and encourages illegal lockdown protests. This context was material to the audience’s understanding of the issues to hand. During the interview it was stated that mask wearing is dangerous; this is inaccurate. The interviewee made repeated erroneous claims about important public health matters which were not adequately contextualised or corrected by the presenter. The program failed to take the opportunity after the interview to directly correct and debunk the claims made.
ABC’s editorial standards are covered in the Code of Practice. Ultimately, Audience and Consumer Affairs found that the interview breached the ABC standards for accuracy 2.1 and 2.2, and for harm and offence 7.1 and 7.6. The full email response from Audience and Consumer Affairs is below (with permission of ABC).
Dear Mr Gallagher
Thank you for your email regarding the 12 August edition of ABC Far North’s Drive with Adam Stephen, which featured an interview with Monica Smit of Reignite Democracy Australia (RDA). I apologise for the delay in responding.
Your complaint has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards, which are explained in our Code of Practice. We have carefully considered your complaint, sought information from ABC Regional management and assessed the content against the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy and harm and offence.
Drive has explained that local Cairns businesses had received flyers from RDA, and that they broadcast an interview with a business owner who expressed his frustration with the “irresponsible” behaviour of this group which would “put everyone else in danger”. Following this, the editorial decision was made to interview Monica Smit from RDA.
Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded that within the context presented, this interview was a serious editorial misjudgement. Our findings are set out below against the relevant editorial standards.
2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.
As you explain, at no point was it made clear that Monica Smit and RDA have no medical or pandemic expertise, nor are they advised by medical experts. It was not made clear that their flyer and website provides no reputable or evidence-based information. Further, it was not explained that RDA is an anti-lockdown, anti-vaccination activist group which attends, supports and encourages illegal lockdown protests and other activities. This context was material to the audience’s understanding of the issues to hand and in particular to the credibility of the claims made by Monica Smit.
As you point out, Monica Smit made numerous inaccurate and unsupported statements in this interview which were not corrected or adequately challenged by the presenter. The claims made by Monica Smit regarding mask wearing and lockdowns were both alarming and erroneous. The interviewee was allowed to make repeated inaccurate claims about important public health matters which were not adequately contextualised or corrected. Further, the program failed to take the opportunity after the interview to directly correct and debunk the claims made.
Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded that Drive breached the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy 2.1 and 2.2.
Harm and offence
7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
7.6 Where there is editorial justification for content which may lead to dangerous imitation or exacerbate serious threats to individual or public health, safety or welfare, take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks, particularly by taking care with how content is expressed or presented.
Audience and Consumer Affairs observe that reliance by listeners on the information provided by Monica Smit during this interview about public health orders was likely to cause harm. This includes the inaccurate information about mask wearing, lock downs and comments made by the interviewee on how to breach / avoid health orders.
The likely harm was not justified by the editorial context. Issues around groups like RDA are newsworthy to a degree, usually because of the threat or harm they present to the wider community and their illegal activities. An interview with a fringe activist with no medical expertise talking about public health matters requires very solid context and rigorous debunking; that did not happen on this occasion.
The material propagated by Monica Smit in this interview put RDA followers and the people around them at risk, and the editorial context did not justify the likely harm. The program did not take adequate care with how this content was expressed or presented, particularly in relation to accuracy.
Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded that Drive breached the ABC’s editorial standards for harm and offence7.1 and 7.6.
ABC Regional apologise for this serious lapse in editorial standards. This matter has been discussed with the program team and a correction published here. In keeping with Audience and Consumer Affairs’ usual processes, this finding will be reported to the ABC Board and a summary published here.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to the attention of the ABC. Once again I apologise for the delay in responding. Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (www.acma.gov.au).
Yours sincerely (redacted) Investigations Manager Audience and Consumer Affairs
Following the development and subsequent global rollout of successful COVID-19 vaccines one particular anti-vaccine trope has been delivered with increasing gusto. Namely that the administration of these vaccines is in breach of the Nuremberg Code.
This isn’t the first time the Nuremberg Code has been used by the anti-vaccination lobby in an attempt to argue against the legality of vaccination. It is however the most widespread use of this piece of disinformation to date. It also includes the threat that health professionals will be tried as war criminals. To arrive at the conviction that COVID-19 vaccination is in breach of the Nuremberg Code, a triumph of non-critical reasoning is necessary. Specifically that the vaccine rollout is an ongoing experiment and that recipients have not given informed consent.
The latter is a misguided application of the first point of the Code. Global, real time scrutiny of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout means recipients are better informed when giving consent than for any other vaccine in history. Whilst the first point of the Code includes the most lengthy accompanying explanation of all ten points in the Code, it opens with the requirement:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
An early claim that vaccine recipients are denied informed consent can be found in a 1997 NBC interview with Barbara Loe Fisher and her related article on the NVIC website [Archive]. Loe Fisher provides five bullet points contending there is inadequate knowledge of injury, death, side effects, vaccine failure and that vaccination, “could reasonably be termed as experimental each time it is performed on a healthy individual”. The postulation at play here is that if such uncertainty exists then informed consent cannot be given. Another ambitious claim is that post-marketing surveillance of vaccines is “a de facto experiment”.
Further on in the article the Nuremberg Code itself is addressed and the deception immediately begins apace. Loe Fisher exploits the words of physician and ethicist Jay Katz. His work is included in Nazi Doctors and The Nuremberg Code – Human Rights in Human Experimentation. Loe Fisher selectively chose in part:
The rights of individuals to thoroughgoing self-determination and autonomy must come first. Scientific advances may be impeded, perhaps even become impossible at times, but this is a price worth paying.
As the tone indicates, this is a quote about human experimentation, not vaccination as Barbara Loe Fisher is suggesting. The article trots on to mislead readers that, “bioethicist Arthur Caplan concurred when he said”:
The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them.
Jay Katz passed away in 2008. Arthur Caplan is a professor of bioethics at New York University and in June last year informed FactCheck.org that the NVIC use of his quote is “completely erroneous” and reflected “ignorance of history and ethics”. He also observed that it is:
… a gross disservice to the victims of brutal Nazi experiments to distort my words for lame anti-science that will kill people if this bilge is taken seriously.
