Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Legal, Scam, Science by Paul Gallagher

Meryl Dorey is shown to have presented material to the audience at Woodford that in two cases argues vaccine induced autism where there is clearly none. In one case the word “autism” has been inserted, additionally, in a descriptive or qualitative fashion on her slide yet it is not present in the court ruling or transcript from where she sourced her text. In another instance there are no cases of autism following, or because of, vaccination. One awaits an explanation from Meryl Wynn Dorey.

There is an awful amount of misinformation on Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slides. Let’s examine the fatally flawed attempt to exhume the “vaccines cause autism” corpse. This is the heading of slide 18:

Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slide number 18

Not much ambiguity there I’d say. But there was seemingly intentional manipulation of a source document providing more misinformation on that slide. Dorey has usurped the case of Bailey Banks.

Bailey was indeed compensated for a vaccine injury. Was it autism, as alleged on Dorey’s slide? No.

The US Court of Federal Claims case file states clearly in it’s opening index: “Non-autistic developmental delay”.

A search of the Claims case file yields a very similar text to that which Dorey provided to her Woodford audience. There is only a one word difference. “[Autism]”. Here is the original text on page 27 of the claims file:

The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

That is all. It seems Meryl Dorey needs to explain this striking addition that quite plainly seeks to falsify the court ruling. The evidence is damning indeed.

On page 2 the fact that compensation is not for autism is stressed implicitly [Bold mine]:

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) is a ‘subthreshold’ condition in which some – but not all – features of autism or another explicitly identified Pervasive Developmental Disorder are identified. PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply “PDD.” The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs. PDD is NOT itself a diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis. The term Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS; also referred to as “atypical personality development,” “atypical PDD,” or “atypical autism”) is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.
It should be emphasized that this ”subthreshold” category is thus defined implicitly, that is, no specific guidelines for diagnosis are provided. While deficits in peer relations and unusual sensitivities are typically noted, social skills are less impaired than in classical autism.

On page 6 [Bold mine]:

Among the physicians treating Bailey, a neurologist named Dr. Ivan Lopez personally examined Bailey and diagnosed Bailey as follows:

This patient has developmental delay probably secondary to an episode of acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis that he had at 18 months of age after the vaccine. He certainly does not ___ [sic] for autism because over here we can find a specific reason for his condition and this is not just coming up with no reason.

And [Bold mine]:

As Petitioner’s testifying expert witness, Dr. Lopez maintained, reiterated, and elaborated upon this threshhold diagnosis.

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct [i.e. technical] diagnosis.” Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum disorder.”

A footnote on page 16 reads [Bold mine]:

Respondent seems to have abandoned the earlier argument that Bailey suffered from autism, instead of PDD. The Court notes the various similarities between Bailey’s condition and autism as defined above, but nonetheless rules that PDD better and more precisely describes Bailey’s condition and symptoms than does autism. Respondent’s acknowledgment serves to reaffirm the Court’s conclusion on this point.

So, what does all this mean? The opening text of the ruling informs us that the court accepts that Bailey, “suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis” leading to PDD. The court also accepts that compensation should be paid because the court is of the view the seizure and condition would not have occurred without the administration of MMR.

Is the court right? It doesn’t matter. The legal decision must be respected. What we can clearly see is that PDD is considered quite different from autism. Bailey suffered a single traumatic event – not a gradual decline into autism as the customary antivaccination lobby tale goes. Autism is a collection of symptoms with a genetic component. Clearly in this case Bailey does not fit, nor has been found to fit a diagnosis of autism.

This makes his case no less tragic. I can’t stress that enough. What I will stress is that Meryl Dorey sourced her one liner from the same document I have quoted above. She is certain to have read that this child does not have autism and was not compensated for autism brought on by vaccination. She would have read that PDD is not the same as autism. But Meryl Dorey chose to select one line and alter it fallaciously to mislead her audience into believing compensation had been paid for autism brought on by MMR.

Meryl Dorey has again committed plagiarism and fraud in her quest to mislead the Australian public. Her disdain for this young boy is clear. Her disrespect for court proceedings and this ruling is manifest. Her callous disregard for Aussies at Woodford Folk Festival is exposed for all to see.

You may wonder where are all the other Baileys? Well, let’s meet 83 similar cases – an old trick of Meryl’s debunked back in May 2011 and covered here in June 2011. Just like PDD may produce symptoms like autism, so do many other types of brain injury. Add these to autistic children who are vaccinated and the language in VICP case files is easily abused.

Also on Meryl’s slide was this ambiguous claim. I’ve made it kind of easy to spot the semantics. “Associated”? Where is the cause? So, here we are almost 8 months since it was debunked and the best Meryl Dorey can manage is a semantic trick. The URL leads here to a PR Newswire article that has the same heading as on her slide.

It’s a SafeMinds.org media release. Safe Minds is non scientific and partisan. Led by parents of autistic children they seek to increase research into neurological damage from exposure to mercury in medical products.

I for one find it strange that Dorey was billed as an expert on autism yet was unable to source the original paper I’ve linked to below. Is this because she gets more bang for her buck with the tone of this heading? The article is biased in the extreme. There appears to be little doubt that the Safe Minds media release colours the issue in Dorey’s favour and away from the cautious approach of scientific inquiry.

Just how unreliable is this source from our self appointed vaccine expert? Back on June 7th, 2011 I wrote a piece called The “Groundbreaking” Vaccine-Autism Investigation Release of May 10th 2011. It addresses this caper which can only be described as an insult to her audience.

I focused primarily on the pseudoscience and demonstrably false fear mongering cobbled together under the auspices of “research scholar” Mary Holland. Mary is a vaccine-autism profiteer and co-author of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human rights, Our Health and Our Children.

I also exposed Meryl Dorey’s stupendous deception a full week later on 102.9 KOFM that “hundreds perhaps thousands of families” had been compensated because their children “have become autistic after vaccination”. That it was “a fact” that vaccines cause autism.

There had been ample media prodding in the lead up to May 10th with the word “groundbreaking” popping up quite a lot. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) had been “quietly” and “secretly” working in the shadows it seemed “paying off” vaccine injured children with autism. On May 10th itself, Meryl Dorey claimed:

You cannot hold the truth back forever. And when that dam breaks, the flood will wash away those who have suppressed these facts to the detriment of our kids. It is time for the piper to be paid.

Oh my!

The “groundbreaking investigation” turned out to be an enormous flop. As promised at high noon on Tuesday May 10th 2011 Holland’s team assembled on the steps of the US Court of Claims at 717 Madison Place in Washington DC. They were presenting a paper of sorts, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury. By the end of the lengthy live press statement, the caper had been largely dismissed and debunked as wordplay.

As you can read in the post linked above, certain media outlets were contacted by Pace Law School students, using the Pace Law School name. This was of course, news to Pace Law Administration. From Lisa Jo Rudy writing for About.com [bold mine]:

I just heard from a representative from the Public Relations department at Pace University School of Law. She wondered why a press release cited in my earlier blog would say that members of their law school had been involved with the investigation into and presentation of “Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” when there was no such involvement in either the investigation or the presentation.

I did respond to Danielle Orsino, who sent out the press release, asking the question:
Were there cases in which the vaccine court awarded a settlement for damage that manifested itself as the symptoms of an autism spectrum disorder? Was the term “autism” ever used to describe the outcome of vaccine damage (eg, “the child suffered from neurological damage resulting in autism”)?
Danielle responded quickly, saying “The study strongly suggests a link between autism and vaccines. The study found that of those who had been compensated for brain damage due to vaccines, a much-higher-than-average number also had autism. The study makes an extremely strong case for the vaccine-autism connection, which is why the study’s authors are urging Congress to investigate the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
This response seems to suggest that the simple answer to my question is “no”.

I wrote at the time, Reading the document reveals ample use of terms such as “settled cases suggesting autism”, “language that strongly suggests autistic features”, “published decisions that used terms related to autism”, “payment of vaccine injured children with autism”, and not – as Seth Mnookin pointed out – “because of their autism”. More so, the authors spend some time arguing why there should be no distinction between autism and autism-like symptoms. This is a major concession they award themselves. The paper includes caregiver opinion, parental opinion, phrases from doctors who gave evidence at hearings and provides a case table of “Language suggesting autism or autistic-like symptoms”.

It further emerged that only 21 cases came from the VICP case files. 62 were gathered by phone calls and social communication questionnaires with other compensated families. It went as far as referencing The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine and a Manmade Epidemic [2010] by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill. There was no ethics approval, and no independent evaluation. Many were children with autism who received a vaccination and reacted. Others were children with mitochondrial enzyme disorders known to lead to encephalopathy. Most were genuine cases of encephalopathy following vaccination at the rate of about 1 in 1 million. That’s up to 1,000 times less than measles induced encephalopathy.

For our purposes, we need to note that Meryl Dorey was claiming “possibly thousands” of compensation cases when only 21 already dismissed cases could be found. Then before heading to Woodford Meryl spoke to Helen on 3CR and, whilst now aware of the sample size, still falsely claimed:

Um, autism is I believe, related very strongly to vaccination… and in the United States they’ve actually paid compensation to at least 83 families who children became autistic after vaccination whilst claiming that vaccines can’t cause autism.

