1 September 2010

Police are investigating reports of death threats being made against members of a Bangalow-based lobby group.

Meryl Dorey from the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) says she has been receiving violent calls almost daily in recent weeks.

The group has been under attack after the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission ruled the AVN website was spreading misleading information about the dangers of immunisation.

Ms Dorey says the trouble started after a group known as Stop the AVN lodged complaints with the commission.

“I have had threats of violence against myself, against other people in the organisation on an almost daily basis,” Ms Dorey said.

“We don’t answer the phone at night any more unless we know who is calling because we get so many angry and violent calls; I’d say under siege is an understatement.”

Stop the AVN founder Ken McLeod says has never been involved in aggression towards Ms Dorey, nor to his knowledge has any member of the group.

He says similar allegations have been made in the past and have been referred to his lawyers.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999794.htm

“PS – I have not included the medical journal articles because of fear of copyright problems but we have thousands and thousands of articles. If anyone knows of a way to share this that won’t step on any toes, please let me know.”

Meryl Dorey, president of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), has landed herself in yet another controversy. This time she has been caught out selling copyright material without permission. The media have picked this up, with a Sydney Morning Herald article Copyright breaches land group in trouble published 1 Sept 2010.

The article refers to a number of Information Packs (info packs) which were available for sale on the AVN website. Prices ranged from $10, upto $27.50, with most selling for $16.00. A library pack was available for $128.80
All of the info packs were removed from the AVN online shop just prior to the SMH article being published. Meryl Dorey has been selling these info packs for at least 10 years, as a quick visit to the AVN listing at archive.org will testify.

According to the SMH article, Meryl’s only defence was to plead ignorance. Well, ignorance is a bloody poor excuse in the eyes of the law. Hang on a moment, I am being far too kind. You see, Meryl’s claim of ignorance is (for the very first time) completely wrong. Meryl is LYING. Again. Let us read the following message by Meryl Dorey which she sent to the official AVN discussion group in August 2010:

Hi,

http://www.evernote.com/pub/shotinfo/sharedvaccination
I have been trying to work out how to share the information the AVN has collected over the years that we have been scanning for the last little while (only scanned about 10% of our info – this is a BIG job!) and I have started putting them into Evernote and have hopefully set up a shared folder so that everyone can access this. Please give it a go and see what you think. This is all indexed by word (though some of the older articles are a bit unclear so the indexing may not have worked too well for them) so a search should bring up anything you are looking for and I am updating this every single day (when I have 10 minutes spare, this is what I do – I know – get a life! LOL) so keep checking back.

Please let me know how it works for you and I hope this will be a really good resource for any parent who is looking to make an informed decision or for the healthcare practitioners who want to add to their libraries.

All the best,
Meryl

PS – I have not included the medical journal articles because of fear of copyright problems but we have thousands and thousands of articles. If anyone knows of a way to share this that won’t step on any toes, please let me know. i have been given the name of an attorney in the US who I plan on contacting when I have 2 seconds free – but if anyone has the answer off the top of their heads, I would really appreciate that.

So, Meryl Dorey was fully aware that even making copyright material FREELY available was potentially copyright infringement. Yet, she continued to sell this very same material right upto the second she was caught out.

I have no doubt that a number of publishers and authors will be in contact with the AVN through their legal counsel very soon. Believe me, it is a large number of copyright holders we are talking about here. I have all of the info packs that were sold by the AVN, and from the first page to the last, every one of them contains article, after article, after article of copyright material. It ranges from Gary Larson cartoons to Elsevier articles, from the British Medical Journal to the Daily Mail UK. Multiple packs also included material from MIMS Australia, which Meryl Dorey was ordered by MIMS to remove from the AVN website, even though it was available for free. This she duly did, but failed to mention to MIMS that she was continuing to SELL their material in the info packs.

Meryl Dorey might want to re-think her new donation drive asking for funds to fight the HCCC decision. A copyright defence and potential pay outs to copyright holders might be a more important issue. I trust that AVN members and supporters won’t be suckered in, yet again, to bail Meryl out this time. When will AVN members and supporters start demanding that AVN funds start directly going to people they claim to help and protect and stop funds being syphoned off in defending Meryl’s mis-management, bad decisions and, of course, those Editor’s Charges.

UPDATE: Important to note that a practicising solicitor has been a committee member of the AVN. As all committee members have a duty of care in running the organisation, it is impossible to believe that these copyright infringements were unknown to the committee. I will put my money on a judge treating the excuse of ignorance with all the contempt it deserves.

Kate Benson – September 1, 2010

An anti-vaccination group is under fire for allegedly breaching copyright laws by selling newspaper and medical journal articles online without permission from the authors.

The Australian Vaccination Network, which was the subject of a public warning issued by the Health Care Complaints Commission last month, withdrew 11 information packs from its website yesterday after complaints from authors.

The packs, which were selling for up to $128, included home-made books filled with articles photocopied from journals around the world, information on drugs taken from MIMS, the medical guide used by doctors and nurses, and copies of brochures inserted in medication boxes by pharmaceutical companies.