The above quote is no doubt not lost on those familiar with the harm anti-vaccine activists ultimately achieve and the disrespect they so often reveal in doing so. It also brings to mind the reality surrounding the Nuremberg Code. It is the result of one of the Nuremberg trials that followed the Second World War. The Doctors’ Trial (USA vs Brandt) focused on 23 German doctors and administrators who performed unethical, inhumane experiments in concentration camps and 3.5 million sterilisations of German citizens.
The Nuremberg Code itself has a controversial history surrounding authorship and was largely ignored for 20 years following the Nuremberg trials. In The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial: A Reappraisal, Jay Katz wrote that careful reading of the judgement indicates it was written:
…for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.
The vaccine ‘experiment’
This helps us appreciate the importance of, and the rationale behind, insisting that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experiment. In the last post I covered another reason as to why the anti-vaccine lobby pushes this line. Namely to wrongly claim that hospital cover for adverse events following immunisation will be withheld by insurance companies on the basis that the vaccine is an “experimental treatment”. The trial it is alleged runs until 2023.
Helped by a widely disseminated video from the UK (here), misinformation regarding the Pfizer Phase III clinical trial is sustaining the belief that a long term “experiment” involves all vaccine recipients. This is demonstrably false. In fact the clinical study description cited in the video refers to the original participants who will be followed on a post-marketing basis until 6 April 2023. In a comprehensive 10 December 2020 article Pfizer report under Adverse Events:
Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of vaccine.
In Australia Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network has been quite vocal about Nuremberg Code breaches. She contends the “experiment” is admitted to by the TGA, FDA and European Medicines Agency. In fact the Australian TGA provisional approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine is valid until February 2023. This is almost certainly a source of added confidence regarding the false claim of an ongoing experiment.
On 13 March 2021 during Under The Wire (Source) Dorey spoke about, “crimes against humanity as determined by the Nuremberg Code” due to COVID-19 vaccine administration and the so-called ‘vaccine passport’. At one time she challenged, “if you even believe that COVID exists”. Download the MP3 here or listen below.
Meryl Dorey followed this with a firm message warning medical professionals. MP3 here or listen below.
During the same episode Dorey presented a flyer (below) warning “all medical practitioners” involved in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout that they will be on trial for war crimes and held accountable. These flyers continue to be letter dropped, faxed and placed on car windscreens to reach doctors and nurses.
To suggest that medical practitioners will be subject to war crimes is as baffling as it is offensive. The claim is international and again hints at a massive break down in critical thinking. Only cursory reflection is needed to realise that administering a vaccine during peacetime cannot possibly constitute a war crime regardless of the human rights issues one may think apply. The Nuremberg Code reflects not only what happened during the Second World War but also the ethical standards that existed in Germany before the war.
Nuremberg Code and ‘No Jab No Pay’
Use of the Nuremberg Code as an argument against vaccination legislation was honed in Australia in response to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill in 2015. The legislation ensures a childcare benefit, rebate and a tax benefit supplement will be withheld from parents of children under 20 years of age who are not fully immunised. This legislative amendment followed community concern in response to “conscientious objection” to immunisation.
Submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs arguing against the Bill focussed often on the argument that informed consent would be denied. There are a number of examples and the following are indicative. Submission 511 offers further insight into the first point of the Nuremberg Code. Namely that consent should be:
…without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.
By refusing welfare payments to family’s (sic), this is a clear form of financial duress and coercion (and also over-reaching by Government). Some families rely on welfare payments to enable or assist them to provide for their family. To deny access to welfare payments is coercion of parents to subject their children to a medical procedure.
Submission 508 also refers to the first point of the Nuremberg Code and suggests that the Australian Immunisation Handbook, in its section on consent, reflects a hitherto unknown aspect of the Code. The author notes:
The Australian Immunisation Handbook reflects the Nuremberg Code is requiring valid consent as a pre-cursor to vaccination.
Another submission combined the My Will command with reference to the Nuremberg Code, the Australian constitution, the Immunisation Handbook and the 2005 Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6, Section 1. Despite the use of so many references to rights and ethics (Submission 511 also cited the AMA code of ethics and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights) the submissions highlight a common flaw. No Jab No Pay is an incentive. Indeed to see it as active coercion and ignore the harm caused by vaccine preventable diseases is uniquely selfish.
As a testament to how the anti-vaccine lobby manage to keep alive the notion that vaccines constitute grave abuses of human rights we can see that Article 6 of the UDBHR has also been trotted out today for COVID-19 vaccines. A striking LTE in the Elko Daily alluded to the Pfizer clinicaltrials.gov information, the Nuremberg Code and the UDBHR. Article 6, section 1 states:
Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
Despite the vocal insistence of an experiment being run without consent the main antagonists of the anti-vaccination lobby are aware this is a false claim. Enter the inane insistence that the COVID-19 vaccine is set to be mandatory in developed nations. The AVN still push the tired line that Scott Morrison aims to make it “as mandatory as possible”, despite his very clear walk back of that unfortunate statement. The next “march against mandatory vaccination” is set for 29 May 2021.
Nuremberg Code Today
As for the Nuremberg Code itself an adequate critique is beyond the scope of this post. Nonetheless, whilst it does reflect important ethical standards it is likely not legally enforceable. It has not been adopted by any government and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more readily recognised. Of major importance in this regard is the CIA post 9/11 experimental torture programme that utilised unwilling human subjects. Critiques of the Code raise justifiable concerns from its acceptance of animal experimentation to the arguably ridiculous item five which states:
No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
Today the recognised standard for medical ethics is the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration. It may be considered superior to the Nuremberg Code for one simple reason. That of regular revision. It has been amended seven times since June 1964. The most recent occasion was in October 2013.
The claim that COVID-19 vaccination is in breach of the Nuremberg Code is the most recent manifestation of an anti-vaccine deception that is probably over 25 years old. It is a falsehood that relies on calculated disinformation. Namely that vaccine recipients are denied informed consent and that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experiment. Social media has aided the dissemination of this claim and a genuine COVID-19 vaccine Phase III trial document is being misrepresented as confirmation of a global trial.
