Meryl Dorey’s latest ‘legal challenge’ fundraising scam

A recent email to members the Australian Vaccination-risks Network included a bizarre letter to the Australian Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, demanding immediate cessation of the COVID-19 vaccination programme.

It is a bizarre demand for a number of reasons, foremost being that evidence supports continuation, not cessation of the vaccine rollout. In addition is a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific and regulatory advice ensures the most effective ministerial and government decision making. Next come the reasons for justifying these demands. All have been refuted with evidence or debunked as conspiracy theory thinking. Finally the extensive demands themselves are impossible and meaningless in scale and intent.

One claim I will address however. An AVN favourite is that the vaccine rollout is an ongoing experiment that Greg Hunt himself called the world’s largest clinical trial. Back in March we dealt with the antivax trope that the COVID-19 vaccination rollout is an uninsurable experiment set to wind up in 2023. It is demonstrable disinformation that manipulates the fact data are continually collected on drugs and vaccines after approval for use. The scale of post-approval data related to COVID-19 vaccination is vast. Enter Minister Hunt’s comments.

During an Insiders interview on 21 March this year David Speers asked a question about herd immunity and longer term goals. Greg Hunt told Speers in part;

The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data.

The next day during a doorstop interview a journalist asked;

Minister, when we have vaccinated the majority of the population, what does the new normal look like? Do we still have to worry about social distancing and hand sanitising with this vaccine?

Hunt replied that COVID-safe practices will be with us for a long while. Longevity of antibodies must be considered. That this is something the world will learn. And that;

We’re engaged in the world’s largest ever vaccination rollout and, at the same time, effectively, clinical trial. We will learn more; we’re already learning more.

Viewed in the context of questions he was answering it’s clear that Hunt was talking about how the vaccine will effect social activity. Not a trial of efficacy and safety as antivaxxers allege. Never has he used the word “experiment” either. Referring to Hunt in a live chat with Meryl Dorey two nights ago (Monday 28 June) anti-science crusader Senator Malcolm Roberts mentioned the Insiders episode then falsely claimed, “He himself said it’s a trial, it’s an experiment” [4min 35 mark]. In fact COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers published Phase III trial protocols more than six months before Hunt made those comments.

It is thus absurd that the AVN and others continually make this claim. It is also a predictable straw man as it provides a basis for their objection to COVID-19 vaccines. Meryl Dorey and the AVN gave Hunt seven days in which to reply. The demand states in part;

If you do not respond or if your response once again does not address our concerns, we would feel that we have no option but to consider legal action against you yourself, Minister Hunt, in the form of a private prosecution and against the Government to seek injunctive relief to immediately stop this current experiment on the Australian population…

If it looks like a scam…

Given the absurdity of the demands made upon Greg Hunt there is no chance of a favourable response. And this is exactly what Meryl Dorey wants. This makes way for her to announce that legal action will be pursued. Legal action that needs to be funded by AVN supporters. Financial donations to an organisation with no charitable fundraising authority are essentially free from accountability if not deemed for a charitable purpose. More so, the likelihood of successful legal action is zero. The private prosecution of a federal health minister who did not acquiesce to anti-vaccination demands is a calculated impossibility.

The chances of securing a court ordered injunction against the federal government to stop the vaccination of a nation against COVID-19 are (need I say it?) also zero. The party seeking the injunction must demonstrate they are at risk if vaccination is not prevented. As the vaccine is not mandatory and the plaintiffs have clearly stated their opposition to receiving it no risk can be demonstrated. So the AVN will claim to be defenders of Australians. They will need to demonstrate the nation is at risk if the vaccine rollout is not stopped. Again, the vaccine is not mandatory so clear evidence that the public are “guinea pigs” is lacking. If found to be in the wrong the AVN must pay the government’s damages. All this and more must be absolute before the case can go ahead.

This is without a doubt a scam to make money from pledges and donations.

The reaction from those familiar with Meryl Dorey’s money-making scams is proving prescient. Next would come an appeal for money to fund the legal action. After a time Dorey will announce that the action has no chance of succeeding after a rational (and expensive) legal team has reviewed it. The money will be kept and all too swiftly the AVN will return to the day to day business of processing membership fees and “sponsorships”.

On cue Meryl Dorey primed her audience on the morning of Thursday 24 June. The final minutes of a Facebook live video were dedicated to the announcement that the time was almost upon Minister Hunt. The AVN will need all the financial support they can get and a page will be set up for that purpose if, “our solicitors and lawyers and barristers say we are going to proceed”. It’s a performance of deception which you can access via mp3 here or listen to on the player below.

Her viewers were told over 300 Australians have died and over 30,000 have had serious reactions because of the vaccine. Dorey is doing this for you, for the Australian people who, “have a very dark future ahead”. We’re told, “tyranny and communism have descended on Australia”. Dorey twice slips up saying, “when this happens… when this goes ahead”. She knows it’s not a case of if. Thus if the AVN announce the case is going ahead, supporters must be presented with written evidence of legal advice confirming a chance of success. For as we know, Meryl Dorey has form in dangling the prospect of a legal victory in front of AVN supporters.

