Disconnection - Skeptical Ramblings and Rants

Homeopathic concepts and evidence

2012-08-02T19:54:00.001-07:00

Today folks, I am going to introduce you to the concept of homeopathy and the evidence that backs it...

Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your comments.

Denial, persecution and subjectivity - an anti vaxers arsenal.

2012-08-01T20:57:00.001-07:00

One of the things that antivaxers are so well known for is their ability to spin and twist reality; opponents of this movement experience this on a near daily basis. They are famous for quote mining, bending the truth and outright fabricating stories in order for them to indulge in their conformation biases.

I wrote two days ago about a mystery blogger on Meryl Doreys blog, where she went right out and played the victim card, within a hand of persecution complex poker.

Today, she has responded, and for the first time ever - Meryl Dorey has posted on Stop the Australian (anti)Vaccination Networks Facebook page to display this stunning display of derptitude, and one can only guess, to garner more ammunition for what she expects commenters on the SAVN page will say.

Also, the mystery author is no longer a mystery. She identifies herself as Tasha David.

She begins her post by priming her audience with platitudes as to why bullying is wrong, and why we should protect those that are bullied against. She then turns this around and begins by quote mining my post (as well as not referencing my post at all - tut tut, but what should one expect from an antivaxer? They do have an aversion to referencing evidence after-all). Where-as I broke down her piece in full, and responded to each point, she has the audacity to only quote what she considers to be the "nasty" parts of my post, displaying for all and sundry to see without providing a single piece of context. So, in the tradition of full transparency, I will again break down her latest blubber, emotion, evidence-less, anti vaccine trope filled post bit by bit.

My name is Tasha David and I am the widowed mother of 8 children, 6 of whom were vaccinated and as a result, have neurodevelopmental and autoimmune disorders. They have suffered from eczema, asthma, psoriasis, chronic ear infections, gastrointestinal disorders (ie chronic diarrhea, chronic constipation and urinary tract infections), food allergies and intolerances, and chemical sensitivities while my 2 youngest unvaccinated children have NONE of their sibling’s disorders.

This my dear readers, as I am sure you are aware is what is known as an appeal to emotion. If you are rather light on evidence, play the audience with the only thing you are able to do, by tugging at their heart strings.

For many years now, anti vaxers around the globe have claimed that vaccines have hurt or even killed their child in some fashion, all the while claiming that their detractors shout that every single vaccine is 100% safe and effective. One thing that unites nearly (notice that I said 'nearly') every single claim is the staggering lack of evidence that backs their stories of woe and heartbreak. As par the course, I notice that Tasha has also not provided a lick of evidence to back her claim of vaccine damage.

Don't get me wrong, if your children do indeed have neurological and autoimmune disorders, it would be brutish of me to dismiss their plight out of hand. You would be hard pressed to find an anti-vaccine critic that would. However, this is a usual tactic that is employed by the anti vax brigade; tug at the heart strings, pull out the appeal to emotion, call forth the ire of those that agree with you so that you can feel vind icated in your cries of persecution.

Sorry Tanya, but that simply does not cut it. As you have probably heard a hundred times before - anecdotes != data. You have not provided a single stitch of evidence to back your assertion, from what I can see, you simply "think" that they have been damaged in some way. A little bit of basic statistics would do wonders for you, to be more concise - correlation does not equal causation.

You would do well to remember that.

My two youngest children are the picture of health. None of them have had antibiotics, and only one of them has needed to go to the doctor and that was just to check out the wax build up in his ears. Watching them thrive is bittersweet. I look at the joy, excitement and wonder that they have for the world and think this is what my other children would have experienced if I had let them grow and develop naturally.

All of that means absolutely nothing. I can tell you hundreds of anecdotes about families that have had their children completely vaccinated and are in turn, "pictures of health". So please, can you tell me how your anecdote trumps that of families that have done the right thing by their communities? I can answer that for you - It doesn't.

I am also one of the many members who make up the Australian Vaccination Network who have vaccine injured children and who the bullies out there want to silence. They feel that we have no right to voice our concerns; that our personal experiences are meaningless, and that we shouldn’t even exist!

Who are they to say who has the right to be heard, let alone exist?

We don't want to silence you, or any other people that feel that they have been done wrong. What we do want to do however, is to stop the spread of misinformation, for the public to actually be educated on the topic, rather than relying on the lies of sites such as Age of Autism, Natural News and Mercola.

The whole reason SAVN exists is not to silence Meryl Dorey and her acolytes, but to put an end to her outright fraud and lies. She has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from AVN members and the public alike. She has promised vaccine testing, and never delivered. She has promised bounty bags, and never delivered. She asked for funds for lawyer costs when she went against the HCCC earlier this year, only to go ahead with a pro bono lawyer. She has begged for money for all of the above and has not given a single thing in return to the members of the AVN or the public at large.

Then, on top of that is her magazine scam. Of which, she originally promised six issues a year. In the last two, she has published only two or three issues. Subscribers have paid good money for this, and she continuously does not deliver. More can be read about this here at the AVN magazine money making machine.

This, as well as her continual lies and slurs regarding her critics are what we want to put an end to. We do not want to end free speech, we do not want to silence people such as you.

Why do they believe that only the information that they deem pertinent should be allowed in the public arena?

Why? Because the information that we glean about vaccination comes from the science itself. It is objective, it is solid and it has a large body of evidence to back it. The information that you use (from looking at your twitter feed) comes from sites such as Age of Autism, an anti vaccine crank blog that only has one objective - to end vaccines. Sites such as that claim that vaccines cause autism as well as other chronic conditions. All of which have not a lick of objective evidence to back it.

There is a reason why rational people do not want misinformation in the public arena. Especially when it comes to something as important as vaccination. Misinformation endangers lives. It endangers the most vulnerable in our society, it endangers those that the vaccine programs around the world are designed to protect.

Ignorance should never be celebrated as it is within anti vax circles.

Do they not feel that people are capable of making up their own mind about what is right for their own families?

Just as two people can look at the same picture but have two different interpretations, it does not mean that one is wrong and one is right, it is just that they see things differently.

Clearly, from looking at the AVN Facebook page - the majority aren't capable of making actual informed decisions regarding vaccination. They prefer conspiracy theory over objective reality, they prefer anecdotes over evidence.

In the world of objective reality, there is indeed a right and wrong answer. Reality does not bend to the will of ones belief. 1+1 will always equal 2, never 5 and never 10.

This is one of the major driving forces behind the antivaccine (indeed, any conspiratorial ) movement; the insistence that their beliefs are as valid as the objective evidence that they disagree with. This simply isn't the case. If we used this as a backbone for interpreting our universe, we would not have the technologies and luxuries we enjoy today.

What may be right for your child may not be right for mine, so it is my job as a parent to make that choice for my child, I do not know your child so I have no right to even try to tell you what to do with yours. We all want healthy children, it’s just that we see different ways of achieving this.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Of course, you have every right to make the right choices for your child. However, just because you belive you are making the right choices, does not mean that they are indeed the right choice. What you are failing to take into consideration is the fact that you are placing your warped ideology before the well being of your children. You are also endangering those around you that are not able to be vaccinated, and you are further contributing to the breakdown of herd immunity.

