The Twelve Days of Poxmas

Because we have a vaccine now. 

Some parents think holding "pox parties" to deliberately infect other people's kids with chicken pox - a usually mild but very uncomfortable disease with long-term complications - is preferable to having a quick jab. Perhaps they think the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease (it isn't). Perhaps they think it'll all be over in a week or so (it won't). Perhaps they think nobody ever dies from chicken pox (they do). Perhaps they don't think. 

Anyway, Pox Party Parents: this little festive jingle is for you and your poor kids. 

On the first day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

A flatlining E-C-G.

On the second day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the third day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the fourth day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the fifth day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the sixth day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Bleeding disorders

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the seventh day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Weeping pus-filled blisters

Bleeding disorders

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the eighth day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Febrile convulsions

Weeping pus-filled blisters

Bleeding disorders

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the ninth day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Nausea and shingles

Febrile convulsions

Weeping pus-filled blisters

Bleeding disorders

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the tenth day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Encephalitis

Nausea and shingles

Febrile convulsions

Weeping pus-filled blisters

Bleeding disorders

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the eleventh day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Bloodstained sheets from scratching

Encephalitis

Nausea and shingles

Febrile convulsions

Weeping pus-filled blisters

Bleeding disorders

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

On the twelfth day of Christmas my Mum’s friend gave to me,

Viral pneumonia

Bloodstained sheets from scratching

Encephalitis

Nausea and shingles

Febrile convulsions

Weeping pus-filled blisters

Bleeding disorders

Neur-al-gia

Permanent scars

Mouth ulcers

Sore, crusty eyes

And a flatlining E-C-G.

Predictions

Because hurt feelings can't stop an epidemic.

Let's have a little look at how science works. 

1. Scientists observe something happening, and form a hypothesis about why. 

2. Scientists test the hypothesis by trying to make the same thing happen under controlled conditions.

3. If the same thing happens again and again and again while testing the hypothesis, scientists can make predictions about it happening in the future. 

4. If the predictions come true, the scientists are happy and the world has a tasty new morsel of knowledge. 

Now, let's apply this to something real, like, say.... a vaccine. 

1. Scientists observe that, when a high enough proportion of a population is vaccinated against measles, the disease virtually disappears from that population. Maybe the measles vaccine helps prevent measles?

2. Scientists test the hypothesis by measuring the incidence of measles in populations with a high percentage of vaccinated people compared to populations with a low percentage of vaccinated people.

3. Again and again, scientists find that, in highly vaccinated populations, measles outbreaks are small and rare, and in populations with low measles vaccination, lots of people get measles. They predict that in the future, when the percentage of vaccinated people drops below a certain amount, measles outbreaks will occur.

4. Late last year, a person infected with measles visited Disneyland in California - an area with a reasonably high proportion of vaccine refusers - and infected other people with measles. Quite soon after that, lots of people got the measles. 

Something else scientists could have predicted: The usual suspects of vaccine denialism began bending all the available information about the Disneyland outbreak to fit their pre-conceived idea that unvaccinated people have nothing to do with outbreaks of disease, and that relating an outbreak of disease to unvaccinated people is UNCOOL and HURTS PEOPLE'S FEELINGS. 

I totally understand that the feelings of people who go to great lengths to deny the effectiveness of vaccines might be hurting. And I totally don't give a rat's arse. If loads and loads and loads of studies have found that measles outbreaks occur more often in unvaccinated populations, and you continue to deny that the current US measles outbreak has anything to do with unvaccinated people, there's not much I can do to help you. If you're cranky because science disagrees with you, tough. If you're out of sorts because diseases don't comply to your special view of the world, too bad. If the well-supported theory of herd immunity gives you a frowny face, cry me a frikkin' river. 

But cheer up a little bit, because I wrote you a pome.

You can’t bring a cat to a dog fight

To watch it get mauled

And then act all appalled

At the dogs disobeying your rules.

You can’t throw a fridge down a staircase

And protest when it breaks

Because gravity makes

No exceptions for self-absorbed fools.

You can’t stick your hand in a blender

Then demand some redress

For the blood-spattered mess

‘Cause you liked how it was at the start.

You can’t help your kids catch the measles

By refusing a vax

In the face of all facts

But deny that you played any part.

When scientists make a prediction

Like the tides of the seas

Or the spread of disease

They’ve seen it again and again.

But your pox-ridden family is special!

And although their afflictions

Comply with predictions

YOU’RE RIGHT, and you’re going to complain.

Disease, False Balance and Meryl Dorey - a Guide for Media

Because her opinion isn't news.

For the benefit of media who think it's worth consulting anti-vaccine lobbyists for "their side" when writing about the serious issue of immunisation, I'd like to suggest a few points, if I may:

1. Right now in Australia we're battling outbreaks of measles and whooping cough. 

2. Evidence has shown that creating false balance by providing anti-vaccine speakers (who have opinions based on opinions) a platform alongside medical experts (who have opinions based on evidence), makes people give more credence to the anti-vaccine view than if it was presented in isolation. 

3. As I see it, if you include an anti-vaccine lobbyist alongside an expert in a story about vaccination, you are hindering the success of public health initiatives and contributing to the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases.

