Tag Archives: Video

Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience

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

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.

Meryl Dorey at Woodford Festival discussed on The Drum

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Legal by

This woman is so laughably wrong that it almost seems cruel to get stuck into her… but when kids don’t get vaccinated, kids die”.

Cassandra Wilkinson, ex Labor staffer

Steve Canane hosts Cassandra Wilkinson, Joe Stella and Peter Black in a discussion on the merits of vaccine denier and “obviously crazy…. nutter” Meryl Dorey’s booking to speak at the upcoming Woodford Folk Festival.

The Drum discuss Dorey at Woodford

Wisdom of Meryl Dorey on measles and pertussis

Chiropractic: “The science that makes people well and happy”

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Chiropractic, Health, Scam, Science by

A most annoying non-sequitur logical fallacy, is the allusion to large or seemingly large numbers of adherents as proof something is genuine.

Whenever a pseudoscientist tries to hypnotise me with big numbers I’m reminded of Tony Ferguson and his scam weight loss programme sold in pharmacies. Following a scathing Choice review which included extra demerits for pushing it onto children, Ferguson declared, “600,000 People Can’t be Wrong but Choice Magazine can’t get it right with weight loss investigation!” And yes, if you remember the first part as his sales pitch itself you’re correct. 600,000 people can’t be wrong.

Well, 600,000 people were quite wrong if they were to all argue Ferguson’s magic shakes worked. That’s probably the first problem with this trick. Those figures come from signups and undoubtedly, in this case, the vast majority of that 600,000 had given no feedback and probably tried a number of fads before and since. To cut to the chase it’s a jump from sample size to claims of efficacy without bothering to do or document any science in between. We have no idea how many persisted, lost weight, kept it off or indeed ended up worse off.

Presently fundamentalist chiropractors are defending their hanky panky with the claim that 215,000 people across Australia visit a chiropractor every week. We don’t know how many are first time visitors, how many were unsatisfied, how many show no improvement, how many were injured, disabled or worse and so on. All it tells us is that 215,000 people per week visit these touchy feely agents of cosmic cockypop as part of their foray into alternatives to medicine. It also causes me quite some concern.

In removing insurance cover for the practice of neck manipulation (as reported by the National Council Against Health Fraud – Consumer Health Digest #10-34), popular US health insurer Kaiser Permanente revised their policy of coverage for chirpractic manipulation to read:

Chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine is associated with vertebral artery dissection and stroke. The incidence is estimated at 1.3-5 events per 100,000 manipulations. Given the paucity of data related to beneficial effects of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine and the real potential for catastrophic adverse events, it was decided to exclude chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine from coverage.

Now I shan’t apply the same logical fallacy and insist that at least 2.6 Aussies per week, or 10 per month, are at risk of “vertebral artery dissection and stroke”, because I have no idea how many are being, well, abused in this way. I also don’t know how accurate that figure is. I am quite sure however were I to put this to Chiropractors Association of Australia president Lawrence Tassell, he would quite rightly reveal the flaws in my reasoning.

He may even repeat the erroneous view of his immediate predecessor, Simon Floreani that the risk is 1 in 5.85 million (see Lateline video below). Quite a difference, and a figure described as “totally inaccurate” by Professor Roy Beran who published Serious complications with neck manipulation and informed consent in the MJA (2001) including deaths, stroke and other injuries from chiropractic neck manipulation.

His paper was:

…initially knocked back because it was so common knowledge and so frequent that the journal didn’t want to publish it

So all being fair the CAA are welcome to keep promoting their 215,000 patients per week visiting chiropractors, so long as we all accept the very same sales pitch should include Ten Vertebral Artery Dissections and Stroke per month.

Yet a concern of current critics increasingly involves the practice of paediatric chiropractic. Fundamentalists are taking it up in droves and at most appear to offer a light touch in a “clinical setting” to babies, gradually increasing the scope of manipulation with age. Of course the waving of hands over a small baby is an absolute scam. A goldmine given that we know trials have shown no visible effect. Chiropractors have invented “irritable baby syndrome” to revive what used to be called colic which ultimately emerged as an irritable baby, and no actual disorder at all.

