medicine

Exploiting Tragedy to Push Conspiracy Theories

My sadness over the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday is still incredibly raw and I don’t have a great deal to say on the topic beyond expressing my despair at the loss of life and innocence, my sorrow for those affected and my hope that President Obama will push for some long overdue reform to firearm legislation in the USA.

What galls me though, and what I would like to discuss here, is that some people see tragedies such as the events at Sandy Hook Elementary as opportunities to push their pet conspiracy theories.

Before the dust had settled at the World Trade Center, before the bodies were retrieved, while the brave folk who risked their lives searched through the rubble, conspiracy nuts were penning missives claiming 9-11 to be an inside job.

I do understand that in trying to make sense of what has occurred people can find comfort in believing that the horrors of the world are by design rather than awful circumstance. However, I find myself with little tolerance for those pushing their conspiracy theories in the wake of real grief and while others are searching for evidence-based approaches to prevent similar circumstances arising again.

One conspiracy theory I’ve witnessed getting an airing over the past few days is the belief that medications prescribed for psychiatric conditions are the cause of psychiatric illness. Certainly, no medication is without potential side effects and any person taking medication should be aware of its possible impact on their mental state, but the anti-psych-meds conspiracy theorists claim that psychiatric medication is of no benefit to individuals experiencing mental illness and is causing great harm to peoples’ mental states. In short, they want people with mental illness to cease the treatment that gives them an opportunity to improve their functionality and lessen their suffering.

As with anti-vaccination groups, the anti-psych-med believers feel that their information and views are superior to the evidence-based findings of the scientific community and the expertise of medical professionals.

Unsurprisingly, there is a crossover between anti-vaccinationists and the anti-psych-med movement. Even less surprisingly, given the subject I find myself returning to again and again on this blog (I do have other things to talk about, I promise), the Australian Vaccination Network appear to be anti-psych-med as well as anti-vaccination, as is evidenced by the CCHR* DVDs that they stock in their online shop (and their general disdain for pharmaceutical companies, mainstream medicine and evidence based health advice).

Two days after the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, presumably pseudonymous “Nancy Novax”, a long time friend of the AVN, posted a link on the AVN’s Facebook page purporting to provide evidence that “SSRIs” (nb: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, a family of antidepressant medications which can also be effective in treating generalised anxiety disorder) “and other psychotropic medications are the true causes of the mass murders and massacres that have been occurring in the US”.

An AVN admin (presumably Meryl Dorey herself, as the post was not initialled for identification), decided it appropriate to share this with the AVN’s followers, with the caption “Is anyone is deluded by thinking the mass shootings in the US r because of the availability of guns? Index 2 SSRI Stories”

blog20121218_03

(Link to original post)

To their credit, several of the AVN’s supporters have responded with disgust.. and some of those responses have been allowed to remain on the AVN’s Facebook page. I won’t republish them here and discuss them, but if the thread is deleted by the AVN, I will upload screenshots and link to them here.

The AVN admin also shared this anti-psychiatry diatribe with gross speculation about the shooter in the comments of the post above.

Then there’s this repugnant rant by Mike Adams “The Health Ranger” over on naturalnews.com, titled “Gun control? We need medication control! Newton elementary school shooter Adam Lanza likely on meds; labeled as having ‘personality disorder’

Here’s Sherri Tenpenny hijacking this tragedy to go on an anti-vaccination conspiracy rant:

A comment worth reposting…thanks Arlene:
“We hear how a gun kills children — which is horrible and I will not take anything away from that — but we don’t hear about how our government is killing our children…Yea, now we’re all going to hear how we must have gun control… But doctors who vaccinate kill [and maim] more than all the guns put together.”

And here, the National Vaccine Information Center shares an article from “activist-musicians” The Refusers blatantly attempting to claim that the shootings were the result of “vaccine injury”:

blog20121218_04

I’m willing to bet that there are dozens more examples of similar statements and agendas. I’ve seen quite a few more over the past couple of days. I’m not going to go looking for them though…frankly, I’m tired.

I’m tired of charlatans attempting to push people away from considering medical treatment that is in their best interest.

I’m tired of wondering why some people seem to be so very prone to believing that their theories are correct, despite the fact that the rationale to keep them afloat in the face of contradictory evidence increases in absurdity to the extent that they truly believe that mainstream medicine, the scientific community and governments are all colluding to suppress the truth that they and a small handful of their associates are privy to.

And right now, I’m incredibly tired of people trying to piggyback their nutbag lies on to the senseless deaths of innocent people.

* The CCHR are the ambiguously named Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a Scientology front group who campaign against psychiatry and psychiatric medicine. As loathe as I am to give them any traffic, I think that their site speaks for itself.

Further Reading (and Viewing)

Penn & Teller beautifully sum up my disdain for conspiracy theories in this episode of Bullshit, which I wholeheartedly recommend. Unless you’re not comfortable with some very strong language from a good humored and angry man (and emphatic gestures from another)… then steer clear.

What’s The Harm? Conspiracy Theories – In fact, I recommend the entire site. It can be terribly sad, but if you ever find yourself shrugging and thinking that woo is not worth challenging, What’s The Harm? provides strong reinforcement that it’s worth maintaining opposition.

Scientology, anti-psychiatry quackery and Mike Adams: It all becomes clear now – post by Orac over on Respectful Insolence, examining Mike Adams’ similar anti-psych-med rant in reaction to the mass shooting in Tuscon, Arizona last year.

Tenpenny blames vaccines for Newtown shooting – SkewedDistribution on Sherri Tenpenny’s further diatribe on the shootings.

I have contributed some money to assist the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre with funeral costs, via the group We Are Atheism. Here is their collection page.

[Edit] 12:00pm 19/12/2012: Added the NVIC screenshot and put a link to SkewedDistribution’s post in to Further Reading.

Advertisements

The (soon to be) Network Formerly Known as the AVN

Just before midnight last Friday night (the 14th of December, 2012), some rather fantastic news broke.

New South Wales Fair Trading (a state government department) had that day issued Meryl Dorey, president of the Australian Vaccination Network, with a letter stating that after investigating several complaints made to the department regarding the misleading nature of the AVN’s name, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the use of the name ‘Australian Vaccination Network’ by a group of anti-vaccinationists is against the public interest. The Commissioner then directed the AVN to change its name. The AVN have been given until the 21st of February 2013 to lodge an application for registration of change of name. If this is not done, the department may cancel the AVN’s registration, close the AVN down and seize their assets.