4. This:

Who says epidemiologists know nothing of disease?

Who says having eyes to read stuff with trumps medical degrees?

Who says science texts are pharma’s agitprop depository?

Who says doctors murder babies? Yes, it’s (tut, sigh) Meryl Dorey.

Who says people who shake babies aren’t to blame for fractured ribs?

Who says Sudden Infant Death is just a garbage load of fibs?

Who says death from Whooping Cough is just some mother’s made-up story?

Who says measles is a gift? That’s right, it’s (head-desk) Meryl Dorey.

Who says AIDS might not be real because she’s not seen HIV?

Who says foetuses are sold and turned to vaccines secretly?

Who says polio’s still rife, but in a different category?

Who says vaccines cause autism? Same old (face palm) Meryl Dorey.

Who says Meryl Dorey’s incorrect? My state’s HCCC.

Who says Meryl’s claims are bulldust? People at the ABC.

Who says Meryl is misleading? Why, the Office of Fair Trading.

So don’t put her in your story, ‘less your story needs degrading.

Disappeared

Because it's not your money, Meryl.

I know, I know. I don't blog for ages and then KAPOW! Two posts about the Australian Vaccination Not-Really-Skeptics Network in a row!

In the latest installment of The Great AVN Unhinging of 2014, we find the NSW Minister for Fair Trading, Mr Stuart Ayres encouraging the public not to donate money to the organisation. On 18 March he tweeted:

"Aust Vaccination Skeptics Network no longer has charitable status
& I would encourage that you don't donate to this organisation."

This has not made the AVN happy. In an interview in the Guardian, President Greg Beattie stated:

“It’s not his place to say that. If he did make those statements then I question why he’s meddling in affairs that don’t involve his ministry.”

Likewise, Public Officer Meryl Dorey has been heard whining about how the government shouldn't be allowed to make such a recommendation, and they have no basis for doing so. Leaving aside the insinuation that only the AVN is allowed to have opinions about the AVN, let's look at the basis for Ayres' recommendation.

In all the time I've been following the AVN, I have not seen a single instance of them putting any money towards any cause that doesn't also benefit themselves. They've collected nearly 2 million dollars in donations during the last seven years, but there seems to be no evidence that any donations have gone towards a stated purpose. Yet their financial statements (which are summarised capably over at diluted thinking; and were described by a chartered accountant as "the worst set of financial statements I have ever seen") indicate some rather vague "expenses" such as $39,000.00 in one year on computers, even more on "web costs", plus all-purpose "other expenses" totaling $170,000.00 in 2010. There is no mention of any outgoing money to any charitable cause (thanks for the summary Dr Rachie).

So I will ask a simple question that has been asked of the AVN many, many times before:

WHERE DID THE DONATIONS GO?

Where did your members’ donations go?

What did you spend them on?

Your website design’s worth a buck ninety-nine

So where has the money gone?

Where’s the foundation for injured kids?

Where is the legal aid?

Were you never billed any time you fulfilled

All those promises that you made?

Surely there’s something you can share

That shows your philanthropy;

An invoice or docket that proves you don’t pocket

The money you get for free. 

Uncharitable

Because the AVN never wanted your stupid money anyway.

This has been an incredibly eventful couple of weeks for the Australian Anti-Vaccination Skeptics-for-a-given-value-of-Skeptics Network. You can read a recent summary of events over at Dr Rachie's place. 

The most delicious part of the whole name-changin', investigation-respondin', special-pleadin' shemozzle was an article in Australian Doctor which reported the AVN's surrender of their charity licence (administered by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing or OLGR). 

Most sensible people look at an organisation which has recently had its finances called into question, is currently under investigation by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (PDF) and has recently surrendered the ownership of its Facebook page to an unnamed party, and conclude that they are trying to cover their tracks, distance themselves from their previous name and deeds, and gloss over the many extravagant and ill-defined "expenses" in their financial reports. No charity licence means less publicily transparent financial reporting requirements. 

But the AVN's version of events is, unsurprisingly, different. And totally not their fault. According to the Australian Doctor article, the organisation's permanently defensive president, Greg Beattie claimed: 

"The group had wanted to get rid of its charity licence for years, having spent countless hours and resources "jumping through hoops" to comply with the NSW Charitable Fundraising Act."We no longer see ourselves as a charitable organisation," Mr Beattie said. "We just don't fit into that mould.""

Oh, mercy. Also: 

"Mr Beattie said the only reason the AVN ever had charity status in the first place was that their "vague" goals had unwittingly drawn the attention of the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing."Our objectives were so broad. They talked about educating the public and the betterment of humankind and all sort of grand ideals that [meant] we inadvertently fit the definition of a charitable organisation," Mr Beattie said."

So you see, it was all accidental. They didn't want to be in a position where they could fleece their hoodwinked followers out of wads of cash merely for the asking. It's all a big mistake - one they're thrilled to put behind them. 

Uh huh. 

This one's for you, Greggy. To show you I understand.

When we started, the things that we wanted to do

Were benevolent, pure of heart, lofty and true.

But soon we got lazy,

Our goals became hazy

And then, oopsy-daisy! Donations came through!

Donations were small and donations were big;

We took them for stuff and for thingummyjig,

For freedom and rights

And for fighting good fights

From the dizzying heights of this President’s gig.