Meryl’s other slide – number 17 – can be dismissed instantly. Her claim on that slide is that diagnoses are rising. This has nothing to do with vaccination and everything to do with diagnostic technique. Her cited South Korean study sampled students in mainstream schools managing 12 hour days six days per week. This is indicative of how wide the spectrum is. The autism rate in Australia is officially 1 in 160. In the UK and USA it is 1 in 100 – 1%. Some research suggests 1% in Australia also.

There are five reasons posed for the rise in autism. None mention vaccination.

The actual frequency of autism may have increased, meaning more children have it
There is increased case reporting, leading to greater findings, better use of funding and hightened awareness
Changes in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria may account for more cases
Earlier diagnoses have essentially added a new younger demographic to the the existing demographic of children – ie; it spans more years
When we examine rising autism figures we find a corresponding drop in other types of mental disability and retardation, meaning they are now within the autism spectrum

Research using modern diagnostic criteria on adults also finds a 1% rate in adults, suggesting changes in mode of diagnosis play a huge role in perceived “epidemics”. In Brugha’s survey [ doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38] he found not one adult diagnosed with autism knew they had the condition. This tells us the criteria to diagnose them a generation ago did not exist.

All up it seems Meryl Dorey has a lot of explaining to do. Debunked scams, fraud, a useless “association” and unverified musings. It’s nice to know some things remain predictable.

For Aussies, the news remains good. Vaccines do not cause autism.

28Dec2011

Drug Free Australia’s attack on Insite really an attack on individual scientists

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Drug Free Australia, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal, Religion by Paul Gallagher

A close look at Drug Free Australia’s recent attack on research supporting Vancouver’s Safe Injecting Facility, Insite, suggests a long planned attack on individual authors, not evidence.

Recently I wrote a piece on Drug Free Australia’s selective and misleading use of peer reviewed publications, government reports and pseudoscience to mislead readers with the claim of academic fraud and professional misconduct in the Lancet.

Their target was Insite, Vancouver’s Supervised Injecting Facility. Yet more specifically three authors of the Lancet piece, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr have earned the retributive ire of Drug Free Australia’s parent body, Drug Free America Foundation. DFAF’s “division”, the Institute on Global Drug Policy fund the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which is not a journal but a vehicle for lobbying against progressive drug policy primarily that which targets HIV control. The JGDPP was initially funded by the US Department of Justice, presently under investigation for corruption.

One of the co-authors of the paper was Robert DuPont. Present DFAF board member, past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, DuPont’s history is “impressive” but shamefully controversial. A champion of drug war tactics, the long debunked random drug testing of kids in schools and suppression of individual rights suggest he’d be better suited to the role of a cat-stroking super villain in a Bond movie.

The scale of human rights abuses and the litany of egregious conduct orchestrated by the ultra-conservatives drawn toward DFAF and the morally bankrupt satellite groups they inspire, is impressive indeed. DFAF was founded by Betty Sembler. Betty and husband Mel, both lacking any qualifications founded Straight Incorporated in 1976. Over 15 years this “coercive” rehabilitation programme, based upon the infamous and crime riddled Church of Synanon‘s approach, racked up hundreds of accounts of abuse of clients and their families. Synanon called it a day in 1989, by which time tax evasion, civil suits and attempted murder cases had eventually outshone their claims of Divine Detoxification.

Neither Drug Free America Foundation nor it’s pretend “Institute” on Global Drug Policy is a scientific organisation. The purpose of the IGDP is spelled out on the DFAF website:

The Institute is charged with creating and strengthening international laws that hold drug users and dealers criminally accountable for their actions. It will vigorously promote treaties and agreements that provide clear penalties to individuals who buy, sell or use harmful drugs. […] The institute supports efforts to oppose policies based on the concept of harm reduction.

Over recent years some rather spectacular junk science was produced by Dr. Colin Mangham, (then) president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. Whilst harm reduction initiatives save countless lives per year Mangham’s DPNC claims it “leads to terror, degradation and the eventual death of the addict”. Consequently Mangham writes accordingly and publishes in the discredited Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. In volume 1, issue 2; Summer 2007, Mangham wrote a critique of Insite’s “parent philosophy”.

In a stunning display of self sabotage he churned through 20 peer reviewed articles from journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet and The British Medical Journal. All articles had published positively on Insite’s potential. Primarily Mangham used largely belief, irrelevance, moral outrage and assumption to mount his criticisms. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (at that time opposed to Insite) had commissioned the review and later dismissed it themselves because it “did not meet conventional academic standards”.

It’s impossible to miss Mangham’s primary evaluation targets on his self-annointed meandering journey to Super Scientific Autonomy. Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr.

Conservative health minister, Tony Clement, desperate for even a hint of science to uphold the government’s case against Insite seized upon it as validation. In Canada’s National Review of Medicine, September 2007, Clement is quoted as saying to the Canadian Medical Association:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite.

The article continued:

But extensive research has shown Insite is successful at reducing crime and overdoses, getting addicts into treatment and saving money.

Asked what research Mr Clement still needs to see in order to make his decision, Erik Waddell, a spokesman for Mr Clement, answers, “To see if Insite is getting people to programs to help them get off drugs.” However, the NEJM study, published June 9, 2006, concluded that Insite increased admissions into detoxification programs and addiction treatment.

The piece, written by Colin Mangham, PhD, argues that the studies carried out by researchers from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and elsewhere have been flawed and misleading. Questions about the article’s trustworthiness have arisen. Dr Mangham is the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, an organization run by former Conservative MP Randy White, and has previously written commentaries criticizing the philosophy of harm reduction….

Writing in Open Medicine on September 7th, 2007 Thomas Wood noted the unscientific nature and discredited status of Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. He further highlighted that the non scientific conservative lobby group Drug Free America Foundation and it’s ill disguised front shop (the so-called Institute on Global Drug Policy) were behind this ambitiously named “new research”. Wood calmly observed:

We stand by the published findings from the evaluation and believe that the limitations of the research are well described in these published reports. We agree with Colin Mangham, however, that there are many instances where media reports go beyond what is described in scientific studies. A colourful example of this is the large amount of media attention given to Mr. Mangham’s recent essay in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice which was funded by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As scientists, we are strongly in favour of scientific debate and academic critique, but we believe what is contained in Mr. Mangham’s essay falls well short of this. The paper is fraught with a host of outright factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, which we would be happy to list should the readers of Open Medicine wish. We strongly encourage the readers of Open Medicine to read Mr. Mangham’s essay alongside the various reports examining Insite’s impacts and to judge for themselves the state of the science in this area.

Yet Dr. Colin Mangham was beyond saving. None would come to his aid. From mountain top to valley floor, from deep blue sea to desert sand, from darkened ghetto to opulent penthouse from… okay, you get the idea – his demise was complete.

By September 30th, 2007 Wood, Montaner, Kerr and Mark Tyndall had submitted to The Global Journal on Drug Policy, an article questioning the conservative Canadian government’s treatment of the scientific process and evidence. The abstract includes [bold mine]:

Although the recommendations of scientific review bodies have traditionally been free of political interference in Canada, there have recently been growing concerns raised about Canada’s new federal government’s treatment of scientific processes and evidence. This concern is relevant to the scientific evaluation of Canada’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility… […]

This commentary describes what may be a serious breach of international scientific standards relating to the Canadian government’s handling of the SIF’s scientific evaluation, and the circumstances which eventually led to a moratorium on SIF trials in other Canadian cities.

The genesis of such striking criticism was the government’s observance of a single cancer in illicit drug policy. One that had metastasised into Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, DFAF’s unscientific Institute of Global Drug Policy and the dumping ground for all conspiracy pieces by those opposed to progressive HIV control and human rights observance, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. The Australian arm of DFAF is Drug Free Australia.

Added to this was a petition signed by over 130 physicians and scientists. Released the day after Clement’s speech noted above, it condemned the government’s “potentially deadly” misrepresentation of evidence for harm reduction programs. This misrepresentation encompassed “the overwhelmingly positive evidence” of Vancouver’s Insite safe-injection site.

In September 2008 The Lancet Infectious Diseases, published Illicit Drug Addiction, Infectious Disease Spread and the need for an evidence based response, by Wood, Montaner and Kerr. It included:

To our knowledge, this is the first time a lobby group such as the Drug Free America Foundation has created for itself a venue for the dissemination of opinion essays, which to the untrained eye could easily be mistaken for a scientific journal

There is no doubt that in just a couple of years, Montaner, Wood and Kerr continually exposed and dismantled a politically driven, pseudoscientific ideology and it’s masters simply by addressing the evidence at hand. One could be forgiven for thinking these chaps might be upsetting a certain group of fundamentalists.

