Tag Archives: evidence denial

Australia still shirking drug policy discourse

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Drug Free Australia, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal by

The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children, and we are all letting it happen

Senator Bob Carr (Foreign Affairs Minister), Mick Palmer (former Federal Police Chief), Nicholas Cowdery (former Director: NSW Public Prosecutions), Geoff Gallop (ex W.A. Premier)

On April 3rd this year Aussies woke to news of “the most significant challenge to drug laws in decades”, as reported by Fairfax media below. Or download MP3 [41sec]:

Interesting then that Bronwyn Bishop looks set to sit on the Front Bench of Australia’s next Federal Government. In 2007 Bishop chaired a House of Representatives Senate Inquiry into the impact of illicit drug use on families. Dreamed up by John Winston Howard to give an airing to the extreme right wing anti-drug movement whilst simultaneously heaping shame upon the brilliant minds driving the policy of Harm Minimisation, it was an appalling example of a predetermined agenda.

For many years prior it was axiomatic to those involved with illicit drug policy and the impact of organised crime that prohibition was a failure. The War on Drugs is a war on people and it surprised no-one that Bishop entitled her all singing all dancing moral panic final report “The Winnable War”. It was rejected by every D&A policy, funding and health service of any standing. Indeed by many more with pretty much no standing.

Drug Free Australia (DFA) and a range of conservative anti-drug lobbyists held it in high regard. Ann Bressington, who squeezes anti-vaccination, anti-fluoride, anti-Harm Minimisation and Festival of Light fundamentalism into her day, was delighted. Then again, Ann verbally coached a witness through his submission to say he “escaped harm minimisation, not addiction”.

Bishop had given succor to one of their fundamentalist favourites, and on the same day attempted to batter one of their sworn enemies for his devotion to health policy, science and evidence. Perhaps I shall recount one exchange with the G.P. who used naltrexone, sedatives and the bible in bringing about the death of 25 of his heroin dependent patients in 20 months [summary]. Now an “expert” in naltrexone related fatality with Drug Free Australia (I kid you not) he said then:

I was interested to discover that the actual historical site of Sodom and Gomorrah has recently been found in Israel. On the bottom right of this slide are pictures of sulphur balls that have been found there. So consequences matter, and they can destroy a civilisation quickly, as we saw with yesterday’s tsunami and so on.

This slide shows a tree with snakes, which to my mind is a lot of the stories that you hear from harm minimisation. Methadone, syringe giveaways, injecting rooms, medical cannabis, heroin trials all those are catered for by the same people. But, on the other side of the tree, you have all the downsides, the side effects, which are not talked about in this culture.

It is of extreme concern to me that medical science which is known and understood overseas is not understood and not talked about and given no airplay whatsoever in this culture.
These are old slides I made several years ago, charting a lot of these behaviours: this is condoms and the AIDS risk, charting the parallel between condoms and AIDS deaths.

Ms GEORGE (Senate committee member): Sorry, I do not understand. What are you saying – condom protection and AIDS deaths are correlated?
Dr Reece: Yes, condom sales and AIDS deaths. I am saying that there is a statistical association between the two.

Under Keeping Up The War On Drugs Bishop wrote in her report:

A significant amount of damage to families and the community has been avoided by the government’s uncompromising approach to the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. Drug industry elites who have repeatedly claimed that the ‘war on drugs’ has failed are simply wrong. […]

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and its partners have been highly successful in limiting the damage of illicit drugs in Australia. The number and weight of detections for selected illicit drugs are generally higher than before 2000…

Increasing drug seizures reflect increasing drug traffic. Increasing traffic reflects increasing and increasingly varied demand. Such demand indicates more use and we already knew more use was due to ineffective tactics globally. The snide term “drug industry elites” still has life in certain circles. Essentially it demeaned those who dealt in evidence alone and advised accordingly.

Australia endured the rejection of science by politicians for the very tenuous reason of hopefully securing votes. At the States and Territories health ministers’ conference in Cairns in 1997, the issue of a heroin trial – the latest step in Harm Reduction to show exciting success in Europe – was raised. Ultimately Michael Wooldridge, four states and the ACT voted for trials to begin. The result was 6-3 in favour.

Whilst credit is due for his continued funding of needle exchange programmes, Howard had not just a conservative eye but a retributive one. The success of Harm Minimisation under the previous government left him keen to change the essence of a policy that had seen Australia emerge as world leaders. Thus we copped his Tough On Drugs approach – a dismal failure. He immediately cancelled the trial on advice from his Evangelical adviser and first Chair of the ANCD, Major Brian Watters.

Watters was already making enemies in the ANCD itself, for merging his Salvation Army role with what should have been best practice. A Drug Free Australia Board member, Watters’ disdain for science and academics was manifest. He had spoken on an episode of Four Corners with John Howard:

WATTERS: I mean, the Salvation Army’s been doing it for 120 years. No good these academics telling us it doesn’t work.

HOWARD: And I feel in very safe hands, with the police on the one side and the Salvation Army on the other.

WATTERS: It’s the law and the prophets.

HOWARD: It’s the law and the prophets. That’s right.