The Nuremberg Code was written at the time of the Nuremberg War Crime trials. As such, baseless threats that medical practitioners will be tried as war criminals are being circulated. The Nuremberg Code clearly refers to experimentation on human subjects and says nothing about vaccination. Submissions to state and federal parliament in Australia opposing the No Jab No Pay/Play Bill 2015 unsuccessfully tested the veracity of the Nuremberg Code in this respect.
As an ethical statement and historical document the Nuremberg Code is sullied by anti-vaccine disinformation. The claims are absurd, serving no purpose other than disruption of sound public health policy. The most recent incarnation targetting COVID-19 vaccines is rightly viewed as a conspiracy theory.
The COVID-19 vaccine is in fact an experimental medical procedure and because of this insurance companies have made void any claims relating to this “vaccine”.
The experimental trial in Australia runs until 2023 and thus it is only available due to an emergency use clause. Insurance companies are linking adverse reactions and deaths to this trial. As companies won’t pay out for injury and death due to experimental treatment it follows that such events following COVID-19 vaccination are not covered by hospital or life insurance.
Not a word of the above is true. Yet this notion is circulating on social media in the usual and predictable places. Despite it being demonstrably false and something one can refute for themselves in a few minutes, it is a notion with active supporters. Many others go further and contend that consent has not been given to be part of this experiment. Thus a breach of the Nuremberg Code is happening right before us.
Ethically relevant but not legally enforceable the Nuremberg Code remains semantically powerful. As such it is regrettably abused by anti-vaccine activists who have for years peddled the false claim that vaccines are not tested for safety and efficacy. It just so happens that global scrutiny of the development of COVID-19 vaccines also provided firm evidence of Phase III trials. This again refutes the anti-vaccine position and I touched on this last September. Yet as antivaccinationists are apt to do the facts have been twisted into falsehoods to support ongoing attacks on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and to boost claims of further breaches of the Nuremberg Code.
Now, whilst this post isn’t focusing on Meryl Dorey and the Australian Vaccination-risks Network, it just so happens that she can assist us. On March 13th during an error-packed Under The Wire, Dorey presented a detailed performance outlining the absurdities that constitute the Nuremberg Code fallacy specific to COVID-19 immunisation. You may download the MP3 here, or listen below.
All of the points above popped up today in a thread on a COVID freedom fighter’s Facebook page. Elle Salzone is a feverishly active defender of anti-science beliefs. Elle moves from business to business, scheme to scheme and presently pushes ClearPHONE. Salzone and buddies sell the phone, claiming it provides the privacy necessary for today’s freedom fighters. How reliable a service it provides is uncertain. Elle fights with and also films police over her refusal to wear masks or remain in quarantine when necessary. But that’s okay if you decide to be a Sovereign Citizen. Elle is anti-COVID related responsibility. You can peruse her page for details on these pursuits.
Today one of her posts [Update: quietly deleted on 8 April] was screenshot by a tireless defender of reason, and thus came to my attention. It turned out to be an obvious forgery from this Allianz Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and could be promptly demonstrated as such. The slideshow below is of the Allianz forgery and the two original parts of the document that were used in making it.
Salzone posts the forgery and states;
THIS IS EXTREMELY CONCERNING!!!!
Imagine getting the experimental shot thinking you’re protecting your health, then getting seriously injured and having no private health cover to help you and not being to sue because all vaccine manufacturers have been indemnified…
All to maybe protect you for a virus with a 99% Survival rate..
You literally can’t make this shit up..
“You literally can’t make this shit up”. In fact you can and in this case someone literally did. A quick search yielded the document in question. Even before presenting the original, un-cropped and pre-defaced, pages the text itself was screaming forgery. Insurance companies do not tend to torment font in that fashion. Apart from the caps lock, no policy section is referenced. Then there is the sneer at “vaccine” and the impossible consent self-infliction. Ouch! Finally at risk of boring you there’s that nagging bit about posting this most important development in the glossary.
Suffice it to say the above points were mentioned and a discussion took place.
Verified by multiple sources eh? The original source was “easily found” (comment now deleted) but Elle couldn’t find it. So screenshots of the original source were provided along with a link.
This resulted in an admission that it was posted in the knowledge it was a fake. Apparently however the information it conveyed is not only true but would be confirmed by Allianz if I checked;
For the record this forgery consists of four different screenshots from the original document pasted in a sequence that creates a misleading ‘preamble’ aiming to justify the bogus claims made beneath in added red font. The added text further presents existing terms from the Allianz PDS to construct a fraudulent disclosure statement. A significant amount of time and forethought has gone into this. It is a calculated work of disinformation that has succeeded in misleading vulnerable recipients of its message. The preparation date of the current Allianz Life Plan PDS is 5 march 2021. The date in the forgery is 31 July 2020, suggesting it could have been in circulation for some time.
Perhaps the most important aspect to look at is the claim that COVID-19 vaccines are part of an experimental “medical procedure”. This is frequently peddled by anti-vaccine activists and was also pushed by Meryl Dorey in the audio above. It is linked to other claims that the vaccine is not actually a vaccine. One contention is that mRNA vaccines are DNA modifying agents. Another is that viral vector vaccines [CDC] are completely experimental and also alter DNA. Despite available data on the molecular action, development, safety and efficacy of Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines, antivaccinationists ignore this in favour of a conspiracy theory.
Viral vector vaccines are well understood due to decades of research and do not alter DNA. mRNA vaccines are also well understood and are incapable of altering DNA. The claim that COVID-19 vaccination is an experiment is often presented with the contention that the experiment will go on until 2023. Like all persistent falsehoods this has an element of fact to it. The reality is that in Australia both Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have provisional approval from the TGA. The approval is valid for two years and the AstraZeneca vaccine will require review in February 2023. On 16 February 2021 the TGA stated;
COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is provisionally approved and included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) for the active immunisation of individuals 18 years and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. […]
Provisional approval of this vaccine is valid for two years and means it can now be legally supplied in Australia. The approval is subject to certain strict conditions, such as the requirement for AstraZeneca to continue providing information to the TGA on longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment.
Reading the final paragraph above we can see also how the claim that data is still being collected for the experimental trial is peddled around with such confidence. Yet post-market assessment is a vital part to better understand all drugs and vaccines. There’s no trial, no experiment. It’s worth noting this fallacy is at times linked to another false claim. That of emergency use provision for the vaccine. This was a contention made by one Clive Palmer, deconstructed handsomely here by ABC corona check. Palmer has not alleged the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experimental medical procedure. Although he has pushed fear over the absence of one, three and five year safety data.
