Imagine you’re listening to the radio one day and the discussion is on government funding and community education about road fatality and driver education.
A woman is invited to speak. You catch her name as Peryl Clawy. She’s president of The Australian Road Safety Network. Impressive. She claims to be for “informed choice” on your safety as a driver. Her only aim is to educate drivers about driving skill so they can choose what’s best for them and their family. She wants to present both sides of the argument. Sounds great. You pay more attention.
The announcer asks her about the condition of roads and of railway crossings, during peak periods. There’s been a report linking speed, poor road maintenance and traffic jams to accidents on the open road and at crossings. It’s been suggested licencing fees may increase to help cover costs to improve the condition of roads. The woman answers;
“Well, we at the ARSN would take that with a grain of salt. This fee increase – or extortion to keep your licence as we prefer to call it – seems to be just another Big Brother tactic from the government, road authorities and road-way developers to keep drivers under the impression that safer roads save lives. But who did this study, and who paid them? Was it an independent study or by someone associated with road development?
The reality is that study after study shows that dangerous driving on difficult surfaces is an excellent way to improve driving skills, and more to the point we at the ARSN have thousands of reports of people killed and maimed whilst driving on perfect roads, under perfect lighting, in perfect weather conditions whilst under the speed limit. Despite big auto promising to make cars safer we have reports of children decapitated by air bags and adults sustaining crushed ribs and perforated lungs from seat belts, during accidents. The overall effect of all this safety is to deny the body’s natural driving skill from maturing.
Before the road safety industry began these highly lucrative fear campaigns urging people to listen to the police and to these so-called scientists, cars had no seat belts or safety devices and roads were made of dirt and sand. Children were carried on their mothers laps, and windscreens were clean non-toxic glass. Now, we’re trapped behind toxic lamination full of chemicals, that break away and float about the interior of the car causing illness, cancer and failure to thrive in children. They also poison breast milk. Since the baby capsule and booster seat laws came in the number of babies killed in motor vehicle accidents has increased ten fold and babies dying from SIDS in Australia has almost tripled.
I had a mother call me recently saying she picked up her sleeping baby from a capsule one night, placed her in her crib to sleep and the next morning discovered she was dead. Who takes responsibility for this? The baby capsule manufacturers? The road safety authorities? The media who continually hush up these cases? I mean I believe every life lost on the roads is tragic but why are babies who die in a crash whilst sitting on their mother’s laps front page news, and those that die from baby capsule induced SIDS never even reported? Children’s health in all nations with mass production of safer driving practice and so-called better roads is under attack. Chronic disease is at an all time high.
The fatality rate 80 years ago in Australia is a fraction of the total today. When they first made cars they just allowed the public to buy them. Now they fill them with dummies and crash them at full speed recording in detail every bit of damage that can happen to the human body. But do they tell you this when you buy a car? Do they show you a dummy and say, “See. this is what happens when you crash this car wearing all the safety gear”? No, of course not. Back then many drivers didn’t even have licences. More so, look at the percentage of drivers killed on our roads who hold full driving licences. It’s something like 99.99999%. If we look at the rise in licences over the past few generations we also see a steady increase in fatalities. So, it’s clear this licencing system plays a significant role in fatalities. And these aren’t my figures these are the government’s own figures.
We also have thousands of licence induced injuries on record. Humans are born with natural driving skills, just the way we’re born with the ability to walk, but these are trained out of us when we sit for a drivers licence. Now, we’ve been asking the government to run a trial of licenced vs unlicenced drivers with natural driving skills for years now to see whether artificial – or “learned” as they call it – skills are really better than those with natural or “unlearned” skills. But they don’t care. The government just doesn’t care.
So licencing and the teaching of driving skills has never been tested properly. The gold standard of science is the randomised control trial. Yet no studies actually exist that compare unlicenced driver skills in dangerous conditions, vs licenced driver skills in dangerous conditions. People are just expected to follow along and listen to road traffic authorities, ignoring their own instincts along the way. What’s worse is not only is there no evidence licencing doesn’t kill drivers, but they hold off allowing the unlearning of natural skills and the learning of unnatural skills until the late teens.
So the normal skills and curiosity all toddlers and children show as they’re growing is suppressed when it comes to driving a car, when study after study shows that children learn so much from interacting with their environment. We’ve also asked the government to run trials comparing toddlers and children who are allowed to play-drive for a few years with adults who have been forced into the artificially taught skill set, but again the government just doesn’t listen. They obviously just don’t care.