By not vaccinating, you are running the risk of them contracting diseases that can maim, and in some cases kill them. The benefits outweigh the risks, there is no argument here, no matter how much you deny reality.

I believe with all my heart that people should have the right to choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but the choice should always be theirs to make. When you fight to silence another person’s point of view because it contradicts your own then it shows that you do not have faith in your own convictions.

I write this today not for the bullies, but for the parents like me, who are feeling downtrodden, disheartened and persecuted. We cannot let the bullies win. If we stop asking questions, sharing our personal experiences and supporting each other for fear of ridicule then they have already won.

We must stand up and support each other and ignore the insults and slights from those who would have us cower in fear, do as we have taught our children to do, stand up to the bullies together and take our power back.

We are not fighting for people to stop vaccinating, we are fighting for people’s right to hear all the information available and make their own choices.

I take heart from this quote from Mahatma Gandhi…

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it—always.”

Horrible atrocities have occurred in our history when people are allowed to oppress others, and we lose our humanity when we allow this to happen.

This should be no person’s goal for another.

Tasha David

And here we have the apex of the emotional plea. The throne upon which your persecution complex sits upon and weeps. It is here that you are enabling your fellow anti vaxers to stand up and feel righteous in their subjective beliefs, to feel that anyone that criticises their deluded ideologies are oppressing them.

It is here that you are trying to reach the public with cries of oppression and discrimination, when there is none to actually be seen.

You are chasing ghosts, mere whispers down the hallway, your tears preventing you from seeing what is really there. It is a sad state of affairs when you can let yourself fall down the rabbit hole so far.

There is hope however. I managed to crawl may way out of that hole. I managed to stop putting stock in myth, conspiracy and nightmare fantasies.

I sincerely hope that one day you will too. For your families sake, for your communities sake.

Of righteous indignation, persecution complexes and hubris.

2012-07-30T15:36:00.000-07:00

So, it has been some time since I put fingers to keyboard, as I have been busy putting the final touches on my degree. Now that has been done (all that is left is to graduate!), I find that I have extra time to twiddle my thumbs and spend a tad too much time on the Internet; and oh what a time has been had in the last week.

As you may be aware, I am involved with a movement that is trying to put an end to a rather vile and misinformed group of people that go by the deceptive name of the "Australian Vaccination Network". At first glance, this name would suggest that it is a group that advocates the use of vaccines, helping those that have queries regarding the most important medical breakthrough of our time come to sensible decisions.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the past fortnight, there have been calls from various advocacy groups that the AVN change its deceptive name. Peter Bowditch wrote about this in a recent Mammamia article. This has raised the ire of the AVN and its legion of slobbering, window licking brethren. Not only did Peter comment on the need for a name change, but he also provided evidence of Meryl Dorey's (Past president/current president/insert name of organisational appointment here for the AVN) blatant hypocrisy. Hypocrisy you say?

Did I say that? I don't believe I did, let me see...

That's right. She advocated to her minions that they contact grieving families in order to bolster their deluded claims that vaccines cause SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), she then went on to say in another thread that she never said any such thing. It seems that it isn't only honesty that anti vaxers have trouble with, but reality as well.

Peter Tierney has covered this in an excellent recent blog entry at Reasonable Hank .

Now, this brings us to two days ago. In a display of absolute social media ignorance, Meryl Dorey decided to lambaste Peter Bowditch on Twitter by using a hashtag called #dumpBowditch in a rather pathetic attempt to get Mammamia to stop publishing any more articles by Bowditch. If you don;t use Twitter, hastags are usually used to collate common threads of interest so that many people who share the same interests can view anything tweeted by the multitudes regarding that topic. An example would be #atheism, or #cooking or #stopAVN. Hashtags are extremely useful, especially if you wish to follow and event that is taking place at any given time. However, they are only useful if more than *one* person is making use of it. Meryl Dorey clearly doesn't understand this. And as such, many of us "ebil septics" flooded the hashtag with declarations of just how awesome Peter Bowditch is, essentially pushing down Doreys inconsequential tweets to near non existence.

One would have thought that Meryl would have given up by now.

Unfortunately - no.

This brings us to today. I awoke this morning, made a coffee, wiped the sleep from my eyes and went through my normal routine of checking emails, Facebook updates and tweets, and what do I find? A rather hilarious blog post from the AVN by an anonymous contributor, full of gnashing teeth about the supposed "discrimination" that they apparently experience on a day to day basis.

This, my dear readers is the reason why I am writing this blog post. What follows is a paragraph by paragraph breakdown of the lines of ineptitude written by the brave, anonymous mummy warrior.

Our history is full of people using terms to incite hostility, fear and resentment against other groups, and now is the age of the ‘Anti Vaxxer’ – the title given to people who question the safety and in some cases the necessity of vaccinations.

If you look in the newspapers or on the internet, you will see that people who question vaccine safety are ridiculed, condemned and discriminated against on quite a regular basis. You might think, “Surely this behaviour is not promoted by supposedly intelligent, rational beings in this day and age?”, but unfortunately you would be wrong.

If you are against the use of vaccines, you are an "anti-vaxer". Rather simple logic. Yet somehow, brave anonymous blogger equates this with discrimination. There is a reason you are all ridiculed and condemned - you threaten the lives of the community around you. Your ignorant, uneducated decision to eschew vaccines in favour of insanely stupid alternative therapies only deserves contempt.

When did raising your child with love, respect, a healthy diet, plenty of fresh air, sunshine and exercise, while limiting their exposure to toxins become a crime?

Nothing wrong with love, fresh air and a healthy diet. Nobody has ever said otherwise. However, you clearly show your complete and utter ignorance of toxicology by using the rather bad strawman regarding supposed "toxins". There are no toxins to found found in any vaccine. By your logic, nobody should drink water. Too much of any given chemical is toxic. The adjuvants and preservatives found in any given vaccine are well below toxic levels. But hey, never let reality get in the way of a good bit of fear mongering eh?

If you listen to what these people are saying, anyone who does not vaccinate their child is a money grabbing, disease causing, child killer.

Well yes- you are. Especially lately in regards to the Australian immunisation allowance. Why do you think you are entitled to this allowance when you do not vaccinate? That seems like a good deal of money grabbing to me. If you do not vaccinate your children, they are at greater risk of contracting disease, and therefore spreading said disease to others - including those responsible enough to vaccinate (no vaccine is 100% effective). If you refuse a whooping cough vaccine to an infant, and they then catch pertussis, there is a chance that they can die. Child killer indeed.

So who are these supposed child killers’?