The money rolled in and it made our purse swell;

But we suffered in this inconceivable hell,

Because people inspecting

Our books were expecting

Not only collecting, but giving as well!

But our power to help those in need would depend

Not on what we could give, but on what we could spend

On new iMacs and flying

And unbridled buying

And little-white-lying when budgets were penned.

But now it’s all over, and we can relax,

We no longer have OLGR on our backs.

All those strict regulations

Regarding donations,

Corrupt calculations and profits and tax!

We can get on with doing the things that we ought,

Like displaying our gift for irrational thought,

Celebrating the pox,

Making ill-knitted socks

And inhabiting docks in a criminal court.

Questions.

Because you're free to be a moron.

"WE'RE JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!" is the familiar territory-marker of the anti-vaccine team. And asking questions is good. Asking questions is useful. But when those questions have been answered pretty convincingly by science and commonsense (For example "Do vaccines cause autism?"), asking them over and over and over again has little point, and is, frankly, irritating.

Many anti-vaccine campaigners like the ever-mouthy but increasingly unpopular Meryl Dorey cry about how their freedom is being quashed because their innocent questions are being ignored or covered up or marked as "dangerous to society". In fact, their questions are being ignored, because they're old and repetitive and nobody wants to answer them after already answering them so many times (incidentally, the answers to some of these old, repetitive, irritating questions are dealt with neatly here and here).

By contrast, there are some extremely sensible questions floating around on this topic, for example, "Why isn't there a poem about this?"

“We’re only asking questions!” says the anti-vaccine crowd,

“And to stop us doing that negates our freedom!”

In fact questions are essential and must always be allowed;

‘Cause as far as finding out stuff goes, we need ‘em.

Every person ever living, bent with age or quick with youth,

Has asked questions. Why? And where? And how? And what?

There’s no question that most questions bring us closer to the truth,

We’re much better off by asking them than not.

When a question has been answered, and the evidence is weighed,

We incorporate it into what we know.

Answered questions are the bedrock upon which more learning’s laid;

From whence ‘upward’ is the only way to go.

Sometimes answers are surprising, undesirable or weird,

Though the rationale behind them is quite strong.

Just because an answer’s something that you doubted, loathed or feared,

Then that doesn’t, in most cases, make it wrong.

If the questions you’re “just asking” have been answered oft before,

And supporting proof is plentiful and plain,

Then you still have every human right to ask them evermore;

But I’m free to think you’re stubborn and insane.

People are tired of being killed.

Because I couldn't let this one go.

As the noose tightens around the administrative neck of the Australian Vaccination Network (in a purely metaphorical and non-death-threaty kind of way), the fallacy-ridden cries of undemocratic vilification and witch-hunting are coming thick and fast from the AVN's direction. 

A recent example on the anti-vaccination lobby group's Facebook page contained the usual frothy rant about how doctors are nasty terrorists in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies who order parents to do horrible poisonous things to their helpless children and make them sick for life and blah blah blah those bastards. 

This little bit got my attention:

"People are not stupid - they know what words (sic) and what does not and they are tired of being killed and maimed in the name of pharmaceutical profits."

People are tired of being killed! That's worth a rhyme, I says:

People are tired of being killed. It’s wearing rather thin.

Their efforts to stay alive are thwarted, much to their chagrin.

When somebody’s heart stops beating, or their breath is whisked away,

It’s rather a large disruption to an erstwhile pleasant day.

When fortune’s cruel hand decides a human’s time on Earth is spent;

It’s more than a tragic loss of life, it’s inconvenient.

It’s time to speak out! To raise a fist! To hell with due restraint!

So next time you’re killed, be sure to file a firmly-phrased complaint.

Picking Things to Bits: Meryl Dorey goes all Freeman-On-The-Land-ish

Because they really do exist.

Back in March, I wrote a little thing about the Freeman-on-the-Land (FOTL) movement, in all its logic-defying wonderfulness (I also wrote a much longer version for the gorgeous and reasonably-priced King's Tribune. If you want the rest of this post to make sense, do pop over and have a little read. If you'd rather not, go and have a cup of tea. I'd love one too please. One sugar.) At that stage, I had a hunch and an inkling that the movement was happening in Australia, but had little idea how close it lay to my everyday realm of outrage.

Now, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, I can show you a letter to a government body, written with the unmistakable clang of a Freeman-on-the-Land. And the author is none other than our favourite anti-vaccine, anti-medicine, anti-science, anti-most-sensible-things doyenne of the eccentric fringe media, Meryl Dorey.

Before I pop my Picking-Things-To-Bits hat on and take you through the letter one bewildering paragraph at a time, here's a little back-story:

5 May 2012: Meryl Dorey is interviewed on Fairdinkum Radio by Leon Pittard. During the interview, both discuss, promote and gush about Black Salve, an unregistered quack cancer remedy that is claimed by its supporters to safely and selectively remove cancerous tissue (when evidence suggests that it dangerously and indiscriminately burns people's noses off).

May 2012: An anonymous complaint is made to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)'s Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP), because promoting unproven and unregistered cancer treatments is against the law.