By this time a suit had been filed with the BC Supreme Court arguing closure of Insite would violate the Charter right of Insite patrons regarding “security of the person.” As late as May 2011 the federal government was still claiming indecision of whether to keep Insite open or not. As this was in contrast to Clement’s previous statements everybody had heard enough from the government. On May 12th the Supreme Court reserved it’s decision on whether the government could close Insite or not. On September 29th, 2011 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold Insite’s exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, allowing indefinite operation.

A win for human rights, humane disposition and indeed for evidence based public health.

Almost certainly planning revenge for months prior was a team under Drug Free Australia’s Secretary, Gary Christian. Consisting of three Aussies of biblical repute: Joe Santamaria, Stuart Reece and Gregory Pike. Also included was present DFAF board member yet past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, Robert DuPont. Finally, none other than one disgraced PhD holder, Colin Mangham.

The Lancet report, Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study published in April 2011 was compelling evidence on reduced overdoses in a vicinity around Insite, and accepted by the Supreme Court. The problem for DFAF was that three of the five authors were Kerr, Montaner and Wood. The same three who had demolished so much of the amateur ideologists and DFAF’s non scientific lobby groups.

On September 13th hoping to besmirch the reputations of these men, the team struck. They released a collection of misleading claims cobbled together in a free range “analysis” enveloped in thunderously accusatory tone. It was designed to rebuke harm reduction in general and injecting facilities specifically. In this light it inexplicably republished many of Mangham’s already debunked criticisms as if new, misrepresented existing reputable studies by comparing unrelated data sets and publishing outright falsehoods.

If we dig up Clement referring to Mangham, from the National Review of Medicine September 2007, we can almost hear the echo:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite

Fortunately history did not repeat. This re-choreographed material has been addressed more than once and found to be entirely baseless on each occasion. Despite the pollution of the material by Colin Mangham’s unprofessional accounts it becomes stranger when we note the “analysis” was conducted for Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada and REAL Women of Canada (the only supporting interveners for the government during the Supreme Court hearing).

Predictably published in the DFAF funded opinion rag Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, it’s accompanying media release included:

Three Australian doctors are part of an international team which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility, errors which nullify the study’s claim that it has demonstrably reduced overdoses in its immediate surrounding area. The international team’s analysis has been sent by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada to the Ethics Committee of the agency which funded the Lancet study with questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.

The article was influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings of May 12 this year, where the court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian Government is rightfully able to close the facility. The Canadian government has been trying to close Insite since 2006, but has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists.

A full two more paragraphs are spent attacking the individual researchers for acting dishonestly, much of which relies on the already debunked material from Mangham 2007. Using bitterly crude figures to inflate “overdose” deaths – including suicides and homicides – they maintain the authors “knew” they were acting dishonestly. They challenge the findings by increasing the sample area by a factor of 10, and hold this against the original sample area.

Christian’s team selectively quote the Lancet authors earlier work on displacement of users from the area due to an increase in policing. This would be a splendid point were it not that “this policing initiative ended within weeks of Insite’s opening and was not ongoing throughout the study period”. This claim was also a resurrection of Mangham’s still unpublished and disgraced 2007 academic corpse. The vicious “media release” finished:

Drug Free Australia’s Research Coordinator, Gary Christian, said, “…. Inexplicable errors and memory lapses is the price the Canadian government has paid for entrusting injecting facility lobbyists with its scientific evaluation. Activists are never likely to provide objective science and there are dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result.”

A complaint was lodged with the University of British Columbia by Mr. Christian. This and the JGDPP piece were independently reviewed and found to be “without merit”.

Yet so many questions arise as to why this apparently devastating material was not presented in court. When I first asked Mr. Christian on December 2nd he took a superior tone claiming that they could not because they did not have it available until September 2011. “It would have been a good point but for you not checking your facts”, he replied. Let’s review these facts I supposedly failed to check.

On June 8th, 2011, the (new) President for Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, Gwendolyn Landolt insisted that data supporting Insite is flawed. In an extraordinary claim (for June) she asserted in a letter to Canada’s National Post that OD’s had actually increased around Insite in most years since it had opened and thus, Thomas Kerr was in error for accusing DPNC as presenting misinformation (as he had earlier done):

Mr. Kerr tried to discredit a report from the B.C. government — which stated that since the site opened, the area has seen an increase in drug-induced deaths every year — by claiming that it included deaths unrelated to drug use

I say! That claim seems to be lifted straight from Christian’s September debacle. The one they didn’t have… until, er… September. And what do we read on page 2 of Christian’s piece about “a report from the B.C. government”, also mentioned above?

The claims of this article are very curious from the outset, simply because a review of the statistics by the British Columbia Coroner’s Service, found at clearly indicates the contrary – since Insite commenced operations on 21 September 2003 illicit drug deaths have very clearly and unmistakably increased, not decreased.

Okay, the same claim. So they had access to this data 2 1/2 years before the Supreme Court sitting in May 2011. Every other accusation – the impact of policing, the supply of drugs, criticisms from Mangham go back to 2007. Other papers and studies used are also well before 2011. That the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada is shooting off unpublished material in response to a May 30th statement by Kerr suggests they were keeping their powder dry.

I put this to Mr. Christian on the same day he dismissed my poor fact checking (December 2nd). He replied on December 10th as follows:

I have received an e-mail back from Gwen Landolt of Real Women of Canada explaining that Colin Mangham’s work was not admissable to the Supreme Court because it was not available for lower court hearing. The truth, Paul, is that there were court-imposed limitations on evidence which have nothing to do with your fanciful fabrications here.

Okay. So the material was available (despite his earlier claims it wasn’t), but could not be submitted due to “court-imposed limitations on evidence”. My “inability to check facts” had disappeared in a puff of reality, but was now replaced with my “fanciful fabrications”. Oh dear!

Of course before the Court in May, the government was armed with the figures mentioned, but had stated it had “no evidence” to submit. So, a day later on December 11th, 2011 I replied in part to Mr. Christian:

The time to strike was in the Supreme Court. Exactly why information from 2007 (Mangham) and 2008 (BC report on OD’s) was not admissible for lower court hearing in 2011 is a question best answered by your colleagues, Mangham and Landolt. If there is a genuine technical reason I would be grateful if you could provide it.

Otherwise it must remain possible, indeed probable, that it was excluded due to a.) the paucity of evidence presented by Mangham in attempting to debunk 20 peer reviewed studies from esteemed journals, and b.) that the BC report on OD’s was irrelevant as a variable effecting the efficacy of Insite and thus the SC sitting itself.

If so, this renders Landolt’s comments to the media and your own use of both sources impotent.

Failing this, you must explain… exactly why it was unavailable given 4 and 3 years respectively to craft an effective rebuttal of Insite’s success with these figures.

What were those “court imposed limitations” and why were they not mentioned in your article or your media release which explicitly referred to the [Supreme Court] decision as influenced by the Lancet article and “harm reduction activists”?

As one may expect those points have never been addressed. No-one is any more the wiser as to why this apparently cutting edge demolition of the court accepted Lancet article, was not itself either in total or in substance, presented to the Supreme Court. Are we to believe an ambiguous and unmentioned “court imposed limitation” prevented the exposing of “research fraud and professional misconduct” by five authors in one of the world’s most prestigious journals, the Lancet? That these supposed academic crimes were overlooked by the Supreme Court of Canada, as they examined the material in question itself?

Or shall we accept the demonstrable trend and tone exercised throughout the ideological attempts to sabotage Insite, is now manifestly clear as an attempt to smear researchers and their work? As the media release claimed, “dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result”.

The anti-drug brigade may be cruel but they are not stupid. I point this out to Mr. Christian very clearly above, and still await a cogent reply. An academic mirage supposedly good enough to undermine the work of five authors. But not offered in objection to their work. What then was it’s purpose?

It was clear any such opinion from known offenders would have no bearing against over 30 papers in 15 peer reviewed journals. The singular attack upon Kerr, Wood and Montaner is striking. Christian has never answered my queries, preferring to accuse me of “imaginations and suppositions” without facts. Exactly why this argument was not published anywhere until after the Supreme Court hearing has never been made clear.

Why it was not raised by DPNC or REAL Women of Canada (both for whom the final “analysis” was supposedly written) in court is unknown. “No evidence”, was the official position.

Yet Gary Christian gives the game away himself. On November 30th, 2011 I had written in response to his refusal to accept his ploy was found to be “without merit”:

You write as if Montaner and Kerr are under scrutiny. You had your chance. It and the complaint have been found to be without foundation.

He replied on December 19th suggesting conflicts of interest assumed on his part override the independent analysis of his attack. He offered two mundane sources and extraordinarily suggests intentional favouritism on the part of the University of British Columbia and independent reviewer, Dr. Mark Wainberg toward the Lancet authors:

Of course our complaint to the University of British Columbia was not progressed because Dr Mark Wainberg absolved Dr Montaner, Dr Kerr and Dr Wood of any errors in their Lancet article, claiming that it was exemplary science.

However, if you look at the relationship between Wainberg and Montaner, I think that you will find that the relationship breaches the most liberal guidelines in the corporate or political world as to who is qualified to conduct an independent inquiry. […]

Now tell me that the University of Britush Columbia’s ‘Independent Advice’ was absolutely according to the common understanding of independence.