The full letter is available here. Thank you to Meryl Dorey for making it available to the public.

Several newspapers have run with this story, news.com.au gave us “Anti-vaccine group ordered to change name”, which the Herald Sun ran as “Minister orders anti-vaccination group to change name”, with added quotes from the president of the AMA, while The Daily Telegraph ran the truncated “Anti-jabs lobbyists warned”. A few highlights:

NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts fired a broadside at the AVN, saying the information it provided was a public safety issue of “life and death”.

“This is not a victimless issue, it’s about the ability to stop pain and suffering,” he said.

Mr Roberts likened the AVN’s message to sanctioning speeding.

“People do not have the freedom of choice when it comes to endangering others … it’s the equivalent of saying a bloke can speed down the road and endanger others,” he said.

Mr Roberts said he was prepared for any appeals the AVN might make.

“This is an order, it is not a request,” he said.

“The Australian Vaccination Network does not present a balanced case for vaccination, does not present medical evidence to back up its claims and therefore poses a serious risk of misleading the community,” Mr Roberts said in a statement.

NSW Fair Trading Assistant Commissioner for Compliance and Enforcement Robert Vellar says the AVN’s name had misled parents seeking information.

“People are being confused about the true nature of the information they are being provided on the AVN website, the name is misleading,” he said.

The Northern Star, which is the local paper of the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales (which covers the town from which Meryl Dorey runs the AVN), published “Anti-vaccine group must change ‘misleading’ name. This article contains an unusual point worth noting – they attempted to contact Meryl Dorey for a statement, but she did not return their calls. Given Meryl Dorey’s usual eagerness to engage with the media, this is a strange event indeed.

northernstarheadline20121217

Here is the cover sheet which will be greeting Meryl at her local newsagency this week.
Many thanks to Alison Gaylard and her friend for snapping a photo and sharing it.

Unsurprisingly, Meryl Dorey has reacted quite strongly to the letter from the NSW Fair Trading and subsequent media attention. She published a lengthy post on her blog in response, entitled “Government puts the boot into the AVN, Democracy and the Truth”.

I do not have the time to review the entire post, but some highlights include:

The Department’s open cooperation with the AMA is analogous to them responding to complaints by mining companies about Greenpeace’s name. After all, Greenpeace is not green, nor do they go around looking for peace, therefore, would the Department tell them to change their name too? How about the Cancer Council? Couldn’t someone be misled into thinking that they are FOR cancer? And the Department of Health? Don’t get me started! The Department of Ill-Health would be more accurate in my opinion.

Greenpeace is not green. Say it with me, “Greenpeace is not green”.

A wonderfully skilled wordsmith of my acquaintance, Shellity, has written a poem in response to the above quote of Meryl’s, I heartily suggest you give it (and the rest of her blog) a read: “Nominal”.

As for the statement regarding the Cancer Council, no Meryl, it is highly unlikely that anybody could be led to believe that the Cancer Council were pro-cancer. It is a reasonable assumption though, they they are an authority on the subject and that they provide trustworthy evidence-based information regarding cancer. The same cannot be said for the Australian Vaccination Network with regards to the topic of vaccination.

Later in the blog post, when discussing NSW Fair Trading, Meryl quips that they “might consider changing that name because at least in the present situation, it is extremely misleading!”. I assume that this is a little Merylese bon mot, but it is hard to be certain.

Several paragraphs on is another statement I that would like to address.

Blog overlap

The letter from the Department was handed to my daughter at approximately 11:45 AM and the first article appeared in the Australian media approximately 10 hours ago. But Skeptic blogs started to announce this information approximately one hour before the media did. How do you think they came by this information? I really do wonder. Is there a direct line of communication between the Australian Skeptics, Stop the AVN (SAVN) and government departments? There is a long and open history of collusion between media outlets and various ‘skeptics’ so it is not impossible that they heard about this letter before the AVN had even received it. Is this collusion one of the reasons why these departments have been ‘putting the boot’ into us for the last 4 years at an apparent cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayer? Is the fact that many SAVN members are actually employed by government departments – and use their government email addresses when writing about the AVN and wanting to close us down – cause for concern? I will leave those questions with you to ponder.

Going by the time on the blog post announcement on the AVN’s Facebook page, 11:40am on Saturday the 15th of December (the post itself has no timestamp), the “approximately 10 hours ago” statement refers to 1:40am the same day.

I was online when the news broke, it first hit Twitter at 11:29pm on Friday evening. This linked to a paywalled version of the Herald Sun article, “Minister orders anti-vaccination group to change its name”, which refers to the 14th of December as ‘yesterday’ and is dated 12:00AM, December 15, 2012, but evidently went live at least half an hour before midnight.

The skeptic (I find the dramatic quotes quite unnecessary) bloggers who wrote posts about the news did so over the next hour; there’s a satirical piece by Dave The Happy Singer titled “Meryl Dorey to rename the Australian Vaccination Network Stop Stop The AVN” (posted at 12:26am Saturday) and a rightfully pleased announcement from Peter Bowditch on The Millenium Project on Ratbags.Com (posted 1:15am Saturday).

Kate from Stop the AVN has made a timeline graphic here, which helps clarify.

Both Dave and Peter’s blog posts refer to the article on the Herald Sun, which went online almost an hour before Dave’s post was made, giving both bloggers adequate time to write and publish. More to the point, both blog posts directly refer to the Herald Sun article and contain no information that is not included in the newspaper article.

Where then is Meryl getting the idea that skeptic bloggers had the information before the media published it? And is it then reasonable that she extrapolate from this the notion that the Australian Skeptics, SAVN and ‘government departments’ are illicitly sharing information and that the media is also in on the act? It’s a long and rather conspiracy-laden shot, Ms Dorey.

On the subject of unsubstantiated finger pointing, the AVN’s website went down on Sunday and this was the announcement:

blog20121218_01

(The “View all 8 comments link doesn’t reveal further comments when clicked on, three have been deleted – original post here)

Fortunately, the SAVN admins are people of many talents. Here, Dave Singer outlines why it is inaccurate to blame the AVN’s website problem on a DDOS attack:

blog20121218_02

(Original post and subsequent discussion here)

So what next for the AVN from here? I see four options, for them to change their name and complete the appropriate paperwork with all relevant authorities that that would entail, for them to continue with their current name and face being forcibly shut down by NSW Fair Trading, for them to disband in an act of grand martyrdom and for Meryl Dorey to lay low for a while or for them to apply for a right of review of the department’s direction with the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

Either way, we live in interesting times and I am quite curious to see which direction this will progress in.