January 2013: The CRP determines that the radio interview is in contravention of parts of the Therapeutic Goods Act (1989) and the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code (2007). You can find the determination here. Ms Dorey and Mr Pittard are requested to respond to the finding.

July 2012: Meryl Dorey responds with the letter I quote below.

You can find a PDF copy of the letter here, and an excellent summary of the whole shemozzle over at Diluted Thinking.

 

So, let's pick it to bits, shall we? I'll begin by introducing the players. 

"Meryl Dorey" - The legal persona of Meryl Dorey, who only exists on paper and is subject to laws and regulations in name only, hereafter called "MERYL DOREY"

"Person's Personal Representative for MERYL DOREY" - Meryl Dorey's Freeman-on-the-Land meatperson, who is free and only subject to nice, cuddly Common Law, hereafter called "Meryl Dorey Meatperson"

"TGA Guy" - the representative from the TGA CRP handling the complaint, who may be wondering what the hell is going on.

It begins...

(Bold is from the original letter. Italic is me being a smartarse.)

"Person's Personal Representative For MERYL DOREY"
This letter is sent to you from Meryl Dorey Meatperson, not from MERYL DOREY.

"TGA Guy In his Private capacity"
This letter is sent to the cuddly meatperson version of TGA Guy, not the legal entity employed by the bastard government corporation who, let's face it, is just doing his job.

"In Regards: OFFER TO SETTLE IN PRIVATE"

I'M ONTO YOU. I know that you're trying to get me to do something, but I have no contract with you, so you can go and get stuffed. You can tell by the way I use words like "offer" and "claim" that I know the secret language of legal things, and you can't trick me into abiding by your 'Acts' and 'Codes'. 

"Dear TGA Guy,

The Person's Personal Representative, after seeking wise council, writes to TGA Guy, today in his Private capacity and humbly and sincerely apologises for any dishonour he may have caused."

Meryl Dorey Meatperson, after talking to some convincing-sounding wingnuts, is sorry if (s)he's come across as dishonourable, because that goes against cuddly Common Law, and that would be just dreadful. Soz.

"The Person's Personal Representative, 

in his Inherent Jurisdiction de jure solum ei naturale, conditionally accepts that TGA Guy has made a well pled claim that, Meryl Dorey has advertised and promoted 'Black Salve' and that Leon Pittard has further promoted and advertised 'Black Salve' by publishing the interview, and offers to settle this matter in private upon TGA Guy in his own private capacity providing true, correct and complete proof; that:"

Meryl Dorey Meatperson has read the letter that says she's in contravention of your so-called 'Act' and your so-called 'Code', but does not agree, because we're dealing with Natural Law (in bad Latin, no less!), so here's what's going to happen. Prove the following things to me, and then we'll talk. 

"Relating a personal condition to anyone constitutes advertising;"
PROVE what I said about Black Salve was advertising in a way that will convince a crazy person. Because I don't think it was advertising. Go on. I dare you.

"The person making the claim has full knowledge of any fees paid for any alleged advertising;"
PROVE that it was a paid advertisement. Because according to the law that I just made up in my head, it's not advertising unless someone gets paid for it.

"The right to free speech is not an inherent right;"
PROVE that I don't have the inherent right to free speech and therefore I can say whatever I like about how awesome it is to burn flesh off yourself and how crap all those other lame-o cancer 'treatments' are. I don't care what your actual laws or the actual Constitution says. It only matters what *I* call free speech.

"Any Corporation has the right to sue any individual in their private capacity;"
PROVE that you have any jurisdiction over me in my made-up fantasy version of the law. Because, see, you're the Corporation, and you're suing me, Meryl Meatperson, and cuddly Common Law says you can't do that. Because I said so. Or Ipsy Dixie, or however you say it in Latin.

"The Persons Personal Representative in his Inherent Jurisdiction is not able to settle this matter in private."
PROVE that I can't just do whatever I want. PROVE that everything in this letter is complete and utter frothy bollocks. I DOUBLE DARE YOU.

"NOTICE - TGA Guy, in his own private capacity, shall have twenty one days (21) from being served to respond by rebutting all of the above -point for point -or it shall be declared that free speech is still an inherent right, and the Person's Personal Representative has the proprietary right to settle all outstanding issues in the private. "
You've got 21 days from receipt of this letter to PROVE everything I asked you to prove in my Very Impressive List above. If you can't prove that my made-up cuddly law and my right to flog flesh-eating codswallop is complete pants, then this conversation is OVER. 

"Sincerely
M.D.
Person's Personal Representative
By Accommodation"
Shaking Up Important Sounding Words In A Bag.

And the TGA's response? "The advertisers did not respond to the substance of the complaint."

Thank you Meryl Dorey

Because she finally did something right.

Yesterday, NSW Health Minister Jillian Skinner introduced suggested amendments to the Health Care Complaints Act to NSW Parliament (Go read Reasonable Hank and Dr Rachie for more thorough treatment). 

In a nutshell, these amendments make it easier for the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) to respond to complaints about dodgy health service providers. Previously, a complaint had to be backed up by evidence that a health service provider had directly affected the care of an individual. If this bill passes, a complaint can be acted upon if the health of an individual is likely to be affected. 