More accusations of corruption. More suggestion of conspiracies. More of the same junk.

What were these devastating pieces of insight? At a meeting of the International AIDS society, 2009 Julio Montaner congratulates, “my friend and colleague, the esteemed Dr Mark Wainberg” on getting the conference to Durban in his capacity as IAS president. The other is a humdrum op-ed piece written with Stephen Lewis on urging the Canadian government to ensure HIV/AIDS therapies remain central topics.

To this day Gary Christian remains unapologetic and impervious to volumes of criticism and questions generated by his single opinion piece. There has been no apology, no explanation nor any correction of demonstrable falsehoods.

Attacks on Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr however, continue apace.

The “drug free” ideology is as free from compassion and evidence as it ever was.

6Dec2011

Skeptic Shoppers’ Victory Over Noble Slime

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Big Placebo, Health, Scam by Paul Gallagher

Following our exclusive report yesterday on the bloody gangland SensaSlim war coming to the Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic at Chadstone, investigations today indicate a partial victory.

Skeptical Shoopers swung into action standing up to underworld associate and SensaSlim dealer, Julie Grinberg. After going on record publically and assuring the consumers of Australia she had removed advertisements for SensaSlim we revealed yesterday this claim was in fact a complete fugazi. Chadstone Wellness were continuing to sell their Full Sliming Solution claiming it was backed by a Noble prize.

Despite this victory, we have only cracked open the door into this massive criminal enterprise. Underworld figures are known to seamlessly shift from one income source to another, coldly eliminating competition on “their turf”. The page on Noble Slime has been replaced with a replica of the age old scam of cellulite treatment. This advertising is quite misleading even on the face of it. A visit to the website yields a link to “Cellulite Therapy”. This takes you to a page with the psychologically damaging and completely misleading fearmongering:

Anything that can make us look awkward or out of shape can be considered as a problem

Do not ignore cellulite, it is very likely to get worse if you don’t do anything about it

Yet following the link Slimming Solution Weight Loss offers the same page, the same treatment [http://www.chadstone-wellness.com.au/sensaslim.html]. Documented, unproven, invasive treatment. Again we have misleading advertising but now on two fronts. The TGA clearly state they must “ensure advertisements are socially responsible, truthful, appropriate and not misleading.” But we have one treatment being sold as two. You can access the complaints page here for that reason alone or as we’ll see below for the clearly false advertising on “cellulite”.

Today’s models might wear less but the techno-scam beauty industry is now in full regalia

Of course the claim that any such cellulite treatment works is utterly bogus and serves only to drain money from hard working women who have been hoodwinked by the phrases above. A search for cellulite myths may come in handy and remember shoppers, all cellulite snake oil is backed by no research. Liposuction will produce results for some clients, and make it worse in others. The best non invasive approach, skeptical shoppers, is ongoing exercise for muscle toning and loss of adipose (fat) tissue.

Even then, it’s important to remember what’s going on. “Cellulite” itself is really a made up term to draw marketing attention to perfectly normal cellular changes and histology. It’s proved a boon to gadget makers and charlatans pushing massage, creams, lasers, lymphatic drainage, vacuums, injections (mesotherapy) and now the oxymoron scam “needle free mesotherapy”. “Wellness” itself is a made up term meaning absolutely nothing, but acts as an umbrella term which unproven scams and con artists make liberal use of to avoid in depth explanation of any real purpose.

There is a lengthy critique here of the many scams peddled by Wellness Warriors such as Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic and Chadstone Wellness. It actually leads to another pitch for ridding yourself of cellulite via exercise. It may be a sneaky and competitive tactic but is in fact, quite accurate for most women. I will stress I’ve no problem with wanting to feel better about oneself. But do be aware that we’re often told there’s something wrong with us that leads to the belief initially. Body image is a part of us and even mild body dysmorphia is a problem for which some scams have a helpful short term placebo effect. Yet, like the “Seven Signs Of Ageing” skeptical shoppers, “Cellulite” was born to make the cosmetic industry and associates money.

In essence cellulite is nothing more than a description imbibed with negative connotations by the “Wellness” industry to shatter self confidence and take your money. The subcutaneous fat (just under the skin) is bound by connective tissue (collagen). These collagen fibers can and do tear away (or herniate) from other body tissues particularly dermal. Thus with the cells no longer bound smoothly to the underside of outer dermal tissue – or the inside of your skin – we have the traditional dimple appearance that is misleadingly known as cellulite. With herniation away from deeper tissue and other fatty deposits we have bulges of larger mass.

The reality shoppers, is with tearing of connective tissue comes more collagen. There are different types of collagen cells with different purposes, but we know them better as connective tissue or scar tissue. After a time there is nothing apart from surgery that can alter it’s structure. More to the point the notion of repairing or altering the collagen changes that produce what’s called cellulite is from the beginning absurd. This brings us to fat cells. As very young toddlers and children we go through a period of adipose hyperplasia – the growing of new fat cells. They increase in number in response to the growing body’s need to store energy as fat.

At a certain point this process of readily growing new fat cells slows notably. Thereafter extra fat is laid down in the main via hypertrophy – an increase in size of the fat cells. These cells can swell to enormous proportions, dwarfing the original size. Also with obesity levels today hyperplasia is playing a greater role in adults. It follows that the more adipose tissue one has, the more fat one can store. Rubbing in a well marketed cream or using spas and electrical stimulation will not burn off stored energy. Remember Revitol? Promising you’d be in a bikini in 6 weeks.

And yet, skeptical shoppers, the quick thinking folk at Chadstone Wellness would have you believe One of the biggest problems that can ruin our silhouettes is of course cellulite. Predictably they roll out a warehouse of discredited, dangerous, unproven and very expensive scams. Even the research free Bowen Therapy invented by Aussie pseudoscientist Tom Bowen in the early 1950’s is offered with a straight face. I cannot stress this enough. Have nothing to do with Bowen Therapy Scams. It has no body of supporting evidence. So shoppers, what is it? According to the ABC (believe it or not):

Bowen Therapy asks the body to recognise where it is out of balance and bring itself back into balance. A Bowen therapist gives a few succinct messages and the body does the work itself. A therapist rolls their hands in a specific way across the muscle fibre, giving the brain a message to help it heal a particular area.

A therapist may leave the room or sit quietly for 2-3 minutes after each movement to allow the body to process the information. Once the body has had a good treatment, it remembers the moves and each following treatment enhances the healing process. There is no ailment you wouldn’t address with Bowen – a therapist does not cure anything but asks the body to recognise the problems and correct itself.

Ah, it’s sheer Quackery shoppers! But Chadstone Wellness manage to plonk in complete falsehoods that sound sort of sciency:

Bowen Therapy works on the unique structure in the body called connective tissue. These connective tissue fibres, through injury, illness, stress (both physical or emotional) become “dehydrated” or “glued” causing imbalances to occur in the normal functioning of the body.

In applying the Bowen Move, the therapy works to release the “glued” or “stuck” connective tissue fibres in the body allowing them to re-hydrate naturally as connective tissue has the capacity to transform from a glued state to a more fluid state. Blockages are freed. Reconnections are made. From the first move, the body is sent a message that the emergency is over.

Bowen therapy naturally brings about the best rate of healing based on the individual’s own body resources and their level of injury. Over the last 45 years, it has successfully helped thousands of people suffering from a wide variety of conditions.

Yes. A magic touch and scar tissue heals itself! The body does the rest, knowing the “emergency is over”. Can you believe that skeptical shoppers?! 45 years eh? “Successful… thousands of people…suffering… wide variety…”. Be sure to include that in your complaint to the TGA. They’ll want to see documented evidence of these helped people shoppers, evidence! Let’s put this myth of healing connective tissue (collagen) in the trash where it belongs.

Anyone who has been through orthopaedic surgery or suffered an injury that threatens to reduce range of motion or leave a huge scar will remember the painful physiotherapy or occupational therapy that seemed to begin at a cruelly early stage. The threat of losing range of joint motion due to scar tissue gives us some insight into why all cellulite scams are bogus. The tearing of muscle tissue and ligaments in joints leads to the laying down of collagen. The first cells to begin the repair might be thought of as scaffolding or framework. More so, it responds morphologically to mechanical stimuli.

It is this process that offers a window of opportunity to regain range. As this “scaffolding” collagen tissue is laid down the tendons, ligaments or muscle it’s repairing can be forced into as great a range as possible. Then when the next type of collagen begins to form – that which is unyielding – it complies with the range that’s already on offer but provides a much stronger unyielding scar tissue. When the collagen associated with adipose herniates it simply hardens. If “cellulite” is visible the tearing is done and there is nothing that can “reconnect” the fibers that gave integrity before.