When I arrived in Australia almost 30 years ago there were no boom gates or lights at railway crossings and all the roads were unmade and full of pot holes. But since the bitumen has gone down and crossings have been developed fatalities have slowly increased. Now, we have all these scientists saying if you drive over the speed limit without a seat belt or drive through a railway crossing with flashing lights without looking you could die from it. Well, you didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you’re not going to die from it today.
Plus there’s now hate groups who insist we don’t have the right to say these things, to tell the other side of the story. The Australian skeptics, they set up a group call Stop The Australian Road Safety Network and they say that we don’t have free speech in Australia and that you have no right to get access to both sides of the story. They don’t want you to have this information, despite the risks of not knowing. They say you aren’t allowed to ask questions about driving or what might be best for you.
They just argue that it’s better to seek out “reputable” information and do what your driver instructor tells you or what your advanced driving skills instructor tells you. You know, um… pay attention to road conditions, adjust your driving for lighting and weather, observe the speed limits, take care in unknown areas, ensure your car is road worthy and has good tyres. Don’t think for yourself or follow what you think is best for your children – despite the carnage and the licence induced injuries.
So, it’s all about suppressing free speech and free choice. Just like in a communist country. Science doesn’t have all the answers so why we should trust science with something as valuable and potentially dangerous as driving is a mystery. Not one car is 100% safe and even the manufacturers admit this. But they don’t tell you up front. It’s time Australians stood up and raised their voice about these Licences Of Death, forced acceptance of so-called safety standards and returned to the old ways of doing things naturally. Free from interference and free from the lies of big auto backed by big government.”
The announcer quietly says thank you and hangs up.
You wouldn’t listen to this rubbish, so why bother when “safe driving” is swapped for “vaccination”?
Well, they’ve (The Australian Skeptics) actually said it. It’s been said several times. We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. Many of them have said that and I have quotes on the internet, you can see it.
Meryl Dorey speaking to Tiga Bayles on Let’s Talk 98.9 FM, 19th December 2011
Meryl Dorey has never been one for facts. Recently her claim that her critics, “say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia” (Let’s Talk transcript), has lurched into full gallop. It’s always been around as a demonstrable distortion of documented facts, which I’ll get onto. It pops up on Facebook during tirades to fellow members or on her website posts where it sits in competition with “health fascism”, how “disease mongering” is profitable, that the pharmaceutical industry is in “a secret pact with mainstream medicine” or stupidly comparing herself to the bogus “Lord” Monckton.
Those of us following Woodford Festival’s ill conceived decision to host this threat to public health as an “expert” on such a crucial health topic as vaccination, will be familiar with the “free speech means free pass” argument. Dr. Rachael Dunlop made the following observation writing on ABC’s The Drum:
The argument that has been circulating in favour of letting Dorey speak at the festival has been one of free speech. But this is not about free speech.
Dorey is entitled to voice her opinions but not her own facts. And when a public health warning has been issued about her information, it is the responsibility of the festival organisers to make people aware that she is not an authority on vaccination, that her information has been deemed misleading and she does not support you getting your kids vaccinated.
You could argue suppressing my right to yell “fire!” in a crowded cinema is also about free speech, but when people’s safety is at risk, common sense must prevail.
We’re also entering the 5th year of a pertussis epidemic which began in Ms. Dorey’s hunting grounds and from there spread across Australia. The festival attracts lovers of alternative thinking who can only be harmed by Ms. Dorey’s manipulative diatribes. As such, the organisers of Woodford Festival made an extremely poor, ignorant judgement call and are now complicit in risking Australian health.
Dorey’s talk and opposition to it have little to do with free speech. As I contended recently, her track record of scams, misappropriation of funds, exploitation of members, copyright abuse, lying to the media and much more reveal a cowardly bottom rung con artist who makes an easy living by misleading Aussie citizens and authorities. Her disdain for our laws and insult to our intelligence is blindingly obvious. Charity fraud (including misappropriation of business names), copyright abuse and non compliance with health authority legislation/regulation carry feather touch penalties.
The other fairly outrageous caper I find irksome is how Dorey lies to those who lend support. Those who trust her to tell the truth. She’s a convincing speaker, making her victims easy game. This angle to her grossness literally blossomed as Dorey took Tiga Bayles for a goose, abusing his not insignificant ignorance and blind trust almost ferociously. Tiga simply believed what she said and replied accordingly.