Now their unproven rituals and adjustments of invisible subluxations are blessed with claims of “curing” or treating psychological conditions, improving immunity, croup, allergies, wheezing, pertussis, influenza, poor posture, stomachache, hearing loss, headaches, asthma, bedwetting, bronchitis, learning disorders, arthritis…. Soon I won’t even blink if ESP or Cosmic Consciousness makes it onto the list.

That’s only part of it. The level of mumbo jumbo that defies even basic science is close to frightening. Moderate infant complications are ramped to frightening levels as “deficits” are grossly misrepresented, paediatricians mocked and normal motor skill expression deemed a “neurological delay”. The claim that spinal adjustments improve total awareness because “all senses pass through the spinal column” is news to my ears… and eyes, and smell, and taste and vestibular balance.

Studies show that in blind trials, if parents believe the baby is being treated, they report improvement whether treatment took place or not. If told no treatment took place when in fact it did, parents report no improvement in their baby.

It may be expensive woo now but sooner or later, the USA trend of manipulating children’s necks will pick up pace in Australia. John Reggars (in the Today Tonight video), past president of the Chiropractors Registration Board of Victoria and present vice president of the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia insists there is no evidence.

A read of Jeremy Youngblood’s death certificate gives insight into what those who stroke and die from vertebral tears brought on by cervical manipulation go through. It is doubly tragic given the view of Kaiser Permanente that there is a “paucity of data related to beneficial effects” in the first place.

In a case report review of serious adverse effects following cervical manipulation published by Edward Ernst in the eMJA in 2002 there is only one death amongst the multiple adverse outcomes. In this case it is a three month old baby and the practitioner is the sole physiotherapist listed. A physiotherapist practising Vojta Therapy which is in fact paediatric physiotherapy. The adverse event was:

Bleeding into adventitia of both vertebral arteries causing ischaemia of caudal brainstem with subarachnoid haemorrhage [and] death

The crucial point here is that regardless of profession, spinal manipulation of all types has been shown to carry significant risks. In 2001 Stevinson and Ernst published Risks Associated With Spinal Manipulation in the American Journal of Medicine, and note in the abstract:

Data from prospective studies suggest that minor, transient adverse events occur in approximately half of all patients receiving spinal manipulation. The most common serious adverse events are vertebrobasilar accidents, disk herniation, and cauda equina syndrome. Estimates of the incidence of serious complications range from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 1 per 400,000. Given the popularity of spinal manipulation, its safety requires rigorous investigation.

In fact according to this RCT published in the Lancet there is no difference between manipulation or placebo when it comes to recovery from low back pain. Physiotherapists confident in spinal manipulation carried out the trial. As Chris Maher says in the Lateline video below recovery rates were almost “exactly the same”. So basically, there’s good evidence to suggest a 50% chance of sustaining an injury to any part of the spine undergoing a procedure not shown to be any more effective than placebo, when the low back is involved. Serious complications and death apply to manipulation of the neck. There is no evidence supporting application of the latter.

As reported by John Dwyer, Emeritus professor Uni NSW, the literature contains 700 cases of adverse reactions in children following chiropractic adjustments. Given the danger of all spinal manipulation, the copious numbers of adverse effects from vertebral manipulation and the inherent danger of paediatric manipulation, chiropractic faces an uphill battle in the eyes of evidence based treatment.

Added to this however, is the rapid rise of the fundamentalists, who I prefer to call the Mystic Chiropractors. Their disillusioned appreciation of conventional medicine and aversion to supporting it is nicely summed up by Lawrence Tassell on the topic of vaccination. From Adelaide Now:

He also dismisses suggestions chiropractors are anti-immunisation.

“We don’t recommend for or against vaccination; we simply say it’s a choice factor,” he says.

Which is of course, the anti-vaccination cover. Who would choose to risk their child’s life when availed of all the evidence? Yet when fed misinformation and outmoded fear mongering vaccination may seem like a “choice factor”. Chiropractors are misleadingly allowed to use the title “doctor”. They still make up the bulk of the “professional” members of the Australian Vaccination Network. In 2009 Floreani and Tassell’s CAA had a grand aim:

To achieve a fundamental paradigm shift in healthcare direction where chiropractic is recognised as the most effective and cost efficient health regime of first choice that is readily accessible to all people

Reggars claims the “all-encompassing alternative system of healthcare is both misguided and irrational”. He’s exposed the money angle informing us:

Chiropractic trade publications and so-called educational seminar promotion material often abound with advertisements of how practitioners can effectively sell the vertebral subluxation complex to an ignorant public. Phrases such as ‘double your income’, ‘attract new patients’ and ‘keep your patients longer in care’, are common enticements for chiropractors to attend technique and practice management seminars.