Previous ‘legal challenge’ fundraising scam

In 2016 the AVN, then known as the Australian Vaccination-sceptics Network, launched a similar scheme using the promise of a High Court challenge to No Jab No Pay legislation. This social services legislation amendment introduced an initiative to withhold state payments from families where children were not fully immunised. The year began with the AVN asking supporters to pledge money to fund a High Court challenge. By late March it was announced the challenge would proceed. Funding requests continued with so-called updates yet donors were kept in the dark.

Concerned donors soon suggested the AVN were being secretive as no legal team or strategy had been revealed and not one invoice for legal fees had been sighted. The AVN responded by email on 8 September 2016 saying they couldn’t show their hand because, “both the government and the pharmaceutical lobby would love to know what we are planning”. The AVN promised to reveal all when the time was right. They announced the total raised by that time was $160,000 and that double this was needed.

Three weeks later Meryl Dorey, AVN president at that time Tasha David, and another member were in the USA meeting with Del Bigtree and the Vaxxed team and protesting at a CDC rally. This trip wold have been months in the planning and was not the first for David. Two months later on Christmas day, contrary to months of published updates, donors and supporters were informed by email that the High Court case had no chance of success. Donations had continued for fifteen weeks since the $160,000 total was announced. Yet now the AVN were claiming only $152,203 was raised and $72,526 was spent on legal advice. The irregularity continued the following day when an identically worded post from Tasha David on the AVN website claimed just $50,371 was spent on legal advice.

For now, let’s work with the figures the AVN published. The pressing question is thus, will the AVN be using any of the money left over from the supposed 2016 attempted High Court challenge to fund this latest venture? Using the lower reported figure of funds raised and the highest of expenses, the least that could have been left turns out to be $79,677. That’s provided we take Meryl on her word that they actually did spend money on legal fees. The next logical question is, was any of that money later spent on antivax campaigns? It turns out that we can draw some conclusions regarding what was promised that Christmas day in 2016 and what later transpired.

Astonishingly lofty suggestions were made regarding the remaining funds. Pursue individuals in the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration), ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation) or PBAC (Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) with the tort of misfeasance in public office for “the harm they cause”. Then, that it’s far better to lobby local representatives for a possible Royal Commission into Vaccination. The purchase of advertising perhaps. Begin the process of bringing people together to conduct the much sought after vaccinated vs unvaccinated study was another suggestion. A watered down version of this last option was followed up in 2019.

On 28 February 2019 an email went out to members outlining how the AVN had donated $5,000 USD ($6,590 AU) to Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, a long standing US anti-vaccination activist. He is the CEO and president of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) and a vocal supporter of Judy Wilyman. AVN supporters were directed to a GoFundMe page which unsurprisingly still exists today. The resulting “vaxxed vs unvaxxed” paper was significantly biased and had pronounced methodological flaws. The sort of thing you need your own institute to produce. You can access the paper and a thorough take-down here.

On 26 March this year another AVN email revealed what the less charitable may refer to as karma. You see dear reader, £4,000 ($7,300 AU) apparently donated by the AVN to Professor Christopher Exley in May 2019, is missing. It was to assist with his research at Keele University into the neurodegenerative effects of aluminium. This Guardian article written at the time helps to assess AVN thinking. Apparently Exley was being investigated for anti-vaccine activity. The Dean of Natural Sciences at Keele Uni had suspended his research and “disabled” his website. Exley explained there were problems “reviewing” donations and those asking for a refund had received inaccurate information from an unreliable source. The AVN are hoping for a full refund.

The two donations to anti-vaccine research total $13,890. We can also identify some advertising. In October 2018 the AVN funded a controversial billboard at Carseldine in QLD displaying the question, “Vaccinated or unvaccinated: Who is healthier?”. An AVN email sent 8 October 2018 includes their objection to a demand from two QLD MPs for it to be removed. It had also drawn the ire of the QLD health minister at the time, Steven Miles. In today’s prices the 6x3m billboard would have cost around $3,500 for the month it was on display and under $1,000 for printing and installation. Let’s say $5,000 for the billboard.

In the spirit of rounding off shall we say the two donations and the billboard cost $20,000 from the leftover High Court challenge float of $80,000 leaving a not too shabby $60,000. If we accept the second account that 2016 legal fees were just over $50,000 the remaining balance becomes $82,000. Indeed $50,371 spent on legal fees is the figure that remains on the AVN website today. Comments under the post are beyond amusing. High praise, highly curated. Donors on social media at the time were scathing. One rejected such expenses existed contending the AVN had significant pro bono support.

Again I stress that these figures are based on AVN publications and thus biased in their favour. Nonetheless no announcements specific to spending the remaining funds from 2016 have been made. Unrealised options suggested at the time focused on legal action. Well, the time has arrived. $60,000 would buy a significant amount of legal advice. So the question is where is that money and will the AVN use it in this campaign? Members have a right to know. A fundraising campaign such as that conducted in 2016 is inappropriate, irregular and unnecessary.