Even if there was a technique, it would be flying in the face of collagen histology and also assuming some incredible microsurgery is occurring. So combined with what we know about adipose, we now have some decent evidence as to why all the rituals and tricks are never going to remove the reality of human histology and physiology. One of the most common cellulite scams listed shoppers, is No Needle Mesotherapy. Dr. Lionel Bissoon seems to be the most vocal critic claiming on many a website:

This is truly an oxymoron, since one cannot perform Mesotherapy without injections. This procedure utilizes a technology known as iontophoresis which was used in physical therapy with very little success. It is now essentially repackaged with a new name for cellulite.

Others are a little more scathing of the concept. Some of you will know of the S.A. Mesotherapy Alert concerning Wellness Industry Guru, Monika Milka. Injecting stuff under the skin seems pretty extreme so perhaps we should give Chadstone Wellness a thumbs up. Regarding no needle mesotherapy, they claim:

There are four components to the technology. Let’s take a brief look at each of them.

Activating Current – Promotes greater vascularisation ensuring maximum amount of active ingredient is absorbed uniformly. As a positive “side effect” can reduce appearance of spider veins and enlarged capillaries.

Hydroelectrophoresis – Help active ingredients in water solutions to penetrate inside the skin tissue and transports molecules across the dermal barrier.

Electroporation – Promotes electropermeability of the cell membrane which helps the passage of substances. (This is “virtual needle” part of the discovery).

Cryophoresis – Application of cold temperature to lock the active ingredients into the skin cells. It also moves substances into lower layers under optimum conditions so that more is reabsorbed. This improves the performance of the solution’s active ingredients.

What an amazing library of evidence they must have ready to send to the TGA to back all that up, skeptic shoppers. The TGA are within their rights to demand all evidence that substantiates any claim made. So I’m mighty impressed at what these guys must have ready to hand out. Be sure to copy each one down accurately now. Virtual needles, activating currents, locking cold temperatures. That data must be impressive! And all for your cellulite riddled silhouette.

At least they aren’t jabbing stuff under the skin. Are they? What’s Lipodissolve?”

This is the first clinically proven way of fat reduction without liposuction

Many people see Lipodissolve and Mesotherapy as the same procedure. The major difference is that Lipodissolve is the treatment of the body’s fat layer with PC (Phosphatidylcholine) to permanently dissolve away fat cells…

Phosphatidylcholine has been used intravenously for many years to remove fat blocking the circulatory system and to protect the liver during severe liver illness. When injected into your fatty tissues the PC concentration destabilizes the PC membranes of some of your fat cell membranes, resulting in cell destruction and the release of their fatty contents into the fatty tissue.

Another natural component within Lipodissolve chemical cocktail, Deoxycholate (DC) dissolves the fatty contents into a “milky” emulsion. Your body’s scavenging cells slowly remove this milky emulsion over the next 2-3 months in the same way that they also remove a bruise. The removed fat is partly eliminated from your body via the intestines but it doesn’t cause any discomfort, nausea or diarrhoea. It is also partly used as preferential source of fuel for your body. This means that Lipodissolve forces your body to burn and utilize your unwanted fat.

Wow! Just like walking does! Or any exercise skeptical shoppers! But how safe is it? Shouldn’t there be at least some warnings? I mean Deoxycholic acid is a bile acid here guys – an ionic detergent. Some researchers think Phosphatidylcholine acts to break down fat. It can also rupture cells. Phosphatidylcholine/deoxycholate was banned in 2003 in Brazil from the exact practice described above for safety concerns and lack of efficacy as documented here in Quackwatch (Reprinted from Mortality & Morbidity Weekly Report November 11, 2005 / 54:1127-1130, 2005). Deoxycholate is regarded as the more dangerous and should not be used until a much larger body of evidence supports it.

Stephen Barrett also investigates Phosphatidylcholine/deoxycholate treatment thoroughly, delivering an extensive and not good report, a fraction of which shoppers, includes:

Adverse reactions to cosmetic mesotherapy have been reported…. A major British law firm is representing a young woman who is suing a surgeon who injected her with Lipostabil.

Professional groups representing plastic surgeons and dermatologists in the United States have warned against mesotherapy.

In 2005, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ Device & Technique Assessment (DATA) Committee published a report advising patients to be wary of mesotherapy until the safety and effectiveness of the procedure are confirmed.

In 2006, The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery concluded:

Despite the growing popularity of mesotherapy there is a paucity of available data and no randomized, double-blinded controlled studies unequivocally establish that the procedure is safe and efficacious for medical or aesthetic conditions.

Mesotherapy may ultimately prove to be a viable adjunct or option for these concerns, but further study is warranted before this technique can be endorsed.

Controlled research to determine the optimal formulation and treatment regimens as well as the safety, efficacy and further insight into the mechanism of action of this procedure is strongly encouraged.

In 2007, the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery warned against using injection fat-loss procedures until sufficient data are available to demonstrate safety and effectivess.

Clearly “Lipodissolve” is a high risk and potentially very dangerous therapy skeptical shoppers. One should speak only to their GP before considering any such pseudo-technique and be availed of all the risks in a proper clinical setting. Do not believe these advertising claims that seek to lighten you by $750 five times over. Also sold as an oral wonder treatment one would be wise to exercise extreme caution in the presence of anyone wielding a syringe of something not known to be safe or effective and that has a history of complications.

Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic (cough) aka Chadstone Wellness also use Pressor Therapy which runs on the myth that as the body is 63% water that’s terribly important. By using scientician jargon and pressure cuffs fluid is forced away from it’s most unsightly location helping with “lymphatic drainage disorders and other organic filtering mechanisms” as you lie horizontal only to redistribute within minutes of you ending “therapy”. It’s actually recommended for 10 conditions so when you see it did nothing for one, you have nine more lives… so to speak, shoppers. It does have uses for bedridden or severely incapacitated patients. Don’t be fooled and ask for a physiotherapist to confirm your need.

There is of course and endless stream of hokus pokus going on down there. And I do mean, down there shoppers. They have struggled yet finally succeeded to find a cure for the hideous condition known as “normal anus”, through a brief yet highly unnatural process of Anal Bleaching:

Just as were losing our home (sic) and were about to take this page off the website we came across a lovely formulation that actually worked. The formulation contains a proprietary patented blend of natural skin lightening ingredients which bleaches your skin, even on most sensitive areas, without causing any irritation except for occasional dryness which can be easily treated by an application of a suitable quick absorbing moisturiser.

Ah, just “occasional dryness” for which they can sell you a moisturiser shoppers. Being inflicted with normal anus may not ruin your silhouette like cellulite does but just think of the confidence as you strut your bleached anus about to your friends’ envy. The pride when you drop the soap in the Fernwood gym showers to gasps of jealousy. Smirk confidently at your colonic irrigationist. Imagine all those hours when you can contort yourself in front of the mirror and admire your new BA in Beauty. Not to mention immediate friendships sealed over your next colonoscopy. Should you end up incapacitated in hospital you’ll be the talk of the nurses office. As for all those worries about what to get Grandma for Christmas…

But wait! There’s more!

Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic proudly announce on another page, Nobody’s done what we’re about to do !!!. What?! You mean other people are successful anus bleachers?! But it’s true. Curing normal anus is nothing it seems. They don’t just do anti-aging – they do Speed Anti-Aging! The superiority of Speed Anti-Aging is proven in this table of complex data below. You, shopper, are the green bit:

How can this be possible you’re wondering? Simple:

Our unique five corner approach consists of the following:

Modern scientific methods in combination with natural formulations

Naturopathic involvement to take care of food cravings, deficiencies etc

Self Empowerment therapy to help your mind set

Acupuncture to enhance and speed up the process

Bowen Therapy to help eliminate toxins and waste from your body

A unique blend of modern science and debunked charlatanism at an incredibly inflated price will actually make you live longer. Incredible skeptical shoppers, just incredible. What are you waiting for?! And acupuncture can speed up Speed Anti-Aging! More years with your bleached anus and adverse effects from the mesotherapy that’s better known as Lipodissolve.

Truly, if you aren’t satisfied with these eminent Wellness warriors poking lasers at you, injecting you under the skin, defending your silhouette, bleaching your anus or extending your lifespan newly imbibed with “the body and mindset of a champion”, then you must check the menu on the website.

Sick of putting on makeup? Then perhaps cosmetic tattooing – or “permanent makeup” – is for you. Never wake up looking… well, normal again. After flashing your bleached anus to the girls in the shower at Fernwood you can scare them witless by washing your face and emerging unchanged! Swim laps fully made up and when you’re old, white haired and dying in hospital you’ll double as a clown for other folk. Kids will come from everywhere just to visit!

Of course most of the scams at Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic will do nothing of much consequence bar drain your savings and raise your credit bill. That’s not too bad. Unless you want to trust “a talented artist” called Moira to tattoo your face or let someone stick you full of acidic cell destroying compounds. Then shoppers I can guarantee you’ll never forget.

Simply pick your scam from the many on offer and visit the TGA complaints page. It may not come to much because speed anti-aging is in no way misleading or socially irresponsible. Bleaching your anus to the point of dryness needing moisturiser is certainly “quality use of the product”. Everyone needs their organic filtering systems fired up by an over sized blood pressure cuff. Virtual needles are essential in every girls life and in no way deceptive. Bowen therapists will publish evidence any day now.