Many are parents who have vaccine injured/killed children; some are educated and health-conscious individuals who want a more natural approach to good health; and some are alternative practitioners, doctors or scientists. Do any of these groups sound like child killers to you? What they all have in common is something that most of us take for granted: the belief that everyone deserves the right to decide what the best health choices are for themselves and their families

Many are parents of vaccine injured children, even though there is yet to be a stitch of evidence to be seen by any of these parents that vaccines caused any damage to their children. Correlation != causation. And again, you hit us with yet another strawman in regards to every ones right to decide heath choices for their families. Nobody is trying to take away your rights, we are just trying to make sure that everyone is properly educated, that people do the socially responsible thing - by vaccinating their families. As for your alternative practitioners, why do you not question their mostly questionable practices? A good chunk of the anti vax brigade rely on homeopathy in place of modern medicine, this in itself is insane.

I find the hostile attitude towards parents of vaccine injured children particularly astounding, as parents of children that have been killed or disabled have always been treated with an outpouring of compassion, understanding and empathy. If the death or injury have been caused by a vaccine however, they are somehow no longer worthy of these basic human emotions.

There is a reason for much of the hostility. It has to do with your hubris, in that you feel that you are better educated than the thousands of dedicated professionals that have accumulated the massive body of evidence in favour of vaccine programs worldwide. Your constant claims that doctors and researchers are in the pockets of "big pharma", all the while not providing a bit of evidence to support this claim. It is the fact that you are contributing to the break down of herd immunity, this same immunity that helps to protect the most vulnerable in our society - the immunocompromised, new-borns and the elderly. Why do you feel that your ignorant, hubris and emotional filled arguments should be seen as an equal in the world of objectively based research? Yet again we see another strawman argument in regards to people supposedly not caring if a child is injured by a vaccine, this is sheer nonsense, and only aids in adding to the froth that boils from the mouths of the anti vaccine crowd.

Instead, we get open hostility and contempt as seen in the case of Peter Bowditch who asks vaccine-injured parents if they get sexual pleasure from seeing dead babies!

And how does our society respond to a man who can say such vile things? Well, apparently it is no big deal, as he still continues to write articles for the popular women’s and children’s website Mamamia! Is this the kind of individual who should be writing about women and children’s health?

Whilst many of us may not agree with the way that Peter put that forward, he at least owns it and takes responsibility for it. The argument that is portrayed still stands as effective however. Anti vaxers seem to get delight from the deaths of infants from VPDs, there can be no other explanation for the dismal lack of regard for their childrens wellbeing, there can be no other explanation for the fact that antivaxers place their warped ideology before the needs of their families.

Another very disturbing aspect to come out of this portrayal of ‘anti vaxxers’ is that the media, government and medical vaccine advocates are working together in promoting an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. These groups are actively condoning discrimination and in turn, persecution of the Australian Vaccination Network, it’s founder Meryl Dorey and anyone associated with them. Is this what our true Aussie spirit is about now? Be there for your mate but only if he vaccinates.

It is not the media, not the government and not vaccine advocates that are portraying an "us vs them mentality", it is you. The blame for this can only be placed on the heads of anti vaxers everywhere, you both create and follow manufactroversies, ideologies that are designed to alienate and divide. You have separated yourself from the rest of society by not adhering to your social contract, by eschewing rationality and critical thinking and in its place taking up conspiracy theory and illogical emotional pleas. You are all to blame for this, not the government, not the media and certainly not those that oppose your very existence.

We as a society believe that discrimination, harassment and persecution against minorities or any law-abiding citizen is unconscionable. Now however, it seems that it is acceptable if the minority or individual in question does not vaccinate to a government approved schedule.

Just as religion is not beyond criticism of its dogma, anti vaccine rhetoric is also not beyond the reach of critical analysis and outright derision. You are not a racial minority, you are not a sexuality - you are a group of misinformed, tin foil hat wearing, slobbering conspiracy theorists. That you feel you should be beyond the reach of those that oppose you screams hubris. Dunning and Kruger would be very proud.

What these harassers of ‘anti-vaxxers’ do not realise (or maybe they do) is that they are laying the foundation for persecution and repression of people that are just trying to raise their families in the healthiest way possible.

The path to repression begins with many small steps. It starts with the gradual wearing away of someone else’s rights through restriction of employment, public education, and government entitlements. Then comes ostracism whilst creating fear, hostility and resentment towards the group in question from the rest of society. Not too soon after that, segregation comes in to the mix.

Just as the fundamental Christians of the USA are expert at building a complex of persecution, so to it seems are anti vaxers. I find it hilarious that you feel we are slowly stripping away your right to public education, when it is abundantly clear that you have not utilised this at any stage in order to properly educate yourself in regards to science based medicine. You then have the audacity to complain about not receiving government entitlements (one can only assume you mean the Maternity Immunisation Allowance), when you don't vaccinate in the first place.

Segregation, seriously? How far down the rabbit hole does one have to be to believe that their insane ideologies are somehow above reality, and that the rest of the world want to segregate them from the rest of humanity? You are not a race, you are not a sexual preference. You are a bunch of fringe dwelling conspiracy theorists that have no social conscience.

You may think that this is an unlikely scenario, but I cannot tell you how many times everyday mums and dads have told me to keep my children out of schools with vaccinated children; to stay out of public places where vaccinated people may be exposed to our disease-causing germs; some have even wished that all people who don’t vaccinate could be murdered or expressed a wish for their children to die from disease!

There is an entirely rational reason why we don't want to come into contact with your unvaccinated children. They are more likely to contract a given illness, therefore are at greater risk of being vectors for said disease. No vaccine is 100% effective, vaccinated children can still run a small risk of contracting disease. Your unvaccinated children are a risk to others around them.

As for your claim about people wishing the children of anti vaxers dead - yet another strawman to get your fellow anti vaxers frothing and foaming at the mouth, only for them to punch away at their drool covered keyboards, spreading the same nonsense that you have just splurged onto our screens. I have not seen anyone wish another's child dead. Even if one solitary person has said this, it by no means represents the body of people that oppose your nonsense.

Countless times in history we have seen that ugliness in human nature breeds more ugliness. Intolerance, discrimination, persecution, repression are all formed through fear and hatred. Have we learned nothing from the past, or are we just so insecure that we always have to look for someone to oppress in order to make ourselves feel powerful and dominant?

If this type of hostility continues towards people who just want the right to make choices for their own families, what do we have to look forward to in the future?

Now you are just flogging a dead horse. I have addressed all this in replies above.

So there we have it folks. The righteous indignation of the anti vax movement. Persecution complex and hubris in motion.

Do you know what the best argument against this is?

Getting yourself and your family vaccinated.

Look to the skies Meryl Dorey, look to the skies.

2011-12-28T16:26:00.000-08:00

Today is the 29th of December. Nearly the end of a year that has seen a lot of up and downs for me personally; nearly the end of a year that has seen Meryl Dorey of the Australian [anti] Vaccination Network struggle on with her lies, and outright warping of truth to the vulnerable and deluded alike. Right now, as you may be reading this there is a large festival taking place in Australia, a cornucopia of hippy love and light, music, organic food and unfortunately alt med practitioners pushing whatever flavour of woo that takes their fancy (they even have a homeopathic "first aid" tent, for when you know - you are dehydrated or something). The Woodford Folk Festival is possibly the largest of its kind in Australia, maybe in the Southern Hemisphere. Generally pretty harmless stuff, something that I would even take a liking too if the bands are any good.