Further Reading (and some listening and watching):

Anti-Vac group told to change name – Tracey Spicer and Tim Webster on 2UE Radio discuss the NSW Department of Fair Trade’s decision with phone in guest Anthony Roberts, the Minister for Fair Trade (who is rather critical of the anti-vaccination movement and refers to groups such as the AVN as “nut jobs”). Audio available, I will link to a transcript if I see one about.

AVN ordered to change its name – An article on Australian Doctor’s website (professional credentials and login required to view full article).

Australian Vaccination Network ordered to change it’s name – The media release from the Minister for Fair Trading’s office, also published here on the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association’s website.

The AVN Asks – What’s in a Name? – The AVN’s official media release on the department’s direction. I’ll be sure to add links to any news services who run with the story.

AVN’s Meryl Dorey orders NSW Fair Trading to change its name – Another blog post from Dave the Happy Singer

NSW Government orders the AVN the change their name or face closure – A blog post on the Skeptics’ Book of Pooh Pooh

Panellists on ABC’s current events panel show The Drum discuss the AVN in a less than impressed manner. Thank you to Anne Blake for uploading the video.

Anti-vaccination network told to change its name or be shut down – An article on The Conversation by Rachael Dunlop

And now for some Jimmy Rustling of a different kind – And a blog post by landlockedseaotter

David Penberthy: Anti-vaccine set forced to fess up – An opinion piece by David Penberthy appearing in Adelaide Now endorsing NSW Fair Trading’s direction.

AVN – NSW Fair Trading Orders Name Change – Christine Bayne of Diluted Thinking has put together a brilliant run down of the correspondence between the AVN and NSW Fair Trading and the potential liabilities faced by AVN committee members.

I would like to note a special thanks to everyone over at Stop the Australian (anti)Vaccination Network, especially those who have been posting links and information as they’ve come across them. I have been a little overwhelmed recently, trying to work out how to balance university, parenting and getting enough sleep, so my participation and this blog (and the housework) have fallen by the wayside somewhat. I am hoping that after the holiday season is done, I will be able to rest and find the resources to put more time into both SAVN and writing.

If you are interested in supporting SAVN, you are very much welcome to like their Facebook page. SAVN also uses the hash tag #StopAVN on Twitter.

[Edit] 1:45pm 19/12/2012: Added links to the piece in The Conversation and landlockedseaotter’s post to the Further Reading section.

[Edit] 12:00pm 21/12/2012: Added links to David Penberthy’s article in Adelaide Now and Christine Bayne’s post at Diluted thinking to the Further Reading section.

Don’t Ask the AVN, Take Your Child to a Hospital

Today, there has been another instance of an adult concerned for a child’s wellbeing asking the AVN for advice – not a parent this time, but an aunt – and the AVN not issuing an appropriate recommendation to have the child assessed by medical professionals.

It began with this post, from Robert Catalano, who proclaims to be the President of the American Natural Healthcare Society and has authored a book titled, “The Great White Hoax, The Suppressed Truth About the Pharmaceutical Industry, American Freedom vs, Medical Power”. It appears that Robert’s description of himself as an “anti-medicine activist” is one of the few and far between moments of accuracy he experiences in his writing. Judging by this extract (and I cannot imagine how the omitted text could possibly redeem what is written here), his book is a conspiracy heavy diatribe of pure bulldust, as is this post:

blog20121125_01

The AVN seem to be allowing a little more disagreement to be visible on their Facebook page than usual at the moment. A discussion ensued, with the AVN supporting Robert’s claims and trying to promote a book that is sold on the AVN’s website, “Diabetes Without Drugs” by Suzy Cohen.

blog20121125_02

The uncensored conversation didn’t last long though – the next comment, in which the author suggests that Robert may not be as well informed about diabetes as he claims to be (and includes a copy-paste of accurate information), was made by one of the AVN’s own courageous anonymous admins, CP. It has since been deleted.

blog20121125_03

Next though, was the sort of comment which makes my blood run cold (in a metaphorical sense, on the off chance that somebody thinks I’m having a dreadful reaction to the aspartame that was in a cola I drunk yesterday). It filled me with dread, in any case.

blog20121125_04

Again, an adult responsible for a child who is described as being unwell, asking for advice on the AVN’s page.

By this point, Robert is no longer participating in the conversation. Several conscientious and sensible commenters rightly urge Jess W to get her nephew to a hospital. The AVN admin (who is not identifying him or herself at this point) ignores Jess’ comment and instead opts to debate the legitimacy of natural diabetes management and cures with Hayley A.

blog20121125_05

Jess W returns with a direct question to the AVN. The AVN admin’s reply admonishes her for not having the time to learn about ways to help a 4 year old child and suggesting that Jess’ priorities are not in the right place, completely overlooking the fact that Jess has stated that her nephew is very unwell, difficult to rouse and has an extremely high blood sugar level reading.

blog20121125_06

This is the time to be telling Jess W to call an ambulance immediately, not tell her off for not handing over $35, waiting for the AVN to ship the book to her (given their poor performance in delivering their magazine, “Living Wisdom”, which their subscribers pay for, there’s no precedence set for the book to arrive promptly) and reading 432 pages on the dietary management of Type 2 diabetes.

What Jess W is describing needs to be diagnosed by a professional in a clinical assessment – if it is indeed diabetes, it is extremely improbable that a four year old would be facing Type 2. Type 1 diabetes cannot be cured, nor can it be managed through diet alone. Fastidious monitoring of blood glucose levels and administration of insulin are required in order to avoid the person with diabetes developing ketoacidosis, a life threatening condition. From Diabetes Australia’s website:

Ketoacidosis is a serious condition associated with illness or very high blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes. It develops gradually over hours or days. It is a sign of insufficient insulin.  Most cases of ketoacidosis occur in people with type 1, it very rarely occurs in people with type 2.

Without enough insulin, the body’s cells cannot use glucose for energy. To make up for this, the body begins to burn fat for energy instead. This leads to accumulation of dangerous chemical substances in the blood called ketones, which also appear in the urine.

This is a serious medical emergency and can be life threatening if not treated properly. If these symptoms are present, contact your doctor or go to hospital immediately.

It is also worth noting that “Diabetes Without Drugs” (preview viewable here) contains Quack Miranda Warnings both on the inside cover and on page xii of the introduction, urging readers not to act on the advice contained within without consulting their doctor.