I’m sure everything’s completely above board.

16Nov2011

Drug Free Australia manipulate, misrepresent data to discredit Insite

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Denialism, Drug Free Australia, Health, Illicit Drug Policy by Paul Gallagher

In April 2011 the Lancet published an article written by authors from the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the UBC Faculty of Medicine, the UBC School of Population and Public Health and Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

The title was Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study, by Brandon D L Marshall, M-J Milloy, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner, Thomas Kerr was followed by a media release from The University of British Columbia which included:

Researchers compared nearly 300 case reports from the British Columbia Coroners Service documenting all illicit drug overdose deaths in Vancouver between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.

Compared to the 35 per cent reduction in overdose deaths in the immediate vicinity of Insite following its opening in September 2003, overdose deaths in the rest of Vancouver declined only nine per cent over the same period. No overdose deaths have been recorded at Insite since the facility’s opening. The researchers also noted that there was no evidence of significant changes in drug supply or purity during the study period.

“This study provides the first unequivocal scientific evidence of the benefits of supervised injection facilities, and clearly demonstrates that facilities such as Insite are saving lives and playing a vital role in reducing the harms associated with illicit drug use,” says co-author Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the BC-CfE and Chair of AIDS Research at the UBC Faculty of Medicine.

The Abstract can be read here. Insite which opened in September 2003 has also been the subject of more than 30 studies in 15 peer reviewed journals. These have cited a number of benefits including increased access to rehabilitation services, detoxification, reduced syringe litter, reduced public injecting and most importantly reduced needle sharing which serves to reduce blood borne virus spread.

Background

In 2006 the new Conservative government which did not support the initiative threatened to let the site’s legal exemption lapse before the project was complete. On September 1st 2006, Health Minister Tony Clement cited a need for more research as he deferred his decision to extend the site’s legal exemption. On the same day the Government cut all funding for future research. In August 2007 two addicts and the Portland Hotel Society filed suit in the B.C. Supreme Court arguing violation of rights – “security to the person”. What followed was from a legal and human rights perspective remarkable including the May 2008 strike down of sections of the Canadian criminal code on drug trafficking and possession as a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The struggle between progression and conservatism continued with the federal government appealing this legal advance in human rights. The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed this in a 2-1 ruling. The government announced a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. There were nine interveners in the Supreme Court Case. Only one supported the stance of the conservative government to close Insite. That group was the socially conservative, anti-women’s rights lobby group REAL Women of Canada.

National vice president of REAL Women…, Gwen Landolt, argued against the Canadian Medical Association and other supporters. She claimed that Insite would allow users to get “worse and worse until they die” and that such facilities “are assisting in the suicide of drug addicts.” The government had to admit it had no credible research to show Insite was not working. There were no valid data to show Insite was not reducing drug related harm. In essence the government and REAL Women of Canada were mounting non evidence based claims.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously on September 29th, 2011 to uphold Insite’s exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This allowed the site to stay open indefinitely. The ruling was highly critical of Health Minister Tony Clement’s application of the CDSA to Insite stating it was grossly disproportionate and undermined “the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety”.

Drug Free Australia’s Bogus Critique

Drug Free Australia (DFA) is a conservative right wing prohibitionist lobby group of loosely affiliated extremists masquerading as a quasi-official body critical of Australia’s illicit drug policy. Regarding Injecting Facilities they have a discredited history (indeed presence) in maintaining the highly flawed opinion piece Case For Closure attacking Sydney’s Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment (MSIC Bill) was passed in October 2010 with considerable support from then Premier Kristina Keneally, The Australia Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. All three along with countless other individuals, MPs and organisations rejected the efforts of Drug Free Australia under the auspices of Secretary Mr. Gary Christian to sabotage over a decade of trial success.

On September 17th 2011, perhaps in a final effort to sway the Supreme Court of Canada (at that time yet to hand down it’s decision) DFA presented a media release claiming to have “exposed major, inexcusable errors” alleging “research fraud and professional misconduct” in the Lancet paper by Marshall et al. They cited an article headed Analysis of the 2010 Lancet study on deaths from overdose in the vicinity of Vancouver’s Insite Supervised Injection Facility published in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP).

The authors were familiar names. Dr. Greg Pike co-author of the Case for Closure, and already profiled here. Dr. Stuart Reece and Dr. Joe Santamaria, also both co-authors of the Case for Closure of the Sydney MSIC. Prohibitionist Robert DuPont, former “White House Drug War Czar” under Richard Nixon and present board member of Drug Free America Foundation and finally Dr Colin Mangham, Director of Research, Drug Prevention Network of Canada. Their coordinator was anti-Harm Reduction campaigner Gary Christian.

In a comprehensive response the Lancet authors note their methodology and data was subjected to extensive scientific peer review and that this independent process “confirmed the appropriateness of the data and methods that we employed”. They further note Mr. Christian’s source has not been subject to peer review nor published in any scientific journal.

Nevertheless this formed the basis of a complaint by “research coordinator”, DFA Secretary Mr. Gary Christian to the University of British Columbia. The media release included:

The international team’s analysis has been sent by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada to the Ethics Committee of the agency which funded the Lancet study with questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.

Mark Wainberg, professor of medicine and director of the McGill University AIDS Centre was called upon to independently review the matter. Wainberg reviewed DFA’s analysis, the Lancet paper and the author’s response. He concluded in part:

In my view, the allegations that have been made by ‘Drug Free Australia’ are without merit and are not based on scientific fact. In contrast, it is my view that the work that has been carried out by the team of Thomas Kerr et al is scientifically well-founded and has contributed to reducing the extent of mortality and morbidity in association with the existence of the safer injection facility. . . . The University of British Columbia should be proud of the contributions of its faculty members to the important goal of diminishing deaths due to intravenous drug abuse.

The JGDPP analysis and complaint were found to be entirely without merit and the complaint was dismissed.

Drug Free Dishonesty

Along with the Lancet author’s response and the independent review there are a number of elements which render this amateurish attack particularly offensive. As noted above the “analysis” is not peer reviewed nor published in any recognised scientific journal. It was published in the JGDPP which is a collection of non peer reviewed articles and opinion pieces. Described as a “glorified blog” by The Media Awareness Project, the JGDPP is run by DFA’s parent body Drug Free America Foundation (on whose board sits DuPont). It was initially funded by the US Department of Justice which is presently under investigation for corruption. It has an international reputation for hosting articles seeking to sabotage human rights oriented policy initiatives successful in controlling the spread of blood borne viruses. Many authors hold extreme and archaic religious and/or anti-science views.

Essentially the JGDPP piece argues that the 35% reduction in overdose deaths in a delineated area following the opening of Insite and documented in the Lancet by Marshall et al. is flawed. Tactics by which this is done obfuscate context and manipulate the import of data in such a way as to misrepresent it to the reader. By using flawed population analysis and failing to state the nature of deaths across a much larger area it seeks to claim overdose deaths increased. The JGDPP team also suggest the Lancet authors should have dismissed an entire year as irrelevant because doing so decreases the overall decline in mortality. Thus it was, in their minds, only included by Marshall et al. to skew results.

The Lancet authors note the JGDPP report:

[U]ses crude Vital Statistics data, which included all accidental poisonings to define its estimate of overdose deaths, and it did not exclude deaths unlikely to be affected by a supervised injecting facility (e.g., suicides, adverse effects of drugs in therapeutic use). We note that the REAL Women/DPNC (JGDPP) critique seeks to call into question the Lancet paper’s findings using these crude data, and then goes on to argue that the Lancet paper’s findings cannot be relied upon because they use similarly unrefined death counts. We would argue that you cannot have it both ways.

The JGDPP article also fails to admit it used crude death counts and not population-adjusted mortality rates. This fails to account the relevance of death rates in a changing population. The Lancet study used annual population estimates from Statistics Canada to conclude on overdose mortality. Most shocking however was the increase by the JGDPP authors in area consulted by around a factor of 10. The Lancet studied mortality in 41 city blocks. The JGDPP article refers to mortality in a 400 block area. This further obscures the fact that the greatest reduction in overdose is within 4 blocks of Insite and significantly decreases outside that area.

The area in green is that studied by the Lancet authors showing a 35% reduction in overdose mortality. The area in red is that used by the JGDPP authors to misrepresent the Lancet finding.

The JGDPP article was written as an analysis for REAL Women of Canada and the Drug Prevention Network of Canada (DPNC). It is demonstrably a collation of highly selective, misleading, out of context and academically discredited material. The “analysis” relies time and again on a 2007 “critique of [the Insite] parent philosophy” written by co-author Dr. Colin Mangham of the DPNC. The DPNC holds a highly partisan irrational anti Harm Reduction position claiming it “leads to terror, degradation and the eventual death of the addict”, refers to supporters of HR as “enablers” and presents a grossly distorted misrepresentation of HR on it’s website.