Under the Copyright Act, articles can be copied for personal research or for use by students but cannot be disseminated widely or sold.

For most works, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator or 70 years after the work was first published but none of the authors contacted by the Herald knew their work was being sold.

Helen Signy, a freelance medical writer, said: ”I’ve never even heard of this group and I certainly did not give consent to have my work reproduced.

”That article is at least 15 years old so is not based on current information.”

Mary-Anne Toy, from The Age newspaper, said she did not recall giving the network permission to sell her work and would seek payment. Leigh Dayton, a science reporter at The Australian newspaper, was also unaware her story was being sold.

Kate Haddock, a copyright lawyer, said those found breaching the law could face substantial damages.

Damages would increase if articles were reproduced in a way which would cause readers to think less of the writers, Ms Haddock said.

The network is also under investigation by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing after reports it solicited donations without a fundraising licence. If found guilty, the network will no longer be allowed to operate as a charity.

The president of the network, Meryl Dorey, said she was unaware she had breached copyright but accepted there had been problems with her licence.

”We’ve made mistakes but they’ve been honest mistakes. They’ve been out of ignorance rather than fraudulence,” she said.

Yesterday she asked her supporters for $150,000 to fight the HCCC claiming it ‘’stepped outside of its jurisdiction to persecute a non-profit organisation”.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/copyright-breaches-land-group-in-trouble-20100831-14fna.html

Amelia Bentley
August 31, 2010 – 8:17AM

Health authorities have warned a whooping cough epidemic is spreading throughout Queensland.

The Sunshine State has the most people in Australia falling ill with the infectious disease, prompting a state-wide call for children and adults to be immunised.

Health professionals say an increasing number of adults are coming down with the severe illness, which can be potentially fatal for babies.

Australian Government figures show in July this year Queensland had 687 reported cases of whooping cough.

The second-highest rate was 423 cases in South Australia, followed by 411 in Victoria and 304 in New South Wales.

A spokesman for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners said whooping cough – also known as pertussis – is spread by coughed-up airborne droplets carrying germs.

Adults spread the disease as most children older than six months were fully immunised against the illness.

“It’s a significant health threat. Last year in Queensland was bad but this year looks like it will be worse,” the spokesman said.

“It’s an epidemic for sure. It certainly needs to be taken seriously.”

Symptoms of whooping cough are often similar to those of a cold however after several days the illness begins to present with a severe cough, often in bouts, and a whooping sound on inhalation.

Queensland Health statistics also show the illness is on the rise.

There were 4060 reported cases of whooping cough between January 1 and mid-August this year.

This is compared to 3779 in the same period in 2009 and 958 cases between January 1 and mid-August in 2008.

Dr Christine Selvey, senior director of Communicable Diseases Branch at Queensland Health, told brisbanetimes.com.au she would have expected whooping cough rates to decrease after a peak of cases in 2009.

“It really has continued with quite high numbers of cases,” she said.

“We are calling it an epidemic, certainly an outbreak, an ongoing outbreak.”

She said babies were in danger of developing potentially life-threatening complications if they contracted whooping cough.

Though immunisations are available, infants are not completely protected until they are given their third dose at six months old, she said.

Seventy-nine Queensland babies under six months old have contracted whooping cough this year.

Unlike influenza, whooping cough is not seasonal and so it is not expected the rate of infection will drop as spring settles in.

Dr Selvey said Queensland doctors were particularly diligent with reporting all cases and that could be partly why figures were higher than in other states.

Parents of newborn babies were entitled to a free booster shot for whooping cough, as are people who work with young children, she said.

Dr Richard Kidd, a Brisbane GP for 30 years, said adults were at risk of contracting whooping cough because immunisations they have received years ago were no longer current.

Women planning to become pregnant need to have a whooping cough booster or series of shots, as do expectant dads and grandparents and other family and friends who plan to visit newborn babies.

He said people who suspect they have whooping cough should see their doctor and begin taking antibiotics early, as medication can be slow-working.

“The treatment is not a magic bullet,” he said.

Source: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/whooping-cough-epidemic-gains-pace-20100830-1475v.html

James Perkins, 28th August 2010

HEALTH authorities are adamant immunisation is the best way to combat disease, but are battling low childhood vaccination rates across the Far North Coast.

NSW Health targets a minimum 90 per cent of vaccinated kids to create a “herd immunity” to disease in the community.

The Tweed Shire has a 89.1 measles, mumps, rubella vaccination rate for children aged 24 to 27 months, but that figure drops off to 83.3 per cent who return for the follow-up shot at five years of age.

Parents can become conscientious objectors against vaccination and not lose government benefits usually reserved for those who do.

While vaccination statistics are only available at shire level, Paul Corben, the North Coast Area director of Public Health said Tweed Valley had a high conscientious objector rate.

“Certainly in the area around Murwillumbah, we do see conscientious objector rates of about 25 per cent and that is extraordinarily high,” Mr Corben said.

Doctor Graeme Burger, spokesman for the Tweed Valley General Practice Network said some parents didn’t want their children vaccinated “for all sorts of strange reasons” and acknowledged it was their decision. However he is an advocate of the practice.