A subtle difference, perhaps, but the wording of the current Act provided a loophole large enough for Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network to slide through when she took the HCCC to court last year. And it was precisely that case that prompted the change. 

That's right. Thanks to Ms Dorey and her AVN, the government has taken a lot of notice of how easy it is for "health" "service" providers such as herself to spread misinformation and endanger the health of families without penalty, and it sounds like that's all going to change. 

I'd like to express my gratitude. This one's for you, Meryl.

If you hadn't thrown your toys at the Health Care Complaints Commission;

If you’d not made special pleading your relentless, lifelong mission;

Then our leaders might not know of your intention to mislead;

So thank you, Meryl Dorey. Thank you very much indeed.

If you’d done the thing that public health officials said you ought:

And just changed your site a bit, instead of taking them to court;

Then the legislation wouldn’t need to change the way it’s lettered.

So thank you, Meryl Dorey. We are very much indebted.

If you’d never bitched and moaned ‘bout how the government’s a farce;

If you’d not said Tanya Plibersek was talking out her arse,

Then they might be more inclined to let you do the things you’ve done.

So thank you, Meryl Dorey. Thanks a lot. I owe you one.

If you’d never drawn attention to the way you run your show;

If associates of yours weren’t just as dangerous and low;

Then they wouldn’t soon be answering to summonses and such.

So thank you, Meryl Dorey. Thank you very, very much.

While we're on the topic, go see the good folk at Stop The AVN, without whom there'd be a lot more anti-vax bollocks in the media. Go on. They're not nearly as nasty as Meryl says.

Fair.

Because when you dilute logic, it becomes bollocks.

Something very simple and straightforward has been happening over the last few months. So simple and straightforward that I can sum it up in a numbered list like this:

1. Homeopathy Plus! claimed on its website that homeopathy was an appropriate preventative measure and treatment for Whooping Cough, and preferable to the Whooping Cough vaccine;
2. Nobody in the history of everything has ever proven that homeopathy has prevented or successfully treated Whooping Cough, a highly contagious disease currently circulating and killing babies in Australia;
3. The Whooping Cough vaccine, whilst not perfect, has been shown to be much more effective at preventing Whooping Cough than not having the vaccine;
4. Somebody complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Homeopathy Plus!'s claims, because they sounded a little bit like "misleading claims", or as I like to call them, "big fibs";
5. Homeopathy Plus! is currently facing Federal Court over its claims. 

So, company tells fibs. Company gets called out on fibs. Company goes to court. Shelley makes popcorn. Simple, right? 

Not according to Homeopathy Plus! and my old favourite harpies of hand-flapping, the Australian (Anti-)Vaccination Network. 

According to Fran Sheffield of Homeopathy Plus!, this chain of events steals away people's "right to freely access alternative health information".

According to the AVN, 

"the ACCC appears to be openly saying that Australians are not allowed to dissent from accepted opinion" 

...and the situation is:

"outrageous and not what we expect from a democracy such as Australia."

So on one hand, there are laws about how companies are allowed to promote their goods and services, and breaking those laws can result in penalties and punishment. On the other hand, some people don't like obeying the law and think they should be able to say whatever they believe to be true without any consequences whatsoever (or as I like to call it: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!").

In other words:

It’s not about liberty, rights or democracy,

Power or hatred or pointless bureaucracy,

No-one’s “attacking” your business or you;

You’re merely expected to stick to what’s true.

Although you spruik freely your tonics traditional,

Freedom to do so is not unconditional;

Anyone listening is equally free,

To call out your bullshit legitimately.

So go right ahead and sell potentised fallacies,

Tout anecdotes as objective analyses,

State your opinions as though they were facts,

And contravene various government acts.

But don’t think your self-stated superiority

Makes you immune to a proper authority.

If what you’re doing is breaking the law,

You’re going to get busted, ‘cause that’s what it’s for.

I love you to death

Because some people hate children so much they want to make them sick.

Millions of dollars are spent around the world every year trying to prevent children from getting sick. Medical research, education programs, vaccination programs, hospital facilities, public health initiatives and other projects exist, and are maintained, so that some of the most vulnerable people in the human communities we inhabit can be healthy, stay healthy and survive.

Some people want kids to get sick.

It's hard to believe, I know. Some parents will actively try and infect their own children with a vaccine-preventable disease in the mistaken belief that "natural" immunity (gained by catching a disease and letting it run its course, common complications and all) is somehow safer and more effective than being vaccinated (in which the same immunity is usually achieved with an almost infinitesimally small risk of dangerous effects). There are stories of "pox parties", where parents of a child infected with a vaccine-preventable disease will invite the children of other willing parents to gather together in the hope of exposure and infection. There are others where a dummy or lollipop that has been sucked or licked by an infected child will be enthusiastically shared by a parent with another child to facilitate the spreading of disease.

Most rational people think that making children sick on purpose is a horrendous thing to do.

Not Stephanie Messenger. Stephanie Messenger thinks it's a marvelous thing to do. So marvelous, in fact, that she's written a book that, as the promotional dross goes:

"...takes children on a journey to learn about the ineffectiveness of vaccinations and to know they don't have to be scared of childhood illnesses, like measles and chicken pox."