They are dedicated to:

…advance abstinence-based drug and alcohol treatment and recovery programs, to promoting a healthy lifestyle free of drugs and to opposing legalization of drugs in Canada.

Their Mission Statement freely includes, Lobbying in the media, at the community level and in government for the support of our stated principles. At no point does the DPNC propose to hold to an evidence based approach or accommodate advances in scientific consensus. Not surprisingly the previous 2007 article by Mangham is critical of research which supports harm reduction and Insite. Even less surprisingly it too is published in Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice.

Along with accusations of fraud, professional misconduct and research errors directed at the Lancet authors, the media release From Gary Christian also expanded on the supposed impact of the work of Marshall et al:

The article was influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings of May 12 this year, where the court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian Government is rightfully able to close the facility. The Canadian government has been trying to close Insite since 2006, but has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists.

This is extraordinary. The JGDPP analysis that has so emboldened Mr. Christian was written for REAL Women of Canada and the DPNC. REAL Women of Canada were interveners in the Supreme Court in favour of the Canadian Government. The JGDPP analysis relied significantly upon material critical of Insite produced by the DPNC in 2007. The same DPNC with a mission statement to lobby community and government. Surely the time for accusations and presentation of evidence was in the Supreme Court itself. Yet the reasons why the government could produce none of this flawed “evidence” are manifestly clear.

The JGDPP piece cites the 2007 critique of Mangham in formulating the claim that changes in policing, “could account for any possible shift in overdose deaths from the vicinity of Insite”, arguing this was intentionally ignored by Marshall et al. Mangham is also cited as refuting Insite as having any impact on public crime or public disorder. Yet the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who had commissioned Mangham’s 2007 report claimed it, “did not meet conventional academic standards”.

Although every injection within Insite is sterile and safe from contraction of blood borne viruses, Christian’s JGDPP analysis further cites Mangham 2007 in arguing:

Added to this [the impact of policing] are the spurious claims by Insite researchers that the facility has impacted HIV and HCV transmission, despite the claim being possible only if ALL injections by those HIV or HCV positive are hosted by Insite, which has rarely been the case.

Unsurprisingly Mangham’s 2007 report was ignored by Canada’s Expert Advisory Committee on Injecting Site in formulating their own report. This doesn’t stop the JGDPP piece from citing data from Canada’s Expert Advisory Committee on Injecting Site that Insite statistically saves only one life per year. It’s argued that “this would not be detectable at the population level. This estimate is backed by the European Monitoring Centre’s methodology and avoids the error of naively assuming overdose rates in the facility match overdose rates in the community.”

At first blush this sounds compelling but is in fact a rogue construct manipulating entirely different methodologies, which yield entirely unrelated data sets, to imply naivety on behalf on Marshall et al. Regardless of what is “detectable at the population level”, neither study is relevant to the other. Citing the European Monitoring Centre’s methodology is simple weasel wording applied to distract the reader from the straw man of “one life per year”.

In truth the “one life per year” comes from person to person intervention in a clinical facility. It actually underscores the safety of the Insite environment in averting dynamics which may predicate a potentially fatal overdose. Community overdose rates considered by Marshall et al. cover 41 blocks surrounding Insite. The Lancet authors seek to quantify the impact of Insite’s presence on these rates.

Canada’s Expert Advisory Committee on Injecting Site is in no way at all dismissive of the “one life per year”. They write plainly [bold mine]:

INSITE staff have successfully intervened in over 336 overdose events since 2006 and no overdose deaths have occurred at the service. Mathematical modelling (see caution about validity below) suggests that INSITE saves about one life a year as a result of intervening in overdose events.

Marshall et al. write in their abstract [bold mine]:

We examined population-based overdose mortality rates for the period before (Jan 1, 2001, to Sept 20, 2003) and after (Sept 21, 2003, to Dec 31, 2005) the opening of the Vancouver SIF. The location of death was determined from provincial coroner records. We compared overdose fatality rates within an a priori specified 500 m radius of the SIF and for the rest of the city.

Furthermore it is interesting that the EMCDDA 2004 report notes such rooms can be expected to reduce high-risk behaviour beyond the consumption room setting itself and reduce exposure to and transmission of drug-related infectious diseases [p.25]. On public order and crime the same report lists two main objectives of 1.) to reduce public drug use and associated nuisance and 2.) to avoid increases in crime in and around the rooms [p. 61].

It should be noted each of these four points is in dissonance to the position of the JGDPP authors and every point they cite from Mangham 2007. More so, as noted during the Supreme Court Case the Canadian Government and the government’s only supporting intervener REAL Women of Canada, chose not to produce Dr. Mangham’s 2007 report. They effectively admitted they had no evidence to support their case to close Insite. As such it is remarkable Mr. Christian relied so heavily on Mangham to argue there were, “questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.”

Mr. Christian’s problem is not that the Canadian Government, “has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists” since 2006. It is the simple reality that despite having had five years in which to produce convincing evidence in a court of law to close Insite, the Canadian Government has been unable to do so all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Apart from criticising Clement for undermining the purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act the ruling also acknowledged the dysfunctional nature of the prohibitionist mindset, stating:

…the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on possession of illegal drugs on Insite’s premises.

Other shonky tactics employed by Christian’s team include intentionally misrepresenting the findings and recommendations of other research. In attacking cost effectiveness of sterile injecting the JGDPP report states:

The 2009 Andresen and Boyd cost-benefit study calculated savings to government from 35 supposed HIV/AIDS transmissions averted by Insite annually, despite the most authoritative international review to date not finding any demonstrated effectiveness of clean needle provision reducing HIV transmission via needle exchanges.

This is a misrepresentation of the cited IOM review. Preventing HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High Risk Countries: An Assessment of the Evidence, states:

The report provides evidence-based recommendations regarding drug dependence treatment, sterile needle and syringe access, and outreach and education. The report urges high-risk countries to take immediate steps to make effective HIV prevention strategies widely available.

Page 2 of the report brief includes [bold mine]:

Avenues for making clean injecting equipment more widely available—and thus reducing drug-related HIV risk—include needle and syringe exchange; the legal and economical sale of needles and syringes through pharmacies, voucher schemes, physician prescription programs, and vending machines; supervised injecting facilities; and disinfection programs….. Multi-component HIV prevention programs that include sterile needle and syringe access are effective in reducing drug related HIV risks such as the sharing of needles and syringes.

Gary Christian also claimed in his media release as part of the allusion that policing, not Insite had caused a reduction in mortality:

These researchers cannot truthfully claim they knew of no policing changes in the immediate area around Insite when some of their number produced an indignant study condemning the changed policing.

Yet in their response the authors indicate that the police initiative referred to ended “within weeks” of Insite opening. It was not ongoing during the study – which is what Christian’s team had falsely suggested. More so if the crackdown was the cause of a reduction in mortality after Insite opened then it was the cause of an increase in overdose deaths in the area prior to Insite opening. Even more crushing for Gary Christian, is that this means the decline in drug related overdose clearly demonstrated in the Lancet occurred because the policing initiative ended.

Perhaps most scurrilous as mentioned above is the suggestion by Gary Christian’s JGDPP team that the Lancet authors included 2001 in their methodology in order to skew results in favour of overdose reductions. The JGDPP report suggests a review from 2002 onwards would show an increase. Yet the Lancet authors had written an earlier report in 2009 showing stable use from 2001 to 2005:

As shown in a figure from that report (below), although the proportion of IDU reporting daily heroin use declined from 1998 to 2001, the proportion of IDU reporting daily heroin injecting remained stable from 2001 to 2005 (i.e., the period considered in our Lancet study).

Figure showing that daily heroin use from 2001 to 2005 remained stable

Whilst this is a look at the most prominent manipulations and misrepresentations authored by Gary Christian’s team a quick reading of the Lancet author’s response – below – reveals a more comprehensive overview. Accusations of careless assessment are put to rest and a read of the original paper shows the lengths gone to in the Discussion to acknowledge other factors that may contribute to a reduction in drug induced mortality. There are also many other absurdities presented in the JGDPP article (such as “recommended reading” and citing a speech by “Christian voice in politics”, Gordon Moyes) that must condemn Christian and his team even further.

Of course like an antivaccination lobbyist Christian has not budged an inch, still insisting he is completely correct and that peer review and science itself is flawed. Now, in the shadow of their complete demolition we can review the hypocrisy and misplaced confidence of Mr. Christian in his ability to scam the public and academics alike.

Activists are never likely to provide objective science and there are dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result.

Drug Free Australia has never produced any science and peer reviewed research. This shows their inhumane prohibitionist world view as without merit, and data supporting Insite as entirely safe.

View this document on Scribd

9Nov2011

Meryl Dorey’s Supercalifragilistichomeoprophylaxis 2011 W.A. tour

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Denialism, Legal, Meryl Dorey, Skeptic by Paul Gallagher

Even though the sound of it
Is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough
You’ll always sound precocious
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay

Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network hasn’t been her usual fun loving self since returning from her W.A. 2011 Tour.