“Vaccination is one of the major advances in medicine and is a way of preventing diseases that is simple, easy and without complication,” he said.

There had been a few concerns raised with vaccination in the past few decades, including fears it could lead to autism, but Dr Burger said they had been totally debunked.

Dr Burger urged people to vaccinate their children and continue with the recommended vaccination schedule.

“Vaccination is the single most effective thing we can do to prevent major, catastrophic and killer diseases.”

In the case of measles, a person vaccinated as a child was considered vaccinated for life.

Source: http://www.tweednews.com.au/story/2010/08/28/tweed-measles-epidemic-disease/

Meryl Dorey, 30 July 2010:

“I never have and never will harass or hurt a grieving parent…”^[1]

Meryl Dorey, during the Lateline report, fully acknowledged that questioning Dana’s death was hurtful. Meryl Dorey has been asked on numerous occasions to leave the McCaffery’s alone. She not only refuses to do so, but since the Lateline report Meryl Dorey and her supporters have changed up a gear in their harassment campaign against a grieving family.

Comment from Meryl Dorey, 18 August 2010:

“Thank you so much,
I do feel that the McCafferys have fallen prey to some pretty vicious types who show their kind, caring and completely false faces to this family looking for answer as to why their beautiful baby died whilst showing their true, vicious side to the rest of the world. The McCafferys are either so filled with grief they are not able to see this or they simply choose not to for their own reasons – I’m not sure? It does make me wonder however when they continue to say things that are patently untrue such as stating that I tried to obtain Dana’s medical records (as you so rightly put it – that was not what I did nor would I have been able to had I wanted to) and that the ABC found that I had provided misleading information when again, they know that this is untrue.

Losing a baby is the worst possible thing any parent could ever go through – but it does not justify treating someone else in this way nor does it honour their daughter’s short life to do so.

As you also said, the NSW Health Official should be held to account not only for informing the McCafferys of our conversation but for his further attempts to discredit those who want to get at the truth of why so many in Australia are now being diagnosed with pertussis despite our record high levels of vaccination.”^[2]

I ask you this – can you imagine a greater cruelty one could inflict from the comfort of their own home, than using the death of someone’s child against them?

 
The McCaffery’s have stated it is offensive and cruel to question Dana’s death and Meryl Dorey has acknowledged that it is hurtful. The above statement by Meryl Dorey is many magnitudes worse – stating that the McCaffery’s are not honouring the death of their daughter is cruel. It is vile. It is pathetic.

There is no reason for the McCaffery family to be singled out when arguing the case of the unvaccinated and epidemics. The McCaffery’s have pleaded to be left alone, but for some inexplicable reason these antivax thugs increase the harassment with every plea. The McCaffery’s lodged a complaint with the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission as a direct result of the harassment they had received from Meryl Dorey and AVN supporters. This complaint was not lodged on any other basis.

Here are some comments that appeared on the AVN website by Meryl Dorey and fellow supporter, Najla Dimech, in August 2010:

Meryl has no shortage of loyal and fellow monstrously cruel supporters to continue her campaign to harass or hurt a grieving family. I have presented just a few examples here, there is much more to be found in all official AVN forums.

The McCaffery’s, and the rest of us, are completely vindicated in the claim that Meryl Dorey supplied the ABC with misleading statistics. The presenter read out exactly what was provided to her by Meryl and which Meryl, very helpfully, printed the letter she gave to the ABC in a recent posting to the AVN website. (refer AVN: The HCCC – don’t confuse them with logic #2 – Did the AVN mislead the ABC?)

For a thoroughly in-depth look and complete debunking of Meryl’s defence of this issue, I urge you to listen to the Skeptic Zone Podcast episode 96, 20 August 2010. There is no question that the comparable manner in which the statistics were presented to the ABC, by Meryl Dorey, was misleading.

Meryl Dorey has sunk to a new low. In trying to defend her indefensible position that she is right, she resorts to attacking the McCaffery’s directly. The McCaffery’s had nothing to do with Meryl being interviewed by the ABC, they had nothing to do with Meryl supplying misleading statistics, and they had nothing to do with the conclusions reached by the subsequent internal review by the ABC. All Meryl has left is to shoot the messenger, which in this case is the easiest target of all for someone as vindictive as herself. The manner in which she targets a grieving family is spiteful and cruel. There is no valid reason for Meryl Dorey to ever mention the McCaffery’s in her ugly and dangerous campaign against science and reason. To defend herself, Meryl sinks to the bottom of the sewage in stating that they are not honouring their daughter’s death. Can anyone sink any lower than this? Keep watching Meryl Dorey and I’m sure we’ll soon find out.

I ask all members and supporters of the Australian Vaccination Network just one thing – please, leave the McCaffery family alone. Make the points you want to make, spread whatever message you want, but to deliberately single out the McCaffery family when you do so only makes you complicit in Meryl’s cruel campaign of harassment against them. Don’t be party to this, rely on evidence, which in this particular case undeniably shows that Meryl is wrong. If she can’t admit that, you most surely can. Time to move on, folks. Leave the McCaffery family alone.

