My response to VAIS complaint
Today I received an email from Roxanne Iwinski, representing the Vaccination Answers Informed Sources group. This email was also addressed to many other individuals, and it was a complaint about the content of this website in relation to their organisation.
As the email was sent to many other people, I believe that it is appropriate that I respond to the complaint publically. I have no qualms with people seeing me take responsibility for my actions, whether they agree with them or not.
First of all, I would like to point out that Roxanne had addressed her complaint about my website to “The Skeptics”. A number of members of the Australian Skeptics were cc’d in on an email sent to Roxanne, so her assumption of their involvement was entirely reasonable, although mistaken. I would like to point out that I am not a member of the Australian Skeptics, I take no direction from the Australian Skeptics, and the Australian Skeptics are not responsible for any content of this website.
I had initially considered ignoring this complaint (as I do other complaints from antivaxxers) but I think it appropriate in this instance for the following reasons:
- Roxanne has previously voiced her frustration in not being able to contact me directly re: content of this site;
- a formal request has been made asking me to alter the content of this site.
My response to Roxanne here will take the format of presenting her complaint in full, with my comments appearing directly after relevant sections.
To: The skeptics
Re: Antivaxxers site
This has been dealt with above. “The skeptics” are not responsible for the content of this site, therefore I accept that your complaint is directed at myself.
I accept that you individually oppose any objections or criticisms of the Australian vaccination program.
This is a rash generalisation of an argument that has not been posed by you to the skeptics, or myself, so to draw a conclusion about it is preposterous. Answering for myself, you are wrong.
I accept that antivaxxers do not publicise their own personal details as boldly as those slandered on their site.
All information presented on this site about VAIS was obtained from either published information by VAIS, or information freely available through internet search engines.
Up until recently, all names that appear on this site either appeared on the VAIS website, or have a direct connection to the VAIS website.
I accept that vaccination damage is largely denied by the Australian Government and medical community.
As your definition of “vaccination damage” differs from that of the (educated) scientific community, it is not surprising that you believe this to be true. Your belief, however, does not make it true. I draw readers’ attention to this section on VAIS which highlights some of their differing opinions to that of the scientific community.
I accept that our family, who agreed to the vaccination program 16 years ago were ‘one in a million’ to have suffered vaccine damage and trauma.
I am sincerely sorry that your family suffered this trauma. However, here you agree that it is a “one in a million” chance, but the government also acknowledges the risk of a serious adverse reaction to vaccines as being extremely low. How then, do you justify your assertion that vaccination damage is largely denied by the Australian Government and medical community?(1) You contradict yourself here.
I also question your acceptance of a “one in a million” chance, when you have previously described vaccinations as “…and subjecting another generation to the toxic experiment that it is.”(2) Confusing, if not misleading.
I DO NOT accept:
The act of listing my personal contact information without my permission.
The purpose of listing one of my clients.
The ethics and deception of posing as a concerned VAIS supporter and then posting select replies to promote personal slander.
The inference we are deceiving our members or any other free thinking adults by posting ‘before and after’ web content.
The cowardice nature of the attached comments and conclusions to our personal cause with no right of reply.
Your personal contact information is publically available on your own websites, so I question your expectation of privacy.
Your “client” was the domain registrant for your website, therefore was directly involved in your website. His client status with you is irrelevant to this complaint. I note your response today that “Les Bailey and his company are no longer associated with the VAIS site”, so thank you for acknowledging that my inclusion of his details on my site was totally justified.
As to the person “posing” as a member, at no time did he represent himself as a member of your organisation. I understand your anger at thinking this person was a supporter of your cause, but how is that relevant to your response? Do you stand by what you say, or don’t you? Are you only angry because you have one reply for pro-vaxxers, and another reply for anti-vaxxers? Why should it make a difference to your response unless you do employ duplicity when dealing with the general public?
I will continue to “infer” (in your words) that you are deceiving your members, and the general public, by the admissions contained in your own emails.