Things, it would appear, did not go to plan. It was supposed to have been all so simple. Meryl Poppins was going to float in with her carpet bag of all singing all dancing vaccine myths and in just 15 days tear up the stage in an extravaganza of adoration over a very special seven performance tour.

All of W.A. would turn out to hear one of Australia’s most loved fairy tales. Toils and struggles of the real world would be left behind for two weeks as fantasy and magic came to town. Scarred, battered and exhausted from the toxins in vaccines, this is just what this entire state of sickly people needed.

The favourites were eagerly anticipated.

Supercalifragilistichomeoprophylaxis, would have the kiddies tongue tied and flushed.

The delightful song and dance duo with Big Pharma Myth Conspira Conspira Conspira-see would have the adults on their feet. And everyone of course would sing along to Just A Spoonful of Oscillococcinum.

Step Back In Time with backing vocals from the very talented myths, Diseases Are Harmless and Vaccines Cause Disease were billed as “mind blowing”. For the totally unvaccinated, Meryl planned to team up with Diseases Provide Immunity and finish each show with the moving favourite that any parent can sing to kids, Stay Alive. She would be loved, adored by the media and interviewed at length on air.

But things seemed to go wrong almost immediately. Channel 10 withdrew sponsorship of The Conscious Living (or Lying) Expo after seeing Meryl Dorey’s name on the list. She summoned the Flying Monkeys. She published a piece on Dr. Peter Dingle who was there presenting his Great Cholesterol Myth. This conspiracy theory is a favourite of David Icke, so Meryl was certainly in good company. Dorey – self appointed defender of free speech – then spent two lengthy pieces on her blog whining about Liberal MP Barry Haase for having his say in defence of vaccines – below. Dorey twice more summoned the Flying Monkeys.

In a rushed round up, Meryl Dorey herself reported on the “smallish groups” to turn out to the Meryl Poppins shows. Despite billing herself as a “vaccine expert” Dorey was completely lost when it came to the rubella vaccine in Australia. In a piece that sounds half made up Dorey recounts testimonials from nameless people. At one of her shows Dorey spoke with a midwife who told her of a 22 week pregnant woman who was found to have low rubella antibodies “so her doctor just gave her a rubella vaccine on the spot”.

Here’s why you should never listen to Meryl Dorey and why her misplaced confidence and immediate conclusions are potentially dangerous.

First of all, rubells (sic) is only a risk for women in their first trimester of pregnancy (the first 12 weeks) so there was no need to panic about rubella levels for someone who was already 22 weeks pregnant.

According to The Australian Immunisation Handbook, regarding rubella:

The risk of damage declines to 10 to 20% by 16 weeks’ gestation. After this stage of pregnancy, fetal damage is rare but has been reported up to 20 weeks’ gestation.

Meryl Dorey:

Second, this vaccine has never been tested for safety during pregnancy and except in the case of an emergency, it should not be used at that time.

According to The Australian Immunisation Handbook, under Groups with special vaccination requirements:

The need for… rubella vaccination should be assessed as part of any pre-conception health check. Although the use of most vaccines during pregnancy is not usually recommended on precautionary grounds, there is no convincing evidence that pregnancy should be an absolute contraindication to the use of any vaccine, particularly inactivated vaccines.

Meryl Dorey:

Last, there IS no rubella vaccine in Australia – there hasn’t been for ten years or more since the monovalent rublla(sic) vaccine, Meruvax, was withdrawn and rubella is now only available as part of the combined MMR shot. This woman was vaccinated without being given any of this information and was told outright that she was getting a monovalent vaccine when in fact, she received a three-in-one shot!

Australian Immunisation Handbook, on rubella vaccination:

Rubella vaccine is available as either MMR vaccine or as a monovalent rubella vaccine. Monovalent rubella vaccine: Meruvax II – CSL Biotherapies/Merck & Co Inc (rubella virus vaccine).

I’ll wage good money you can keep returning to Meryl’s post to read, “This woman was vaccinated without being given any of this information and was told outright that she was getting a monovalent vaccine when in fact, she received a three-in-one shot!” for a long, long time. Wrong, wrong, wrong and making up stories. That’s our Meryl.

Then there’s an assumption another person was “misinformed”. Needing a tetanus shot the woman was offered the ADT Booster which has diptheria and tetanus toxoid, or dTap which is diptheria, tetanus and pertussis. You can read the Immunisation Handbook on tetanus here. The woman seems to remember being offered “tetanus and pertussis” which doesn’t exist. Even Dorey realises the potential for patient confusion, but we get:

Whether she misunderstood what she had been offered or the staff member had no idea what was in the vaccine, I’m not sure. But if she had been misinformed, it would not have been the first (or hundredth) time someone had told me a similar story.

Yes, yes indeed. Just like the rubella story above.

Hepatitis B vaccine is to be administered within 72 hours of birth, but Meryl heard from a nurse it is being given as early as 10 minutes. There is no issue here but Dorey seems to think it should be given “three days later”. To make this more absurd, information on the HBV vaccine being given within 72 hours of birth is available on the AVN website. Oh, Meryl!

She also spoke to someone representing someone else who Dorey claims has Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Apparently the person was vaccinated for H1N1 and “within days” was hospitalised. Dorey writes:

She tried to ask the staff if this could be related to the flu vaccine and they all insisted that there was no link…. This link has been known since 1976 when the flu vaccine was first brought into disrepute…. For staff today to be either so ignorant of this link or, even worse, to lie about it and cover it up, is unforgivable.

She finishes off by reminding readers that this is why the AVN exists. So, why you may ask. To publish without checking facts? To spread fear? To make up fallacies and draw impossible conclusions? To insinuate wrongdoing? So it would seem. To be sure however, there’s more to her ranting.

After the 2010 Fluvax debacle in which 3.3 per 1000 children suffered seizures, the appalling conduct of manufacturer CSL coupled with the TGA’s poor response to both, Dorey assumed she’d be welcomed with open arms. Only a year earlier she let Judy Wilyman loose to tell an audience that, “We’re being educated by the media who have pharmaceutical interests”. Time and again Wilyman claimed the media, as part of the Government, Pharma, Media triad, “run fear campaigns” such as “reporting the deaths of three babies from ‘flu”. In this way the community are “coerced into vaccinating”.

The Fluvax issue was why “hundreds of families” as Dorey claimed this year had children in hospital. Comparing all media reports it appears 23 were hospitalised, 47 taken to hospital and over 60 children effected. This is a serious matter deserving it’s own post to sort the concerns from the hysteria. Meryl made – and still makes – incorrect claims about the suspension in 2010 of paediatric flu vaccines by Australia’s chief medical officer.

She claims that parents were unaware their children were being used in a secret trial. As serious as the W.A. event was, this in no way gives Dorey an excuse to be libellous, falsely suggesting that:

[No] parent who gave permission for their precious child to be vaccinated in this campaign was informed that their babies were being used as guinea pigs in a trial that was paid for by the drug companies involved.

Being welcomed as some anti-vaccine Messiah with a magical carpet bag was not exactly how things flowed. Cathy O’Leary, medical editor for The West Australian reminded readers of how much trouble the AVN was in and brought up the “rape with full penetration” analogy to vaccination that Meryl strongly stood by at the time. The article included:

Australian Medical Association WA president Dave Mountain said the group was trying to whip up anti-vaccine hysteria again.

“They are zealots who pick and choose bits of information to make it look like they’re presenting real evidence,” he said. This led to parents refusing to get children and themselves vaccinated, which affected everyone, particularly the most vulnerable who benefited from herd immunity and, in that respect, they were a danger.

Liberal party member and Federal Member for Kalgoorlie, Barry Haase wrote a piece in The Kimberly Page on immunisation and the impact of the AVN. He noted:

Recent reports state the Australian Vaccination Network, an anti-vaccine lobby group; have been holding meetings in Western Australia. I find it illogical that sane parents would pay $15 to hear why they should not save the lives of their children.

For some, obscure to me, reason, this group has a snout on about saving lives. Vaccination has all but wiped out a number of childhood illnesses.

This radical group, based at Bangalow, near, of course, Byron Bay, was stripped of its charity status by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, after health authorities found its information to be biased.

This led to an opinion piece in The Kimberly Page from Ken McLeod, who has had his complaint against the AVN upheld resulting in a NSW HCCC order for the group to publish web site warnings. The HCCC have further published their own public health warning about the Australian Vaccination Network. Ken has also been instrumental in urging the OLGR to pursue the AVN over what became 23 legislative breaches.

As already noted here another W.A. article quoted Dorey as admitting to pro bono legal help in her appeals against the HCCC and OLGR. This raises more questions of what may have happened to pledges or donations secured for legal funds.

Then just recently Cathy O’Leary reported on the fact Consumer Protection is investigating the AVN’s grab for donations in W.A., in light of the OLGR NSW revocation of their charitable fundraising licence.

All in all the Supercalifragilistichomeoprophylaxis W.A. Tour 2011 was a big flop for Meryl Dorey.

Losing In The Lucky Country

Skeptical musings on the denial of evidence

Tag Archives: pseudoscience