Meryl Dorey, AVN & Healthy People

Time and time again we hear the claim from anti-vaccinationists that their unvaccinated children are healthier than any of the vaccinated kids they know.

Since they never get around to defining "healthy", it's always been difficult to know exactly what criteria they use to make their comparisons. Until now...

This week on the AVN Facebook page, Meryl Dorey made the following comment...

I've highlighted the interesting bit for you.

Her cousin was diagnosed with lung cancer then went to hospital for treatment. Despite her lung cancer, she amazingly went into hospital "healthy".

On what planet are people with lung cancer considered healthy? Or should I say, "in what circles?"

My concern for unvaccinated children has just risen one-hundred-fold. If having lung cancer doesn't qualify as unhealthy, what the hell does?

Once again I find myself questioning the AVN's usefulness on any issue related to health.

Originally noticed at scepticbros

Meryl Dorey, AVN & Chemotherapy FAIL

So, Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), had this to say on her Facebook page...

Since the 5 year survival rate for chemo is only 2.5%, perhaps it is a good idea for people who do get diagnosed with cancer to look into what alternatives are available. I can't imagine any therapy having such a huge failure rate and yet still being supported - people just don't know. MD

To put it mildly, this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. I dealt with it in 2009 when someone used the figure to defend the "treatment" of Tamar Stitt with mud wraps to cure her cancer but I'll go over it again here.

Remember, I'm just a guy with a blog. Some of my interpretations might be wrong.

When I first read about the study that Meryl suggests "people just don't know" about, even I, a layman with no medical or scientific training, was able to understand how it might be flawed and how the conclusions drawn from it by medicine deniers were almost certainly wrong.

The first issue was that the study was performed by radiation therapists. These might be considered as competitors in the "cancer cure" market place - though I doubt Meryl would consider radiation therapy as one of the alternatives sufferers should seek out or that radiation therapists would seek her endorsement.

The second issue was that the study was only related to adult malignancies, but you don't see that mentioned in Meryl's overly simplistic comment.

Another issue was that cancers for which chemo is known to have an incredible success rate were NOT included in the study.

Oh, and cancers for which chemotherapy is not usually considered as a treatment WERE included in the study. Yes, the study included people who weren't even being treated with chemo.

Forgive me for thinking this approach might be flawed. It's a bit like trying to find out if aeroplanes are a viable mode of travel, then performing some of the tests underwater, few of the tests in mid air - with second-rate aircraft - and using push bikes and inflatable dinghies for the remainder of the tests.

So, why is it important to note that some of the patients weren't treated with chemo? Well, the title of the study is "The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies"

Take special note of that title, especially "The contribution of..." part. This is not, as I understand it, assessing the efficacy of chemotherapy but just the part it plays in all cancer treatments. Using this study to assess the usefulness of chemotherapy is akin to assessing all forms of illness and their various treatments then concluding that heart surgery isn't much use because it doesn't fix broken limbs or lung disease or cancer or a bad case of the flu. Or, if I may, a bit like noting that since vitamin C doesn't cure snake bite, it has no use for anything.

Clearly the study DOES NOT show that "the 5 year survival rate for chemo is only 2.5%". Meryl either misunderstood the study or is ignorant of or chose to ignore discussions explaining what it really showed and why, even then, it was largely flawed and virtually useless as an indicator of the efficacy of chemotherapy.

To me, it seems like a pointless thing to assess but, as always, I'm willing to be educated by people who know more about medicine and science than I do.

On that note, here's part of what oncologist "Orac" had to say about this same study...

Indeed, if I were more cynical, I'd say that it appears almost intentionally designed to have left out the very types of cancers for which chemotherapy provides the most benefit. Also, it uses 5 year survival exclusively, completely neglecting that chemotherapy can prevent late relapses. Adding to the impression that the study was custom-designed to minimize the apparent benefit of chemotherapy found, there were also a lot of inconsistencies and omissions in that leukemias were not included, while leukemia is one type of cancer against which chemotherapy is highly efficacious; indeed, leukemia is treated with and, when it is cured, cured by chemotherapy. The very technique of lumping all newly diagnosed adult cancers together is guaranteed to obscure benefits of chemotherapy among subgroups because it lumps in patients for whom chemotherapy is not even indicated!

But here's another thing, I know quite a few people now who have had chemotherapy and survived past five years. According to the theory that says anecdotal evidence trumps science, a theory promoted as superior by the anti-vax/alt-pharma crowd, I have absolute proof that chemo works 100% of the time. I wonder if there's some secret world movement trying to suppress the truth about this amazing cancer cure?

Now, what any of this has to do with vaccination I really don't know but it does add to my overall distrust of the AVN as a source of useful health information. They just don't seem to be able to get even the easy stuff right. "People just don't know"

NOTE: I'm not a doctor and neither is Meryl Dorey, so you shouldn't trust me, or her, when it comes to medical advice. If you want that, go and see a doctor... a real doctor who knows about that sort of thing.