Selling such concepts as lifetime chiropractic care, the use of contracts of care, the misuse of diagnostic equipment such as thermography and surface electromyography and the X-raying of every new patient, all contribute to our poor reputation, public distrust and official complaints.

This video by the Council on Chiropractic Practice refers to, “the Dark Side of the profession… keeping the imprisoned impulse captive… and [its] innate potential chained”. What’s it mean? Those who reject the made up notion of “subluxation” are the dark side and as the video states the “right to treat it” is under attack. Sound familiar? It seems the theme of having a right to apply demonstrably dangerous beliefs and practices at the expense of genuine medical intervention is “a right”.

What’s insane about chiropractic is that it’s assumed everyone needs treatment. Their impulse is “imprisoned” along with its “innate potential”. The only result of pursuing this potential offered by the “science that makes everyone well and happy” is certain loss of money and a definite risk of injury, disability or death. Palmer’s 19th century superstitious and completely subjective “God given energy flows” are today’s “very principles this profession was founded on”.

In The Age yesterday it was reported in Doctors take aim at chiropractors:

CHIROPRACTORS are peddling shonky treatments that could be dangerous for people, including babies and children, a group of high-profile doctors says.

In an extraordinary attack, 34 professors, doctors and scientists issued a statement yesterday calling for more policing of chiropractors’ false claims and said the federal government should not fund chiropractic courses at Australian universities because it gave their ”pseudoscience” credibility.

The group, which includes the president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Steve Hambleton, and head of public health at Monash University Professor John McNeil, said although some chiropractic treatments had an evidence base, claims it could cure 95 per cent of ailments was nonsense. […]

In a letter to Central Queensland University protesting against its recent inclusion of a chiropractic course, the doctors said they were also concerned about chiropractors being the largest ”professional” group in the anti-vaccination network.

One of the signatories, Professor of Neurophysiology at Flinders University Marcello Costa, said universities running such courses were encouraging the spread of quackery, misusing public money and delaying effective treatments for people who falsely believed chiropractors could cure their illnesses.

Exactly why these cosmic cuddlers assume they have a right to bring about a shift in the direction of healthcare that is overflowing with pseudoscience and risk, so they can profit, is well beyond my ethics tolerance threshold. Added to the defensive battle posture they have taken up against the “attack”, that is in reality a request for proper evidence on the magic of subluxation, a distinct malignancy is in the air.

Chiropractors aren’t treating you. You’re treating them to a free ride at risk to yourselves and your loved ones.

Today Tonight December 7th 2011

Lateline July 9th 2009

Legal synthetic drugs leading to arms race of prohibition

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Health, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal, Science by

Few things underscore the failure of the war on drugs quite like the, well… failure of the war on drugs.

Two mornings ago I read in the press Synthetic drugs banned ahead of schoolies.

Attorney-General Paul Lucas said a further 19 cannabinoids, which are used to make fake illicit drugs such as the synthetic cannabis Kronic, have been outlawed. Mr Lucas said anyone caught selling them now risked between 15 and 20 years in jail.

Ten hours later I read Synthetic drugs seized ahead of schoolies, as police raided business across the Gold Coast to remove the obvious supply of, but not the demand for, synthetic drugs. No problems. Kids can go back to buying regular pot supporting organised crime in the time honored fashion. Perhaps amphetamine type stimulants (ATS) like ecstasy (or their safer legal cousins) will soon be managed identically, literally placing kids lives at risk.

Trying to terrify a nation Detective Superintendent Steve Holahan lies, “They’ve contained pesticides, crushed glass – extremely dangerous for human consumption.” Then, even though kids will now buy from organised crime figures with corrupt connections, zero accountability, no business to legally maintain and nothing in mind but an easy quick dollar we get Poe’s Law:

“Anything that you don’t know what it contains, should sound alarm bells straight away,” he said. “I really can’t emphasise enough, don’t ingest something that you don’t know what it contains.