Right now, as this is published, if you are attending Woodford and look up at the sky you may notice something circling the grounds. A plane is now going over carrying possibly the most important message that anyone is touting that day.

VACCINATION SAVE LIVES.

Three words and not a lie to be found within the simple sentence, it is an absolute statement, and one that carries with it the gratitude of the millions that never contracted polio, smallpox, measles, chicken pox, rubella or even cervical cancer.

However, not everyone is grateful. Indeed, there are people out there that feel that vaccines are the bane of society and do more harm than good. Of course, they have no evidence for this, and rely on the twisting of truth, quote mining and outright lies of the people they have decided to entrust their health with. One of the people that they trust is Meryl Dorey.

Over a month ago Mammamia, an Australian website that deals with maternal and family issues, published an article by Peter Bowditch. This article went into a little depth about Meryl Dorey and the Woodford Festival, and Dorey's upcoming speech there. The article covered what Dorey would be addressing, specifically the now debunked myth that vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccine, cause autism. The talk, entitled "Autism Emergency: 1 child in 38" would have seen Dorey spread lies as though they were facts and would have led to innocent people being misled, and ultimately even more innocent children and immunocompromised falling ill with preventable disease.

Knowing the actual facts regarding this oft debunked myth, a small group of concerned Australians (and others from around the world) comprising of laymen such as myself, GPs, Epidemiologists, specialists, Immunologists, and general skeptics of nonsense claims called the appropriateness of Doreys appearance at Woodford into question. Now, bear in mind that this wasn't a campaign to silence Dorey, although she would desperately want you to believe that this is an issue of free speech, it's not; this is about public health and the public's right to the CORRECT information, and their right to not be misled by people that have no qualifications in immunology, virology, biology, epidemiology or any of the other fields and expertise of science and public health I may have missed. Oh no, she feels that she is an "expert" because she has been reading on the topic for twenty years. It doesn't matter to her that what she is reading is either taken completely out of context, or are complete fabrications.

However since the backlash against her appearance at Woodford, Dorey began crying that people were trying to take her supposed freedom of speech from her ( in Australia, freedom of speech is not a constitutional right) and that those who oppose her are somehow in the employ of the big pharmaceutical companies.

The crux of this however, is that Dorey is worried that her main source of income will be taken away from her. Her organisation, the deceptively named "Australian Vaccination Network" advertises for magazine subscriptions, of which, only one publication has seen the light of day in the past year (when there should have been six); the organisations Facebook page also contains a store in which you can buy overpriced videos (which can be accessed for free elsewhere on the internet), t-shirts that bare the slogan "Love them, protect them, never inject them", and anti psychiatry videos from an arm of Scientology called CCHR (the Citizens Commission on Human Rights). The OLGR (Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing) withdrew her charitable status in 2010, meaning that she could no longer accept donations from the public. In 2010, the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission found that the AVN:

Provides information that is solely anti-vaccination

Contains information that is incorrect and misleading

Quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.

Due to this, the HCCC requested that the AVN place a warning on their website:

"The AVN’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination, in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere.
The information provided by the AVN should not be read as medical advice.
The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider."

However, to this date - Dorey has not placed the warning on her website due to her claim that the AVN is not anti vaccine but "pro-choice". This is a patent lie and detracts from the movement that is actually "pro-choice" (and which has nothing to do with vaccinations).

Now, we travel a little bit forward in time from a month ago. The Woodford festival had still refused to either take Dorey off the billing, or even to confront her regarding her lies and misrepresentations. Then, on Christmas Eve, Doreys detractors got an early present. Instead of Dorey having the stage all to herself, the festival had decided to crumble a little due to the heat they were getting from concerned people from around the country and decided to put Dorey up on stage with an actual expert. Professor Andreas Suhrbier is

an immunologist with vast expertise in the science behind vaccinations. One would be hard pressed to find someone with better qualifications and experience.

This change however is a two edged sword. Dorey is a good public speaker, that much is not in doubt. She also employs a debating tactic, much used by proponents of creationism and climate change denialism, called Gish Galloping. Essentially, she will stand there and spit out studies that have been taken completely out of context, general lies and fudged statistics. If one doesn't know anything about the topic at hand, this can all end up sounding rather convincing. Due to how Gish Galloping works, it is VERY hard to counter everything that is lied about for the simple fact of the volume of lies being told. This also seems to legitimise her, as putting Dorey next to a REAL expert (not the imagined expertise Dorey claims) is as good as saying that there are actually two sides to this topic, that there is a reason for "balance"; when the opposite is closer to reality.

Now we bring the clock up to date to the present day, to the present minute. Right now, you may be looking up at the sky to see a plane circling the festival towing the legend "VACCINATIONS SAVE LIVES". If you are lucky enough to have internet access and are reading this or the many blogs published, right at this very moment, you will by now have a very clear understanding of why that plane is circling.

The very same people that steadfastly opposed Dorey and her appearance at Woodford are also the same people that pitched together and came up with, and funded this idea.

Three words; more succinct than any Gish Gallop from Dorey, more honest than her total twenty years of "research". A message, that if heeded, can save the lives of millions more.

VACCINATION SAVE LIVES.

Meryl Dorey and her trouble with dissenting voices.

2011-10-01T22:21:00.000-07:00

Within the last week, Meryl Dorey - of the deceivingly named AVN (Australian Vaccination Network) - has created a Google Group in which people from both sides of the vaccine "debate" can air their views and present to each other evidence for their arguments. This group - "Vaccination - Respectful Debate" can be found here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/vaccination-respectful-debate

There is already something clearly wrong with the title of this group. Anyone that has even a basic understanding of science knows that objective reality is not something one can "debate" into existence. There is no argument in science or rational society that vaccination does not protect individuals and the society at large from dangerous disease. Clearly one may discuss the pros and cons of any given vaccination. However, the only way to garner the proper evidence is through the scientific method. This is something that Meryl Dorey and her acolytes either seem to not understand or are willfully ignorant of.

I wasn't going to comment in this group as there were already more than enough people capable of keeping anti vaccine stupidity at arms length. However, that changed when I noticed an introduction from a prominent homeopath, Fran Sheffield of "Homeopathy Plus!" .

Now, her introduction is fine. Until we get to this gem here. "Instead, I'm hoping to discuss how homeopathy protects against disease - the very thing the pro-vaccine camp wants - but without the risks that are such a concern to the anti-vaccine camp."

This is rather disturbing. There is absolutely no supporting studies to back the efficacy of homeopathic treatments. The very idea of homeopathy itself is laughable. It cannot work beyond placebo, due to the fact that water does not have mysterious memory qualities claimed by homeopaths, and due to the level of dilution. If you wish to know more about the insanity that is homeopathy, you would do well to read Oracs blog post regarding it.

Now, I replied to Fran, inquiring as to just what homeopathy has to do with the topic of vaccinations:

All of which, I considered to be relevant and reasonable questions. Homeopathy in regards to vaccination is irrelevant, therefore unsubstantiated treatments should take a backseat.