Speaking of questions the most pressing in relation to the 2016 High Court campaign fundraiser also needs to be asked. Did the AVN reveal the necessary information about strategy and expenses to donors as promised? The answer is no. The necessary transparency needed to confirm the AVN did what they claimed never eventuated. Thus in calculating what the available funds for legal action might be, there is in fact no reason to accept any account of the AVN. There is no evidence that any legal team existed or that a minimum of $50,000 was spent on legal fees.

The hard fact is Meryl Dorey and her team saw no reason to provide this evidence or honour the promise that all would be revealed at the right time. If there is a reason for this strange lack of transparency they have never commented on it. They were keen to explain why secrecy was needed when donations were incoming, yet silent once they put an end to the campaign. At the last the AVN claim to have raised $152,204 months after announcing $160,000 had been raised. This means after raising an average of $50,000 per month for three months they expect donors to accept they raised just over $2,000 in total over the last six months of the campaign. Despite all this it is imperative that one not fall prey to conspiracy theory thinking and conclude absolutely. Suffice it to say that what took place cannot be what the AVN reported. In an upcoming post we’ll look closer at the scale and audacity of this scam.

NSW Fair Trading Investigation

Almost certainly the reason fundraising ceased is because the AVN were advised of an upcoming NSW Fair Trading investigation into the campaign. This was reported in The Australian two days after the AVN announced an end to fundraising. Fair Trading investigations however, only consider if the campaign was a fundraising appeal for the purposes of the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991. The Inquiry Report from September 2017 states that the view of the inquiry was that it was not (see p.3) and no action was taken. However all details are far from clear in that heavily redacted document. We learn more from an August 2018 letter to AVN president Tasha David from Stephen French, Investigations Manager in the Department of Finances, Services & Innovation.

The unambiguous and firmly written letter includes;

The Inquiry has found AVsN’s representations as to the money solicited on its website, and received by it, include a charitable purpose in that it purports to be for the promotion of education and learning. A copy of s. 9 of the Act is attached.

The AVsN website includes the following content that must be removed immediately.
• Lobbying Federal Parliament for changes to legislation, to educate them on this issue and to combat draconian new vaccine laws that are being brought in to Australia.

On this occasion NSW Fair Trading does not intend to initiate legal proceedings. However, AVsN must immediately cease the conducting of unlawful fundraising. If AVsN fails to comply, a further investigation may be conducted. If a future investigation finds that AVsN is continuing to conduct fundraising unlawfully, Fair Trading will consider appropriate enforcement action.

This is yet another example of how Australia’s regulatory acronyms let down the public. The inquiry report also fails to mention what later correspondence clearly states. The AVN High Court fundraising campaign was in breach of the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 but NSW Fair Trading decided against legal action. Specifically, the AVN was in breach of section 9 of the Act because their website confirmed donations would be used “to educate” members of parliament with respect to legislation regarding vaccination. Instructing the AVN to remove the offending text substantially reduces the chance that future fundraising campaigns will be in breach of this Act.

It seems we have our reasons as to why the AVN never mentioned the campaign again. It is frustrating that NSW Fair Trading have no mandate to investigate the honesty of the campaign nor report on the fate of funds raised. This was justifiably never within the scope of the inquiry. An inquiry that was in hindsight very literal and linear in action. The ACCC should have been notified but instead the AVN received a helpful warning. For those of us who value the application of legislation where scams are concerned it is a sterling example of losing in the lucky country. For AVN founder Meryl Dorey however, it was another financial win.

Meryl Dorey claims to make ‘absolutely nothing’

Perhaps now is an ideal time to revisit Ms. Dorey’s recent claim that she makes “absolutely nothing” through the AVN. In February this year Jane Hansen presented the documentary Big Shots: Anti-Vaxxers Exposed and in doing so revealed a number of disturbing truths about anti-vaccination activists in Australia. This included the AVN and Meryl. Believe it or not the High Court caper wasn’t mentioned. Shortly after, Dorey scrambled to publish a “response” which was in fact a collection of falsehoods presented as answers to leading questions posed by anti-medicine fanatic Tom Barnett. His opening question was about income. You can grab the mp3 here or listen on the player below.

Conclusion

The chance of the AVN winning legal action against Greg Hunt or the Australian government as a means to stop the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is zero. In 2016 fundraising for a similar, failed legal pursuit was conducted in a highly irregular manner. The AVN refused to reveal key information about strategy and expense. This and the failure to refund monies was reported as having “divided the anti-vaccination community”. However the increase in traffic to anti-vaccination social media since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic has provided AVN founder Meryl Dorey with fresh targets to fleece.