“People need to understand they’re taking a very real risk both for their personal health…”.

In this 60 Minutes clip examining the status of “legal highs” – synthetic drugs that do not fall under the various misuse of drugs, or drug misuse and trafficking acts – vision of police savaging illegal cannabis growers struck me like never before. The recognition of futility, posturing and wasted public money was there. Yet more and more the anger I used to feel has given way to vague annoyance toward these pitiful people dressed up in action costumes to engage in what is a demonstrably futile endeavour.

Perhaps my annoyance peaked when NSW Drug Squad Chief, Nick Bingham angled to plead tough on “legal” drugs. He first admits to the difficulty of policing drugs that are not illegal then offers:

We have enough legal drugs on the market. We have tobacco, we have alcohol, we have your benzodiazapines. Why do we want to open up an avenue of all these synthetic substances to make them legal as well?

Er, firstly benzodiazapines area a prescription medication. Why not just rattle off the entire edition of MIMS there Nick? Next, there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. Which leaves alcohol – the most abused mind altering drug in the developed world clocking up a cost to public health that is approximately 15 times that of illicit drugs and once again wasting public money in policing violence. Lastly, regarding drugs that can’t be legally seized without legislative change there is no evidence anywhere of “opening up an avenue… to make them legal as well”.

Readers may remember back in June I covered the inaccurate “anecdotal” claims made by Steve Fielding on June 22nd in Questions without notice as he hassled Attorney-General Representative, Senator Joe Ludwig over what he intended to do nationally about Kronic. Fielding’s hysteria aside we still have no evidence to back his horror stories about what NSW health minister, Kevin Humphries told ABC Lateline was a “synthetic psychotic drug”. Indeed, despite years of sensational press and conservative panic the risk of chronic psychosis in people genetically predisposed to schizophrenia is roughly around one in 15,000 of regular smokers of illegal cannabis.

Of course, Fielding’s frown and Ludwig’s lament did nothing. It turns out Kronic derivatives remain legal and misunderstood. Colin Barnett, perhaps Australia’s most daring and dashing politician on the topic of illicit drugs banned Kronic in June promising maximum sentences of 25 years. Rather than understand the drugs and manage any issues we have simply enforced ignorance and expanded the supposed problem.

Surely now is the time for education and sensible regulation. In all the hype essential facts are lost and urban myths begin to emerge. “Synthetic cannabinoids” aren’t in many cases, cannabinoids. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction notes:

Although often referred to simply as synthetic cannabinoids, many of the substances are not structurally related to the so-called ‘classical’ cannabinoids, i.e. compounds, like THC, based on dibenzopyran. The cannabinoid receptor agonists form a diverse group, but most are lipid soluble and non-polar, and consist of 22 to 26 carbon atoms; they would therefore be expected to volatilize readily when smoked. A common structural feature is a side-chain, where optimal activity requires more than four and up to nine saturated carbon atoms. The first figure shows the structure of THC, while the others show examples of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists, all of which have been found in ‘Spice’ or other smoking mixtures. The synthetic cannabinoids fall into seven major structural groups…

This clip spends ample time allowing Matt Bowden, NZ’s incredibly successful legal drug producer to chat with Liz Hayes. With ATS we all know the status of mephedrone as illegal in Australia. Yet smart chemists have enough formulas for both ATS and cannabinoids to keep the production-ban-production-ban arms race going for some time. Slowly the rhetoric is changing. Less and less are we terrified with stories of mashed neurons, instant madness and blokes who ripped off their scrotum. It’s pretty simple. Impairment. Drugs, like alcohol, cause impairment. And no, we don’t want those we care about going about their business impaired.

We need open and honest discourse. Proper scientific understanding and advice strikes me as the only sensible, critical next step. Users do not deserve to be scared witless to the point of hiding and lying about what is in essence simple human behaviour. More to the point the action to ban synthetic cannabinoids announced the presence of such legal drugs to Australians sending sales to unprecedented levels.

The history of banning previously legal substances is one of failure. Perhaps we might like to not repeat this particular aspect.