If one were to look at Frans fee schedule , you would then have a better understanding of why she wishes to pitch her voice into groups such as this, they are veritable feeding grounds for unscrupulous snake oil salesmen/woman. If there is one thing we all know about the anti vaccine movement, there are a lot of gulible and confused people. Perfect marks for a person such as Fran Sheffield. One should prepare themselves to feel slightly more than a bit disgusted at the prices she charges for pensioner consultations, and yes - vaccination consultations.

My post was henceforth berated by Meryl:

Dear Scott,

It is amazing to me that you feel you have the right to decide what is relevant and what is not on a list that you have neither set up nor are involved with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is your first post and you have not even introduced yourself yet and here you are making bold-faced statements about a subject which I believe you may not have any expertise in. It is ok to say that you don't believe that homeopathy has any basis in science and therefore, you choose not to accept that it works. But there are many people on this list who have successfully used homeopathy for years (i am one of those) and since there is a portion of homeopathy that is involved with the prevention of infectious diseases - homeoprophylaxis - a discussion of this is absolutely appropriate here.

Also, you are complaining that Fran 'sells' homeoprophylaxis and therefore, she is not able to discuss this here. I cannot possibly imagine you saying the same thing to a mainstream doctor who 'sells' drugs.

Please do not let your prejudices about what you 'believe' and what you don't 'believe' get in the way of having a respectful debate. If you don't agree with something someone says, then say so but your post is far from respectful and your objective reality is not everyone else's. This list is for the discussion of the pros and cons of vaccination and discussing scientific evidence of both the safety and efficacy of alternatives in comparison with vaccination is an important part of the debate.

Kind regards,
Meryl

Sent from my iPad

Meryl seems to think that as a skeptic I base my conclusions on belief. This has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with ensuring that people actually do make an informed decision when it comes to their health. Asking for evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy, indeed, homeoprophylaxis would certainly come under the banner of "informed choice". Please note that Meryl has also said:

This list is for the discussion of the pros and cons of vaccination and discussing scientific evidence of both the safety and efficacy of alternatives in comparison with vaccination is an important part of the debate.

This will be even more relevant later on.

From there, I decided that I would create a new thread within the group titled "Homeopathy and the relevance to vaccination". I wanted there to be free and open discussion regarding this topic as homeopathy is an unfounded alternative mode of treatment, and should not even be brought up as a viable alternative to vaccination until clear evidence of its efficacy is established. I quote myself:

Hello all,

I have brought this up in Fran's introduction to the group. Although this group was originally set up as a discourse on vaccination, it seems that alternative treatments such as homeopathy are allowed to be discussed even though there is no scientific evidence to suggest that:

Homeopathy works beyond placebo

Water has a memory as claimed by homeopaths.

Cuba has dealt with an epidemic due to homeopathic treatments.

To be able to bring this form of treatment into the discussion, a rational person would first need to validate the mechanism by which homeopathy works. So far, this has not been done to my knowledge beyond personal anecdote.

One would have thought that homeopathy was irrelevant to the discussion of vaccination due to the supreme lack of any scientific evidence. Cuba is always brought up as a case by homeopaths, however - this has been debunked many times over: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b44XgR6hzcg

I would like those in support of this magical treatment to answer to their claims and to provide this group with supporting scientific evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy.

This is a genuine question and as Meryl has now deemed this topic to come under the umbrella of this discussion, I feel that homeopathic proponents need to answer to their critics BEFORE it can even be discussed as a viable treatment in regards to vaccination.

Thanks,

Scott Hansen.

Fair enough questions no? Apparently not:

Hi Scott,

These are tired old mantras that pseudo-sceptics repeatedly trot out to engage people in endless circular arguments that never move the discourse forward.

From my understanding, this is not a forum about homoeopathy.

I will leave Meryl to comment in case I am wrong but I think it has already been stated though, that discussion on homoeopathy is welcome when it applies to immunisation, disease prevention, and vaccination.

In this context, I will discuss research, studies and experiences that demonstrate homoeopathy works beyond placebo and has dealt with epidemics - I just may not have enough time to do it as quickly as I would like. Hope you can be patient.

Kind regards, Fran Sheffield.

Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently I am a pseudo-sceptic. Fran seems to feel that me bringing up the completely viable points regarding the claims of homeopathy are circular, which they are not.
Meryl agrees, with what - I am unclear on:

Hi Fran,

You are absolutely right. I don't want to hear people questioning
again why we have allowed discussion of homeopathy on this list (or
anything else, for that matter). If someone posts something on this
group that is off-topic, I will let them know. But homeopathic
preventatives as compared with medical vaccination is definitelly on
topic so please stop arguing about this and let's get into the nitty
gritty. There are some excellent conversations running on vaccines.
Contribute to those and ignore the posts you are not involved with.

All the best,
Meryl

Again, what Meryl says goes, even if it makes no sense at all and in turn contradicts her oft repeated mantra of "informed choice". True informed choice would be to fully question claims made by people such as homeopaths. Their work has no basis in science or in the minds of rational people world wide. This blatant acceptance of a clearly ridiculous form of treatment is a clear indicator of the anti science stance that Dorey has taken.

I posted once more, pretty much reiterating what I had said in my previous comment, to which Dorey replies:

Scott, this list is not the place for you to discuss your disbelief in homeopathy. If you have some scientific information that shows that homeopathic preventatives (not treatments - that is off-topic) don't work, please share it. Otherwise, please keep your opinions to yourself. I have asked you this nicely before.

Kind regards,
Meryl

Sent from my iPad

It is here that Dorey shows that she does not understand the very simple idea behind "Amazing claims require amazing evidence". She seems to think that I need to prove a negative by proving myself correct by - showing her there are no scientific papers? Showing her that it doesn't work? I would have thought that skeptic groups world wide swallowing bottles of homeopathic sleeping remedies show just how ineffective it is?

Of course, I replied to her nonsensical reply:

Please let me get this straight.

It is fine to discuss topics such as homeopathy but it is not fine to start a thread regarding homeopathy?

There is NO scientific basis for the validity of homeopathic treatments. For it to work, it would need to break nearly every known law of physics. I am sorry Meryl and Fran, but this has to be questioned before it can even be bought thought of as a viable alternative to vaccinations.

"But homeopathic

preventatives as compared with medical vaccination is definitelly on

topic so please stop arguing about this and let's get into the nitty

gritty."

This is the nitty gritty Meryl. One must question the validity of pseudo-scientific treatments such as homeopathy before one can bring it into the discussion as though it were really a viable alternative. It simply is not.

We must remember -

*Water does not have a memory

*Like does not always cure like.

*Dilutions used in homeopathic treatments (such as 30c) contain absolutely NO active ingredient.

*No scientific study has proven homeopathic treatments to work beyond placebo

These need to be addressed. Also, I would bring to your attention a disclaimer made by the Australian Register of Homeopaths: http://www.aroh.com.au/documents/Homoeoprophylaxis%20v1.2.pdf

"The Board further acknowledges that there has not yet been sufficient scientific investigation of

homoeopathic prophylaxis, and therefore supports further controlled ethical research into its use."