If the AVN and supporters wish to make a statement by being publicly seen to pursue possible legal action that’s all well and jolly. Tyranny and communism may be descending but democratic freedoms are alive and well in Australia. Sadly the AVN is supported by many who believe such a case is viable. But a fundraiser is not necessary. The aim should be to discern if legal action is viable. The AVN should have remaining funds for this purpose. They also receive constant donations and sponsorships for the stated purpose of fighting for “the health rights” of Australians. Should the AVN proceed they must provide potential donors with written evidence of legal advice stating the likelihood of success.

This is about disregarding legislation and profiting from the donations of vulnerable supporters. NSW Fair Trading launched an inquiry into the 2016 fundraising campaign. In a judicious application of the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991, information on the AVN website was demonstrated to render the fundraising campaign in breach of that Act. Regrettably no action was taken. A warning with the promise to act against future unlawful fundraisers was issued. This has effectively educated Meryl Dorey in how to avoid the reach of Fair Trading. In addition to the fact there was no investigation into the misappropriation of funds Dorey’s confidence has likely risen.

Despite claiming to make “absolutely nothing” from the AVN, Meryl Dorey makes very good money. She is confident and capable in doing so by dubious means. We in turn can be confident this latest venture is a scam. As with all AVN fundraising campaigns the truth will be obfuscated and the goal will not be reached. Dorey will profit, questions will be suppressed and something else new and shiny will be promoted.

You and I dear reader, should consider reporting all scams to the ACCC. One eagerly awaits developments from the AVN bunker.


♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Latest update: 1 July 2021

The Nuremberg Code and COVID-19 vaccines

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.

Background

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.

War crimes

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.

And:

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.

Conclusion

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.


References

Nuremberg Code

Nuremberg Code – Experimentation not vaccines

AMA Code of ethics for doctors

Staff administering COVID vaccines are not war criminals

Do vaccinations violate human rights under the Nuremberg Code?

WMA Declaration of Helsinki

Nuremberg Betrayed: Human Experimentation & the CIA Torture Program

Last Update: 2 May 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Why AVN supposedly quit Facebook

goodbye-facebook

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.

The AVN also mentioned in their email that Telegram was under threat of being deplatformed, but omitted the reason. Following Parler’s ban the encrypted messaging app had become the default platform for radical nationalists. Telegram channels had long been used by potentially violent elements. Telegram was under pressure to act and finally removed Neo-Nazi and extremist channels. The move was a no-brainer for Telegram which was gaining tens of millions of new users thanks to the confusion over WhatsApp’s upcoming changes to its privacy policy.

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]

Dorey leaving Facebook for Parler

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.

  • covid misinformation
  • avn tweet brighteon
  • avn post on gab

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.

Yes, indeed.

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.


Latest update: 9 Feb. 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Losers, loss and denying evidence in 2020

Losers. 2020 has seen a lot of them.

Whether genuine loss, disadvantage through the actions of others or continuing a failing streak, this year has served up a global platter. The COVID-19 pandemic has dictated that when it comes to denial of evidence SARS-CoV-2, its spread and how we managed the fallout were topics of choice. Conspiracies ran wild and we were even confronted with an infodemic. As usual so many who gain entry to these troubled pages are full throttle in a failing streak but convinced they have a winning strategy.

Denial of evidence may effect one in a small way. Such as rejecting the scientific consensus on the necessity of multi-vitamins and continuing to pay for expensive urine. Using vitamins or herbs to manage or “cure” an illness or injury can carry more serious implications. Not least being the shift in critical thinking that permits one to embrace an anti-science ideology, perhaps without initially realising this. Continuing to reject the scientific consensus on alternatives to medicine, one may ultimately delay seeking genuine medicine for a serious and ultimately terminal condition. Or refuse vaccination to prevent a nasty, harmful and potentially lethal condition.

Losers who believe they are on a winning streak inevitably ensure loss and disadvantage for the gullible who believe what they say or sadly for the innocents who rely on their judgement for health and wellbeing. The anti-vaccination movement continued unabated this year and swelled into a truly awful beast once it fed on COVID-19 disinformation. Necessary restrictions on crowd size and movement provided the ideal template for those already peddling terms like “health fascism” to insist the entire pandemic was a plot to control the population.

Of course this was a first world trend. Thanks to the positive impact of effective public health policies, education, medicine, law, public order and available media, quality of life is high. So high in fact we can invent faux abuses of our rights. Long before Karen from Brighton ignored travel restrictions because she had “walked all the streets” of that upper class suburb the notion of enduring lockdown to control the spread of COVID-19 was too much for self appointed freedom warriors. Social media losers vented their manufactured angst. Yet with our quality of life so good, a government that failed most frequently in climate policy and a P.M. who crept off to Hawaii during Australia’s bushfire crisis, it took months before ‘freedom day’ protestors gained attention. Even then it was for being deceptive in the making of their crisis.

Speaking of pretending life is tough, one term that kept popping up in anti-vaccine member emails was a favourite from AVN president Aneeta Hafemeister. “Show up. Speak up. Be brave.” The email linked to above was sent to members in mid January and peddled disinformation that the WHO had questioned vaccine safety. This calculated move involved the use of the WHO logo in the AVN press release. In fact Prof. Heidi Larson, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project had spoken at the global vaccine summit in December 2019. The AVN selectively misrepresented what she said to convey a false impression.