Back to the comment thread, the AVN admin remains anonymous, accuses Hayley A of rejecting the suggestion that diabetes is naturally curable merely because that suggestion is coming from the AVN and then links several YouTube videos to bolster their claims.

blog20121125_07

I am not certain what the now missing comment from Karam S was that the AVN admin is replying to in the last comment – I’m vigilant with the screencapping, but I did spend some time taking my kids swimming this afternoon.

Update: The helpful and vigilant Dr Rachael Dunlop has supplied the missing puzzle piece, which is indeed quite puzzling in itself:

blog20121125_08

I will admit at this point that I was having doubts as to whether Jess W’s claims were authentic. Not enough to feel that her comments didn’t warrant attention and reasonable responses, but I did entertain the possibility that she was somebody out to demonstrate that the AVN, (who I will remind you now are recognised as a health care provider by the HCCC), provide unconscionable and dangerous advice and misinformation to those who believe them to be a credible source of information.

Thankfully, mine (and many others’) suspicions were found to be within reason. Jess W appeared on SAVN’s Facebook page, knowingly breaking her own ruse to reassure us that there was no sick child whose caregivers were relying on the AVN for advice.

I would like to note that before this afternoon’s events, Jess W was not known to me, nor to any other people involved with SAVN that I saw discussing the matter in public. To the best of my knowledge, she acted independently.

Meryl Dorey posted this when she discovered that Jess W’s story was not real:

blog20121125_09

(Pardon the confusing timestamps, Craig D’s comment was, unsurprisingly, deleted)

Note that Meryl’s confusing disclaimer has made an appearance again.

The second comment from an AVN admin is unattributed, so I assume that it came from one of the other admins of the AVN’s Facebook page. To the best of my knowledge, there are four or five admins other than Meryl, who go by the monikers RR, B52, SB, CP and the recently appeared B9. While I support the right of internet users to anonymity and pseudonymity, I find it disturbing that people speaking on behalf of a recognised health care provider do so without declaring their credentials and affiliations.

SAVN admin Kate has posted an open letter to the anonymous AVN admin who made the second comment on the screencap above. Please take a moment to read it here.

As always, there is much considered and varied commentary on today’s events on Stop the Australian (Anti-)Vaccination Network’s Facebook page.

The thread on the AVN’s page has disappeared and reappeared. At the time of writing, it is viewable (and still being commented on) here.

The ethics of Jess W’s conduct are certainly questionable. She did perpetrate a hoax which played with my emotions very effectively and caused me some anxiety. I spent this afternoon imagining a boy of four, much like my own beloved son, listless and unresponsive while his family made the dreadful mistake of seeking advice from the AVN instead of taking him immediately to a hospital. It made me feel ill with worry, helpless and incredibly sad – and I’m sure many others felt similarly, just as we’ve felt reading about the unvaccinated baby exposed to whooping cough and the young boy suspected to have measles whose mothers also recently posted on the AVN’s Facebook page seeking help. I, personally, cannot condone Jess W’s actions, nor endorse such tactics. While they were effective in demonstrating the AVN’s response to a caregiver of a sick child, I do not feel that the lie was worth the outcome. Conversely, I am still finding myself thankful that the AVN’s response wasn’t being demonstrated with a real child’s life at risk.

While thankfully this sick young boy did not exist, he could have. Even if the AVN admins had their suspicions that Jess W’s story was not true, was it really worth ignoring then admonishing her if there was even a tiny chance that a child’s life was at risk? Why did the AVN admins cling so tightly to their need to dispense anti-medicine tropes and keep toeing the party line when they were clearly out of their depth? Why did they refuse to urge Jess W to get her nephew to a hospital?

He could have been real and this could have been tragic. I am terrified that the next time someone comes to the AVN for advice on an ill child, it will be.

The AVN do not deserve the responsibility that they are trying to shoulder. Likewise, trusting parents who are seeking health advice for their children do not deserve the dangerous lies of the AVN.

Previously on this topic:

Don’t Ask the AVN, See your GP

The AVN Issues a Quack Miranda Warning

Further reading:

The day the AVN thoroughly rustled my Jimmies by landlockedseaotter, a great blog post on today’s events which further addresses the claims made by Robert Catalano and the AVN about diabetes cure and management (as well as the AVN’s behaviour).

The AVN Issues a Quack Miranda Warning

At the beginning of this month, I wrote about two instances I’d observed where the Australian (Anti)Vaccination Network provided advice to parents who came to them asking what to do in cases of suspected vaccine preventable disease or exposure to vaccine preventable disease. You can read the blog post here.

When these posts appeared on the AVN’s Facebook wall, there was discussion on Stop the Australian (Anti)Vaccination Network’s Facebook wall regarding the legality of the AVN providing medical advice. Some participants in this discussion stated that they were considering submitting complaints to the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission.

Complaints to the HCCC (and to the New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gambling and Racing, who deal with granting fund raising licences) have been submitted in the past by both persons associated with SAVN and others. The most notable complaint thus far led to a hearing in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, in which the HCCC was found to be unable to issue a public health warning against the AVN or require them to place a disclaimer on their website due to a loophole in the legislation. A clear summary of what occurred can be found in this article by Rick Morton on Mamamia. While the outcome of the court case was a great disappointment for those who feel that the AVN should be accountable for the misinformation they spread, we are a persistent lot and I look forward to eventually reporting some very good news as a result of the efforts of my esteemed colleagues.

Understandably, the AVN’s president does not like these complaints. She incorrectly labels them as ‘vexatious’ (these complaints are not intended to cause annoyance, they are intended to assist government bodies reduce the danger the AVN presents), feels that we waste the time and resources of governmental bodies (who exist to deal with precisely what is being submitted) and considers complaints regarding the AVN to be a form of personal abuse and harassment.

After learning that she was facing another round of complaint submissions following SAVN noticing that she was providing dangerous medical advice to parents, Meryl Dorey issued the following announcement on the AVN’s Facebook page.

blog20121118_01

The disclaimer here is equivalent to a Quack Miranda Warning, being a statement issued by charlatans to avoid legal action should anyone believe what they have to say or purchase what they are selling. A typical Quack Miranda Warning from the US reads:

“These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Similarly, Meryl’s disclaimer above attempts to absolve her of any responsibility for what she (or others speaking for the AVN) are saying.

Phil Kent on SAVN’s page paraphrased it wonderfully, stating that:

“The pseudoscience I promote personally and as the president and spokesperson of my organisation do not represent my personal views and opinions or those of the organisation I represent.”