In a sad turn of events Tiga is denied any facts and quickly made the fool. By show’s end he’s almost worshiping at Dorey’s feet, convinced she is fighting “the haters”. Added to this is the sheer volume of effort given by Meryl Dorey toward misleading Tiga about her critics. If she has such a vital role to play in promoting “informed choice”, can’t she just knuckle down and get on with it?
Putting the AVN aside entirely, I always find it a bad sign when one agent has to define their own qualities by highlighting what are supposedly negative qualities in an opposing agent. For Meryl Dorey, the libellous and slanderous attacks on her critics have now become an indispensable binary dance of her own making.
Scarcely moments into the show Dorey misleads the audience and once again leaves little doubt as to why she must be challenged and held accountable:
We have the Health Minister in Queensland saying that it’s nonsense to look at the other side of the vaccination issue. And the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is the government body that’s involved with this, says that you have to be able to make an informed choice. So all we’re doing is trying to support what the National Health and Medical Research Council says, and allow people to make an informed choice. If doctors and the government were doing their job, we wouldn’t even have to be here. I could be off having fun with my family and instead I’m sitting here working. [….]
…. but there is an organisation called the Australian Skeptics, and they set up about three years ago a sub-group called “Stop the AVN”…. They just think everyone should vaccinate, just listen to your doctor, nobody who is not a doctor is able or has a right to talk about this information…. And they say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia, which is not correct. [….]
But people need to be aware of what vaccines they are giving their children, why they’re vaccinating and how effective and how safe the vaccines are. And this organisation, Stop the AVN, says you’re not entitled to know that. And I think that people should be aware that there is such a strong push, from a very small section of the community, to stop them from being informed.
All of this is false and Dorey knows it to be. If SAVN are recommending listening to one’s doctor, how can they also say people aren’t entitled to know “how effective and how safe the vaccines are”? That’s exactly what critics of vaccine deniers wish people to know. The show transcript is a cornucopia of infuriating lies, and we need to expose the genesis of Dorey’s musings on opposition to free speech. However, it must be said clearly that linking Stop The AVN with Australian Skeptics actually occurs only in Meryl Dorey’s mind.
SAVN was set up by a private individual after Meryl Dorey harassed the grieving parents of an infant who died from pertussis. Dorey demanded access to the infant’s medical records and contended that Paul Corben, Director of Public Health at the North Coast Area Health Service misled the public by confirming a pertussis fatality. Corben wrote to the family:
Ms. Dorey called me on the 12th of March seeking details of your daughter’s illness and death… Ms. Dorey contended that I had misled the public in attributing your daughter’s death to pertussis.
Despite Corben’s clear email to this effect Dorey simply denies it. What ensued was a vindictive letter writing campaign and visits to family members by AVN intimates. It was not until The Australian Skeptics awarded Ms. Dorey the 2009 Bent Spoon Award for the traditional annual celebration of the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, that Dorey’s hatred for all things skeptical was unleashed. Perhaps Meryl has difficulty accepting just how many critics she has. Yet I suspect painting this picture of a looming enemy is not only compulsory for conspiracy theorists, but far easier than providing evidence.
Dorey continued to mislead Tiga regarding free speech:
Tiga: […] And it’s our right as parents and family members to be making free and informed decisions, and give free and informed consent, if we disagree.
Meryl: They disagree with what you’ve just said. They say we don’t have freedom of speech and you don’t have a right to say no.
Tiga: And by the way, Phil said, no the skeptics don’t tell lies, well, he didn’t say they don’t tell lies, he said they don’t say there isn’t any freedom of speech, they might imply that.
Meryl: Well, they’ve actually said it. It’s been said several times. We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. Many of them have said that and I have quotes on the internet, you can see it.
Tiga: But even to imply it, Meryl.
Meryl: Well, it’s more than implication because they actually have said that.
A caller, Phil, had quite honestly said that it may be implied (as Dorey is doing) that freedom of speech is opposed by those who object to demonstrable falsehoods capable of harm, being voiced without contest. Here’s the exchange:
Tiga: And the skeptics… is it right then what Meryl… was Meryl correct when she said the skeptics say that we don’t have freedom of speech. Is that something the skeptics would say? In this regard?