So it continued. The “law and the prophets” looking after in-need Aussies. One of the most used phrases in the bible, it’s most significant aspect is that Jesus came to “fulfill” The Law and The Prophets. Then we got the faith healers and the purists. The Evangelists and the righteous. Anti-harm minimisation groups arose – DFA itself funded by [then] Health Minister, Tony Abbott. Others re-emerged keen to sink the conservative boot in to such sinful wickedness as clean needles, condoms and honest, open health education.

In 2007 The World Federation Against Drugs firmed it’s resolve in Sweden in striking mockery of the NGO Forum at the 50th Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Human Rights, Harm Reduction and Health Responses we heard from [then] UNODC Executive Director, Antonio Maria Costa, would be crucial to future global policy initiatives. Apparently not if conservatives could help it. Populated, perhaps unsurprisingly, by a number of biblical fundamentalists, evangelists and young earth creationists one might appreciate the uncompromising stance and anti-rights position that WFAD entertain.

On May 21st Mark Metherell reported:

DRUG Free Australia may not be a household name but its leaders claim a role in repelling further moves towards what they see as the evil of drug decriminalisation.

It fears the ”tough on drugs” regime of the Howard government is unravelling, with the abandonment of the school drug education strategy and declining use of community advertising campaigns. […]

‘Our view is that Australia’s illicit drug policy is too lenient, sending mixed messages to our youth,” [Jo Baxter] said.

Here’s a picture drawn by a child attending a DFA school education strategy (Hint: be drug free, go to heaven). Interestingly the Education Department in S.A. has a different view to Baxter on the matter. That article mentions a member of Youth for a Drug Free Australia, who is also head of The Recovered Drug Users League SA, Ryan Hidden.

He just happens to be the chap Ann Bressington coached to lie to the House of Representatives. But later Jo had him chatting to kiddies in school against Education Department instructions. A few weeks earlier he chose to dob in tobacconists the very day after Ann Bressington’s “bong ban” came into force.

Now… where did I read “mixed messages”?

Jo Baxter is Executive Officer of Drug Free Australia, Spokesperson for the S.A. “campus” of the evangelist driven Delgarno Institute is also vice-president of the World Federation Against Drugs. If you want an attack on human rights driven policy in Australia, Drug Free Australia is the group. If you want a “Heads Up People!” attack on the Global Commission on Drug Policy, whose main report also concludes prohibition has failed, the Delgaro Institute is the place.

But if you want to read an attack on the host of eminent Australians who produced the report raised in Parliament last April 3rd, Jo Baxter will even pop on her WFAD V.P. hat. So what do we get? Labelling the report compiled by 24 former senior state and federal politicians, experts in drug policy and public health, young people, a leading businessman, legal and former law enforcement officers, as “lacking substance” Jo begins:

The so-called ‘high level’ report on illicit drugs, suggesting that decriminalisation across the board, will solve Australia’s drug problems, lacks sound scientific basis and credibility and, as such should be discounted. The following a (sic) just some of the reasons:

First, it is not the ‘War on Drugs’ that has failed, but rather, it’s the failure of Australia’s Illicit Drugs Policy to satisfactorily address primary prevention.

For over 25 years Australians have endured a policy of Harm Minimisation, which has left a ‘train wreck’ in families and communities across the nation. […]

They have failed to recognised that, between 2000 and 2006, Australia had a ‘Tough on Drugs Strategy’ and our illicit drug use rates dropped significantly. The trend is now turning around. […]

Which is it I wonder? A Harm Minimisation train wreck or a Tough on Drugs victory? Harm Minimisation arrested the spread of HIV, Hepatitis B and harmful drug using practices. The surge in heroin use is well documented as due to immigration of a S.E. Asian demographic able to import large quantities and sell at reduced rates. If prohibition was working initially this would not have happened.

Instead criminal cartels blossomed and later shifted to manufacturing their own product indoors. If prohibition worked that would never have happened. It seems to me like Tough On Drugs actually oversaw the rise of many new classes of drugs and an actual shift in the drug using habits of our community more in line with criminal profit.

As always Harm Minimisation and Reduction have functioned to manage the fallout from prohibition’s failure.

Effectively Jo’s article is a repeat of what the Drug Free Australia mantra has been, no matter what the title, debate, paper or conference. A synopsis of what Bronwyn Bishop concocted in 2007. A reflection on their bogus research on Supervised Injecting Facilities, Needle Syringe Programmes, Medicinal Cannabinoid research and so on.

The global Drug Free movement is to illicit drug policy in the community, what creationism is to evolution in the science curriculum.

Given the demonstrable failures of prohibition, we are still reticent to discuss this issue vociferously. Clearly it is a topic that can be easily misinterpreted, accidentally misrepresented or used to cast mischievous accusations toward those who mount firm evidence backed arguments. Much of the confusion stems from the fear that drug use under relaxed laws will equate to greater use. Often this is expressed as if one believes use will be compulsory.

Yet needle provision did not lead to increased use. The return on investment is four dollars for every one dollar invested. As needles are returned potential virus reserves are removed from the community. Users reciprocate with services learning to manage health and exploit opportunity to cease using. New users are resourced and educated to develop the means to never risk cross infection. The entire community benefits and vital dollars are not spent dealing with preventable problems.