On February 3rd the WHO legal counsel wrote to the AVN warning them to stop using the logo and to make it clear the press release was not approved by the WHO. In what would become a signature move for the AVN over 2020 they cowered into submission removing the press release and posting the WHO letter on their site. This was accompanied by standard antivax rhetoric and the claim that they had “responded” to the WHO. Members would be kept informed of “all correspondence”. But of course the WHO would never reply to their delirious mandates. Nor, later in the year, did any of the councils, parks or a business that banned their bus.

Hafemeister’s quote on being brave hadn’t really hit home at AVN Central it seems although it continued in member emails. Hafemeister would take her quotes to bizarre levels. In a May Facebook video promoting the AVN Vaxxed bus she went so far as to voice the worn out anti-vaxxer quote from Margaret Mead. Hit the audio button below or delight in the MP3 file.

“So never doubt that a small group of people can change the world because indeed it is the only thing that ever has”. AVN president Aneeta Hafemeister May 31st 2020.

There’s little point restating the AVN’s exploitation of those who have lost a loved one to death or injury and are vulnerable to the ‘vaccine injury’ profit machine. You can delve into the reality behind the scheme here and marvel at the scope of the delusion on sale here. Meryl Dorey scored extra points for claiming in April that her personal opinion was that viruses could only be transmitted by injection, then deleting the comment once it was made public.

The politicisation of hydroxychloroquine began on the back of Donald Trump’s endorsement of the drug. Despite a number of studies demonstrating cardiac problems linked to the drug shortly after and ultimately refuting its worth [2] the “triumph of hope over facts” continues on Twitter and elsewhere. It seems to be linked to denial of evidence supporting lockdowns and the use of PCR. A strong supporter of Trump and hydroxychloroquine is Chris Kenny of Sky News. Kenny is a stand out loser in our apparently lucky country. He has spent an inordinate amount of time this year launching attack after attack on Paul Barry, Media Watch and the ABC.

I covered this back in May and had a good look at Kenny’s flawed defence of hydroxychloroquine. His argument was simple. There are studies not yet finished. Thus Paul Barry who, Kenny repeats ad nauseam, hosts the most expensive 15 minutes of TV in Australia should apologise to his audience who, he also repeats ad nauseam, pay for the show. Kenny wrongly kept referring to a QLD study. The study however is looking into a very specific application of hydroxychloroquine for healthy young health professionals as a preventive measure. It is not studying the impact of treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. Kenny should be the one apologising.

In May he claimed “Barry and Media Watch preach global warming alarmism, promote leftist climate policies [and] defend the ABC”. Well. That does sound a lot like presenting the evidence News Corp tends to suppress. All this was part of an attempt to accuse Paul Barry of holding a biased opinion against George Pell despite his successful appeal. At the time I pointed out that Barry was the only journalist to argue that claiming Pell had simply been found “not guilty” was flawed. Barry argued that as one is innocent until proven guilty Pell was in fact innocent. Kenny however had taken a statement of Barry’s out of context and informed Sky viewers, “How about that for fairness and courage? What a whimp“.

It was a low point for Kenny who promotes himself as an arbiter of the ABC and Media Watch. As I covered back in May, Paul Barry had not only defended Pell but had soundly criticised the ABC for biased reporting on the topic in certain areas on certain shows. Well surprise! On 18 December Kenny presented his latest episode attacking the ABC. It included unsubstantiated comments about ABC bias toward Pell. One of the clips Kenny used to support this was the part of the Media Watch segment I’d cited in which Barry highlights the failure of Louise Milligan and Four Corners to report on Pell’s defence. This again shows Kenny to be biased in selection of material and deceptive in its omission.

Episodes of The Kenny Report (2020) devoted to attacking the ABC and Paul Barry have reached twenty that I know of since April. One included citing Alan Jones’ praise for hydroxychloroquine. That’s a handy introduction as Jones deserves a mention for appearing on Pete Evans’ podcast for a lengthy interview. You may subject yourself to the podcast here. It perhaps goes without saying that there’s enough on Pete Evans being an enemy of reason this year to satisfy the greatest of curiosities. There’s nothing I can add to it.

Judy Wilyman however. Well that’s a different story. She featured quite a lot supporting pretty much every COVID conspiracy going. Hosting service of her newsletters, Mailchimp, had clearly had enough. They closed her account and deleted all of her archived newsletters. Judy was not happy. Many others were delighted schadenfreude style. Wilyman claims COVID is a hoax and for years knew such a scam was coming. Perhaps most bizarre was the Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public Health and Justice on which she sat as a judge. Using the International Criminal Code this group indicted most world leaders, international banks and entertainment companies, developers, inventors, etc, etc.