Titled Melanie's Marvelous Measles, this misguided turd of a book received a well-deserved drubbing by talented bullshit detector Tory Shepherd on news.com.au today, and a straightforward review by Skepticat earlier in the week.

It takes a special kind of love to treat your own children with such unfathomable disregard for their survival. I've tried to capture that special kind of love:

I want the very best for you, my child, as years go by.

I want to watch you play and grow,

And learn the things you need to know,

And tread where others fear to go,

And think, and wonder “why?”

But most of all, I hope you catch a bad disease and die.

I’d love to see your flawless skin pock-marked beyond repair,

With weeping sores, inflamed and red,

A throbbing pain inside your head,

Febrile convulsions in your bed,

And vomit in your hair,

Your throat constricted so you fight for every breath of air.

I want you to be paralysed and never walk again,

Your hearing to be almost nil,

Your lungs with fetid fluid fill,

Your heart to struggle, then be still,

Your body stiff with pain.

Encephalitis swelling your unknowing, tender brain.

Infection’s rife around us now - the time is opportune!

Don’t do what all the doctors say,

It’s really better Mummy’s way,

If all goes badly, that’s ok:

Dead children are immune.

Shush now and lick your classmate - It’ll all be over soon.

Nominal.

Because the Australian Vaccination Network is anti-vaccine.

Once upon a time, I was looking for information about travel vaccines, and I came across an organisation called the Australian Vaccination Network. "That sounds like the kind of organisation that could provide me with the information I need to protect myself from horrible deadly diseases!" I thought. 

I was wrong. Like hundreds of other people, the name Australian Vaccination Network fooled me into believing that this organisation was a reputable source of evidence-based information about vaccination. Fooled me. Deceived me. Misled me.

Yesterday a good thing happened. The AVN received an order from NSW Fair Trading to change their name, or face the prospect of being deregistered. The reason behind the order? A complaint had been filed with Fair Trading about the organisation's name being misleading, considering they are, by any stretch of the most feeble imagination, unscientific and anti-vaccine. 

Read about it here.

The AVN's leader, Meryl Dorey, responded with a blog post including her usual whiny cavalcade of conspiracy-laden hogwash. By far the most entertaining part was her suggestion that, not only was the AVN's name not misleading, but that other organisations were worse!

"After all," she huffed, "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?"

Ms Dorey seems to believe that, unless she calls her organisation "A Couple Of Blokes Who Have Nothing At All To Do With Vaccination And Are Giving Away Buckets Of Orgasms", everything is just fine.

Well this is what I say to that:

Does the Cancer Council make a range of large malignant tumours?

And is Greenpeace green? And does it sell calm feelings to consumers?

Is the Black Dog Institute where all the dusky Kelpies go?

Does the Royal Blind Society poke monarchs’ eyes out? No.

Does the Lyme Disease Association laud the deer tick’s merits?

And is Animals Australia run by bureaucratic ferrets?

Is the Red Cross really cross? And do Weight Watchers stare at fat?

Does the Smith Family shun Joneses? Only morons would think that.

An “Australian Vaccination Network”, surely, is expected;

To know something of the way that our community’s protected;

By the action of a vaccine on the body of a child;

And the way a study’s done, and how the data are compiled;

And the difference between “bulldust” and “important information”;

And the laws for trading fairly, and for fund administration;

And the fundamental chemistry related to each shot;

And be honest, fair and helpful. Yet the AVN is not.

AVN vs HCCC

Because the AVN is still the same.

Today, in the NSW Supreme Court, the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) won its case against the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC). The AVN claimed that the HCCC had acted outside its jurisdiction in issuing a public warning which stated, correctly, that the AVN's website provides information that is solely anti-vaccination, contains information that is incorrect and misleading and quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous. What does this mean? It means that the AVN still does all those things, but that the HCCC was, according to a single clause in its governing act, the wrong body to complain to about it.

You can read what people have said about today's events here: http://wiki.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/AVNvsHCCC.ashx.

You can read about what I've said about today's events down there, in quatrains:


They still spout mistruths, fabrications and lies;
They still want your children to suffer;
They’re still anti-vaccine, with all that implies;
The president’s still quite a duffer;

They’re still not a charity, nor a good cause;
They still want your cash notwithstanding;
They still like to bend trade and privacy laws;
Their vast ill repute’s still expanding;

They still think their rights have been taken away;
They still think they should be respected;
The only thing different, since judgment today;
Is the way our complaints are directed.

 

Vaccination Saves Lives

Because it does.


A few posts ago, I mentioned that Meryl Dorey was speaking at the Woodford Folk Festival in Queensland this week. Thankfully, due to the efforts of many concerned and sensible people, her time spent spouting poppycock to the populace was reduced by festival organisers, and a group of grass-roots activists both within and surrounding the Stop The AVN facebook group got together and hired a plane to tow the message VACCINATION SAVES LIVES throughout Dorey's talk.

You can read all about it here: http://stopavn.com/vaccination-saves-lives/woodford-folk-festival.html

And get all the background here: http://wiki.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/DoreyAtWoodford.ashx

I'm jumping on the bandwagon putting in my two cents with a short rhyme, which should be entirely unnecessary for anyone with a rational approach to public health.