Phil: Well, it may be implied. But this isn’t a freedom of speech issue.
Tiga: But it may be implied, Okay.
Later Dorey and Tiga excel themselves:
Tiga: What are these people, like governments, doctors, Stop the Australian Vaccination Network, the skeptics, what are these people when it’s controlling, and the haters that are out there. What’s the difference, probably even much better off under a communist system.
Meryl: That’s right. There isn’t any difference. And Stop the AVN is a hate group. They definitely are. They act like a hate group, they’re abusive, they’re bullies. So, yeah, I agree with you 100% with what you’re saying and it’s anti-democratic. You know, in a democracy we do have this right to choose, we do have the right to speak, so anyone who says we’re not is not democratic, and I think we all want to live in a democracy.
I recommend browsing the transcript. Or you may download the entire 45 minute audio here (or listen below) and make up your own minds about pre-show collusion, Tiga’s arguably conspiratorial anti-medicine beliefs and Meryl’s hilarious claims that she doesn’t lie nor object to the position of doctors defending vaccination. There’s monumental abuse of indigenous health realities from both sides. A few moments of listening hint that Tiga is far too proud to ever admit what a fool Dorey has made of him.
So, what is the source of Dorey’s claim that her critics would deny free speech? Would any academics or critics seriously advance such a primitive notion? Is Dorey cognizant of perhaps a different reality, that exposes this position as an intentional lie? Or could she prove (as intimated) that critics of anti-vaccination propaganda, “say we don’t have freedom of speech and you don’t have a right to say no”?
It’s possible to turn this right around and find that the evidence shows something quite different. Meryl Dorey is really about saying what she wants even if it has been shown to harm individuals or society in general.
In his complaint to the HCCC Mr. Ken McLeod addressed the issue of AVN free speech on page 6. [Item 5] Is the AVN protected by a right of free speech?
Contrary to the perceptions of an Australian public raised on a diet of Hollywood movies, there is no right of free speech in the Australian Constitution. On the contrary, Australian legislation and case law are littered with restrictions on speech, from contempt of parliament, national security, contempt of Court, sub judice rules, criminal defamation, breach of copyright, racial vilification, etc. For example, see Jones v Frederick Toben.
In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia found that Töben’s website “vilified Jewish people”, and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site. In May 2009, he was sentenced to three months in jail by Justice Bruce Lander after being found guilty of 24 charges of contempt, in that he continued to publish offensive views in defiance of Court orders {Jones v Toben [2009] FCA 354}.
Likewise, cancer quack Jillian Margaret Newlands has been ordered by the Queensland Supreme Court to cease providing her quack cancer cure and dangerous advice, such as advising clients not to seek chemotherapy treatment. [Public Statement by Qld Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading Peter Lawlor, Thursday, April 23, 2009 “Unregistered health provider ordered to stop misleading cancer patients”]
So, in Australia, one is entitled to free speech provided that one does not harm an individual or society in general. As Oliver Wendell Holmes USA CJ, put it so succinctly;
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre.” [Source]
The AVN is clearly harming individuals and society and is not protected by any right of free speech. Indeed, by explicitly including “health education” in the Health Care Complaints Act, speech is clearly not protected here, as speech is necessarily a part of the education process.
In her reply to the HCCC Ms. Dorey accuses Mr. McLeod of a “jihad-like mentality” (yet maintains taking offence at the term “quack”) and offers, Response to Section 5 of the McLeod Complaint – So Called Right of “Free Speech”;
Contrary to Mr McLeod’s ʻAmerican TVʼ version of Constitutional Law (under which he has adopted foreign terms such as “Right to Free Speech” derived from the US Constitution), there is in fact an implied freedom of communication and discussion on political and government affairs contained in the Australian Constitution and embodied within the federal system of government…. It has been found by the High Court of Australia that these sections, when read in context, provide that members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to be directly chosen at elections by the people and that therefore this requirement embraces all that is necessary to effectuate the free election of representatives at periodic elections, including the right to unfettered communication and discussion of all matters relating to government and public policy [Citation].
Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics has been determined by the High Court as being an indispensable incident of the system of representative government that the Constitution creates…. This freedom of communication and discussion is protected against the exercise of federal and state legislative and executive power and extends to all those who participate in ʻpoliticalʼ discussion (such as the AVN) and therefore is not limited only to electors and elected [Citation].