Still, the false belief that use is encouraged this way persists in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Similarly the notion of deregulation is seen as a “free for all”, quite bizarrely likened to alcohol. Perhaps understandably challenges to drug prohibition evoke images of the end of alcohol prohibition. With this comparison comes the assumption all drugs will be readily available and an integral part of culture. Businesses will provide and houses will be stocked. The roads will be full of talkative, super-horny, hallucinating, dozing, dancing, slurring and very hungry drivers heading for pizza.

No. The only relationship to alcohol prohibition will be the removal of the millions of Al Capone types and the violence, intimidation, corruption, ruined families and poisoned customers that inevitably evolve. The failure of prohibition can be seen in a top down, if not linear fashion. Yet the way in which it is finally dismantled is in my mind not completely predictable and remains a complex bottom up venture to be managed with flexibility.

Evidence across the world shows use drops or remains stable with relaxed laws. The Portuguese example has presented in over a decade, remarkable success. The advantages of removing extensive punitive measures and simple stigma become manifest in a few short years. Legal resources freed from the waste of hassling petty users are brought to bear on serious crime. Users, freed from the fear of severe prosecution and shame become proactive in seeking help.

Potential users become a smaller market as drugs become controlled by authorities and subject to medical oversight – not criminal endeavour. More so, the opportunity to get ones life back on track is a reality that provides huge motivation to avoid drug use and experimentation. Presently in Australia, by the time users need substantial help they may be alienated from society, ashamed, angry and overwhelmed by the prospect of “perhaps” getting a decent life back under way.

Options used to mange illicit drug use are well explained in the Australia 21 Report:

  • Decriminalisation means specified proscribed behaviour is removed from the criminal law and is dealt with under the civil law.
  • De-penalisation means reducing the severity of penalties.
  • Legalisation means that the specified forms of behaviour are no longer offenses dealt with by the law.
  • Regulation means establishing a strictly controlled legal market for drugs as is the case with pharmaceutical drugs, tobacco products and alcoholic beverages.

Deconstructing prohibition is not a licence to take drugs. It is a means to remove lucrative profits from criminals and steer in-need and at-risk Aussies toward a healthier and more hopeful future. Those able to see a way out of the present mess all hold a somewhat unique view. No one person holds the solution, but certainly as experts and visionaries, groups such as the Australia 21 Board are urgently needed to begin the process of improving Australian lives and saving tax payer dollars.

400 Aussies die from drug related causes annually and countless others suffer a range of related harm that varies from mild to severe interpersonal conflict, financial tragedy or horrific violence. Lives are cropped of potential and under the present system valuable, talented and vital community members slowly withdraw from society even years after they have ceased to use any drugs.

Stopping us from turning this mess around is the movement I opened this article with. Whether it’s same sex marriage, being an atheist or removing the stigma from elicit drugs a vocal and well organised minority conclude that they can do any and everything to impose their own moral values on the rest of the society. In effect however, knowing that they cannot successfully do this the outcome is merely to impede progress to equality and thus limit the freedom of others.

Hence we cannot really have this discussion without at some point acknowledging it isn’t resisted just on philosophical grounds. The continuance of the war on people and the fruitless prohibition of illicit drugs, regardless of means used, is the single aim of those who today are seen attacking Harm Minimisation and Harm Reduction.

Therein lies the problem. Whilst arguments are akin to anti-vaccination rhetoric: repetitive, evidence free, conspiratorial, personal and peppered with linking all related ills to the present policy, in this case conservatives do have political sway. Thus full and open discourse regarding the retrieval of control from organised crime must include the reality that the anti-drug movement is guilty in it’s own way of inflicting suffering, corruption and death on our nation.

More so, they know this well. The bulk of attacks on Harm Reduction revolve around creating the pseudoscience and pathological theories to argue HIV has not been controlled by reducing the personal exchange of blood and body fluids. Despite the exquisite correlation between Harm Reduction absence and HIV presence across the globe it is still argued that HR “enables” drug use, thus causes all negatives that go with it.

Discourse is poor because the reality is that no government would dream of even broaching the subject for fear of alienating the conservative vote. Dr. Reece states above that condom use parallels AIDS deaths and God’s wrath will follow Harm Reduction measures as a “consequence”. Rhetoric fed to parliamentarians about Injecting Facilities is nowhere near as absurd, looks genuine to the untrained eye and can influence decisions. We should expect the same polish in defence of prohibition.

Changes in equal rights now look set to take years. The public is well versed in who the bigots are in matters of marriage, abortion and euthanasia. For the public to be prepared to take on a gradual change in their world view as it pertains to drug use and abuse, those truly dedicated to abolishing prohibition need to expose the bigots and the saboteurs also. And yes, it may be that simply opening channels of discussion will be enough to do this.

The evidence is irrefutable. Prohibition has failed and it is killing Australians. We don’t just need discussion on the necessity for change. We need discussion on why there is as yet no change and instead a persistent silence. Every report on this issue and every report on Harm Minimisation success is attacked by anti-drug lobbyists such as Drug Free Australia.

When we do expand the discussion we must be prepared to lay the blame at their door.

Scientific consensus is a myth and flu vaccine infects with influenza

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, General by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to this another tweet had caught my eye:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless a visit to Facebook was a definite must.

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

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

The CDC have this to say:

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

NCIRS:

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

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

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

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

The Age of Hilarious: Reflections on the growing anti-science movement

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Big Placebo, Chiropractic, climate change, Denialism, Human Rights by

When I was a kid, my mum had a sure way of finding out what we meant when describing something as “funny”.