Footnotes:
1: http://avn.org.au/nocompulsoryvaccination/?p=776
2: http://avn.org.au/nocompulsoryvaccination/?p=771

By Bronwyn Herbert, 17 August 2010

Doctors are bracing for a fight as Australia’s 12th national immunisation conference kicks off in Adelaide today.

They say they will address any legitimate concerns raised by anti-vaccine groups, but warn the risk of disease and death is much higher if parents do not have their children vaccinated.

Public health authorities say they are concerned by the rising number of children no longer immunised in particular pockets of Australia.

It comes as lobby groups argue that parents should get more information before they choose to vaccinate their child.

The chief executive of the Public Health Association (PHA), Michael Moore, says doctors are now trying to tackle the issue head on.

They are now formally debating whether they are too hard on the anti-vaccination lobby.

Mr Moore says two major reports have prompted the debate.

“The first of those was the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commissioner who dealt with the anti-vaccination lobby and suggested that in many ways their website and their material is deceptive,” he said.

“But on the other hand we had a report on August 9 from Professor Brian Stokes in Western Australia who dealt with adverse events that did occur with regards to seasonal influenza and actually had, right across Australia, young people under five years old not being given that vaccine.”

In some ways, the PHA is perhaps playing devil’s advocate to get doctors to argue that in fact they are too hard on the anti-vaccination lobby.

“What we’re interested in was to try to make sure that we understand and that what comes out is the notion that the anti-vaccination lobby do have some points and actually we should deal with those,” Mr Moore said.

“It’s not actually reaching so much the lobby but the people who have real concerns about vaccination.

“I doubt if there’s any parent when they’re going to vaccinate their kids [who] doesn’t give it a thought and go ‘well, is this the right thing, or is this not the right thing?’”

Mr Moore says he hopes a more effective communication strategy will stem from the debate.

“So as parents are thinking about these things that people who understand immunisation can say ‘What are your questions? What are your doubts?’”

“There are adverse incidents associated with immunisation, but in the end the decision is one of a cost benefit, or if you like, a risk analysis.

“It’s actually much higher risk to not vaccinate your children than to vaccinate them.”

The PHA says despite the pockets of low take-up of vaccinations, Australia still has the third highest rate of immunisation in the world.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/17/2985638.htm

11 August 2010

In what must be a very unusual move, the HCCC has tacked a second complaint on to this original case. This complaint was submitted by Toni and David McCaffery, parents of 4-week-old Dana, who died from whooping cough in March of 2009. Even more unusually, I am unable to view the actual complaint and instead, need to try and reply based only upon what the HCCC has chosen to share with me.

This posts heads straight into an inaccurate and misleading statement from the very first sentence. If the HCCC receive separate submissions which relate to the same problem, they reserve the right to consider them as one complaint, or consider each complaint separately. The latter applied to the AVN. When I submitted evidence in support of Ken McLeod’s initial HCCC complaint, the HCCC asked me whether I would like my submission to be lodged as a separate complaint, or considered as supporting evidence. So, this is not an “unusual move”.

As to what information is made available to interested parties, the HCCC has an easy to find page on their website dedicated to outlining their privacy policy. It may be viewed at Your Privacy. There is of course a very obvious reason why the McCaffery’s would want their complaint not made public as their complaint was lodged solely as a result of the harassment they had received from the Dorey family and AVN supporters. From the HCCC website:

 
Meryl’s entire opening paragraph is inaccurate and misleading. A quick check of the HCCC’s website, or a single phone call, was all it would have taken to get it right.

It is interesting that this second complaint was received by the HCCC on the 16th of December 2009 – more than 2 months after my original response to McLeod’s complaint which was submitted on the 9th of September, 2009.

This second complaint was lodged after a campaign of harassment by Meryl Dorey and AVN supporters against the McCaffery family. This was their only motivation for lodging a complaint.

I also submitted further evidence to the HCCC months after the initial complaint was lodged. Once again, the investigation was ongoing and Meryl Dorey was still undergoing activities relevant to the original complaint.

I believe that this action taken by the HCCC constitutes a denial of my right to natural justice.

This statement makes no sense. Any person has a right to submit a complaint to the HCCC, at any time. Anyone who has a complaint lodged against them has the right to address those complaints. That is “natural justice”. Only a narcissist would consider themselves above the law, and above criticism.

It is worth noting that the HCCC also has the power to take action against people lodging frivolous complaints.

In their complaint, one of the few items which the HCCC chose to share with me was an accusation that both myself and the AVN used misleading statistics to argue against pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination.

I believe this accusation was regarding a complaint that the McCaffery’s filed against me with the ABC after an interview I did with Katya Quigley, from ABC Radio. Interestingly, the McCaffery’s state that they have obtained a copy of this radio program but I have been unable to – either from the ABC itself who have told me that this information is not available nor from Media Monitors who have also told me it is not available. If anyone reading this happens to have a copy of this day’s show they are willing to send me a copy of, I would be really grateful.