The 108 page indictment is too long for this post but some observations on Wilyman are crucial. On page 100 we learn that Prince Charles, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Google and Ray Kurzweil are involved in creating a;

5G/AI artificial intelligence Coronavirus as a nanoparticle energy weapon [delivering] remote energy virus, virus, bacteria or other form of artificial intelligence induced remote directed energy weapon as part of a 5G/AI Coronavirus Genocide….

And that they;

…are entrained by and in criminal co-conspiracy with PPAI, a sentient Off-planet, predatory, pathogenic, invading Inorganic AI Artificial Intelligence, and are “entrained AI proxies, AI hosts, and AI sponsors” in creating and maintaining the 5G/AI Coronavirus Genocide that is causing imminent and irreparable harm to all human beings similarly situated.

Also these villains;

…appear to be among the key PPAI-entrained AI proxies, AI hosts, and AI sponsors for the sentient Off- planet, predatory, pathogenic, invading Inorganic AI Artificial Intelligence.

And I thought Musk’s greatest crime was naming his child.

Prince Charles also apparently covered up the invading alien intelligence and had the British Royal Society investigate potential problems with nanotechnology. This led to some media chatter about gray goo. The British Royal Society concluded in 2004 that such technology was too far in the future to be a problem worthy of present concern. Ergo, we were duped and horror awaits us.

Wilyman actually published this article about the tribunal on her site at the time. It was later deleted. It’s worth speculating as to why. Perhaps Brian Martin who has published two papers defending her from accusations of conspiracy theory thinking advised her to think it over. Also one James Lyons-Weiler who publishes antivax articles is keen to promote a scholarly face with antivax ’studies’. He endorsed Wilyman’s work in December last year and was the praise-singing, reviewing editor of her most recent publication, ‘Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety’.

US resident Lyons-Weiler deserves a mention for his November 2020 paper contending that vaccinated children are less healthy than unvaccinated. Manifest flaws with key methodology are presented here. The AVN donated US $5,000 to this project. The money had come from donations for previous projects such as a promised High Court challenge to the No Jab No Pay legislation. The remaining float was just under AU $80,000. In a February 2019 email they urged members to donate to a GoFundMe page to help fund the study. It’s worth noting that funds raised for a purported challenge to Australian legislation were ultimately given to a US anti-vaxxer to help fund his US based project.

Brian Martin must surely be mentioned for evidence denial in 2020 thanks to publication of his paper Dealing with Conspiracy Theory Attributions in April this year. It focuses on defending both Judy Wilyman and the AVN from having conspiracy theories “attributed” to them. Granted these are very specific conspiracy theories and his publication is, shall we say, unique. However Brian still fails to grasp the larger issues of academic veracity and intellectual honesty involved here. Issues of public health sabotage aren’t quite ready for semi-philosophical musing.

Judy Mikovits and her appalling Plandemic scam must of course be mentioned. Not least because despite heroic efforts to convince critics of the validity of her claims so many were able to be deemed fake as soon as she spoke. For example her reliance on the study of Greg Wolfe was tacky. Claiming his research supported her contention was demonstrably fallacious. His research sample was during the 2017-2018 winter. Long before COVID-19 was detected. He later wrote a Letter to the Editor stressing the error of anti-vaccine claims. Of her claims.

A special mention must go to all those who have misrepresented the risk of COVID-19 vaccines before distribution but particularly after. Cases of anaphylaxis were rare given the total number of vaccinations. One wonders how the anti-vaccine lobby would react if peanut butter sandwiches were rolled out to the same population. The mysterious-cannot-be-found Khalilah Mitchell, RN with Bell’s Palsy was so clearly suspicious I wondered at why it was picked up so quickly.

There are so many I would like to mention but time does not permit. Do visit the many fact checking publications and sites that are available.

Of course, there’s always next year.

  • Video: A Song for Anti-vaxxers by Flo & Joan

Last update: 1 Jan. 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

AstraZeneca problems don’t confirm anti-vax theories

Last week AstraZeneca announced demonstrated varying efficacy in two different dosing regimens of its candidate COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCOV-19).

In a November 23rd press release [PDF] the company announced efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose and followed by a full dose at least one month later. This sample group had 2,741 subjects. Vaccine efficacy of 62% was evident when two full doses of AZD1222 were given at least one month apart. This was observed in a sample group of 8,895. They also announced a “combined efficacy” averaging 70% in a sample of 11,636.

Problems emerge

Whilst this sounded like a positive outcome it soon became apparent that the Oxford-AstraZeneca team still had hurdles to clear. It emerged later that the dose regimen yielding efficacy of 90% was given by mistake. This wasn’t made clear in the press release. The first dose should have been a full dose but due to a “manufacturing issue” only half of the expected dose was given. Regulators were told at the time and agreed the trial could continue with the immunisation of more volunteers. It is problematic that the trial wasn’t designed to test this regimen and less than 3,000 subjects aged 55 or less were involved. In order to validate the results another study examining the efficacy of the regimen will take place.