“Funny Ha Ha or funny strange?”, she’d ask, and when suitably availed of an answer could turn her attention to following whatever enormously important point kids tend to make. Looking around today however, “funny strange” is thoroughly outdone by the eerie normality with which faith and belief in demonstrable and dangerous fallacies pass us by.

Using “funny” as our proxy description of weirdness, one may consider the present day feverishness with which cognitive bias is clung to, literally hilarious. In what passes for our first generation and more to have lived in the Space Age, there is an abundance of not just unscientific, but viciously anti-scientific beliefs to choose from. So ubiquitous, so easily tolerated, so poorly regulated is this tsunami of irrationality that one cannot miss that we live now in a new age of hilarious ritual and superstition.

In this Age of Hilarious there are some undeniable and durable trends. From hip healers, to AIDS denial, to scheming chiropractors, to cancer cures, to creationist museums to vaccine denial merchants and even the screaming lunacy of the freedom and conspiracy lovers, one enemy glues them together. Science. Without rattling off the volumes of anti-science movements – many of whom claim to be immersed in science – the same thought justification applies. Science is bad, evil, unnatural, open to unwholesome thinking, an unwelcome intruder upon the family, upon motherhood and upon health.

Its agents are intent on hiding the truth and in exploiting our species. It has destroyed the planet and wants to destroy us. It has permeated so much of our lives that to those worshipping in the Age of Hilarious it’s axiomatic as to how malignant Science is. To use Science – or something tainted with its touch – in thinking or in decision making draws mockery and derision is many circles. It is at once corrupt and the vehicle for the corrupt to continue their corruption. Nonsense has become normal to the point where presenting facts earns inane insults. From Pharma shill in citing undeniable facts on vaccination to Zionist or Jew Boy for querying the logic of 9/11 as an inside job.

Yet despite the pointy ends of these beliefs, the hub from which it all comes probably tells us much about human nature. Those who embark on evidence denial often challenge critics or defend their illogical meandering with the unwarranted observation that Science doesn’t know everything… it can be wrong… the universe is infinite… there’s more to discover… I say “unwarranted” criticism, because no-one knows this better than those who understand science. Nothing else adheres to these observations as strict rules but the Scientific method itself.

I tend to hear this challenge more as a plea. Those who deny evidence with little thought hold to an ideology wherein they want to live in a mysterious universe. Alienated by the ordinary and mundane everyday explanations and foregone conclusions in the Age of Hilarious, they have essentially no notion that so much of what we take for granted now, was once never so. Perhaps a total mystery, a brutal fact of nature, an expensive time wasting ritual of ignorance or a serendipitous discovery.

Today there are so many millions living with so much explanation that the human needs for mystery, discovery or the urge to conquer intellectual fulfillment must certainly go unrealised. Is it so unusual then that an instinctive response may be to create the “unknown” or perhaps do this by denying what is known? To use the term conveniently, if we accept that humans have spiritual needs, nothing defines the denial of evidence and advancement of belief via ignorance better than the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement.

Finally the dots linking Science to Satan were joined. The Discovery Institute’s “anti-evolution” Wedge Strategy for “renewal of science and culture” begins with the breath taking lie:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Apart from its beaming intellectual revulsion, what strikes me most about the Wedge Strategy is its timing. Ideas from The Enlightenment (1650-1790) helped shape the most famous democratic documents in history. The intellectual forces it released have sustained reason and humanity above many attempts to counter Enlightenment philosophies. Although intellectual resistance began as early as 1800 the Industrial Revolution had already seen science secure its place as indispensable. After the two World Wars of the 20th century, then the Cold War, and the control of polio, science and democratic rights eventually opened the way for the quality of life that provided the luxury to be… well, stupid.

The timing was perfect to have Creationism – later renamed Intelligent Design – introduced as a new scientific area. Or rather, as ancient myths brought to life under the authoritative and credulous banner of Science. Thanks to godless communism and Billy Graham, Pentecostal, Baptist and Evangelical movements were well established. Biblical literalism was (and is) quite absurd but it did not want for believers. At the same time, the space race and the Apollo 11 moon landing succeeded in opening our eyes to new scientific wonders and understanding.

Punctuating this clash, and now forever in history, is the Apollo 8 Christmas Eve broadcast of 1968. The first astronauts to orbit the moon took turns to read from the book of Genesis, sending lunar images back to Earth.

By the time the sexual revolution and self discovery of the 1960’s and 70’s had passed, traditional religion offered cold, boring irrelevance. Confidence in mystery, cosmic wonder and supernatural interference had been blasted with knowledge, understanding and explanation. Faith was no longer a noble virtue. It was the absence of evidence and reason. Rather than a scattering of giant intellects condemning the folly of belief, it was an established widespread fact. Even worse the damage and perversion linked to religions was becomming manifest.

Science continued to do amazing things, spitting out new disciplines and knowledge as computer power took its place. Medical science wiped out smallpox in developing nations and extended the human lifespan in developed nations. Alien abductees and spoon benders were being challenged by these chaps known as Skeptics, but it was soon clear a new irrationality had taken root. Suddenly Noah’s Ark was discovered. Then again and again. The Age of Hilarious was upon us.