Apparently, during this interview, Katya referred to the whooping cough rate in Australia in 2001 when I had specifically indicated that the time period we were discussing was 1991. Please see my original correspondence with Katya’s producer, Janine Fitzpatrick, sent on morning of this program:

From: Meryl Dorey
Date: 4 September 2009 8:49:40 AM AEST
To: fitzpatrick.janine@abc.net.au
Subject: Information on whooping cough incidence / vaccination rates

Dear Janine,

I just wanted you to have this information prior to my interview this morning because I will be referring to it in my talk. As I told Katya (not sure if I’m spelling that properly so apologies if it’s wrong), I want to keep this on a scientific level – and avoid emotional issues and personal accusations.

A summary of the following information is that in 1991, Australia had a whooping cough vaccination rate of 71.6% and 318 cases reported nationwide. Last year (2008), for the first time, our whooping cough vaccination rate was in excess of 95% – the stage at which we have been told the disease will disappear. Instead, we had 14,522 cases last year – the highest on record – and this year is already over 19,000 without any decline in vaccination.

So blaming the unvaccinated for these deaths and for the record outbreak is ignoring the fact that more people are vaccinating then ever before and we have seen an increase in incidence of 40 times sine 1991.

Thanks so much,
Meryl

The McCaffery’s filed a complaint with the ABC after this program aired. I was unable to see the actual complaint and I didn’t even know about this until my local newspaper, the Northern Star, published an article stating that a local couple, Toni and David McCaffery, had filed this complaint and the ABC had found that the information I had provided to the radio station was misleading and incorrect.

Misleading and inaccurate – that term comes up all too often when discussing Meryl Dorey and the AVN. Here is why.

Dr Chris Ingall (pediatrician) was interviewed on the same show, and he explained that pertussis comes in cycles – there will be years when the number of cases will be low, and then years when it will be high. This is yet another reason to show due care when making any comparisons concerning pertussis.

The Northern Rivers area of NSW was hard hit by the pertussis outbreak. Dr Ingall advised that the public health unit was still reporting 4 cases of pertussis a day, because of the overall low vaccination rate in the area.

Remember we are talking about an area with pockets of the lowest vaccination rates in the country. Meryl knows this. Yet she persists in treating this fact with reckless abandonment, and shouting “95%” with her fingers in her ears. This is wrong. The vaccination rate in the area was reported to be around 60-67%. Far below what is required for the vulnerable to be protected.

The vaccination rate of 95% which Meryl uses I assume is a national average (she hasn’t provided us with the data). You don’t need to be a bloody statistician to figure out that an average may actually be made up of high and low figures. Meryl Dorey intentionally ignored the extremely low pockets of vaccination in an area reporting four cases of pertussis a day to wilfully mislead people. Pertussis kills. Wilfully misleading people about such diseases, and the methods by which we can control them, is a very serious business. The HCCC had very good reasons for investigating both Meryl Dorey and the AVN.

Below is the actual graph that I had provided to the ABC:

I contacted the ABC Corporate Affairs department and corresponded with Denise Musto who assured me that the finding was not against myself but against the presenter, Katya Quigley. Please read her correspondence below:

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs11
Date: 5 February 2010 4:26:39 PM AEDT
To: “‘meryl@avn.org.au’”
Subject: RE: ABC Investigation of vaccination information

Dear Ms Dorey

I refer to your emails of 28 and 29 January to ABC presenter Katya Quigley. In line with ABC complaints procedures, your correspondence has been forwarded to Audience and Consumer Affairs.

As previously advised in a number of my emails to you, the findings of the Audience and Consumer Affairs review did not relate to your contribution to the program or to how the AVN presents statistics. Consistent with ABC complaints procedures, our review related to whether the statements about the statistics made by an ABC presenter complied with the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy in factual content. Our finding was that the ABC presenter’s statement did not meet the standard, which requires that “Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that factual content is accurate and in context”.

In respect to your question as to the confidentiality of our findings, please note that general summaries of all upheld complaints are publicly reported on the ABC’s website, consistent with our accountability and transparency requirements. As previously advised, this investigation is reported at:

http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld/s2739849.htm.

In addition, following investigation of a complaint about a broadcast or story, Audience and Consumer Affairs respond to the complainant substantively. Whilst this response is not made available publicly by the ABC, as you will no doubt appreciate, we have no control over how a complainant may choose to make such information available to other parties.

Yours comments in respect to this matter have been noted. However, as previously advised, we are satisfied that the finding of our investigation was appropriate and in keeping with the requirements of the ABC’s Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. We would ask that you cease contacting ABC staff members directly in respect to this investigation, which has been finalised. There are no options for review available to you, and we will not engage in any further correspondence on this matter. If you would like to raise concerns in respect to other matters, these are best submitted using our online form at:http://www.abc.net.au/contact/contactabc.htm.

Yours sincerely Denise Musto Audience & Consumer Affairs

Despite knowing this, the McCaffery’s continue to this day to accuse me of providing incorrect information to the ABC – a statement which they should have been informed is not correct since they were sent a copy of the ABC’s findings in this case.