… The High Court has extended this freedom of communication on matters of government and politics extends to all non-verbal conduct [Citation], which would include content on the AVN website and all published materials of the AVN which is the subject of this complaint from Mr McLeod.
It is submitted that the HCCC should approach this complaint with this attitude of balance, and act to responsibly and lawfully when weighing up the competing interests at stake in the circumstances regarding the subject of this complaint. The High Court cases cited above confirm that the HCCC has a constitutional obligation to ensure that the ʻgag orderʼ and other similar provisions of the Health Care Complaints Act are not attempted to be implemented in response to this complain (sic) in a way that would offend or restrict the AVN’s constitutionally protected freedom of political expression. [….]
In closing on this particular subject, I submit a statement made by the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, as quoted in August 22nd, 2009 edition of the Daily Telegraph. In a speech before Federal Parliament, Mr Smith stated that, “We understand, respect and recognise free speech. We value the capacity of someone to come to our country and say things, even if we do not agree.”
The full epic ramble covers three pages most of which I have spared you. Dorey failed to address Mr. McLeods argument on free speech content that may be inherently malignant. Instead an irrelevant attempt to suggest that the AVN engages in political discussion akin to “communication on matters of government and politics”, is made repeatedly.
In aligning herself with “an implied freedom of communication and discussion on political and government affairs contained in the Australian Constitution and embodied within the federal system of government”, Dorey assumes quite some self-promotion. The citations are related to media outlets and political speech as implied by the constitution, both during and outside of election time, qualified privilege and publication without malice, amongst others.
In short Ms. Dorey seems to have little grasp on the notion of responsible free speech. Ken McLeod has made a very good case as to why free speech despite its great value must not be abused or used as a tool of demonstrable harm. Meryl Dorey sees her role as so lofty, the HCCC should stand back and make way. It’s arrogant in the extreme and speaks volumes as to how Dorey sees herself.
Nonetheless that is the source of Dorey’s repeated claims that “the skeptics”, of which Ken is not a member and SAVN, “say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Australia”. Item 5, page 6 of a complaint raised against Meryl Dorey. Period.
It is clear that the HCCC agreed with McLeod’s version, having reviewed Dorey’s material and finding her a risk to public health. Dorey is entirely cognizant of the above. Yet she has again chosen to misrepresent the facts in an attempt to cast opponents as malignant. At worst this is a dispute over the interpretation of free speech under the Australian Constitution.
Using free speech to lie to Tiga Bayles about free speech in such a manner as to intentionally engender ill will and hatred toward others is perhaps the most eloquent justification as to why Ms. Dorey must be stopped from speaking to the detriment of others. What she should say is:
I, Meryl Dorey believe I have a right to say what I want regardless of the consequences to individuals or society and hide behind this as “free speech”.
That is what the evidence shows and it’s backed by her conduct. In essence Dorey is shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre and wants to keep doing so.
One repetitive issue did come up again. As I’ve noted earlier, Dorey believes Nicola Roxon’s recent announcement on immunisation incentives should have led with instructions on how to become a conscientious objector. As if the health minister should be actively promoting disease, disability and epidemics. She had Tiga fired up in no time:
Tiga: So, the government is responsible also for misinformation.
Meryl: Very much so. And we’re going to be complaining about that, but unfortunately what happens is you complain to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman says, oh well, tell the minister for health about this. It’s the Minister for Health who’s misinforming people in the first place. So there’s really no way to complain.
Tiga: Typical.
It’s hard to find analogues to this. Perhaps media announcements on how to get exemptions from total fire bans should take precedence over any warnings? Life savers pointing out where the most dangerous rips are outside the flagged zone? SES telling residents where to hide from rescuers as bush fire tears into town? Light houses leading you onto the rocks?
Meryl Dorey’s idea of free and responsible speech is a dangerous one.
The perfect delicate corolla of petals opening up as if to embrace as much of nature as possible whilst it presents that corona or crown of pollen for harvest. For a short time it will maintain this wonderful display and then subside to make way for the next generation.
Humans have appreciated it’s beauty for thousands of years. Essential to life and death ceremonies, Egyptian artwork shows the priest Nebsini holding and gazing deeply into a Blue Lotus. Beautiful noble women reclining in splendor are also depicted holding the long stem, gazing as if hypnotised into it’s centre. The most important cultivated plant of ancient Egypt it was the flower of the water lilies that grew in the Nile. Nymphaea caerulea. The Egyptian water lily.