The ever increasing “natural” alternatives to medicine demanded more respect. Unable to provide evidence to back claims, denial of evidence and attacks on science began. Faith and high risk belief once again offered noble qualities. The alienated could belong. The challenge of ones character that led to such horrors during the middle ages: “How strong is your faith?”, underscored the rising anti-vaccination movement and its many “healing” cousins that in truth, do nothing but delay healing.

On another level the lessons learned from Intelligent Design proponents were being employed deftly by both climate change denialists and those with a vested interest in discrediting climate science. Except in this broadband age the change around from acceptance to denial occurred at breath taking speed. They too have their own “science” – a Global Warming Curriculum designed to undermine genuine science. Rather than the Discovery Institute befouling evolution and biology it’s the Heartland Institute generously funding a violent attack on climate science.

These factors aside the sheer numbers of people that now reject climate change, their high priests and the well established conspiracy language used is compelling stuff. Certainly it resonates well with anti-Enlightenment identities like Miranda Devine, products of The Age of Hilarious, who proceed to damage the field of discourse irreparably. So rigid are her anti-climate devotees a great number sprang to her defence when she blamed the London riots on equal rights and same sex union. The woman writes predetermined right wing vengeance, yet “great piece”, “wonderful article”, “blah blah”, flow across Twitter regardless of topic, as she insults critics with her baton of misplaced importance.

There are the Creationists who speak of climate science in the same tone I speak of war crimes. To confuse the mix other enemies of reason accept climate science not because they have the skill to choose a valid source, but because they are beholden to their misconception of “natural”. Yet far from potential allies in managing the fallout from climate change they contribute to delayed action on their own field of play. Destruction of GM crops. Misguided animal rights. Spreading misinformation about vaccination as a means to population control. It’s not smaller healthier and wealthier families they see emerging to bring developing nations out of poverty. It’s “human culling” via vaccine.

A common factor in all beliefs held by enemies of reason in the Age of Hilarious is the misconception of “research” and “conclusion”. We hear this with so many pseudo-scientific endeavours and particularly with climate denial and vaccine denial. People claim to have spent time researching vaccines, for example, only to follow on with the “conclusion” it’s best not to vaccinate their children. Yet whatever they have read has all the accuracy of that which leads others to deny evolution announcing, “If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys around today?”. Or to quote Kent Hovind, he hasn’t seen “a squirrel give birth to a pine cone… a dog give birth to a non dog”.

Vaccine denial relies on the towering ignorance of the over-confident or the thunderous immorality of the callous and cunning. One can accept that it is surely impossible to properly study immunology and that they must trust the scientific consensus. Or alternatively one can crave the nobility of faith, the piety of belief and insist on not being “a sheep”. In truth no amount of reading without evaluation and practice justifies the often heard claims of superior intelligence.

It’s here we need the Dunning-Kruger effect. Rational Wiki describes it briefly and in brutal accuracy:

The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Basically – they’re too stupid to know that they’re stupid

Complicating this further is the in-group thinking that accompanies the anti-science crowds. Consider the Chiropractic Association of Australia. The Australian Homeopathic Association. The Australian Vaccination Network and other organised conspiracy movements. All these groups and many more exhibit a lack of any skill to discern the value of information. Ideology and belief is what drives them. Today, claimed intelligence and the accumulation of knowledge do not make for good decision making.

The sheer volume of information means we are better served by developing the skill to choose what sources to trust. Though I imagine for some they are at an extreme disadvantage. The constant urge for intellectual risk in the supposed realm of the unknown, once served by genuine mysteries, is a cognitive detriment. Hearing someone like Meryl Dorey talk, sets off warning bells like reading a scam Nigerian email offering me untold wealth in the worst grammar possible. Yet for others she is the cult figure that completes the circle of irrational belief.

It seems we develop intellectual tools in the absence of any skill to use them. No doubt that goes for all of us and highlights the importance of critical thinking. Vaccine denial appears in many cases to be justified by stories of cognitive dissonance that are resolved to an eventual cognitive bias which is then fed to the point of a splendid Dunning-Kruger effect. Intellectually the inability to use certain tools most often results in failed comprehension. But combined with the inability to gauge risk the anti-vaccine movement is overseeing a resurgence of disease. Consider this comment approved by Meryl Dorey on The Australian Vaccination Network Facebook page.

Inability to understand risk-benefit is a feature of The Age of Hilarious

The developing world is for those of us in the Age of Hilarious much like where a time machine would take us if we went backward and forward to gather information of vaccine preventable disease (VPD). Today, one child dies every 20 seconds from a VPD. Pneumonia and diarrhea are the biggest killers in developing nations whilst these are prevented by Pneumococcal and Rotavirus vaccines. As the AVN’s Judy Wilyman rails against the HPV vaccine, dismissively citing developed nation levels of cervical cancer the reality is 270,000 women die of HPV related causes annually – 85% in developing nations.

The smallpox vaccine saves $1.3 billion annually – 10 times the cost of the original program. Typhoid kills 200-600,000 per year and in developing nations congenital rubella syndrome still claims 90,000 lives annually. The cost to a family of a disabled child or adult often combined with the loss of a mother is to us, incomprehensible. Vaccination allows for improved health and growth. Children go on to attend and finish school. They contribute to family life and when eventually employed raise the family income to levels usually not dreamed of.