I would ask Meryl why she failed to include the text of the findings made by the ABC (at least she provided the link). The response to the complaint starts with “The complaint was upheld on two counts of inaccuracy in relation to statistical information referred to in the segment.”

2 counts. Two. 2 of them. One, two. II. Five minus three. 2.

 
The ABC did find the comparison of the two data sets was inappropriate, and misleading. This data was provided by Meryl Dorey.

The issue of whether the year was 1991 or 2001 is non-sequitur. It is the comparison of different data sets that is the issue.

I have listened to the interview. The presenter read out the statistics as supplied by Meryl Dorey.

The McCaffery’s (and the rest of us) would be completely correct, and completely justified, in making the claim that Meryl Dorey presented misleading information to the ABC. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore evidence to the contrary; not an unusual position for Meryl Dorey to be in. Ideology is all important, and a narcissist is never wrong.

Below is a review of the information I had provided to the ABC by Dr Gary Goldman, a peer-reviewer for such journals as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vaccine, The American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), Expert Review of Vaccines (ERV) and Expert Review of Dermatology (ERD). He serves on the Editorial Board of Research and Reviews in Bioscience. He has worked under contract for the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, in an epidemiological study project funded by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Atlanta, GA). :

The authors of this assessment [the ABC’s assessment of the statistics presented to Katya Quigley) state, “the two statistics are drawn from different data sets and relate to different groups of children.”

First, the data sets both present percent of children fully immunized against Pertussis. The fact that both tables represent different age groups is actually appropriate in this case because in 1989-1990 (the true figure referred to in the discussion) children aged 0 to 6 years received pertussis vaccination according to a vaccination schedule that differed from that of 2008; whereby, pertussis vaccination occurred in children by the time they were 2 years old.

The tables indicate an increase in the percentage of children receiving pertussis vaccination, from 71% in 1989-1990 to 95.1% in 2008. The children’s ages are by necessity, and are appropriately, different due to vaccination schedule differences associated with each of these two different dates. Therefore, it is without basis that the authors state, “the comparative manner in which they were presented was misleading.”

Conversely, had children of the same age been represented in both tables, say children immunized at 2 years old, by 1989-1990, the percentage of children fully vaccinated for pertussis would have been negligible (approaching 0%) since the vaccination schedule had changed toward providing pertussis vaccine to children up through age six. Therefore, the comparative manner in which Meryl Dorey presented the data actually took into account the differences in the vaccination schedule and reported the relationship of the change in percentage as accurately as permitted by the table data.

Sincerely,
Gary S. Goldman,
Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief,
Medical Veritas

As you can see, I was not guilty of using misleading statistics and the McCafferys – having been provided with the final outcome by the ABC – may, in fact, be the ones using misleading information. To this day, they continue to claim on radio, in writing and on their various internet pages, that I have provided misleading information to the ABC when they should know that this is not the case – it was the ABC interviewer, Katya Quigley, who made an error on air and the ABC found against her – not against myself or my information.

WRONG again, Meryl. The ABC did find that the statistics used were misleading, and you were the person responsible for providing those statistics. The interviewer read out the statistics exactly as you supplied them.

Why have you failed to provide the source of the 2008 figures?
You apparently gave them to the ABC, you apparently gave them to Goldman; why have you failed to let the rest of the world see? I would have suggested that you asked the Department of Health and Ageing for comment – it is their data, they should be happy to confirm whether or not comparison of that data was appropriate.

Dr Goldman’s assessment is largely irrelevant. He is a doctor of computer science. He is not an epidemiologist, or disease expert, or medical expert, and Medical Veritas lies only one nanometre above whale.to as a health resource. In any event, you have failed to provide the necessary information for us to be able to review his findings.

I have to ask – why did Meryl approach a computer scientist and not a relevant expert for opinion on this?

Dr Chris Ingall, working the front line of this pertussis epidemic, called Meryl’s figures downright wrong as well as biased, skewed, and cherry-picking.

The data sets were from different ages and different groups; what is plainly obvious is that it was negligent (at best), or intentionally misleading, to present those figures to anyone as comparable without also providing reasons as to why they could be compared. Meryl has still failed to address this issue.

The HCCC was provided with this information on two occasions and yet, they never corrected their misleading and incorrect conclusion that I had provided incorrect information to the ABC.

If your above explanation is what you gave to the HCCC then they rightly gave it the consideration it deserved – rubbish.

At this point in time, from the evidence Meryl has supplied, it is still entirely accurate to make the claim that:
“Meryl Dorey and the AVN used misleading statistics to argue against pertussis vaccination“.

Perhaps we should let the ABC have the last word. Here is an excerpt from a letter sent by the ABC to Meryl Dorey:

It is the first in a series of articles which Meryl Dorey says she will publish over a number of weeks to explain what the HCCC findings are all about.

Many of our members have asked me to analyse what the HCCC findings against the AVN were all about. I have gathered together almost all of the correspondence between both Ken McLeod and the HCCC into one location on Scribd which you can access by clicking here, but since this is composed of hundreds of pages of information, I have decided to try and summarise (summarisation is NOT my strong point as many of you would know ) the basic points and how it is possible that, though complete, referenced and logical answers were provided to the HCCC, they chose to ignore this information.