Again, I await the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments in place of evidence based immunisations. Until then, one would expect homeopathic practitioners within this list to stay away from claiming effectiveness of homeoprophylactics due to the blinding lack of evidence to support it. Under the guise of "Informed Choice" this should surely be understandable.

Just a reminder, I have not been unreasonable in my requests, nor have I been disrespectful. These questions need to be answered before anybody, Fran included, can start suggesting that homeopathic treatments take precedence over evidence based medicine.

I await your reasoned and respectful responses.

Scott.

However, this comment has been rejected. One has to wonder at the honesty of people such as Meryl Dorey. One also has to wonder to which length she would go to ensure that her conformation bias is left unscathed. This was rather disturbing to me. Meryl had layed out the rules for the group and the reasons for any given post being rejected or user being banned:

Respectful is the operative word here. Nobody will be banned and no posts will be deleted if you stick to that rule of respect for your fellow list-members and others. At the first sign of disrespect, abusive behaviour or ad-hominum attacks, you will be deleted by the moderators. No correspondence will be entered into - the moderator's decision is final.

I would say that one has to wonder why my post never saw the light of day, however anybody that has an inkling of knowledge of how Dorey works would be under no illusions as to why she did. It threatened her conformation bias. I had kept to the rules of the group, also, remember this little gem from earlier in this post?

This list is for the discussion of the pros and cons of vaccination and discussing scientific evidence of both the safety and efficacy of alternatives in comparison with vaccination is an important part of the debate.

I had done just that. I was discussing the scientific (lack of) evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments when it came to vaccinations. However, this was clearly a bit too much.

Instead of my response, they allow a certain John Harvey to post. The following is a clear example of bias, and is also a clear example of the kind of paranoia that makes up the bulk of thinking within the anti vaccine movement. According to John Harvey, I am also John Cunningham - a noted spinal surgeon and epidemiologist who has been commenting on this group, as well as Reasonable Hank (Peter Tierney) a supporter of reason and a noted Australian skeptic. I only wish I were.

Scott Hansen, after frankly declaring an interest in vaccination,
immediately claims a disinterestedness ("skepticism") fuelled only by
"seeing unscrupulous people taking advantage of people that [sic] are
genuinely concerned or confused about the topic of vaccinations" etc.
etc.

In a following message, the interest appears to have won out. Hansen
dismisses a vast repository of evidence on one alternative approach to
epidemic illness, homoeopathy, in the words "One would have thought

that homeopathy was irrelevant to the discussion of vaccination due to
the supreme lack of any scientific evidence", before admitting and
demonstrating that he simply lacks knowledge of what homoeopathy is,
what evidence exists for it, and the bases of all concern for the
hazards of vaccination.

Hansen then demands that discussion of this particular alternative to
vaccination be censored until such time as proponents are able both to
"validate the mechanism by which homoepathy works" AND to prove to his
satisfaction the continuing existence of the evidence he has blithely
discounted as nonexistent for homoeopathy's efficacy.

I choose to avoid all comment on the jawdropping capacity of Hansen
and his evident alter egos JC and Reasonable Hank to rule on what
others may or may not discuss, and on the personal qualities requisite
to readiness for wholesale dismissal of all evidence that one
dislikes*.

I would like instead to make an initial comment on the intriguing
failure in such argument—a failure in which Hansen is by no means
alone even within this discussion—to appreciate the relevance, to a
discussion of risk- and efficacy-based appropriateness of a single
course of action of the relevance of risk and efficacy assessment of
ALL the other courses of action that are possible as alternatives.

The claim of vaccination's necessity—with all the corollorary moral
arguments and bullying that generally accompany the claim—relies
inherently upon a single fatal presumption: absence of all competing
possibilities.

It would appear to be precisely for that reason that vaccine
apologists actively attempt, as Hansen has here, to prevent balanced
discussion of vaccination.

What I mean by balanced discussion may be understood by considering
what it weighs.

A discussion of any sort necessarily weighs at least two
considerations, one for and one against. A trivial personal
discussion might weigh individual risk against individual benefit and
consider nothing else. It has no implications for vaccine production
and distribution, of course. More importantly, it can hardly be
balanced, as it fails to take account of any alternatives and their
possibly superior risk–benefit ratios.

In a balanced discussion of the value of vaccination, therefore,
discussion of the value of alternative courses of action is not merely
permissible; it is ineluctable. Homoeopathy clearly belongs front and
centre amongst the alternatives to be weighed against vaccination in
any discussion that assumes a present or future risk of epidemic
communicable diseases, particularly if—as vaccine apologists assert,
even if they have not yet demonstrated it—other alternatives, such as
doing nothing at all, are insufficient.

Without proper consideration of the virtues of the alternatives, those
of vaccination, however brightly they may appear to shine, are
medically meaningless and of no consequence. To assert, on the basis
of the mere presumption that the alternatives have no virtues, that
therefore their virtues are unworthy of investigation, of weighing, or
of discussion, is, to say the least, disingenuous.

Leaving aside and forgiving any arrogance that demands for censorship
entail, let us recognise and acknowledge that nobody, neither vaccine
apologist nor vaccine skeptic, is omniscient and infallible, and that
on nowhere is that more certain than on a subject that a mind weakened
by prejudice is incapable of considering dispassionately. Merely to
attempt to force our weakminded unthinking prejudices upon another
does not constitute discussion.

Of course, even a balanced discussion of the technical statistical
preferability of one course of action over another by classes of
individual can make no certain predictions, even within that class,
about the individuals themselves. Still less can it have the least
moral weight. And it is moral weight, and a great deal of it, that is
requisite to vaccine apologists' demands to overturn the basic human
right to choose or refuse medication. Nevertheless, a balanced
discussion -- one that seeks to weigh one thing against another using
the same values -- would be a good start.

John Harvey

* As explicitly occurred in the 2005 [The Lancet] Shang et al. meta-
analysis of homoeopathy whose results were later shown nevertheless to
support homoeopathy's efficacy.

If you can make sense of the above, please let me know in the comments section below. I don't speak crazy person all that well.

If one were to take anything away from this whole experience, it is that anti vaxers are liars, and will do anything to ensure that they are never proven wrong. They value their conformation bias, eschew evidence for anecdote, and never, ever say what they mean. Just as in all her other forums, Meryl Dorey has lied in saying that she is open to discussion on this topic. All that is evident to me is that she now has another forum in which to allow her to spread her misinformation and allow dangerous quacks to peddle their nonsense.

If you EVER have questions regarding vaccination, make sure you talk to your GP. If you are unhappy with what they have to say, talk to another. There is never any excuse to fall back on internet groups and unproven pseudo science. All they will ever do is tell you what you want to hear, and take your money while doing it.

Why the anti vax movement should feel shame

2011-08-26T16:49:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I read a short article regarding the hospitalisation of two infants after contracting measles. Unfortunately, one of the infants is now in critical condition due to the disease after contracting it in Kenya after a family trip.