In Egyptian mythology it was believed to be the original container of the sun gods Atum and Ra. To Buddhists all Lotus flowers symbolise divine birth as they represent purity and spontaneity. The Blue Lotus itself represents:
The symbol of the victory of the spirit over the senses, of intelligence and wisdom, of knowledge
It contains the alkaloids nuciferene and aporphine which have mildly sedating effects. It is thought to be the plant eaten by Lotophagi in Homer’s Odyssey. “Loto” – lotus. “Phagi” – to eat. It is a favourite compound for aromatherapy and can be used to produce perfumes. Little wonder the Blue Lotus is a favourite of those who seek a more natural path in life and is often used to represent new age pursuits or brands. Blue Lotus means something to alternative mindsets.
Little wonder the guys at the Woodford Folk Festival extracted the essence of marketing from the Blue Lotus as it’s more modern property to claim with a straight face:
Pick up a steaming cup of herbal tea and head to the Blue Lotus, the Festival’s home of healing. Talks, workshops and forums invite conversation from some of Australia’s premier practitioners and open the door for Festivillian involvement…. Late afternoon forums nurture, with health, politics, beauty, revolution and adventure all playing their part. The Blue Lotus is a venue for adventures of the heart, mind and soul.
One of these “premier practitioners” is of course no such thing. How Buddha would react to see intelligence, wisdom and knowledge replaced with the cunning, recklessness and ignorance of the antivaccination lobbyist I can only guess. Last time Meryl Dorey met “lotus” on this blog was in exposing her lie that “measles in ancient Sanskrit means gift of the goddess”. It is actually a curse of the goddess Sitala Mataji, and the mother of the first child “burned” in revenge by the goddess fell into the holy lotus position to beg forgiveness.
I can guess what a great deal of Meryl’s misleading and potentially fatal scam will consist of. There will be the claim that the pertussis vaccine is not working because with 95% vaccination coverage, we happen to have the highest notification levels ever since records began, in 1991. As I noted yesterday however, Dorey will not tell these sitting ducks that of the 18 age groups making up notifications only 2 correspond to the 95% vaccination rate. The vaccination of small children is entirely unrelated to raw notification figures that contain no data on vaccine status or immunity.
16 age groups fall outside that at which immunity begins to wane. In these 16 age groups vaccination coverage is only 11.3%. When we add on numbers of infants too young to have completed pertussis vaccination, it’s clear Dorey’s figures are made up of the unvaccinated and non immune. She won’t tell these young people, young parents that yes, vaccinated people do contract pertussis – but a much milder form. That fatalities are only in the unvaccinated. Those not vaccinated who do not die yet fall gravely ill will be disabled for life if cerebral hypoxia ensues.
The Ancient Egyptians would be appalled at the abuse of their Blue Lotus
Dorey is touted by the promoters thusly:
Investigate before you vaccinate is the motto of the AVN. Having collected reports of thousands of Australian families whose children have been killed or injured by these shots, Meryl knows that the benefit of vaccines don’t always outweigh the risks. Her information is sourced from medical data and is necessary for anyone who is thinking about being vaccinated.
This alone is a collection of lies. Meryl has no reports of children “killed by vaccines”. For the organisers to simply repeat this atrocious lie of “thousands of Australian families” is a public irresponsibility of thunderous immorality. Whist it may seem idiotic at first glance, innocent Aussies will buy into these lies. The benefits of vaccination dwarf the infinitesimal risks. Her fear mongering is not sourced from medical data but cobbled together from conspiracy sites and unrelated data sets such as above.
Basic MMR vs measles risk comparison presented by the Encephalitis Society New England
Dorey is unable to produce these so-called cases of injuries. She will maintain SIDS is due to the hepatitis B vaccine. That Shaken Baby Syndrome – what she calls Shaken Maybe Syndrome – is due to vaccines. She will perhaps misrepresent recent changes in SBS research as proving her point, as some of her members have done. Research is indicating babies may present without problems for many hours following injury. Thus, suspicion cannot always be levelled at the last person to be minding the baby before collapse. This also allows consideration of unseen or seen falls. In the USA convictions have been overturned and innocent people released from prison in light of this. But no, headlines claiming, New thinking in SBS cases, does not implicate vaccines.