What you view as cowardice, I view as conducting a public service to health in our communities. This is my website, why would you think you have a right of reply? You have no such right now, nor will you ever do. I have already outlined my reasons as to why I am responding now – it has nothing to do with your (non-existent) rights.
Since when has being skeptical also meant being rude, immature, dishonest and unethical? Much of the slander amongst your associated websites is attached to the activities of AVN and Meryl Dorey. To set the record straight, VAIS does not support all of Meryl’s comments and actions, especially those featured around Dana McCaffery’s unfortunate death. It is your error to generalise VAIS with AVN. Stephanie Messenger, Susan Lindberg and myself are peaceful, dedicated parents, hurt by vaccination, all striving to make the best of the unfortunate cards we were dealt. Again, I welcome your suggestions on how else to ‘acceptably’ support families who are dealing with vaccine damage – without childish criticism or underhanded bullying.
I assert that making the general public aware of public health hazards is a mature act, is ethical, and is responsible. If you feel I am being rude in that endeavour, you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing on this site is dishonest, and is backed up by freely available evidence for anyone to peruse.
I will also take this opportunity to correct you about your allegation of slander; the correct term is libel, so I ask readers to freely substitute libel in place of slander throughout this post.
Now I understand your extreme reluctance to be associated with the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) given the ongoing investigation by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission into Meryl Dorey and the AVN posing a threat to public health. However, in relation to my exposé, if you like, of your organisation it is relevant that there are many direct connections between VAIS and the AVN. Stephanie Messenger and Susan Lindberg co-authored a book with Meryl Dorey (published by the AVN), and Susan Lindberg is also a former secretary of the AVN. Any connection therefore that people make between VAIS and the AVN is completely justified.
My tactics, or motivation if you will, relate solely to exposing the ideology and duplicity of certain antivaccination groups. To present a reasonable and moderate face to the general public, whilst holding alternative and potentially deadly views, I contend is shameful behaviour and those groups deserve every single ounce of exposure that they receive, in the interests of public health.
I provided calm and reasonable replies to Ken McLeod’s last email, and remain open to positive feedback and suggestions. I expect the best from PEOPLE irregardless of any difference of opinion. No reply has come forward. There is nothing on the VAIS site that attacks or criticises any individual or infringes their privacy. VAIS does not solicit their services aggressively to anyone. We are not politicians running for office. I did not provoke nor does my family deserve the personal, negative attention the antivaxxers site has awarded me. I request again for antivaxxers to remove my surname, home phone number, email address, clients name (Griffith University QCA) and email responses (or post the entire communication between ‘Pete’ and myself) from antivaxxers immediately.
I have looked long and hard at the available evidence in front of me, and there is nothing yet that has changed my mind that VAIS is intentionally misleading the general public as to their views on vaccination.
I will not remove your personal details from my site, as they are freely available in the public domain, and I strongly believe it is in the best interests of public health that the general public are made fully aware of groups and individuals that are spreading incorrect, ideologically based health and medical information.
As Les Bailey is no longer the domain registrant for your website, I have removed his details from my website, so as to keep information I present on my website, up to date and accurate.
I will not remove email correspondence from my site. From what I have received, I can see no justification for why you think this correspondence, with a complete stranger, had any reasonable expectation of privacy. This stranger has given me permission to publish his emails, and responses he received to those emails.
The only thing I will add here, is that if any information I have presented on my site about the views that VAIS and named individuals hold is no longer correct, then I will consider removal of it under the following condition:
As your emails would lend a “reasonable person” to deduce that your public messages are misleading, then upon a public retraction of your previously held views, I will consider removal of material which directly pertains to the material contained in the retraction.
I am currently seeking professional and legal advice on your actions.
Regards,
Roxanne Iwinski
My response to legal action would be to lodge a complaint about Vaccination Awareness Informed Sources to the Queensland Health Quality and Complaints Commission and let them decide the veracity of content published on my site. In fact, upon reflection, I may not even bother waiting for legal action to commence.
Footnotes:
1. http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/handbook-home
2. http://www.antivaxxers.com/?p=1271