These infants were too young to be vaccinated against the disease, reliant on those around them being vaccinated. However, we have people in the world today that take it upon themselves to choose the fate of others by way of their own selfish ignorance. These infants fell ill because of the lack people vaccinating and the lack of herd immunity that should be a right to those that cannot be vaccinated.

I wanted to see what the anti vaxers had to say on this. I expected some vile responses, the moving of goal posts and straight denial that the disease can be dangerous. Below are some examples of just how ignorant and dangerous these people can be.

I have left their names in the screen shots as they deserve to be named, and shamed:

"If someone doesn't want to take a vaccine, what would it have to do with anyone else becoming sick?"
It's called herd immunity. The more people vaccinated in a single community, the higher the chances of protection for those that cannot be vaccinated. This amazingly simple logic always fails to register with anti vaxers.

"The children could have already been sickly, had poor nutrition, or compromised immune systems."
This simply makes no sense. He uses the same same old tired anti vax argument. Apparently nutrition and sanitary living conditions are all one needs to fight disease, along with the multitudes of vitamins that you buy from snake oil salesmen. He then goes on to say that they may have compromised immune systems. Well, they certainly do now - because they have measles.

"It has been proven that many that take the vaccines get the disease anyway, and they also expose themselves to the risks associated with vaccines"
Mike doesn't realise that adverse reactions such as fever are not as common as he thinks. This does NOT mean that they contract the disease from the vaccine. Whilst there are risks with vaccines, they are minimal compared to the dangers of not vaccinating and contracting the disease - such as the two infants that are now in hospital. Another lie by anti vaxers is that there is no information on the risks of vaccination, particularly the MMR. I beg to differ. The CDC has kindly provided this information in a handy PDF

"If millions of people took vaccines, these two kids wouldn't have gotten sick"
I must say that the stupid really is strong with this one. One family were in Kenya (who are currently experiencing a measles epidemic) before returning home. This is where the virus originated from that infected both infants. Whether or not the community the infants live in were all immunised, it wouldn't have helped the children. This measles outbreak wouldn't happen in a community that is vaccinated.

I have no idea what to say to Mikes last piece. I do know however that "I feel good" is not two words. Is he trying to say that the measles feels good?

"Since when did measles become such a dangerous and fatal disease?"
Ah yes, the anti vax argument from ignorance. "I got measles when I was a kid and didn't die - so that means that no one dies from it.". Judy, the stats will tell you other wise.

"In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour" World Health Organisation

"Back in the day it was an everyday occurence [sic] and people did not take their children to hospital with it. It seems the disease took on the fear factor right around when the vaccine was invented."
No Judy, just... no. Measles has always been a dangerous disease. The virus doesn't have a personality, it cannot decide to one day become more virulent and dangerous than it was ten or twenty years before. Just because you and/or people you know survived the disease with no ill effects does not mean that others did not.

There are other posts from other equally intellectually bankrupt individuals, but they all spout the same nonsense.

These children are suffering because of the bad decisions of people such as this. In their ignorance and selfishness, they have helped doom innocent people, especially infants to unnecessary disease - disease that can be prevented and even eradicated.

If you are as concerned as you should be about this, get on the social networks, get into the forums and help battle this idiocy. When it comes to the health of your families and friends, there really is no excuse to not be active in the fight against dangerous ignorance. One persons right to free speech does not trump the right of their neighbour to be protected from disease.

Creationist Antivaxer.

2011-08-26T15:49:00.000-07:00

My Saturday morning has started with a bang, and it has nothing to do with this very good espresso I am consuming. There is something about supreme idiots in the morning that really makes me happy.

Yes, you heard that correctly. A creationist antivaxer. Apparently PHDs around the world have "prooved" that creationism is correct. In all his anti science belief, he seems to think that double blind, placebo controlled studies are just neat.

Note the use of caps lock and multiple exclamation marks. Also note that two people "like" the post. Yup. That means there are at least two more idiots that agree with this mans rant. Woe be to us.

Now, imagine if this man lived in Texas (good possibility), and had a position of influence on the state education board (unfortunately, also possible). Not only would he allow the brainwashing of unscientific mumbo jumbo about the world being only 6,000 years old and that we rode on the back of raptors (because that makes sense) - he would also advocate for those same children to not get vaccinated.

All of a sudden, this kind of idiocy doesn't seem so lighthearted.

Update!

David has posted yet another beautiful example of how stupid stupid can get when one mixes creationism with anti vax lunacy -

Nameless PHDs (that attended Harvard no less) have testified before a supreme court that ID is real. Gotta love his standard of evidence. Some nameless scientists testified before a judge. That must mean its real. Of course!

So, next time you want to get into a discussion with a creationist about ID - you best "gather your intelligence from all parts of your brain" .

Will do David, will do.

Greenpeace - Environmental Activists, or Environmental Terrorists?

2011-08-06T20:44:00.000-07:00

On July 10, 1985 I was seven years old and on the road somewhere in the North Island of New Zealand with my father. As was normal, if Dad wasn't listening to Dire Straits or Chris De Burgh, we would be listening to the radio. I remember the music being stopped as the station began relaying a news bulletin. The Rainbow Warrior had been sunk in Auckland harbour, by terrorists no less. Of course, thinking back, I had no idea what the Rainbow Warrior was, or even that Greenpeace existed. I was seven and probably more interested in G.I. Joe and the latest Transformers figurines. However, the passion and the emotion that was relayed through the news broadcast has cemented that memory for me until this day.

The Rainbow Warrior after the sinking in 1985

After the bombing of the ship by French foreign intelligence services; New Zealand, the world and I woke up to how important organisations such as Greenpeace really were at the time. France had begun the testing of nuclear weapons in the Moruroa atoll. Greenpeace, many other organisations and independent activists had begun the peaceful protest of the testing by positioning their ships, yachts and rowboats around the test site, putting themselves in harms way of the testing blasts.

This was a time when environmental activism was really taking shape. The world had begun to be aware of just how our actions affected the Earth and the damage we were doing to the very fragile chains of ecosystems that every single organism relies on. In the public mind, Greenpeace lead the way in this new environmental movement. Their ships became a common sight as they headed out to sea to either protest against nuclear testing or the whaling done in the Southern oceans. They became an icon of the action people could take to try to effect change in an infant global society, and I don't think one could argue against the exposure they brought to the issues they protested against. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was testament to the pressure the French government felt by Greenpeace; indeed environmental activism, the sinking bringing scorn from Kiwis to this day.

Somewhere along the line, it all went a bit pear shaped.

Twenty years ago today, the very first web server was brought online, ushering in a new age of communications and information sharing the world has never seen the like of. A decade later and the world wide web was accessible to nearly every one, information was freely available. People could educate, shop and entertain themselves in the comfort of their home. This meant that scientific journals could go live online, bringing studies and ideas to the fingers of other scientists and laymen alike, worldwide. If the world were a completely rational place, the Internet would (and still is of course) have been a vital tool in bringing about a new enlightenment, where everyone had access to the most up to date information, speeding the progress of scientific discovery and thought. In a rational world, opinion and anecdote would not be treated as objective truth.