For years the insinuation of knowing and having, “vaccine injured” children has sustained Dorey. Yet never have they been produced. No proof exists. Although seemingly delighted at Saba Button’s misfortune I doubt the bragging runs both ways. But at last Dorey has a token victim to abuse in pursuit of more converts. Yet will her audience be told that children die every year from influenza? Or that the risk from severe brain damage is up to 1,000 times greater for measles sufferers than in children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiency, who react to MMR? That MMR produces no fatalities.
Where are Dorey’s citations of vaccine deaths? Simple. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: After this therefore because of this. Confusing correlation with causation. In Dorey’s case (as evidenced by SIDS or claims) the time frame can be years or several years. Yet as many as 1 in 2,500 can die from measles. Deafness from mumps, blindness from rubella. Dorey will raise the isolated cases of mumps infection in unvaccinated religious communities and how such concentrations can overwhelm vaccinated subjects. She will claim this is proof vaccines do not work. She will ignore that “the outbreak is due to infection in an unvaccinated community”.
So in 30 years there may have been no change in autism frequency. The primary variable is diagnostic criteria. This in no way dismisses the seriousness of autism, or suggests runaway diagnosis. If anything it reflects sadly on the fact so many in-need children have been previously missed. Yet what it does do is debunk the claim that over the last 30 years autism has become an epidemic and thus, vaccines are to blame.
There’ll will be no end to Dorey’s misinformation. Homeoprophylaxis will be suggested. Natural immunity is the only real immunity. Perhaps a pox party for chicken pox immunity. The immunity equivalent off throwing your child of a bridge to learn to swim. The new P.G.S. – Post Gardasil Syndrome – strangely absent from medical literature. Clean water, fresh food and sanitation wiped out disease, not vaccines, she’ll insist. Which fails utterly to appreciate the Hib vaccine – which she’ll omit.
The success of the Hib vaccine 1993 – 2005 immediately dismisses the claim “better living conditions alone” wiped out some epidemics
Running hot with the pertussis deception will be her new trick, as she opined on the ABC, that the danger in vaccines is made worse by the fact Nicola Roxon and the media did not lead with stories on explaining Conscientious Objection, over the recent immunisation incentive. As if the first piece of advice we need is how to avoid vaccination. Tragically, Dorey will give very detailed instructions on how to avoid vaccination as a C.O. and still receive government payments.
So what do people need to know?
On July 26th, 2010 the HCCC published a public health warning following the AVN’s failure to post warnings that it was anti-vaccination. Prior to this the HCCC had investigated two complaints that the AVN provided false and misleading information. The HCCC concluded it’s investigation on July 12th and gave the AVN 14 days to publish the following on it’s website:
The Australian Vaccination Network’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere;
The information provided should not be read as medical advice; and
The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider.
As you can see this is markedly more tame than the public health warning, that followed in the wake of her refusal. Which also added that the Australian Vaccination Network;
provides information that is solely anti-vaccination
contains information that is incorrect and misleading
quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous
And:
… the AVN provides information that is inaccurate and misleading. The AVN’s failure to include a notice on its website of the nature recommended by the Commission may result in members of the public making improperly informed decisions about whether or not to vaccinate, and therefore poses a risk to public health and safety.
Dorey will plead conspiracies to suppress her right to free speech. But she is the author of her own dilemma. So to spell out the obvious, most of what Meryl Dorey is railing against is by her own hand. Do not be fooled by Meryl Dorey. She is adept at conning audiences and continually seeks her own gain. Do not be fooled by this woman.
Remember:
Ms. Dorey is a discredited anti-vaccination lobbyist deemed a threat to public health and as such can not be trusted to give reasonable or factual information.
Ms. Dorey has no qualifications in health, medicine, nursing, midwifery, public health or any discipline that would legitimise her argument.
Ms. Dorey misrepresents the import of overall infection by omitting proper context.
Ms. Dorey misrepresents the import of pertussis vaccination by omitting crucial information.
The information above is factual yet Ms. Dorey will not present it.
Ms. Dorey does not cite any reliable scientific information and presents arguments that are not supported by any public health authorities or published literature.
Ms Dorey’s aim is to discourage vaccination, to misinform – not promote informed choice.
Whether or not you become one of her victims, or the victims of irresponsible and selfish organisers is really up to you.
Losing In The Lucky Country 