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of an expert in law as to whether Meryl’s disclaimer is actually sufficient to provide her or the AVN with any legal protection, given the high standard of conduct expected of an HCCC recognised Health Care Provider.

When I first read Meryl’s announcement about her disclaimer, I wondered whether she was being at all wise in calling people who believed that she was giving advice (rather than ‘sharing information’) “stupid”, given that she may well have been insulting those who will eventually be making decisions regarding the AVN’s future (not to mention the number of esteemed folk who contacted me after I wrote about the AVN’s advice giving, aghast and appalled that they were doing such a thing).

Calling complainants “bastards” did not strike me as wise either, though the potential repercussions may be more substantial than I initially thought, given Section 98 of the 1993 Health Care Complaints Act, which states,

98 Offence: intimidation or bribery of complainants

(1) A person who, by threat, intimidation or inducement, persuades or attempts to persuade another person:

(a) not to make a complaint to the Commission or a professional council or not to continue with a complaint made to the Commission or a professional council, or

             (b) not to have discussions with, or take part in proceedings before, the Commission or a professional council concerning a complaint or a matter that could become the subject of a complaint,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who refuses to employ or dismisses another person, subjects another person to any detriment, or harasses another person, because the other person:

(a) intends to make a complaint, has made a complaint, or has had a complaint made on his or her behalf or otherwise concerning him or her, to the Commission or a professional council, or

(b) intends to take part, is taking part, or has taken part in any discussions with, or proceedings before, the Commission or a professional council concerning a complaint or a matter which could become the subject of a complaint,

is guilty of an offence.

A (since banned and deleted) SAVN commenter on the AVN’s Facebook page questioned whether Meryl was calling complainants “bastards”. Her reply:

blog20121118_03

“I wasn’t referring to complainants – I was referring to people on your page who”… “file vexatious complaints”.

Indeed.

The full thread is viewable here, including obligatory cries of ‘sheeple’ and many deleted comments.

Back to the HCCC case that went to the NSW Supreme Court that I mentioned earlier, where the HCCC was found to be unable to demand that the AVN place a disclaimer on their website. That disclaimer is as follows:

1. 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.

2. The information provided should not be read as medical advice; and

3. The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider.

The AVN put a lot of effort and money in to challenging the HCCC in the Supreme Court. Aside from the acknowledgement that the AVN is anti-vaccination (they prefer to frame themselves as being ‘pro-choice’ and in turn highly inaccurately claim that their critics are ‘anti-choice’), the AVN’s self-imposed disclaimer covers all ground that the HCCC’s disclaimer did… and it is now being attached to each of the AVN’s blog posts and relevant Facebook comments.

blog20121118_02

It’s a small victory, but I’m counting it as a win. I’m sure that there are many more to come.

Further Reading:

Quack Miranda Warning – Rationalwiki

Don’t Ask the AVN, See Your GP

There have been a couple of rather alarming posts on the Australian (anti-)Vaccination Network’s Facebook wall recently, from parents who suspect that their child has been infected with or exposed to a vaccine preventable disease.

Here is the first, in which a parent suspects that her son may have measles:

blog20121101_01

My immediate reaction upon reading this was to urge the poster to get their son to a doctor to have the diagnosis confirmed and appropriate treatment suggested, but as I am not welcome on the AVN’s Facebook page, I had to watch from the sidelines as the following unfolded.

blog20121101_03

The AVN admins downplay the seriousness of measles, do not urge Peta R to see a doctor and accuse those commenters who encourage Peta R to seek proper diagnosis and appropriate treatment of fear mongering.

Meryl Dorey herself advises Peta R to not panic, but “go with it – celebrate the fact that if he has measles, he will never get it again and his immune system will be better for it.”

This is at least logically consistent on one level – Meryl truly does seem to believe that measles is not only benign, but a “Gift from the Goddess” (see this excellent post on Losing in the Lucky Country outlining Meryl’s views on measles). I’ll also point out again that the AVN sells a delightful children’s book titled “Melanie’s Marvellous Measles”, which has been written about rather eloquently on PEI Curmudgeon’s Blog.

Unfortunately, as is generally the case on information regarding vaccine preventable diseases, the AVN have it wrong. Measles causes people to feel very ill, up to one third of people with measles develop complications (such as ear infections, diarrhoea and pneumonia), around one in a thousand develop encephalitis (source: NSW Health Measles Fact Sheet).

While it is true that many cases of measles cause no long term damage, this is not a safe assumption to make of all cases of measles, particularly when no medical professional has assessed the severity of the symptoms, discussed management with the caregivers and prescribed a treatment plan.

Taking a step back though, the above advice was being provided without a confirmed diagnosis of measles. Peta R’s son could have had a different viral rash, or something else entirely.

Fortunately, Peta R did take her son to the doctor and it was confirmed that he did not have measles. I am thankful that she made the decision to seek expert assessment and that her son was okay – following the AVN’s advice, this story could have had a much more distressing conclusion.

The comments on this thread continued (screenshots of full thread are available here – please see ‘Further Reading’ for information on ‘homeopathic immunisation’), when somebody noticed that there was discussion on Stop the AVN’s Facebook page on the ethics and legality of the advice being provided by the AVN to Peta R, and whether it was worthwhile reporting to the HCCC. In response to this, one of the AVN’s admins posted the following:

blog20121101_04

Here, courageous anonymous AVN admin RR makes light of SAVN’s concerns that a child’s life may be put at risk due to their negligent advice to Peta R.

The full thread is viewable here (and in response to the anti-fluoride comments, here is an excellent article on concerns about the safety of fluoridated drinking water by Science of Mom)

The inappropriateness of comparing a small child with a suspected case of measles with RR’s imaginary headache aside, (which, incidentally, I’d advise she saw a doctor about if it persisted, was accompanied by unusual symptoms or concerned her at all), this seems to suggest that the AVN don’t feel that they have any more weight behind their advice than somebody’s layperson neighbour. Perhaps they don’t – they certainly lack the expertise and standards of ethical conduct to be giving health advice. The problem though, is that the AVN represent themselves as having expertise in the fields of healthcare and vaccination. They are recognised by the HCCC as a Health Service Provider and they have been granted permission to fundraise by the OLGR as an organisation who provide educational services. As such, I think that it is fair to expect them to conduct themselves with the responsibility that that entails – which, in this case, should have been to urge Peta R to take her child to a doctor.