The other problem was the notion of “combined efficacy”. These data come from two different trials with different dosing regimens. One trial arm in the UK began in May. The Brazilian trial arm began in late June. So this information has not come from a single large Phase III trial as was the case with Pfizer and Moderna. Averaging efficacy from two different trials to yield “combined efficacy” of 70% is not acceptable. This doesn’t provide a sound assessment of what level of efficacy, or regimen, the public can expect. So again, further trials are needed. Also press release is not the vehicle to present scientific information and the AstraZeneca issue is an example of how problematic this can be. Study specifics that have been peer reviewed carry far more weight.

Media coverage

Which raises a point made by Norman Swan on today’s Coronacast that rumours are circulating, apparently with very little confirmation, that suggest Oxford-AstraZeneca are rushing to publish. He referred to a Financial times article which reported on Saturday;

Regulators and the rest of the world will soon have the full data. The Oxford academics who developed the vaccine have submitted a paper setting out their full Phase 3 results to The Lancet medical journal. They will be working over the weekend to answer questions from the journal and its referees and the article could be published as early as Thursday [UK time].

Concern and criticism about transparency and trust has been raised, particularly in the USA. Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida posted a series of tweets on November 25th. Apart from transparency, concern about scientific rigour was raised. Her tweets included;

AstraZeneca/Oxford get a poor grade for transparency and rigor when it comes to the vaccine trial results they have reported. This is not like Pfizer or Moderna where we had the protocols in advance and a pre-specified primary analysis was reported.

The point about protocols in advance, along with the fact that AstraZeneca was one of nine vaccine makers to sign a scientific rigour pledge in September was raised in a highly critical article by Hilda Bastian writing in Wired. The article goes into the Phase III trial arms in depth and the manner in which Oxford-AstraZeneca has deviated from their trial protocol. Comparisons are made to the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine at 90% efficacy and the Moderna vaccine at almost 95% efficacy. Bastian certainly casts them in a positive light. These two companies use messenger-RNA as the vector in their COVID-19 vaccines. Oxford-AstraZeneca use an adenovirus vector in their vaccine. How variously each approach effects COVID-19 vaccine efficacy is presently unknown. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccine results were also made public by press release. 

It’s important to note that the FDA has argued a vaccine must be at least 50% effective to be useful in combating the pandemic. Whilst concern has been raised about the AstraZeneca situation it is over efficacy and not safety. The fact that regulators will accept an efficacy of at least 50% was noted by Mene Pangalos, AstraZeneca’s executive vice president for research, who dismissed concerns. AstraZeneca also want to alter the specifics of the US trial under the auspices of Operation Warp Speed. The aim is to change the two full dose regimen to a half dose, full dose regimen.

Certainly further successful trials are well within AstraZenecas grasp. The BMJ recently published COVID-19 vaccines: where are the data? The article examines the position of the three recent candidate vaccines and what is expected through peer-reviewed publication. The UK government has asked the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to evaluate authorising supply of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

The cold chain needs of each vaccine vary. The Pfizer candidate requires storage at -70 degrees Celsius. This alone provides a challenge difficult to meet in developed nations and impossible in nations without significant infrastructure. Moderna’s candidate vaccine can be stored at -20 degrees Celsius meeting most pharmacy and hospital freezer temperatures but providing transport challenges for developing nations.  Moderna claims that after thawing the vaccine will remain stable for up to 30 days at 2 – 8 degrees Celsius. AstraZenecas candidate can be stored in a normal refrigerator at 2 – 8 degrees Celsius and thus meets conditions in present healthcare settings and realistic options in developing nations. A successful outcome for Oxford-AstraZeneca is significant for the management of a global pandemic.

Back to Norman Swan of Coronacast;

And remember, this is a vaccine that they promised not to make profits out of, that is cheap and they are committed to giving very large doses, I think something enormous like a third of the world’s doses of vaccines are relying on AstraZeneca. So there’s a lot riding on this vaccine.

Anti-vaccination lobby

The anti-vaccination community have taken the challenges faced by AstraZeneca as more evidence Big Pharma is always up to no good. A recent AVN Facebook post observed that maybe it wasn’t a good idea to let drug companies release their own study information without independent oversight.

AVN on AstraZeneca

So again we might consult the press release. It includes (para 3);

An independent Data Safety Monitoring Board determined that the analysis met its primary endpoint showing protection from COVID-19 occurring 14 days or more after receiving two doses of the vaccine. No serious safety events related to the vaccine have been confirmed. AZD1222 was well tolerated across both dosing regimens.

Reading information on the AstraZeneca board we see;

Our Directors are collectively responsible for the success of AstraZeneca. In addition, the Non-Executive Directors are responsible for exercising independent and objective judgement and for scrutinising and challenging management.

Quickly scattering the seeds of disinformation in this manner is what the AVN always do. One expects this manipulation of their members. What I’m more interested in is the inability of the group to acknowledge that the focus on COVID-19 vaccine development has revealed a number of long standing claims to be false. In September I posted on how the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial pause alone refuted long standing anti-vaccine claims. Namely transparent mainstream media coverage and the documented process of Phase III trials. Despite the ample criticism of AstraZeneca’s handling of data the AVN are even further from defending their claims than they were in September.