However, we seemingly don't live in a rational world. The open communication that the world wide web has bought, means that anybody can voice their opinion. This is an amazingly beautiful thing, and may prove to be one of the greatest benefits of the technologies we all use today. Unfortunately, this also means that the opinion of those that put stock into conspiracy theories and pseudo science can be aired.

Humans are a strange bunch, we tend to use our emotions to evaluate the world around us, to judge what is morally right and wrong. Scientific thought does not come naturally, it is very easy for us to become emotionally attached to a given topic or cause, even to the point where one eschews evidence because they are so certain that their subjective view is correct. Once one becomes so invested in their belief, it becomes very easy to take on board more ideas and theories that seem to bolster the original - thereby cementing their view of reality, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

This is true of the anti GM (Genetic Modification) crowd. Because of the lack of understanding of the science, the term "Franken Food" has bubbled up. This term brings to the more imaginative - scenes of frightening labs; pulsing electricity feeding rows upon rows of mutated purple vegetables, stall after stall of sheep and cows with varying degrees of mutation. One sheep has a body made of ears, one cow has legs the length of a giraffe. Frog genes being spliced with corn to make a frog-corn hybrid. Scientists with stereotypical white lab coats; pockets stuffed with cash and rubbing their hands together, old fashioned 60's style villains.

This may sound patently ridiculous to more rational people, however this is how GM is seen by many that have let their emotions over ride reason and the use of evidence.

This is where we come back to Greenpeace. Today, they are possibly the biggest propagator of misinformation regarding the science and effectiveness of GM than anybody else. In their honest fervor for environmentalism, they have become dogmatic, to the point of letting their collective emotion take over how they operate as an organisation.

In July, three Greenpeace activists, dressed in white jumpsuits and gas masks razed a $300,000 GM crop, part of a long term study of altered wheat that had increased nutritional value. A crop that could have gone on to improve the diets of millions around the world that are desperately in need of food.

Greenpeace activist destroying GM crop in July. Photo courtesy of Cosmos Magazine.

In a single act of un-democratic vandalism, Greenpeace have destroyed a study that could have had great potential for the advancement of the science. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding have been washed away with a single stroke of ignorance and zealotry. Humanity is poorer for the act, if only for a while.

The question that remains after this vandalism and loss of valuable scientific data, is why has this happened? How has an organisation that used to be respected (at least by myself), allowed itself to drown in it's own emotional and unscientific dogma?

This is where the Internet comes in, how it is used as a tool for changing the public's perception on any given topic or subject, how it can be used for activism, both good and bad. It is this same exchange of ideas and opinion that has offered the world the completely unscientific and ugly bastard child of environmentalism. To believe what Greenpeace and other activists (conspiracy theorists) have to say on the topic is akin to believing the nonsense, cartoon like Franken-food scene that I portrayed earlier.

Yet, thousands do. The ones that are speaking out against GM are the fringe and certainly do not represent the majority. However, as with many fringe movements, their voices are loud, extremely so. With their message shouted across the Internet, the idea that GM is somehow an evil of modern science has permeated into the public's perception. Because the fringe yell so loudly about the supposed evils, one that does not look into the subject properly will more than likely take what the fringe say on board.

With the razing of the GM crops in July, the public's perception of the topic seems to have shifted a little. Greenpeace's action was over the top, and the public saw it for what it was - environmental terrorism. Thanks to the same technology that has helped to spread the anti GM message, the opposite has now happened. People such as myself, have looked into the topic with more of a discerning eye and have seen Greenpeace for the dogmatic, and seemingly uneducated group they are.

With a bit more skeptical activism and a lot more education on the science of GM, the public's perception of the role that science plays in society can increase dramatically. Whilst Greenpeace did brilliant work in raising awareness for environmental issues over twenty years ago, their cause seems to have become derailed, their methods outdated. In not educating themselves on the science and only relying on ideology and dogma, they have become the very things that they used to rile against. They have become the same as the monsters that sunk the Rainbow Warrior 26 years ago. There seems to be a fine line between environmental activism and terrorism. Greenpeace have crossed that line, all without looking back.

Media responsibility in reporting science and health

2011-07-30T21:16:00.000-07:00

On Sunday the 24th of July, TVNZ's investigative journalism show "Sunday" aired a piece on vaccination.

Considering that 60 Minutes in Australia had recently aired a piece on the anti vaccine movement, and highlighted the danger that they pose to public health, I was ready for another great piece. I thought, what could go wrong? TVNZ are a responsible lot that take their journalism very seriously. The piece can be viewed here (if in New Zealand or Australia): http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/agony-vaccine-choice-19-34-video-4321608

I could not have been more wrong.

What was aired was one of the most irresponsible pieces of journalism that I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.

Now; the vaccine issue, when discussed between people can be a very emotional one. Any parent worth their salt would do anything to protect their children against any risk they may come across. The problem here is that emotion can colour people's subjective interpretation of reality. Instead of turning to the science, they look to conspiracy. Once they do this, reason goes out the door, as conspiracy can give the confused, worried or gullible person comfort, an easy answer to their fears. There are people out there that prey on people's fears and weaknesses. One such person was trotted out on "Sunday" as an expert on vaccinations.

Hilary Butler is a known anti vax and religious crank that runs the website Beyond Conformity. Butler uses peoples fear of vaccines and the medical establishment by skewing facts, quote mining and completely misinterpreting scientific studies and trials. She is a misinformation machine of the worst kind, and she is one that vulnerable people and the anti vax movement in New Zealand look up to.

This brings me to one of the reasons as to why TVNZ was irresponsible in trotting her out as an expert... she isn't one. Instead of talking to immunologists, MD's, scientific researchers and epidemiologists, they turned to a known anti vax proponent.

On top of this, they also trotted out several families whose children have either passed away or have been mentally and physically injured in some respect. Whilst their plight and their love for their children is obvious, not one of them could come up with anything that even indicated that vaccination was responsible for their children's condition/death. Yet, TVNZ seemed to take it as gospel that it was indeed vaccination that caused the problems, without question.

Auckland is currently experiencing a resurgence in Measles cases. Over 90 people have now been infected, the vast majority of those being unvaccinated. This break down in immunisation, and ultimately herd immunity means that the immunocompromised and newborns have less protection as they are not able to be vaccinated themselves. They rely on the people around them being vaccinated. If herd immunity breaks down in their community, they are at more risk of contracting disease that their immune systems are not able to fully fight against.

The timing of Sundays piece could not be worse. It is reporting like this that give the anti vax lobby more ammunition, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence of the claims made within. Instead of relying on the scientific data, on objective reality, they turned to distraught families and anti vax proponents. One can only assume that emotion has better ratings than dry facts and evidence does.

But at what cost?

Since the airing of the TVNZ piece, I have written to my local MP, to the minister of health and have lodged a formal complaint to TVNZ regarding the piece. This issue needs more attention and more lobbying. The media's scientific illiteracy is well known (just look at "Climategate" and the medias inability to recognise scientific slang), and should be brought to account when making reports that are not based on the evidence.

To those that may read this in New Zealand, take the time to write to your local MP, to the Minister of Health and to write a complaint to TVNZ.