I am very glad to see that Australian Vaccination Network members are asking you to explain yourself.

Meryl Dorey makes a very serious allegation – that the HCCC chose to ignore information relevant to an investigation. The very title of her article “The HCCC – don’t confuse them with logic” is a serious slur against the integrity of the investigation, and of the department itself.

The HCCC is bound by the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 No 105. Meryl Dorey should clarify whether she means the Commission ignored her evidence, or simply considered it but not in a manner that met with her approval.

I must admit some chuckling over this line “though complete, referenced and logical answers were provided to the HCCC,”.
It does, however, rank lower than my #1 favourite “rabid, idiotic fringe-dwellers” and #2 “We have mountains, acres and incredible numbers of medical journal articles…”.

I kindly invite readers to discover what complete, referenced and logical information means in Meryl Dorey speak: Tom Sidwell dissects Meryl Dorey.

Please keep in mind that the entire ‘investigation’ of the AVN took place on our website and in particular, in one page of our website – the page that lists Ten Reasons Why Parents Question Vaccination. Despite the fact that our organisation publishes a magazine, a newsletter books, information packs and writes articles for other publications; despite the fact that we have provided telephone support and hands-on support to parents for 17 years; and despite the fact that we have lobbied both State and Federal governments in regards to these issues, the HCCC neither visited our office (though they were invited to several times) nor did they interview either myself or anyone else involved with our organisation before reaching their conclusions. This bears all the hallmarks of a kangaroo court of the first order.

Meryl states “…that the entire ‘investigation’ of the AVN took place on our website…”

This is incorrect. The HCCC report states “The Commission has predominantly investigated issues raised by Mr McLeod in the context of how they are presented on the AVN website, because the website provides the main source of information to members of the pUblic who may be seeking information about vaccination.“.
The investigation was predominantly focused on the website; it was not the entire investigation as Meryl asserts.

A rational person in Meryl’s position (an oxymoron, I know) would be thankful that the investigation did not focus on other forums administered by the Australian Vaccination Network, or the other services they offer. I have no doubt that a wider investigation would have resulted in a significantly more negative outcome for Meryl Dorey and the AVN.

Because of the number of points covered and the length of the information, this explanation will, of necessity, extend over several days and most likely, several weeks. I will title each section in the same way and just number them so you can go back to any that you are interested in reading again. Please feel free to forward links to these pages to friends and family who also have questions about the AVN’s stance on this issue and our refusal to abide by the demands of this organisation which, at the end of the day, has neither the jurisdiction or the power to make demands of the AVN.

This is the height of ideological arrogance. Meryl Dorey seems to imply that she has more knowledge of the law, and practice of the law, than experts in this field. This is the same arrogance Meryl displays when telling people she knows more about vaccination than an immunologist or paediatrician.

Does the AVN provide a ‘health education’ service?

In order to investigate our organisation, the HCCC needed to prove they had jurisdiction over us as described by the Health Care Complaints Act which they were formed to uphold. This Act limits their jurisdiction to healthcare providers (described as those whose activities affect the care and treatment of an individual person – and obviously the AVN does not fall into this category though originally, the HCCC had tried to put us into this category.) or health educators which has a definition that clearly does not apply to the activities the AVN carries out. Two barristers and two solicitors have composed letters which were sent to the HCCC questioning their jurisdiction. They have either ignored this advice and these questions or, in their final response after making their decision, they simply stated that they disagree with our reading of the Act.

In their final request for information which we responded to in July of this year, the HCCC stated several indicators they had used to prove that the AVN is, indeed, a health educator. I hope you will agree with me that their ‘logic’ is ridiculous in the extreme and only a government body that must ‘support government policy which is pro-vaccination’ would ever use such reasoning.

The Commission examined the AVN website in detail and noted that the provision of ‘health education’ was evident in the following pages on the website:
1- A ‘news’ page, that summarises and provides links to a number of recent media stories and articles about the risks of vaccination.

My answer to this statement, that the AVN can be considered as a health education service or health educator was that:

I am perplexed at this statement. If I am reading what the HCCC has said correctly, the provision of pages on a website that summarise news articles and give links to media stories constitutes health education.

The HCCC report went into detail explaining how they determined that the AVN was providing a health education service. They even highlighted the fact that the AVN’s own constitution confirms they offer the services of health education, one example being “(a) the advancement and promotion of education and learning amongst the public about all matters concerning human health and human physical and social wellbeing;”

Meryl Dorey also determined that she is an educator in a webinar held in July 2009, “If we make sure that we educate people, and that’s the most important job of an activist on this issue is to educate people, then the problem is half solved right away because the education is so important. Fear is why these vaccination campaigns are …effective. The only way to fight fear is with information, with education.”

Toni and David McCaffery started a Facebook site in memory of their daughter, Dana. This page, in its discussion area, gives multiple links to news articles and media stories about the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations. Does this mean that the McCafferys are health educators as well?