When it comes to hospital cover, insurance companies will not cover treatments for which no Medicare Benefits are payable. This includes cosmetic surgery, experimental treatments or experimental pharmaceuticals. Medicare will cover certain clinical research studies. For insurers if the device, trial or treatment is not recognised by Medicare or the Medical Services Advisory Committee it will be excluded from standard hospital cover. Still, there is insurance and indemnity available for clinical trials. This helps us understand why the term being used to misrepresent the COVID-19 vaccine is “experimental”.
Allianz also have a strong supportive position on the COVID-19 vaccine and like Bupa offer a comprehensive series of answers to possible questions. In a May 2020 article Allianz cover in depth the importance of research in developing a COVID-19 vaccine and the role of insurance for subjects in clinical trials. This is not what we would expect from a company that would deny insurance cover for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccine. Thus the claim by Salzone that refusal to cover is “verified by multiple sources”, in conjunction with the initial and consequent screenshot, appears to be disinformation. Insurance companies across Australia cover illnesses requiring hospitalisation following vaccination.
This leaves the obsession with claiming a 99% recovery rate as some type of stamp of insignificance. It is a rather tired trope having emerged about a year ago. This may also be linked to the frankly appalling claim that people die “with COVID, not of COVID”. Thus fatalities are incorrectly labelled an overestimation. Given this is pushed often by those who falsely insist vaccines kill and injure on a large scale it reflects a rather bizarre lack of compassion. As pointed out by USA Today the COVID-19 fatality rate is ten times that of influenza. More so it may be a serious diagnosis depending on age and health. To this we must add the emerging problems of ‘long haul’ symptoms perhaps in as many as 32% of those who have recovered from COVID-19.
In an interesting twist it was another wannabe COVID conspiracy-freedom-fighter who provided confirmation from Bupa that adverse reactions requiring hospitalisation are covered if their policy covers the treatment provided. It’s a bit of a story so another slide show is needed.
In the first image we see Bupa’s reply to anti-vaccine activist and COVID conspiracy theorist Matt Lawson, on social media. It outlines quite clearly that treatment covered by policy is available for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccination. In the next we see Lawson has engaged in a chat with ‘Cheryl’ from Bupa and presented this to Bupa on Instagram to challenge the prior response. The last screenshot was uploaded by Elle Salzone in the thread we’re discussing as another example of an insurance company denying cover to injury or reaction after COVID-19 vaccination.
Yet viewed in context we can see that during the chat Lawson supplied his policy number (image 3). So ‘Cheryl’ was answering in a specific sense, relative to his policy. This is absolutely in line with the claim made by Bupa in image 1 and also with feedback I’ve received from Bupa Australia. Still, image 2 reveals Lawson’s ill-informed, provocative reaction. The theme of acting with aggressive predetermined agendas is ingrained in the new age COVID conspiracy theorists. Matt Lawson reveals his conspiracy theory thinking when he writes;
Do you cover injuries caused by the convid19 experimental biological injection or not?
This comprehensive article reveals Bupa’s support for the COVID-19 vaccine and is in line with the position of global health authorities. There is no suggestion Bupa view the vaccine as experimental. Quite the opposite.
The letter mentioned in Lawson’s Instagram chat with Bupa Australia is circulating in social media within Australia. Within the Elle Salzone’s Facebook thread the image was uploaded twice, in support of the Allianz forgery. One commenter stated, “Another example shared of a void policy”. The second observed, “I think Bupa were one of the first…”. The image is below.
The text is as follows;
23 March 2021
Thank you for speaking to me.
I confirm that side effects arising from the COVID-19 vaccine are not covered under our exclusion for: Complications from excluded or restricted conditions/treatment and experimental treatment exclusion.
If you are injured whilst doing COVID-19 swab yourself, cover would be available towards the injury.
I hope this information is helpful. If there is anything else we can help you with, please call our team on the above helpline number.
Even if genuine, this letter has no impact on Australians. Peering at the Bupa letterhead we can confirm it is from Bupa Place in Salford Quays, Manchester U.K. Anti-vaccination activists will contend that the first paragraph confirms that side effects and complications from the COVID-19 vaccine are excluded from cover because it is an experimental treatment. The second paragraph conveys that insurance cover is available if one is injured, “whilst doing COVID-19 swab yourself”. In the U.K. home test kits are available.
Australians can also dismiss this as here it is illegal to advertise testing kits for serious infectious diseases. The TGA have a very clear warning to consumers and advertisers on their website. Thus there is no reason for Bupa to even consider such cover in Australia and Bupa members can disregard the letter and its claims.
Still, anti-vaccine claims are global in their reach, as is social media. If we take a cautious and in depth look into the origins of this letter there are different possible conclusions. It is a poorly written fake or a badly written follow up with a customer. Neither confirm the claim of an uninsurable experimental vaccine.
Bupa U.K. explain excluded and restricted cover in this Bupa Membership Guide [Archived]. This document provides a likely source for the information that the author presents with notably poor grammar. The opening paragraph is difficult to grasp. It may be that English is not the author’s first language.
With respect to the terminology used in the letter, on page 35 of the U.K. Bupa Membership Guide we find;
Exclusion 7 Complications from excluded conditions, treatment and experimental treatment
We do not pay any treatment costs, including any increased treatment costs, you incur because of complications caused by a disease, illness, injury or treatment for which cover has been excluded or restricted from your membership. […]
We do not pay any treatment costs you incur because of any complications arising or resulting from experimental treatment that you receive or for any subsequent treatment you may need as a result of you undergoing any experimental treatment.
On page 38 we find under Exclusion 16 Experimental Drugs and Treatment, this paragraph;
Please also see ‘Complications from excluded conditions/treatment and experimental treatment’ […]
There we have it. The text could have been copied and pasted in an extremely poor customer follow up, and that’s it above. Or copied and cobbled together in a dodgy forgery. The antivaccinationist lie of an uninsurable experimental vaccine is quite vocal on social media in the U.K. Yet under the glare of fact it is a demonstrably pointless effort.