Yes, there’s a risk of an adverse reaction,
And yes, some of those need immediate action,
But really it’s such a diminutive fraction,
It’s riskier walking in rain. 

Yes, there are people who put money first,
And yes, there are doctors who may be coerced,
But the system discovers the worst of the worst
So respectable carers remain. 

Yes, there are those spouting cover-up claims,
And yes, they’re prepared to speak out and name names,
But they’re not whistle-blowers with chivalrous aims,
They are fools among whom stupid thrives. 

Yes, some diseases aren’t here anymore,
And yes, there are peer-reviewed studies galore,
Though the anti-vax canards keep making me snore,
It’s quite clear: VACCINATION SAVES LIVES.

Introducing...

There's been a lot of attention directed toward the Woodford Folk Festival in Queensland this week; a week-long extravaganza of music, food, speakers and general merry-making. The inclusion of the consistently-dodgy Australian Vaccination Network's Meryl Dorey as a speaker this year has caused a bit of stir, motivating many sensible people to express their concern to the festival organisers, sponsors and the world. 

Jason Brown has been capably summarising the whole shebang here - worth a read if you want to get up to speed.

My thoughts? The fact that Meryl is speaking at the festival doesn't make me angry in itself - although to be perfectly honest, if she happened to disappear in a puff of smoke in the next five minutes it would save me a lot of time forking myself in the temple. What irritates me is the credulous and non-ironic way she is billed as an expert in the field of vaccination, and promoted as somebody who can provide reliable information about topics such as immunology, toxicity and autism. She isn't. She can't. 

I would be much happier about her appearance if she was billed and introduced accurately, citing her lack of qualifications or expertise, her many arguments with the truth and her long history of, shall we say, administrative trouble. I've taken the trouble to jot down an appropriate introduction to her appearance:

Ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys, please welcome to the stage,

The best-known anti-vaccination fibber of our age.

A practitioner of obfuscation, fear and superstition,

Who’s been called out by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission,

And the AMA, the ABC, OLGR and more.

She sells non-existent magazine subscriptions in her store.

Folks, the woman who’s about to speak to you in this pavilion

Doesn’t know what “research” means, nor “my mistake” nor “parts per billion”.

She doesn’t know ‘morbidity’ from ‘people being dead’;

And her only real credential is the brain inside her head;

A brain that pleads the Fifth when large donations disappear;

And that thinks “medical journal” means the same as “New Idea”

One that wanes when faced with facts, but faced with Natural News it waxes;

A brain that thinks that homeopathy is prophylaxis.

She’s an expert in the field of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc;

You can bet the farm that everything she says today’s a crock.

It’s my pleasure to present, in all her dazed, downtrodden glory,

The queen of the conspiracy – I give you Meryl Dorey.

Chuck.

Because immunology and back-spinning axe-kicks are pretty much the same.

It appears that everyone’s favourite hardcore martial arts hero, television star and conservative gun-toting young Earth creationist, Chuck Norris, doesn’t have enough to do. In a recent column in WorldNetDaily, he’s demonstrated his considerable expertise in the field of Expanding the Audience of Long-Dead Anti-Vaccine Canards by claiming that the link between vaccines and autism is alive and well. And if anyone’s excited by the idea of combining rhymes, anti-vaccine craziness and martial arts, it’s yours truly.

If you want a bearded hero
With a slick crime-fighting plan;
And you want to punch some bad guys,
Then Chuck Norris is your man.

He can give Bruce Lee a hiding,
He can kick above his head,
He can fight a bunch of terrorists
And make them fully dead.

Did you see him waste a drug lord,
And defend the written law?
Did you see his awesome chest hair?
Did you see his chiselled jaw?

If you want a hard-arsed sheriff,
To whom different rules apply;
If you want a hero’s hero,
Then Chuck Norris is your guy.

But if you want expert guidance,
Or advice on vaccination
Or some evidence regarding
Earth’s immaculate creation,

Don’t ask someone like Chuck Norris.
‘Cause he doesn’t know, of course.
He is Walker, Texas Ranger,
Not an information source.

The Back-Crackin' Blues

As the highly capable and consistently awesome Dr Rachie has documented recently, there's been some trouble brewing in Australian chiropractic circles. For a long time, a significant slab of chiropractors have claimed to successfully treat all manner of disease and dysfunction, based on the scientifically-suspect notion of vertebral subluxation, originally proposed by "magnetic healer" Daniel David Palmer in the late 19th Century. Whenever such claims come under close scrutiny, it causes something of a hand-flapping flurry amongst the chiropractic community. Today I've attempted to capture the essence of their discomfort.

Woke up this morning

Was feelin’ fine

Thought I’d go stick my elbow

In a two-year-old’s spine.

I got the blues.

Got them back-crackin’ blues. 

D.D. Palmer’s my hero;

Chiropractic’s own king;

Claimed that subluxation,

Causes every damn thing.

I got the blues.

Got them quack-backin’, back crackin’ blues. 

When my claims about chiro;

For diseases and such;

Have been tested with science;

They don’t mean nothin’ much.

I got the blues.

Got them fact-lackin’, quack-backin’, back-crackin’ blues. 

I think most vaccinations;

Are as evil as hell.

‘Course that’s just my opinion;

And my colleagues’ as well.

I got the blues.