The more children vaccinated the more that live and the more that live the less that must be “produced” by parents to compete with the present law of attrition. In countries with high VPD one doesn’t expect to see children grow. Rather one hopes against the odds enough will grow to sustain a bearable quality of life for the family. With vaccination quality of life improves dramatically. Families, villages, districts and even nations can be pulled from poverty.

The GAVI Alliance – previously Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation – fund 97% of pneumococcal vaccination in developing nations. In the last decade they have pushed hepatitis B vaccination in China above that in Australia and placed a virtual halt on liver cancer.

Yet comfortable in their scientifically endowed lives, fully vaccinated as children and content with two kids, vaccine denialists in developed nations insist the reduction in family numbers and misery is planned genocide. They ridicule charities and sabotage attempts to raise money for, or educate about, the success of vaccination in less fortunate nations, as yet free from the Age of Hilarious. Which raises the question: what are they free from?

A typical example is that recently Mia Freedman wrote an article about the self appointed experts of the anti-vaccine movement. Mia shreds the AVN ticking all the boxes about their false “choice”, the farcical name, the pretend expertise… in fact the truth. One quote I like which applies because the benefits of vaccines are irrefutable is, “In fact there aren’t two sides and there is no debate. On one hand there is science and there is no other hand.”

Dorey went berserk, summoned her flying monkeys and actually had them writing to Mia “from the other side”. The attacks were typical. “What a bl**dy parasitic moron journalist!” commented one. Her article was likened to eugenics, she was a moron, and idiot. She was an ignorant douchebag, rude, self-righteous, uneducated and hateful…. One can only imagine the emails out of the public eye.

Mia tweeted:

To which Dorey shot back “What threats? How about listening to parents of vaccine damaged kids to learn about the other side if (sic) vaccination? YES-2 sides!”. Which is terribly ironic as many have asked to see these crowds of vaccine damaged children that Dorey so liberally exploits. At the same time anyone presenting evidence was banned and their posts deleted – as usual. One member managed to remain leaving:

Mia writes engaging articles with compassion, empathy and humour. Many, many commenters on MM disagree with her position on many issues but as long as they’re not abusive, the comments stay. That’s why she has such a vast audience. You should try it, Meryl. You might find your audience grows instead of shrinking away and hiding on closed websites and Facebook pages.

And (to the author of the above Facebook comment – but not in response to that comment):

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

All in all it continued on for some time. I was riveted at how far the antivaccination movement – or is it just Dorey’s mob – had fallen. I could not find any arguments or attempts at discourse beyond vicious, wailing ad hominem abuse. Dorey wrote her usual scathing personal reply seeming to latch onto two sentences that distort Mia’s intent:

I’m certainly not suggesting we become a flock of sheep or suspend critical thought. But I don’t need to ‘do my research’ before I vaccinate.

Dorey used this to accuse her of being a sheep proffering, “Well duh! If you don’t do your research first Mia, may I suggest you open wide and say baaaaaaaaaa!”

But the full paragraph is clearer:

I’m certainly not suggesting we become a flock of sheep or suspend critical thought. But I don’t need to ‘do my research’ before I vaccinate. Or before I accept that the earth is round and that gravity exists. Scientists far smarter than me have already done that research and the verdict is unanimous, thanks.

Therein lies the impact of Mia’s article. Cries of “I’ve done my research” just don’t cut it with something as irrefutable as vaccination. From a safety viewpoint, it is open to abuse and argument less than regulation of the aviation industry. I would also argue, one needs the skill to discern a reputable source rather than embarking on piecemeal “research”. And in this Age of Hilarious it’s plain that Meryl Dorey is a source of dangerous nonsense.

To top it off Dorey made her seventh appearance on Friday at Conspiracy Central Airwaves aka Fairdinkum Radio. I’ve snipped 3 minutes of grabs below [or MP3 here]. It opens with Leon Pittard criticising science and the “technocracy” we’re moving into. It continues with Big Pharma terror then Dorey attacking Mia Freedman who “is a product of the governments health policy [which is] everyone must vaccinate and we need to fear and hate those who don’t do it”. That’s right dear reader – that’s government policy according to Dorey. Just like racism she contends.

Despite knowing the pertussis vaccine gives dubious immunity and no vaccine is infallible Dorey can’t seem to grasp Mia’s argument that an unvaccinated child is a risk to all Australians, vaccinated or not. Meryl should read this post from a mother whose vaccinated daughter caught pertussis from an unvaccinated child and three months later, “is prone to chest infections, pneumonia, and more susceptible to viruses and Influenza.”

In the same program Dorey again repeats the myth that no children died of pertussis in the ten years to 2009. Reasonable Hank deals with it splendidly. Why she keeps insulting her hosts and listeners like this I don’t really know, only to politely assume it’s linked to the pitfalls of cognitive bias above. Between 1993 – 2008, 16 children under 12 months died from pertussis. Dorey is well aware of this. And so her cult-like cycle of bald faced untruths continues.

French atheist, philosopher and author, Michel Onfray suggests the coming century will be the century of religion. He is probably right, but exactly what form the religions will take and what passes for belief and faith might be hard to recognise by its end. Consider Scientology for a salient example.