In the U.K. COVID-19 vaccine side effects are covered under the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme, established in 1979. This provides no-fault compensation for Adverse Events Following Immunisation. It is possible that offering cover is not an option for insurance companies. Either way, side effects are not covered by Bupa U.K. So it may well be that treatment of complications is classified as restricted and/or excluded regarding hospital cover.
The most important point here is that the COVID-19 vaccine is not an experimental treatment. Yet this letter is being pushed in Australian anti-vaccine circles to contend insurance companies are of the view it is experimental. Whilst a bogus claim, the overall forgery scam is reinforcing that claim in COVID conspiracy circles.
Bupa Australia are aware of this letter and have taken the chance to assure those who ask (such as the argumentative Matt Lawson) that cover is certainly available. When I raised this specific issue I was informed by Bupa Australia;
Private health care in the UK and Australia can vary greatly. But rest assured that our members will be covered for any hospital admission following an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine, as long as the service is included in their cover, and any waits have been served.
Ultimately all the anti-vaccine points put forward by Elle Salzone and others on her Facebook page are demonstrably false. A search for insurance cover and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events yields results from around the world, not just Australia. For example cover for AEFI after the COVID-19 vaccine is available in Singapore whilst there’s a WHO compensation fund for people in developing nations suffering side effects. In general, insurance companies are involved in many areas specific to the COVID-19 vaccines, including in China where they are looking to cover adverse reactions.
Sadly some Facebook visitors to Elle Salzone’s page, who take her word on trust, are absolutely convinced of the dark side as this reply to me, packed with five pieces of misinformation, confirms. [Note – this is not from Salzone but a vulnerable visitor].
Sigh. Still all hope is not lost. As the well-known phrase from the X Files reminds us:
The present pandemic Australia is experiencing, and successfully managing to the envy of much of the world, has given attention seekers like Smit a spotlight they could previously only dream of. She clearly has no problem denying the scientific evidence and the necessary reality of COVID-19. Rather, Smit sees it as a tool to manipulate the gullible and those already tuned to conspiracy theories to further her own aims.
The COVID opportunity wasn’t lost on other conspiracy theorists around the world, particularly anti-vaccination lobbyists. As Vaxxed producer and CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network, Del Bigtree boasted last year the pandemic was “a dream come true”. It was to be capitalised upon. It was an opportunity to “get people to wake up”. In practice what this really means is convincing people that they have been asleep. A task that became easier when COVID lockdowns and restrictions yielded an attentive social media audience.
Smit’s attention-seeking includes an attempt to get a spot on Australian Survivor in 2017. The audition video is an interesting clip and Smit tells us that, “my willpower will definitely put up a very good fight” to scenes of her balancing on one leg (see below). Monica Smit has demonstrated her will power through the establishment of Reignite Democracy Australia (RDA), a $1 company of which she is the only director and sole shareholder. RDA has over 50,000 supporters with strong wellness, anti-vaccine and conspiracy beliefs.
Smit has also displayed unique energy in her willingness to jump onto any conspiracy theory that is popular amongst anti-lockdown protesters. Her website tells visitors that RDA is a political movement*, not a political party. It’s a clever line. Particularly if hiding your allegiance to political connections. The site also offers a discredited study disputing the efficacy of masks and the now worn out anti-vaccine trope that PCR tests are oversensitive and thus COVID-19 cases are false positives. She would reject conspiracy theory labels and does reject being anti-vaccine.
Smit is attempting a unique balancing act in protesting the anti-vaccine label. In a video on her RDA website today she offered a “recap” of yesterday’s protest at the office of Federal Health Minister, Greg Hunt.
Despite the presence of anti-vaccine protestors, signage and rhetoric Smit rejected media reports of an anti-vaxxer presence and maintained she was “about informed consent”, the standard anti-vaxxer catch cry.
Monica Smit is, unsurprisingly, hard to get a handle on. She can be found online as a freelance journalist, although as we’ll see, this is a role she has apparently abandoned. That site is now focused on attacking Dan Andrews and massaging the fears that link COVID public health measures to an impending death of democracy. The site hosts Smit’s articles covering a range of topics from around the world. Despite claiming she will “only work with positive endings” she manages to find negative subject matter. Caps lock and repeated exclamation marks abound.
She also describes herself as a “Catholic pilgrim”. Following the Journalism menu to Catholic one finds a Regina Coeli Report in PDF featuring an interview with Smit on pilgrimages. Smit talks about God, the devil and evil. She references the fight for the Catholic faith and getting a “clear response from God to my efforts” for which she “wept out loud with joy”. Asked what she would say to convince someone to go on a pilgrimage she answered.
You won’t regret it I promise! Just turn up and God will do the rest! You’ll see!
She would be just perfect for the emerging far right in the Victorian (and Australian) Liberal Party. As she bellowed at a rapturous crowd in Melbourne last weekend the fight she is leading against Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Scott Morrison and Dan Andrews is one, “between good and evil and we are the good and good always prevails”. Smit maintains she is independent. Not affiliated with any political party.
Smit’s involvement in attacks on Victorian premier Dan Andrews goes back at least to working for online group Victoria Forward. The group hides its allegiance to the Victorian Liberals claiming to be “bipartisan”. The main identity is Facebook-friendly teen Edward Bourke. As reported byGizmodo Australia Bourke started work as Male Vice-Chair at the Sunbury branch of Victorian Liberals in December 2019. It was one month before Victoria Forward emerged. Bourke is a firm Trump supporter who is proud of his plan to “import US political culture” starting with the launch of Victoria Forward.
In May last year Monica Smit worked with another apparent freelance journalist Stephanie Bastiaan in video production for Victoria Forward. Bastiaan, a member of the Victorian Liberal Party, is co-administrator of Victoria Forward’s Facebook page. Bastiaan is an integral part of the party’s conservative faction associated with branch stacking last year. She is the wife of Marcus Bastiaan who resigned from the Victorian Liberal Party in August last year due to the same branch stacking revelations.