Got them vax-whackin’, fact-lackin’, quack-backin’, back-crackin’ blues.

Doctor What?

Because sometimes they is, and sometimes they ain't.

There are Doctors of Philosophy, who’ve earned their PhDs;
There are those who work in medicine, with medical degrees;
There are those who treat bad teeth, bent minds and lame, asthmatic horses;
There are those who filled in forms online for correspondence courses.

There is Doctor Nancy Malik and there’s Doctor Nimrod Weiner;
Then there’s Doctor Charlene Werner with her jovial demeanour;
There is Doctor Vicki Monroe, who can talk to wayward spirits;
And there’s Doctor Sherri Tenpenny, from whom I get the irrits.

Doctor Who, at least, has got a solid grasp of basic science;
And Doctor Faust was smart, despite his sinister alliance;
There was method to the evil plots of Doctor Fu Manchu;
And the bumbling but well-meaning Doctor Bunsen Honeydew.

Doctor Jekyll was quite clever, though his Mr Hyde was shocking;
And that Doctor Frank-N-Furter wore a fetching fishnet stocking;
Doctor Zaius had a brilliant mind AND thumbs upon his feet;
And few ills could not be soothed by Doc-Doc-Doc-Doc-Doctor Beat.

Doctor Feelgood made Aretha wail in special lady ways;
Doctor Dolittle could talk with hawks and chat with cats for days;
Doctor Strangelove could control a bomb, but not his maverick arm;
Doctor Evil was a modern Doctor No, without the charm.

With so many so-called doctors, maybe something needs explaining;
Which are worthwhile? Which are evil? Which are merely entertaining?
Any fool can pop some letters on the edges of their name;
So be wary of the difference: quacks and surgeons ain’t the same.

Now, a rose by any other name is still a lovely sight;
And if you call a spade a spade when it’s a shovel, that’s not right;
Elton John is just plain ‘Reginald’ when all is said and done;
And if you call yourself a Doctor, then that doesn’t make you one.


Hat tips: Bastard Sheep, Reasonable Hank and Carol C.

Fibs.

They’re just words. They don’t mean anything.

For a long time, I’ve watched Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network perform regular contortions of the truth to match her skewed world view that vaccines are anything but a safe, reliable, scientific success story. It’s been almost entertaining to watch her try and weasel her way out of half-truths, conspiracy theories and offensive analogies.

It seems she’s just not trying anymore. Let’s do a little comprehension exercise, to see how clever you are by comparison.

Step 1: click on this link and read the first two paragraphs of the story – it’s about a 7-month-old child in Myanmar who contracted polio.

Step 2: Answer the following question:

Was the child in the story vaccinated or not?

Hint: You may go back and re-read the story as many times as you want before you answer.

If you answered ‘No, the child was not vaccinated against polio’, you have adequate comprehension skills. I’d hazard a guess that you can read and understand English at a workable standard.

If you answered ‘Yes, the child was vaccinated against polio’, then I’m afraid you’re only as literate as our friend Ms Dorey, and it's possible that you're incapable of comprehending any word in this sentence over two syllables (or running a credible vaccine information organisation).

Yup. Meryl tweeted a link to the story in question which stated, “Infant gets polio from vaccine”.

Here’s a screenshot of @nocompulsoryvac’s tweet, which I’ve reproduced here for the purposes of comment and criticism.

Doink.

The Anti-Vaccinator Translator

Because I'm not as polite inside my head.

A few months ago, I did my best to help people decipher the many linguistic liberties that are taken by pushers of woo. But fair's fair. Today I want to help the other side.

As both of my regular readers probably know, I can get quite a bee in my bonnet about the anti-vaccination movement; but because I was brought up so well, and because my Mum often reads what I write, I usually try to maintain a certain politeness in my communications regarding this group of wayward folk. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm not cussing like a tinker and wishing them many innovative forms of torture inside my head. Sometimes, unfortunately, that means I don't quite get my point across - that is, I'm bloody annoyed.

So here, I'd like to translate the civilities that you may find me posting in facebook groups and on twitter back into plainer language. If you're a deluded anti-vaxxer 'pro-choice' advocate, this should help you understand what I'm really trying to say out there in nicey-nicey land.

So you say autism’s caused by vaccination. Where’s your proof?
Means “If you mention Andrew Wakefield, I will hit the bloody roof.”

Are you qualified in health care? Should a parent trust in you?
Means “Please don’t say you have a brain, ‘cause I’ll need evidence there, too.”

There are two sides to this issue. Let’s give each viewpoint its due.
Means “I’ll choose evidence-based experts over daft, dishonest woo.”

You maintain that homeopathy works wonders. On what basis?
Means "Your logic’s so misplaced, your arse should sit right where your face is.”

Do you really think the souls of those against you are Big Pharma’s?
Means “Hey! Where’s my cheque? My Krug? My Porsche? My trip to the Bahamas?”

Google-browsing isn’t research. There’s no doctorate called “Mum”.
Means "I don’t think you’d know real science if it bit you on the bum.”

You’re quite good at using terms associated with vaccines.
Means “I don’t think that big word you just used means what you think it means.”

You are clearly anti-vaccination, aren’t you? Why deny it?
Means “Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Be quiet.”