Here is the second recent instance of a parent asking the AVN about her child’s health. She is certain that her partner has whooping cough and they have an unimmunised four month old infant who has been exposed. This time, the parent has worded her post so that she is not specifically asking for advice on her child’s case – she requests anecdotes from people who have experienced similar situations.

blog20121101_06

This one is chilling.

I noticed that shortly after this was posted, Facebook was saying that one comment had been made, but none were visible. This is generally a sign that a comment has been deleted, which suggests that an AVN admin was present to delete a comment, but chose not to answer Maree P’s question.

An hour and a half later, this reply appeared, from a newly created Facebook account (suggesting that Charlotte J is not one of the AVN’s regulars, or is posting from a pseudonymous account):

blog20121101_07

This advice is sensible – and the suggestion that Maree P take her child to a doctor is precisely what the AVN should have said instead of deleting a comment and remaining silent. Mercifully, this comment seemed to have been made after the admins had logged off for the night, so it remained undeleted and without the AVN’s derision until morning.

blog20121101_08

Tristan W is a regular commenter on both the AVN’s Facebook page and blog. I don’t know whether he assumed that Charlotte J was associated with a skeptic group or was just skeptical of the AVN’s position on vaccines and healthcare, but he often uses the term ‘skeptic’ as one of derision (as do many core AVN members). I’ve never understood it – to my mind, to be anti-skeptic is to be against critical thought and analysis and the pursuit of truth.

The suggestion that somebody stating that an unimmunised infant who has been exposed to whooping cough is in danger and that the parents should seek medical advice is fear-mongering and causing undue panic is, I believe, inaccurate. There are few non-confronting ways to tell a parent that their child needs to be assessed by a doctor as soon as possible, Charlotte J’s plea was emotive but not hysterical, nor an overreaction to the situation described. If it needs to be stated, whooping cough is an incredibly dangerous illness, particularly to very young babies. Whooping cough can kill one in 200 babies who catch it, between 2008 and 2012 eight precious babies have died in Australia (anecdotally, I know of another tragic loss since the article linked to was written).

I find it quite bizarre that the AVN and its supporters are so ready to call those who disagree with their dismissive attitude toward obtaining proper diagnosis though comprehensive clinical assessment from a qualified health care professional fear-mongers and panic merchants, given their own propensity to disseminate rather alarmist (and highly inaccurate) claims about vaccines causing autism, cancer and death. Indeed, there are alarmist and inaccurate claims made by Meryl Dorey in the above comments regarding antibiotic use.

Meryl’s position on whooping cough seems to be shifting – she now concedes that it can be fatal, an assertion at odds with her previous infamous statement made in April 2009, “You didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you’re not going to die from it now.” (the context of this quote is outlined in this post on The Skeptic’s Book of Pooh Pooh, and its veracity is examined here on A Drunken Madman’s blog). Incidences of death due to whooping cough are something Meryl has struggled with repeatedly in the past – Reasonable Hank demonstrates further inconsistencies with Meryl’s statements here.

In the comments above, Frankie M makes some very reasonable and appropriate points and is attacked. It makes me wonder how many of the AVN’s supporters (or potential supporters) are criticised and banned for questioning the position and responses of the AVN.

Credit where it is due though, Meryl did advise Maree P to take her child to a GP, albeit not with much urgency. I very much hope that Maree P did see a doctor and that her child managed not to contract whooping cough. This thread was deleted from the AVN’s page, so I have no further news.

I’ll wind up this post with a response to a comment on admin RR’s thread by Peta R:

blog20121101_05

Indeed, our opinions are our own – some hold a lot more weight than others though; personally, I’m very comfortable with trusting the experts’ opinions when it comes to matters too complicated for non-experts to adequately assess (see: Further Reading).

As for why anyone would pour such time and energy into something they disagree with – to put it very simply, it is because the AVN can influence parents to put their (and others’) children’s lives at risk by refusing vaccinations. Tragically, I imagine that many of the AVN’s core members and supporters feel the same way – that they too are fighting to protect the safety and wellbeing of children. Some of their intent is perhaps noble. Sadly, this has no bearing on the fact that they are wrong – wrong about the facts surrounding vaccine preventable diseases and, by my estimation, wrong in their belief that it is ethically acceptable to downplay the importance of seeking professional medical advice when a child is suspected of having or has been exposed to a harmful and potentially lethal disease.

It is unfortunate that anybody would consider the AVN to be an appropriate source of advice and information when their child is sick. While the AVN represent themselves as knowledgeable on matters of health and vaccine preventable diseases (despite their lack of training, association with any regulatory body or adherence to an ethical code of conduct), they assume a great responsibility to those who seek their advice. In downplaying the seriousness of vaccine preventable diseases and being dismissive of the importance of seeking the opinion of medical professionals, it is easy to imagine the AVN finding themselves responsible for some very tragic consequences in the future. The AVN must be held to account.

If you would like to become involved or show your support for those opposing the AVN’s conduct, you are welcome to visit and join Stop the Australian (Anti)Vaccination Network on Facebook.

Update: As a result of complaints regarding the AVN’s conduct outlined in this post, the AVN have issued a Quack Miranda Warning. I have written about it here.

Update: Here is another case of the AVN failing to urge the caregiver of a sick child to take them to hospital.

Further Reading:

Health Information and Health Products Online Fact Sheet – Better Health Channel

Measles Fact Sheet – Better Health Channel

Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Fact Sheet – Better Health Channel

Homeopathic Vaccine Regulation – La Trobe University News

Homeopathy and Vaccination Fact Sheet – National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance

No, You’re Not Entitled to Your Opinion – a brilliant article by Patrick Stokes on the false equivalence between experts and non-experts promoted by giving all opinions equal merit. Seriously, if you’ve not read it, do. The comments are fascinating and there are special guest appearances by Meryl Dorey and other prominent AVN supporters.

An Open Letter from Toni and David McCaffery – the link that Charlotte J posted, two amazing parents raising awareness of the dangers of whooping cough after losing their precious daughter Dana.

Parenting and the False Dichotomy Between Nature and Technology

NB: The quote is actually from ‘Christiane Northrup MD’, more about her in ‘Further Reading’. The Facebook page I saw the above image on was not the one mentioned in the bottom left hand corner.

A couple of months ago, I happened upon this quote posted by a breastfeeding support and advocacy page on Facebook. As a new mother, I visited many such pages while I navigated my way through learning to breastfeed, alongside other pages and communities relating to various aspects of parenting infants.