Victoria Forward is anti-Dan Andrews and has capitalised on political sore spots for the Andrews’ government. Anti-lockdown sentiment, the Belt and Road agreement with China, volunteer firefighters and the unfortunate but necessary brumby cull. Opposing the last issue found support from another anti-Dan Andrews group Project Rural which has close links to Victoria Forward. Another website has put time and energy into fighting the Andrews’ government’s planned brumby cull. That of Monica Smit “freelance journalist”, which includes images and the article Racing to save last descendants of WWI ‘waler’ brumbies. Smit and Stephanie Bastiaan were praised for their efforts defending the brumby by member for Western Victoria, Bev McArthur of the Victorian Liberal Party.
Monica Smit is also a darling of Sky News. She was interviewed in October last year during her stint on the Let Us Work bus with the “Sack Andrews” hashtag. With what would become a tactic of Smits during arguments with police at anti-lockdown protests she used her apparent status as a journalist to shirk social distancing restrictions. The bus was the idea of Laurie Pincini, of Rockleigh Tours and the sign was courtesy of another small businessman. Both had lost their businesses to the lockdown impact on movement and Smit used their situation to her advantage. Alan Jones on Sky interviewed Smit after the Stop the sale of Victoria rally last November.
Smit kept drawing attention over 2020 and into 2021. She would attend protests and have herself filmed arguing with police over her right not to wear a mask, because she was a journalist. As noted above yesterday she was vocal at a protest outside the office of Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt. Channel 7 reported on the event. In one bizarre post on the RDA site today is a screenshot of her message that, “It WASN’T and (sic) anti-vax protest just FYI”. In the shot is an image of a woman holding a sign that reads, “It’s a DNA altering poison to change who you are!”.
Her most compelling performance was last Saturday February 20th in the Botanic Gardens Melbourne. The much promoted Millions March Against Mandatory Vaccination. Immediately before she spoke, some organisers appeared to be trying to get the crowd to stay in groups and maintain some semblance of social distancing. Smit jumped onto the podium, grabbed the microphone from the speaker and yelled, “Do what ya want, awright!”, to rousing cheers. [Video: see 1min 15]
Then Smit almost screams, “We are coming!”. More cheers. She puts on a pair of gloves promising it will make sense. She went on to yell that the door that closed was Gates, Fauci, Morrison and Andrews. The window that opened was them. Cheers. The people around are fighting for your future, your children’s future the crowd was told. They would die for this country. Louder cheers. They had tried to do the right thing. Wrote petitions. Nobody opened the email. She stamps her foot, not for the first time. “Guess what? We’re coming for all the marginal seats”, Smit managed to loudly sneer leaning forward jutting out her chin.
She was in her element. Attention, glorious attention. Stuff Australian Survivor. They would never get cheers like this. She goes on firing up the crowd with promised threats to governments, Federal and State. A monster has been awakened and the fire in its belly is so bright it can’t be put out, she yells. “Guess what? We have God on our side… this is a battle between good and evil…”. She continued on leaving no doubt that her plan is revenge through political victory. Anyone who knows her, the crowd was told, would know she has been towing the line, she’s been a reporter (self-appointed freelance journalist), doing everything right. “Well guess what? The gloves are coming off”. She pulls her gloves off and throws them down. Then finishes with another, “We are coming!”. Chants of “Moni-Ka, Moni-Ka” followed.
You can also check Monica Smit’s performance by audio here [MP3 5MB] or listen below. After Smit is a few seconds of the angry crowd chanting at police, “Free Australia, freedom, freedom”. There were twenty arrests.
It was a well planned speech. Monica Smit has no doubt what her next move is. Exactly who she may have offering or even giving support is not clear. Past form would suggest conservative factions of the Victorian Liberal Party. Yet Smit’s conduct would almost convince that she is striving to be an independent liberal. Reality says she will be a conservative. Her attacks on the Morrison government serve to create the impression she has no time for a coalition government and perhaps the Liberal Party.
But impressions can be deceiving. Monica Smit can be deceiving and is likely deceiving her supporters. Time will tell if she has truly abandoned Victorian Liberals. At one point Smit yelled that the most dangerous thing was a person with nothing left to lose. She blamed the government/s for this. The scale of selfishness and recklessness at play in exploiting public health measures necessary in a pandemic, can’t be overestimated. Little wonder there were twenty arrests.
A pressing issue in this light is the growing protest movement and the rise in anti-vaccination traffic on social media. It is concerning that there is little doubt such protests will continue. I recently mused in a comment about this so-called mandatory vaccination march. What fascinates me is that this is going on in the wake of the severe oppression and jailing of Hong Kong protestors who dared publicly say, “Independence for Hong Kong”. At the same time as Myanmar is experiencing a military coup and suppression of democracy. The same time as the actual dictator (not Dan Andrews) Alexandar Lukashenko, crushes anyone who dares object to him stealing the most recent Belarusian presidential election. At the same time as Putin jails many who gather to vocally support opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Who himself was jailed in a penal camp for breaching conditions of a suspended sentence.
It goes to show what a secure and fair democracy Australia is when the utter vacuum of any need to protest leads to the invention of faux suppression. So the privileged bored can role play. COVID-19 vaccines are not mandatory. Nor are they ‘experimental’. But more so, we know much of the anti-vaccine, anti-COVID measures and conspiracy theories have been generated by Russian trolls and bots [BMJ]. So how does Australia treat ex-pat Putin loyalists who regard us as a USA puppet and Western “enemy”? It lets them protest and say whatever they like. To even counter-rally against Ukrainians who are also rallying for their own cause to be independent from Putin’s Russia. Because that’s what this county allows. Democracy.
I imagine protestors will continue to enjoy this game. To pretend their rights are being taken away. To act as if they can’t refuse the vaccine. Pretend vaccines don’t work but instead cause widespread injury. Gather absurd information from social media and accept it as truth. Become hysterical about the Nuremberg code and argue their rights are breached, which they aren’t. Praise the scam artists profiting from their gullibility. Never question how full-time anti-vaxxers – white, financially comfortable and safe, support themselves. Pay no attention to the genuinely oppressed in the world, unless they want to liken their pretend oppression to real suffering.
Australia and its democracy may not be perfect but it has given rise to the bizarre symptom that is faux suppression – the pathetic, selfish obsession with fantasy. These protestors are without a doubt a malignancy born from democratic values. If they can not only invent suppression but afford (financially and socially) to role play as if it were real, no matter what the health cost to the society that props them up, then they certainly live in one of the greatest nations on the planet.