Meryl just couldn’t help herself. She has been asked on too many occasions to leave the McCaffery family alone. Any excuse will do for Meryl to be spiteful and vindictive.

Please refer to my previous posts How could they? and follow-up Harassment 101.

Peter Bowditch from the Australian Skeptics, has several websites, one of which is dedicated exclusively to vaccination. On this site, not only does Bowditch link to many media stories and articles about vaccination, but he specifically gives medical advice to all who come to view his page. His advice is that everyone MUST vaccinate in no uncertain terms and his lack of information on either the necessity of vaccination for every person and his refusal to inform about any potential side effects is in opposition to the NH&MRC’s rules governing the responsibility to allow for fully informed choice regarding this issue.

Meryl’s failure to distinguish between opinion and satire, and information and advice, is further evidence of how dangerous it is for people to take Meryl Dorey and the AVN seriously.

This takes “grasping at straws” to a whole new level.

Australia’s broadcaster, the ABC, has an extensive website on health. This site maintains numerous links to articles and media stories about vaccination. In fact, an entire page is devoted to the subject of vaccination which you can find here – http://www.abc.net.au/health/tag/vaccines-and-immunity/

Are the ABC, Peter Bowditch and Toni and David McCaffery also health education service providers? If this is the basis for the HCCC’s decision, I believe there would be few who enter public life in any small way who would not fall under the jurisdiction of the HCCC as a result.

If anyone can please present evidence which shows any of the above parties:

• publically declaring themselves to be educators;
• a constitution outlining educational goals and objectives;
• lecturing and participating in health education services

…please let me know.

Further, if the HCCC believes that linking to vaccination stories in the public media is tantamount to a breach of either statute, common law or statutory regulations in Australia, we would like to ask if it intends in the future to pursue the writers of these stories or to censure journalists who could also be termed as health educators under the Act. Or does it intend to force every web site based in Australia to quote balancing, contrary views – including the websites of government health departments and the medical community?

The HCCC then goes further to state that another indication of our status as a health education service or health educator is that the AVN maintains:

2- A ‘weblog’ page, containing a series of discussions about articles and publications on the risk of vaccination.

My response to this absurdity is that:

Technorati lists 11,113 blogs which are exclusively about health. With the single exception of a blog post by American TV medico, Dr Sanjay Gupta, not one of the 50 top posts on vaccination was blogged by a medical professional. Should all of these people who were passing on information – both for and against vaccines – be considered health education providers under the Act according to the HCCC? If they were in Australia, would they be governed by these same regulations due to the fact that they have published ‘weblog’ pages that contain a series of discussions about articles and publications on either the risks or the safety of vaccination? If so, where does the HCCC propose to draw the line? Do all Australians who mention vaccination in a public forum come under your jurisdiction?

These two points formed the extent of the HCCC’s ‘proof’ that the AVN is either a health education service or a health educator. I hope you will agree that with evidence like this, if we were in a court of law rather than involved with a commission whose stated goal is to uphold the government’s pro vaccination policy, the case would have been thrown out for lack of evidence.

The HCCC did not make its determination on any one point alone. The report states “According to its own constitution and through its activities the AVN is a health education service. Consequently it is a health service under section 4 of the Act.”

As Meryl is a self-confessed educator she should actually be grateful that they considered all the evidence before making this determination.

Tomorrow:

Did the AVN mislead the ABC?

There is certainly some Schadenfreude present in seeing Meryl persist with this madness. She will be needing plenty of these.

KATE HAGAN, August 10, 2010

A SUSTAINED whooping cough epidemic in Victoria has led to a spike in the number of infected babies being admitted to hospital with life-threatening cases of the disease.

Department of Health figures show 2625 whooping cough cases to date this year, compared with 1992 for the same period last year and 730 in 2008.

A department spokesman said it was unclear what had caused the outbreak, but people should be vaccinated against the disease.

Whooping cough vaccines are given to babies at two, four and six months, in addition to booster shots at four and 15 years. But protection against the disease is not lifelong, lasting just six to 10 years after the vaccine is given.

Royal Children’s Hospital paediatrician Jenny Royle said the increasing number of whooping cough cases in the community was reflected in the hospital’s admissions. She said there was a large number of cases last year, when 27 babies presented to the hospital in serious condition.

Dr Royle said this year’s figure was likely to be even higher, given that the hospital saw 15 babies with the disease in the first three months of this year alone.

She said whooping cough could cause apnoea in babies, depriving them of oxygen to the brain. Babies were often admitted to hospital so they could be given oxygen and monitored.

The Health Department has given 80,000 vaccinations to parents, to prevent them infecting their newborns, since Victorian Health Minister Daniel Andrews announced the free program last June. The program was extended for the next two years in May’s state budget.

”It’s not just Victoria, all states are having a surge in notifications … and have had since late last year,” a department spokesman said. ”Babies are the ones that are particularly vulnerable.”

Whooping cough is highly contagious and spread by coughing and sneezing. It is particularly serious in infants under a year old, but milder in older children and adults.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sharp-rise-in-baby-whooping-cough-20100809-11u4p.html