Whatever the case it seems that for a number of reasons from human psychology, to arrogance to simple power and profit the Age of Hilarious will persist for a while yet.

Science Under Attack

Posted in climate change, Denialism, Science by

© BBC

Sir Paul Nurse, President of The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge [Wiki] aka The Royal Society hosts an excellent round up of some of Reason’s more blatant enemies.

AIDS denialism, climate science cynics, antivaccination lobbyists and opponents to genetically modified food research. Nurse covers this and more. He does an excellent job of scrubbing constructed controversy from the “Climategate” email tale. This includes an interview with perhaps the most famous twonk ever to profit continuously from just one story, James Delingpole of The Telegraph.

All that can be added is that at the time of filming the recent revelation of well funded, coordinated efforts to undermine climate science, were unknown. This involved leaked memos, of all things, from anti-climate science “conservative, libertarian” think tank The Heartland Institute. Blogger Anthony Watts is being paid a nifty $90,000. They want to help the lad with his new website devoted to interpreting temperature station data. Crucially this actual scandal exposed Heartland’s intent to sabotage K-12 science with it’s own “Global Warming Curriculum”.

“K-12” refers to the sum of education from Kindergarten to Year Twelve in Australia, Canada and the USA. The Guardian wrote on February 15th that this included a proposal from journalist and epistemologist Dr. David Wojick which:

…will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

My personal request of Meryl Dorey

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Health, Immunisation, Media, Meryl Dorey, Scam, Science, Skeptic by

We (antivaccination lobbyists) are the real Australian skeptics

Meryl Dorey Jan. 4th, 2012

As many of you may have noticed, the rapidly rising pertussis epidemic in W.A. was reported by the ABC today.

This predictably sent Meryl Dorey of the AVN into histrionics. One of her ridiculous claims is that pertussis has increased “10,000%” with a 25% increase in vaccination. If you choose the figure of 332 from the very first year – 1991 – of compulsory reporting (which actually reflects sloppy reporting, gradual awareness and slow administrative changes) and compare it to today’s epidemic figure as Dorey does, it’s a dodgy trick.

A Stop the AVN member snapped this tweet from a cast iron flying pig that appeared on ABC News Breakfast

Because the “25% increase” comes from a 70% vaccination coverage in 1991 and a 95% coverage now. Strange, because a decade later in 2001, vaccination was only 70.6% and the figure of notified cases is 9,541. Sure we do have an epidemic figure for 2011 of over 36,000. But choosing a different year shows an increase of 3.8 times – not 10,000% – despite almost an identical increase in childhood vaccination.

I’ve laid it out all below. The entire method Meryl uses, and offered it back to her as actually showing a decrease of over 50% in 6 years. It’s her technique using her data sources. It’s rather silly as one cannot compare unrelated data sets. But in an attempt to draw some sense from Meryl on a fairly clear point I’ve (yet again) worked through the figures to seek a reply.

Meryl Dorey’s extraordinary claim about ABC journalistic integrity

I posted it twice today on the ABC News Breakfast Facebook page and also on Stop AVN. No “coward” stuff as Meryl alleged to Tiga Bayles. No “hiding behind anonymity” as Bayles suggested. No “suppression of free speech”. Just open and honest requests for a reply, based on evidence. Meryl’s claimed forte.

Originally I asked for a point by point response. Yet, I’m asking Meryl now, to respond to just one of my points. Just one. So far, there’s just silence. We shall see.

Summoning help, Dorey writes about: “…the rabid pro-vaxxers who would happily see all of our children dead or injured if they thought it would protect them or their families.”

Above Meryl you write:

…it’s all across Australia – why they chose WA I have no idea? (sic)

Well Meryl, whooping cough in WA has increased by almost 500% since 2009.

ABC News Breakfast

Also Meryl, WA has the lowest rate of child vaccination in the country. According to Julie Leask, senior research fellow at the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, “Delay might be due to [WA’s] adolescent vax policy”.

Julie Leask Tweet

As “Australia’s leading vaccination expert” I thought you’d know these things, Meryl.

Anyway, as on Facebook here’s the same request for a reply. All I’ve updated from Facebook is the NNDSS pertussis notification figures accessed now, at time of writing, and changed it to a first person address.

As I stressed Meryl, failure to address this surely indicates admission that your claim on pertussis is false. You may very well believe it, but if so, it must stack up to scrutiny. No agro, no bullying, just a golden opportunity to speak freely. So, excuses to not answer are thin on the ground.

I hope that’s not too annoying and I’d be delighted to have you. Fire when ready….

Here’s the original from Facebook.

Hi Meryl.

Could you address this point by point please. It’s the same post as above, but I reckon it’s about time you helped clear the air. If not, do I assume you agree that your claims on pertussis are invalid?

Thanks very much:

Contrary to your claims, the epidemic began in your backyard with low vaccination rates and spread out from there. From SMH, October 2010:

“The highest rates of so-called “conscientious objectors” to immunisation are in parts of the north coast – such as Byron Bay – where 12 per cent of children born between 2001 and 2007 were never immunised for any condition. […]

An epidemic of whooping cough in 2008 and 2009 began on the north coast. It quickly swept across the state driven by low vaccination rates in some wealthy parts of Sydney. Low-income areas in western Sydney also had less immunisation and were linked to outbreaks, Dr Menzies said.”