Australia has flaws of course, and our government is far from perfect. But the purported reignited democracy from the likes of Monica Smit who has inane support from the likes of Bernie Finn and Craig Kelly would be truly horrifying.
Well guess what? Reignite Democracy Australia is not coming with anything Australia needs.
* 4 September 2021 – The site now describes RDA as “An advocacy group and aspiring media outlet.”.
On a rather recent January 13th the Australian Vaccination-risks Network announced its partial departure from Facebook. Only weekly videos of Meryl Dorey’s Under The Wire show and Facebook-live videos will continue.
By member email, and more fittingly by Facebook post, distraught followers and amused critics were confronted with this graphic and informed;
The AVN Committee has made the decision not to remain on Facebook where we are already shadow-banned and suppressed for sharing factual, referenced information on the harms and ineffectiveness inherent in our one-size-fits-all vaccination program. We cannot support a platform that is so blatant about silencing us and so many others.
Yes. There is a lot of wrong packed into that short paragraph. Perhaps the mid-section is the most compelling. This blog is one of many that counter so-called “factual, referenced information” from the AVN and the contention that vaccination programmes are harmful and ineffective. The “one-size-fits-all” anti-vaccine mantra has become standard in recent years, finding a place amongst CBS News’ 10 deadly myths about childhood vaccines. The US site Vaxopedia comprehensively addresses this claim.
This was pushed by Judy Wilyman in her 2015 PhD thesis. The term features on four pages and receives much attention as supposed support for her claim that genetic diversity renders immunisation programmes ineffective and dangerous. It also features on her website. This towering failure to grasp immunology rests upon her exploitation of a 70 year old quote from Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet. I touched on this in 2012 and in the previous post referred to Wilyman’s most recent publication which again presents this contention. Australia’s National Immunisation Programme is not “one size fits all”. It is a diverse programme targetting specific needs.
Back to the paragraph of wrong. It finishes by stating the AVN can’t “support” Facebook because it is so blatant about “silencing” them and others. This is all very dramatic and as I will explore part of an attempt by the AVN to big-note themselves as a radical right wing threat to social media. One must remember that at no time in their history of “supporting” Facebook has the AVN page been temporarily suspended. It’s fascinating timing that whilst writing today I scrolled to a video announcing that Dorey has been suspended from the AVN Facebook page for 30 days. I’m unaware as to why and her most recent Under The Wire (UTW) videos remain on the page.
♦︎ Update 4 Feb. 2021 – see below.
AVN founder Meryl Dorey and president Aneeta Hafemeister have constantly peddled the line that they may be deplatformed at any time due to warnings from Facebook. In fact in a 31 May 2020 Facebook live video Hafemeister observed that Facebook got “snarky” because they had “shared about the [anti 5G] picnics”. So radical was this that she didn’t know if they’d get any more warnings. You may grab the MP3 here [300KB] or listen below.
Aneeta Hafemeister tells listeners AVN could be banned from Facebook, 7 1/2 months before they voluntarily leave… somewhat.
So this leaves us with the claim they were already “shadow banned and suppressed”. We can dispense with the claim of suppression immediately. The AVN has had nothing more than fact-checked posts to deal with. These are greyed out and state False Information: checked by independent fact-checkers, giving the reader pause before proceeding. The AVN once observed that such censoring revealed the importance of the information. Shadow banning involves quietly blocking posts or comments such that members aren’t aware of the ban. This hasn’t happened either. Although the claim being made seemed to be about notifications of posts. They claimed followers could not find them or see notifications.
I’m not sure how this was determined as some commenters confirmed they had the page marked and missed nothing. None agreed they were suddenly not being notified. The lie, as it turned out to be, was revealed the following Saturday when Dorey’s show attracted a larger than normal audience. To date there have been over 800 shares and over 500 comments. The next show managed 470 comments. A recent video by Hafemeister managed 300 shares and 424 comments. To top it off she talked about the spike in numbers visiting the AVN page. Topping that off is that live videos will include interviews from the Vaxxed II bus which can number several per day.
So. Why the pretence? Both Dorey and Hafemeister are unashamed conspiracy theorists and seemingly seek the attention presently given to right wing extremists. Having retained US citizenship, Dorey is a Trump devotee and proudly voted for him. I will stress they are not active extremists but do crave an anti-authoritarian image. In today’s social media environment that means wandering into areas of the far right. They are anti-government mainly in thought, sticking to large, safe gatherings and protesting against soft, even meaningless and imagined “suppression”. Like all anti-vaxxers COVID-19, 5G, lockdowns and then the COVID vaccines gave them the chance to play rebel and increase their following without facing up to the reality that they in turn were a means for others and not a solution.
They have both revelled in the thrill of being taken seriously whilst ignoring the inescapable adage that nothing is forever. From Hafemeister gushing about “We are not government property” painted on the Vaxxed II bus to Dorey’s frenetic rants about fascist dictators that I posted in The Hill We Die On, they have laid a rebellious veneer over the anti-vaccine reality. The opening slug of that post quoted Dorey as follows;
When the police were in Ballina and they were telling us we had to move… I called Aneeta who’s the president of the AVN and I explained to her what the situation was… and she said ‘this is the hill we die on’. And that’s what I think too. We can’t be pushed any further, we just can’t. [..] I did not move here to live in a dictatorship… I will live in a free country or I will die.
The audio of Dorey in the post contains far more intense pseudo-revolutionary, anti-government ranting than the above. Hafemeister’s live videos are filled with “we the people” rhetoric mocking government health policy. A rhetoric that consistently pushes the fallacy of a vaccine injury epidemic that the AVN works against “the system” to solve. In truth both these women are secure white upper middle class individuals with very comfortable, entitled, privileged lives. It’s this very privilege and comfort that allows them to invent and internalise huge problems that don’t exist. Their present lives are spent in elaborate role play.