The text in the above image demonstrates an ideology that I see expressed often in the realm of online parenting information; the simplistic appeal to nature and subsequent derision of technology.

I’ll quickly state that I do not dispute that breast milk is an ideal food for babies*. I’m not quite willing to call this part of the quote out as being a straw man argument, but it is very rare in my experience to see the claim made that formula is as good as breast milk. As such, I’m not quite sure who or what the quote is intended to be in response to. Perhaps this would be more evident if the quote was not taken out of context, but for the purposes of this article, I think it appropriate to leave it as the short excerpt that has been used to create this meme.

What I wish to focus on in this post is the notion suggested in the second part of the last sentence. On reading it, my immediate response is to declare that yes, sometimes relatively new human innovations are superior to the products of several million years of evolution.

The poliomyelitis virus is the product of three million years of evolution. Relative newcomers, the range of polio vaccines that have been developed over the past fifty years have fortunately proven to be superior to the poliomyelitis virus. As a result, we are now on the verge of eradicating polio.

Snakes are evolutionary success stories and populate every continent aside from Antarctica. The administration of antivenom, a medical technology, allows us a greater chance at surviving their bites.

Some of the high risk events associated with childbirth – uterine rupture, cord accidents and other complications with delivery, post partum haemorrhage – are natural. Modern obstetric medicine with its comparatively new technologies is able to intervene when required and save the lives of both infants and their mothers.

In some developing nations, a varied diet is unaffordable and people rely on easy to grow rice to make up the larger part of their sustenance. To help combat morbidity and mortality caused by nutrient deficiencies, the humanitarian Golden Rice Project have created a genetically modified variety of rice which accumulates bioavailable beta carotine in its grains. Golden Rice is still in the development phase, the eventual goal is to distribute seed to farmers free of royalties, which they will be able to grow as they do traditional rice varieties, saving and replanting seed.

I hope the above examples not only illustrate that those things which are considered to be natural are not always the safest or most beneficial for us, but in the case of the latter two, that the natural can work in conjunction with technology to offer optimal outcomes.

My concern with separating out that which is considered ‘natural’ and that which is considered to be a product or tool of technology is the risk that we turn our backs on the safest or most beneficial choices in order to maintain an idealisation of the natural that is not always reasonable. The appeal to nature argument is used to sell many products and ideas, from harmless natural baby toiletries and foods to dangerous concepts such as rejecting vaccination and using homeopathic treatments in lieu of seeking legitimate medical care.

Automatically equating ‘natural’ with ‘safe’ is a presumption we must be mindful of. Likewise, whether we consider a concept or product to be natural should hopefully be of less relevance than whether it is the safest and most effective option.

I would like to suggest an alternative means by which we can claim our power as women (or, indeed, as parents and human beings in general). We can equip ourselves with a greater range of useful tools in our lives if we assess individual concepts and products on their own merit, rather than pigeonholing them as natural or otherwise. If we reject the notion that nature and technology are diametrically opposing notions, we can embrace both and make use of all available resources to facilitate the best possible wellbeing for ourselves and our loved ones.

Further Reading:

Christiane Northrup, MD: Science Tainted with Strange Beliefs – by Harriet Hall MD on Science Based Medicine

An Open Letter to My Fellow “Natural Parents” – by Madonna Behen on Redbook

The Golden Rice Project

* I don’t think that I am able to make this post citing such a highly emotive example without making a short statement on my position on the breastfeeding/formula feeding issue. As somebody who wanted to breastfeed my kids, I have been fortunate and tenacious enough to have succeeded – my son self-weaned at seventeen months and my daughter is still at it at the time of posting. The accepted consensus is that breast is best; I’m down with that and happily support any woman who wishes to breastfeed their child. However, if a woman chooses to formula feed, it’s her business, just as choosing to breastfeed is mine. If a woman is unable to breastfeed and wished to, I acknowledge her efforts, am sorry that things didn’t work out as she’d wanted and hope that she is feeling okay.

It is possible to advocate breastfeeding without being critical of those who formula feed. I’ve seen some awful attempts to guilt-trip women who formula feed and I do not understand what these critics are trying to accomplish. There’s no shortage of pro-breastfeeding information out there, it is unlikely that a woman who is already formula feeding their baby needs educating about the advantages of breast milk, nor is it common for women to attempt to re-induce lactation. I would ask those who make negative statements about formula feeding to question how constructive they are being. Which is of more use, a shamed, ostracised or hostile mother or a mother who feels supported and not judged?

Additionally, I acknowledge that a baby’s nourishment can be almost all-encompassing during their first year of life, but within the context of an entire childhood, it is a relatively small factor compared with whether the child is loved, supported, able to develop and express their identity and safe.

Five responses to claims made by the Australian (anti-)Vaccination Network.

I would like to briefly address some assertions that I have witnessed being made by the Australian (anti-)Vaccination Network (AVN). The following five quotes are representative of recurring claims.

"Because every issue has two sides"

1) “Every issue has two sides” (from the banner at the top of the AVN’s website, above)

Indeed – and some sides are just plain bulldust!

In the case of whether vaccination is safe, effective and our best chance at protecting ourselves from vaccine preventable diseases, on one side is scientific consensus, the educated opinion of the medical fraternity, public health policy and the majority of informed laypeople. On the other are a few rogue scientists, conspiracy theorists, misled and misinformed individuals and charlatans.

Insisting that anti-vaccination spokespeople be heard whenever the subject of vaccination comes up is demanding false balance. It is equivalent to ensuring that a flat-earther be invited to speak at a geography conference or teaching intelligent design in science classes. The scientific consensus is in and it has been in for a long time. Any controversy regarding whether vaccination is the safest and most effective method of preventing vaccine preventable diseases is being manufactured from an ill informed and non-evidence based position.

2) “We are not anti-vaccination – we are about choice” (‘Doctors unite to smash the anti-vaccine group‘, The Daily Telegraph, 22 July 2012)

…just as long as that choice is to refuse vaccination.

I have looked long and hard, as have others, and have been unable find one example on the AVN’s website of a situation in which the AVN would find vaccination to be an acceptable proposition. The AVN sells a t-shirt in their online store which reads “Love them. Protect them. Never inject them.”

A Titan Arum by any other name would smell as rank, the AVN are anti-vaccination.

I presume that the AVN’s insistence that they are pro-choice is a PR exercise. I would like to know precisely why they wish to distance themselves from the movement that they are a part of.