Now, let’s debunk your claim of high vaccination rates causally equating to high pertussis infection, using – not other information and techniques – but your actual tables and own technique.

You source your 95% from under 2 year olds in a 2006 table (as per Woodford slides on your blog). Also, here it is – http://i.imgur.com/w9I9g.jpg. This makes up one half of 1/18th of all age groups from your next source, a NNDSS table of whooping cough notifications: http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png

These are the 2 tables you sent to the NSW HCCC in September 2009 (see p. 6 http://www.mediafire.com/?dw32azbk97obakm) to whom you made the very same claim, in response to a complaint.

You only quote absolute figures about pertussis after all – not percentages, or age groups, or if a notification is asymptomatic, or was a tourist, or international flight attendant/maritime worker/business traveller/etc.

Here’s the NNDSS age groups showing the highest infection rate is between 40 – 65 years in 2007. Before the epidemic.
http://i.imgur.com/0eGTw.png

Although now, the three age groups up to 14 years show large increases, if we add up the notifications above this we see that most notifications still come from adults who have no immunity. It has waned and they need a booster. Their vaccination (booster) rate is 11.3% – not 95%. We need to increase this by about 7 times to reach herd immunity.
See p. 18 of Adult Immunisation Survey to confirm 11.3%.

You are using “unrelated data”. Just like the rise in driving licences is not causally related to the rise in road trauma, or that the best safety advice (according to your thinking) would thus be to abandon licence testing. You are wrong to quote these NNDSS figures in this way, because we know nothing about their vaccine status or immunity. All we know is that most are adults who have no immunity.

So, in effect they cannot be compared – but for the record I’ll continue on as if they can be compared.

We do know pertussis fatalities occur in the unvaccinated. Vaccinated can of course catch pertussis yet experience far milder symptoms and faster recovery. The claim that vaccination for pertussis is an impervious shield has never been made by health authorities. But the claim that it should be and if not, it’s useless, is being scurrilously made by yourself.

Okay, let’s use your method on another year.

We can see (using the same NNDSS data) that 2007 was the lowest year of infection on record since 1999 – http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png. It is also the 5th lowest year since records began.
Many discount the first recording years of 1991 and 1992 as very, very low anomalies that show a slowish start to new legislation requiring reporting of whooping cough. This would make 2007 the 3rd lowest ever. But I’m happy to take the 5th lowest year ever.

Rather different to your claim, no? But from your data source no less.

Now, looking again at your vaccination rate table (http://i.imgur.com/w9I9g.jpg) we see 2001 had only 70.6% vaccination. Infection was 9,541 Aussies. By 2007 – still using both your data tables we see 95% vaccination of babies and 4,864 cases of pertussis (http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png).

So, using your “technique” on merely another part of the same NNDSS table we can also claim vaccination more than halved pertussis notifications in a mere 6 years.

Your data, your method, the very same tables you quote from. Why then is this not your message? Why don’t you tell Aussies that these sources show a greater than 50% drop in whooping cough in just 6 years?

Because it’s selective statistical sleight of hand, is it not? We both can’t be right. It’s a simple trick – and I’m arguing that you know it is.

You are intentionally misleading Australians. This is why the NSW HCCC issued a public health warning that you “quote selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.”

Also, it’s strange that you cite 1990 vaccination coverage of 70% vs 2006 coverage of 95%, omitting to say it dipped to 61% in the mid 90’s and had only increased by 0.6% in the 10 years from 1991. Could this be because you want to create an impression? Perhaps.

It’s all in your table. Should you not address all figures? Why do you not address all figures?

Also, a good look at any NNDSS notification table shows rises and falls in infection. Contrary to your claim of a steady increase in infection as vaccine coverage rose, pertussis always rises and falls.

In fact the first 10 years when coverage went from 70% to 61% to 70.6% corresponds to notification levels similar to and greater than the second 10 years (http://i.imgur.com/XOrUY.png).

1997 is almost as high the 2008 epidemic year and vaccination coverage was under 70%. So, again we must ask – are you seeking to create an impression?

Epidemics are a different ball game. Once immunisation fell below a safe level in Byron Bay it took off like lots of little fires in low immunisation areas joining to create a massive bush fire.

So, low immunisation caused this outbreak not any problem with the vaccine. The answer? Get adults immunised and ensure babies get cocooned and immunised ASAP.

There’s nothing to stop me using the very same data and going around saying Australia had one of the lowest pertussis levels since notifications began, until your, Meryl Dorey’s lobbying against vaccination led to the 2008 epidemic (and cite Dr. Menzies, plus news reports etc to back me up).

But science doesn’t make leaps like that. We’d need better research. You really don’t use science, despite boasting of such – just tricks with scientific data hoping nobody will check. Please prove me wrong.

Let’s recap: I’ve used only your tables and your own argument style to a.) debunk your claims on pertussis vaccination = infection, b.) shown how it can be used to show a vaccine induced 50% plus reduction in only 6 years [2001 – 2007] and c.) pointed out some curious gaps in your coverage of the data that don’t seem to support your claims.

I look forward to your reply,

Thank you,

Paul Gallagher

(emailed to Meryl Dorey on Jan. 7th, 2012)