This was confirmed a number of times during last year’s Vaxxed II bus tour. Despite promises to metaphorically storm the Bastille, and literally die or be free Dorey and Hafemeister meekly complied with requests to move their elaborate show elsewhere. Without exception. Without as much as a shaken fist. The promised revolution shrivelled to behind keyboard attacks on Lord Mayors, councillors and business owners who had dared “suppress” them. AVN members were and are constantly exploited in these endeavours. They are fed contact details of targets and often provided with a template response. Abusive tweets and sabotage of Facebook pages is the norm. Accepting that these responses are excessive is not something the AVN does.
All of this rhetoric, posturing and role playing helps us grasp why the AVN announced its departure from Facebook at the time they did and in the way they did. It was just over a week since the riot and breach of the US Capitol [Wikipedia]. Significant changes had occurred on Twitter and Facebook with Trump’s accounts being permanently suspended and his violent followers being banned. The right wing extremist and fascist hosting platform Parler had been dumped from app stores and deleted from Amazon. It has not yet returned. Much to their frustration the AVN was left happily unmolested. Even Dorey’s very pro Trump “they-stole-the-election” Twitter feed was untouched. When it comes to anti-authoritarianism they just ‘aint bad enough to be Zucked permanently. If they weren’t going to be pushed they could always jump. So they did.
It was the ideal time to leave. They could seize upon the energy following the banning of dangerous accounts and important identities. For bad ass anti-vax revolutionaries it isn’t just what you leave but where you go that matters. The AVN announcement offered a list of alternatives where they would set up shop. These were Telegram, Parler, Gab, MeWe, Brighteon Social and Twitter with videos being posted at YouTube, Brighteon, Bitchute and Rumble. Most of these groups will permit unchallenged falsehoods to be published as “news” and “fact” under the guise of “freedom of speech”. Compare this rubbish from AVN’s Gab page (vaccine kills 24) with the actual reports (COVID kills 24). One can plainly see why fact checking and mainstream media don’t fit their plans.
One wonders at the wisdom of six different social media platforms and four video sites. It’s excessive but these platforms offer the AVN more exposure, potentially more recruits and thus more members. They seem to be settling in to Telegram and Gab (using their past name Australian Vaccination Network), the latter accomodating large numbers of Trump supporters. Gab is similar to Parler in that it is a haven for right wing extremism and hate speech. It was dumped by GoDaddy in late October 2018 after a member was involved in a synagogue shooting. The domain was then registered by Epik. It has been reported that Gab now rents server hardware.
The AVN’s Twitter and Parler accounts are unique to the group whilst Meryl Dorey also has Parler, Twitter and Facebook accounts. These accounts provide insight into how genuine the move from Facebook may be. On 25 September 2020 on what is the AVN Twitter account they announced;
The AVN has just set up a page on [Brighteon]. If you can join us there, it means that we can actually leave Facebook and its censorship, far, far behind! Please share this link as widely as you can too. Show Zuckerberg hs is very replaceable! [Screenshot]
Then on 5 December 2020 Dorey announced (left) she was leaving her personal Facebook account for Parler. She was tired of “the censorship, the abuse from FaceBook itself and the constant fact-less checks”.
Meryl would no longer be posting or responding to anything on Facebook. However she was back in four weeks by 1 January 2021 – before Parler was deplatformed. Indeed a quick check confirms she was “responding” to another commenter on her page earlier today. The post to the left has been deleted.
Meryl Dorey is still the face of AVN and wears whatever colours seem to get the attention she desires. COVID-19 is a hoax, a ‘scamdemic’ perpetrated by governments to enable control of the population. Yet she is an adamant supporter of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 and those right wing commentators who claim it is being suppressed. Her Twitter profile (@nocompulsoryvac) features a photo of Donald Trump and she tweets and retweets in support of the notion the US election was stolen. She supports COVID conspiracist, Dr. Simone Gold and posts common themes of COVID misinformation. Some of her tweets are in the slide show below. The same themes featured in Parler in December 2020 and continue on the AVN’s current Twitter account and Dorey’s personal Facebook page. The image from Gab would have been promptly fact-checked on Facebook.
By quitting Facebook with as much fanfare as possible the AVN can associate itself with genuine anti-government forces on social media. Aneeta Hafemeister and particularly Meryl Dorey can envelope themselves in a controversy that is not of their making and has zero to do with them. In time their narrative can bend to accomodate claims that they, and many others, were forced to leave Facebook at the time of the US Capitol riots. In the case of the AVN they will now claim they were forced to make the choice.
The reality is that the COVID-19 pandemic drew unforeseen attention and numbers to the anti-vax cause. Anti-vaccine media coverage increased by 900% from March to May 2020. It is highly unlikely anything like this will be repeated although it is also a wave with ongoing energy. The COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Trump election fiasco and the US Capitol riot have continued to motivate a disparate conspiracy-loving demographic. Nonetheless the AVN had begun to witness a decrease in Facebook attendance which they blamed on supposed censorship.
Both Hafemeister and Dorey have easily embraced unrelated dynamics to fit their role play. The impetus for the changes in social media were unmistakably due to events that occurred in Washington D.C. and had the specific aim of restricting organised and potentially violent episodes on behalf of Donald Trump and his claim of election fraud. For Meryl Dorey however the issue was the need to be a source of vaccine and medical information. For both, it’s an opportunity to exploit AVN members and perhaps turn the events to their own profit.
In the audio outtakes below from UTW 16 January 2021 we hear Dorey open by telling viewers that;
Here in our bunker we are on a war footing and that is only a slight overstatement because actually the entire world of social media, most governments and certainly the medical community and the media are at war with the truth. So we are your home at the present time, while we’re allowed to be, for the truth about vaccines and medical practices that you need to be aware of.
Nonetheless, it’s now time to say goodbye from the bunker. You can download the MP3 here [1.5MB] or listen below to farewell AVN’s Facebook days… sort of.
An unedited 5 1/2 min from the opening is available here [4.6MB] for those interested in the unblemished truth from which the outtakes above are taken. It does offer insight into how Meryl tries to convince members to cancel any Amazon subscriptions, as she did, because she can’t abide censorship. She’s not going to tell them what to do but if they’re Amazon subscribers they might want to consider doing the same sort of thing. Subtle.
One awaits further AVN social media developments with interest.
♦︎ 8:00 PM 4 February 2021: AVN publish newsletter stating the 30 day ban was due to the most recent UTW episode of 30 January 2021 which is still available on the Facebook page.