I suspect that their decision to label themselves ‘pro-choice’ instead was to help cultivate a desired image of the AVN as oppressed freedom fighters. I feel that Meryl Dorey’s Twitter account “nocompulsoryvac” and blog posting handle “nocompulsoryvaccination” support my hypothesis.

As such, I would like point out that there is no threat to peoples’ right to refuse vaccination for themselves or their children in Australia. Parents may choose to forfeit a financial incentive or government benefit when they refuse to vaccinate their children. In some instances adults may need to choose a career which doesn’t require them to be vaccinated for the safety of themselves and others. However, Australian health policy does not enforce compulsory or mandatory vaccination and I know of very few people who feel that it should.

3) “Vaccination is neither 100% safe nor 100% effective and parents need to be fully informed before making a decision for their children.” (‘Public Health Unit Turns Down the Offer to Speak at Vaccination Seminar | Vactruth.com‘ AVN blog post (comments), 16 June 2012)

I concur, let’s have a biscuit!

I have never heard anybody make the claim that vaccination is either 100% safe or 100% effective. When weighing up the risks associated with vaccination against the risks in not vaccinating, vaccination is inarguably the much safer option. Likewise, the efficacy of vaccination in preventing vaccine preventable diseases (or ensuring a much milder case of the illness is contracted in some cases when exposure occurs) is incomparable against the non-existent preventative powers of not vaccinating at all.

I agree that parents should be making an informed decision when considering vaccinating their children. However, that information should be correct and come from a credible source, such as their GP or the Immunisation Handbook, rather than shonky misinformation websites such as that of the AVN, whale.to or naturalnews.com.

4) “How many children are we willing to sacrifice before the altar of vaccination in order to ‘protect’ society?” (‘Can children be considered collateral damage‘, AVN blog post, 24 March 2011)

None. No light-hearted opening line for this one.

I assert that the suggestion of ‘sacrifice’ is an inaccurate and unreasonable appeal to emotion. Any harm caused by vaccination is a tragedy and those involved in the development of vaccines work
tirelessly to improve the safety of vaccines in order to bring them as close as they can possibly be to being 100% safe.

While the majority of adverse reactions to the whole cell pertussis component of Triple Antigen were mild and had no long term effects (these included fever, irritability, persistent crying and local site reaction), immunologists worked to produce an acellular pertussis vaccine which has been associated with far fewer reactions. Likewise, the incredibly rare occurrence of paralytic poliomyelitis (one in two point four million) from the oral polio vaccine was considered unacceptable. Because of this, the inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine was developed.

Again, consider the risks associated with vaccination alongside the risks inherent with non-vaccination. Opting out of vaccination (without a genuine medical contraindication) is choosing the much higher risk of not vaccinating. There is no completely safe option, only one with a comparatively low risk – a low risk which is being reduced with every development which improves the safety of vaccines we use.

5) “I find the hostile attitude towards parents of vaccine injured children particularly astounding, as parents of children that have been killed or disabled have always been treated with an outpouring of compassion, understanding and empathy.” (‘‘Anti Vaxxer’ the new dirty word?‘, AVN blog post, 31 July 2012)

Meryl Dorey and a number of her colleagues identify as parents of vaccine-injured children, but I assert that framing criticism of the AVN as ‘attacks on parents of vaccine-injured children’ is a cheap and inaccurate attempt to demonise anybody who publicly disagrees with them.

I appreciate the diverse experiences of parents of children with special needs. I do have some insight into family life with children with disabilities, as I grew up alongside my younger brother, who has severe autism and developmental delay. I acknowledge that I cannot claim to empathise with parents of children with special needs though and I sincerely hope that when I speak with those who do have a child with a disability I am considerate and receptive.

I acknowledge that sadly, adverse reactions to vaccines do occur and that there are children and adults with genuine vaccine injuries. I do question whether the cases of allergies, asthma, autism and other conditions which the AVN’s members are attributing to vaccination have been confirmed as vaccine related by medical professionals, given that there is no credible evidence that vaccination causes any of the above conditions. However, I do not single out individuals publicly, nor do I make contact and question or criticise them directly.

Many parents of children with special needs – including parents who have gone through the tragedy of an adverse reaction to a vaccine – are still able to accept that vaccination is our safest and most effective option in preventing vaccine preventable diseases (and my hat is off to them). Of the few who choose to reject the overwhelming majority of credible evidence supporting vaccination, there is a sub set who then spread anti-vaccination misinformation and propaganda. They are joined with others who, for reasons other than something so personal as parenting a special needs child, believe that scientific consensus is not credible and vaccination is either unsafe, ineffective or both.

I would like to clearly state that my criticism of the AVN and my desire to hold them accountable is because they are an organisation which, if left unchallenged, spread misinformation which can cause doubt as to the safety and efficacy of vaccination, scaring parents away from having their children vaccinated. Unvaccinated children are at risk of serious illness and in some instances, death. The lower the vaccination rate, the greater the risk that an infant too young to be vaccinated, a child with a compromised immune system due to cancer treatment or organ transplant or others who cannot be vaccinated will be exposed to a vaccine preventable disease.

I do not attack parents of vaccine injured children, I criticise the actions of an organisation which, given legitimacy, put the most vulnerable members of our community at risk.

(See my previous post: “This is criticism, this is not abuse“)

At the time of posting, all links to the AVN’s website are inactive. From Meryl Dorey (full text here):

“Last night, ABC’s media watch put out a dreadful story calling for the media to stop reporting the other side of the vaccination issue. The result was that so many people came to the AVN’s website, the server was overloaded and the site taken down. We have upgraded our server and should be back online within 24 hours, but it is obvious that there is a real need and desire in the community for balanced information on this issue.”

Being inclined to consider two sides to every story, Ms Dorey, I would like to suggest that instead of jumping to the conclusion that your website being overloaded and collapsing was because “it is obvious that there is a real need and desire in the community for balanced information on this issue.”, you ruminate on whether perhaps part of that flood in website traffic was comprised of individuals wishing to see for themselves just how ‘baloney’-heavy the misinformation you’re espousing really is.

In lieu of the usual ‘Further Reading’ section to this rather opinion-heavy post, I thoroughly recommend viewing (or reading the transcript of) the Media Watch segment on WINNews Illawarra, the AVN and false balance in reporting which ran on ABC TV last night. Further background information to this story is provided in Reasonable Hank’s post “ABC News teaches WIN News a lesson in responsible public health broadcasting“.