As a quick reminder it is the claim that vaccine manufacturers do not assess the safety or efficacy of vaccines. Ever. Added to this is the strange insistence that a placebo must always be inert. Let’s revisit quotes promoting these errors. Given that the COVID-19 candidates are new vaccines the following quote published in a response to a journalist is particularly relevant. See Proposition 4;

…there have never been double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective studies done on either the safety or efficacy of vaccines, not even when a new vaccine is introduced. 

This piece on HPV is highly misleading. Yet it’s the claim in the second paragraph under Safety In Question I find compelling;

By definition, a placebo must be a totally inert substance which will never provoke a response.

That definition might be fine for the “sugar pill” placebo. As in when we think of the “placebo effect”. Yet in vaccine trials it is more important to sustain the double blind nature of the trial. Simply put a subject must not know what group they are in. The AVN are anti-HPV vaccination. Gardasil trials have used the amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate adjuvant, or AAHS as placebo. This, unlike saline, produces an injection site effect like a genuine vaccine. Thus members of the placebo group and those administering the dose are unaware they have received or given the placebo. The randomised double blind nature of the trial is preserved.

Double blind randomised control trials are what Meryl Dorey, founder of the AVN calls “the gold standard” insisting they are ignored in vaccine research. The claim is part of the AVN Did You Know? leaflet. In this case demanding only inert placebos be used helps to both refute the value of trials and contend a heavy metal neurological injury is potentially caused by adjuvant placebos. The impact of this rhetoric can be seen below in an image of an interviewee on the Vaxxed II bus (27 Nov. 2020). Her T-Shirt has the words “gold standard science” and “inert saline placebos” amongst others written on it in Texta.

Finally as discussed in this article, by contending that no vaccine trials using saline placebos have ever been conducted the insistence that vaccines are primed to harm persists. It’s a simple no true Scotsman anti-vaccine fallacy. Also when saline is used as the placebo in an HPV vaccine trial, there really is nowhere to hide. Vaccine studies using saline placebos abound. Period.

t-shirt with anti-vax wording

AVN devotee wearing T-shirt demanding ‘inert saline placebo’ trials

As it happens saline has been used in the USA arm of the AstraZeneca Phase III trials. In other groups a meningococcal vaccine is given as placebo. This won’t only create an injection site effect but a general feeling in line with being vaccinated. Not being aware they are receiving a placebo ensures subjects don’t introduce an unexpected variable to the trial. This fact, and the ethical nature of the approach is discussed in a well written article here. Finally in establishing the safety of vaccines a more convincing and in depth picture is gained through the application of more than just placebo controlled studies.

Conclusion

The more we see of Phase III trials for COVID-19 candidates, whether they be immediately accepted or controversial, the greater the refutation of the above anti-vaccine tropes. Senior members of the AVN are reading material that describes Phase III trials and their testing of both safety and efficacy. The above claim that double blind, placebo controlled trials don’t exist, “even when a new vaccine is introduced” still exists on the AVN website and in discussion. In the bright light of facts this is a true measure of the group.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca AZD1222 results have been met, understandably, with specific criticism. This relates to efficacy only. Safety is not being questioned. Some media reports have hinted that AstraZeneca will have difficulty getting the vaccine regulated for emergency use in the USA based on present data. Further, larger studies are needed to establish the veracity of the 90% efficacy finding in the smaller sample given a half dose followed by a full dose. This is entirely within reach of AstraZeneca.

Given the unscientific notion of a “combined efficacy” of 70% it is within AstraZeneca’s interests to pursue further research. Indeed everything being equal one may hope that the “combined efficacy” rate is not reinforced with further research. As STAT reported;

If it’s 70%, then we’ve got a dilemma,” said Fauci. “Because what are you going to do with the 70% when you’ve got two [vaccines] that are 95%? Who are you going to give a vaccine like that to?

AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 vaccine has enormous potential. The low cost, cold chain specifics and the company’s offer to not profit from the vaccine meets a global imperative for pandemic recovery. What the scientific community and the public need to see is a large robust Phase III trial that reproduces efficacy in the region of 90%. 

 


References:

COVID-19 vaccines: where are the data? – BMJ

After admitting mistake AstraZeneca faces difficult questions about its vaccine – NYT

Oxford COVID vaccine: regulator asked to assess jab – BBC

Australia’s Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine choice questioned as experts highlight ‘shaky’ science – ABC

Pfizer vaccine: what an efficacy rate above 90% really means – The Conversation

Moderna’s trial data shows its COVID-19 vaccine nears 95% efficacy – ABC

Placebo use in vaccine trials: Recommendations of a WHO expert panel – NCBI

There are no vaccines with saline placebo? – Vaccines Work blog

Last Update: 1 Dec. 2020

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