AVN, Meryl Dorey: Unique data analysis

In October this year, in an attempt to "take down" Dr Rachael Dunlop, Meryl Dorey wrote a blog article protesting that mercury had been found in "mercury-free" vaccines. Here's part of what she wrote [my bolding]...

In a recently-published study, it was revealed that the Infanrix hexa vaccine – a 7-in-1 shot that has supposedly always been completely free of thiomersal, contains between 9 and 10 ppm.[1]

She had initially written "Infanrix hepta" but eventually fixed it after being corrected almost immediately in the comments. The article, as you can see above, still says it's a "7-in-1 shot" though the average high school kid probably knows hexa (as in hexagon) means six, not seven. Indeed, Infanrix hexa is a 6-in-1 shot. That error, however, remains in the article today.

But that's not my real concern here.

The claim that the vaccine contains 9-10pmm (parts per million) mercury was based on a study in which eight different childhood vaccines were tested. One of them (one of them) showed a trace, but measurable, amount of mercury.

From the abstract of that study [my bolding]...

Seven of the 8 vaccines contained no detectable levels of Hg (less than 1 ppb); however, 1 vaccine (Infanrix hexa) tested positive for Hg at 10 ppb. The result was confirmed and validated by retesting the original sample. Follow-up testing was conducted on three additional samples of Infanrix hexa (one from the same production lot and two from a different lot). All three tested positive for Hg (average of 9.7 ppb).

The correct figure, from the study, is 9-10ppb - that's parts per BILLION - one thousand times less than Meryl Dorey's accusation! That might still be something the authorities should investigate, but it is not even remotely anywhere near the level of contamination Ms Dorey claimed.

When she wrote that article, she was not only advised about the "hepta/hexa" error but was also advised, by commenter Shelley, that she'd got the mercury concentration wrong by a rather large amount.

Ms Dorey even acknowledged the error saying...

"You are absolutely right Shelley – thank you for pointing this out and I apologise for missing that. I double-checked too. Serves me right to [sic] writing 2 long blog posts in one day."

Later in that same comment thread, Shelley asked if Ms Dorey would mind correcting the error in the article "so that readers aren’t misled by your post?" Meryl commented five more times on that article over the following days but never made the change.


I checked immediately before writing this and the parts per million error is still there - uncorrected - still wrong - still out by a factor of 1000. [A correction was added in a paragraph placed below the errant paragraph, rather than the text itself being corrected with a notation.]

Today, on the AVN Facebook page, Meryl Dorey wrote a comment...

Something in that comment caught my eye...[my bolding]...

...A recent study tested our current DPaT and found 9ppm of mercury in there when there is supposed to be none... 

There it is again - 9 parts per MILLION. Once again, Meryl has got it wrong, claiming the contamination level of mercury is one thousand times greater than the trace levels found by researchers.

But it gets worse. Meryl also wrote...

And if you think that methyl mercury is safe when injected into babies - think again.

Thiomersal (aka thimerosal) is the product at the heart of the vaccine-mercury issue. Thiomersal is not methyl-mercury. Vaccines do not contain methyl-mercury. Tuna contains methyl-mercury, vaccines don't - not even those with thiomersal absolutely added on purpose. No sane person, to my knowledge, is injecting methyl-mercury into babies - that stuff is toxic! (as always, I'm open to correction by doctors and scientists on the finer details)

Anyone who's done even the most basic research on vaccination and the so-called "mercury debate" would know that Thiomersal is not methyl-mercury. It's one of the first things you learn when you take an interest in the issue. Well, it's one of the first things you need to learn if you're going to claim to have done your research - otherwise it can look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

But let's go back to that study that Ms Dorey based an entire blog article on - the study that found trace amounts (9ppb) of mercury in one childhood vaccine. Here's what the authors wrote about the mercury they did find [my bolding]...

Although the levels of Hg detected are substantially lower than any established exposure safety limits, the results of this study reveal that inaccuracies exist in public health messages...

It seems that even these concerned authors recognise that there are safe levels.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article about Meryl Dorey's apparent poor grasp of basic maths, when she stated that 3/5000 is just 0.0006% when it is, in fact, 0.06%. She was out, I noted, by a factor of 100. I noted in that article that such errors are not uncommon in the lay community but it was important for someone regularly doling out medical advice to get the basics right.

Embarrassingly, I made a simple error myself in that article. I wrote that 1/100 = 0.001 when it is, of course, 0.01 (I got the percentage right though). An anonymous commenter advised me of the error and I immediately corrected it and made a note about the change right there in the article. I was out by a factor of just 10, and I wasn't scaring parents about a significant health issue, but my article now stands corrected.

[You'll see similar corrections throughout this post. Humans sometimes get things wrong. The trick is to clearly fix the errors then NOT repeat them over and over]

I then thanked the person who'd highlighted the error and I added "I'd hate to leave an obvious error there forever, as if it were correct."

Looking back on it know, that last remark might seem somewhat prescient - except that I essentially knew it wouldn't be long before I'd see egregious numerical errors on an AVN page. No psychic powers required. You can almost set your calendar by them.

Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how anyone who claims to have "done their own research", can find any comfort in any "information" that comes from any AVN source. Even the simplest, most-easily-checked details are often incorrect - and then, even after errors are pointed out, they remain uncorrected [with a separate note pointing out the error] and get repeated.

And I'm  only dealing with the simple stuff that a layman can grasp. I can't imagine the errors that must run rife through the complicated stuff.

Update: Added Freezepage link
More important update: I meant to include a link to a very comprehensive response to Ms Dorey's blog article. The comment by Ashley Locke is right there in the blog but Ms Dorey never bothered to address it. Indeed, it deals with some seemingly complex chemistry and analysis techniques - I doubt Ms Dorey could address it if she wanted to. It's way over my head, which is why I would trust actual scientists over a lay-person who has no apparent understanding of science at all.


I am neither a doctor, nor a scientist. Neither is Meryl Dorey. Do not trust either of us with the health of you or your children. See a doctor - a real doctor who doesn't think the world is run by lizard-people.

AVN: Illiterate or mischievous?

Trawling though the Australian Vaccination Network's Facebook page a couple of days ago, I found this comment from Meryl Dorey, which implies Pertussis (Whooping Cough) vaccination is "ineffective"...

She begins with a link to this news article the actual title of which is...

Acellular Pertussis Vaccine's Waning Immunity Caused California Epidemic

Dorey added the question "Waning or nonexistent?" to that heading for her subject line. She then injects her thoughts into a quote selected from the article [my bolding]...

‎"It [the ineffective vaccine] certainly caused the 2010 California epidemic, and it happened in Minnesota and Oregon, too. Waning immunity with acellular pertussis led to greater vulnerability in 7- to 10-year-olds,"

The words "the ineffective vaccine" do not appear in the article. That is Dorey's spin. She also failed to quote the next bit of the article [my bolding]...

"The durability of protection with the acellular vaccine is not as good as with the whole cell vaccine, but the problem with the whole-cell vaccine was that it was quite reactive," causing local reactions and fevers, she said in an interview.

"At this point, people would not accept the whole-cell vaccine," which means something needs to be done with the acellular vaccine, she said. Possible options include additional boosted vaccinations, or moving administration of the fifth childhood dose of DTaP from 4-year-olds to 6-year-olds."

So, the article actually does say the vaccine "caused" a 2010 epidemic in California but does it mean it in the way a casual reader might assume from Dorey's comment or is it just a poor choice of wording? And does the article go on to describe the vaccine as "ineffective" or its effects as "nonexistent"?

People familiar with Ms Dorey won't be surprised to learn that the article really implies no such things. Ms Dorey's implications against the vaccine can only result from a most selective reading of the piece (unless she's either semi-literate or willfully mischievous).

On Friday, ABC Radio station 612AM in Queensland decided to air Ms Dorey's views on the federal governments changes to Family Tax and immunisation Benefits [update: see complaint resolution here]. She took the opportunity to repeat her bizarre ideas on the pertussis outbreaks saying...

"...the fact is that in the United States they are actually blaming the use of the whooping cough vaccine for this outbreak that's occurring in countries where the vaccine is being used."

The comment, which is wrong on several levels, went unchallenged leaving the average ABC listener with the impression that the pertussis vaccine actually directly causes whooping cough.

I'd hesitate to suggest that it was Ms Dorey's intent to mislead listeners but her intent is as irrelevant as her opinion. She's speaking out against something she apparently has little to no understanding about. Why is the ABC is even giving her a voice?

So, how is she wrong?

The Family Practice News article makes the relatively simple point that vaccine immunity wanes faster than expected so some fully-vaccinated kids range from being fully-immunised to underimmunised to effectively not immunised after a period of several years following their last vaccination. This means that community vaccination levels are somewhat lower than required for herd immunity, resulting in outbreaks of pertussis.

A casual reading of the article, by anyone with a half-decent high-school-level of education, informs that the vaccine is working – just not for as long as everyone would like. It even has a graph showing the rate at which immunity falls relative to the time of last vaccination. If vaccination didn't work at all, if it was "ineffective" or its benefits "nonexistent", there would be no immunity to wane – the graph would be flat.

It's also clear from the article that not vaccinating is not a better alternative. Here's a selected quote you won't find on any page controlled by the AVN [my bolding]...

Roughly 70% of the children who had received all five scheduled doses had received their fifth dose at 4 years, and about 30% received their fifth dose at 5 years, with less than 1% of the children receiving their last dose at 6 years. One percent of the control children and 8% of the cases had received no doses of DTaP.

That's right, unvaccinated kids are effectively eight times more likely to become infected. But you're unlikely to see that selectively quoted by Meryl Dorey.

The vaccine works. It is not "ineffective" and its effects are most certainly not "nonexistent". Its effects just don't last as long as desired – but whoever claimed that vaccines are perfect?

Arguing that immunity from vaccination is nonexistent if it isn't permanent is like arguing that grip from tyres is nonexistent if they don't last forever.

In July 2010, the Health Care Complaints Commission issued a public warning against the AVN claiming, in part, that the organisation "quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous".

Our national broadcaster has assisted them to do that again in this piece of on-air nonsense.

AVN & Living Wisdom - I'm confused

This article began life as a postscript to a previous piece but it took on a life of its own...

I've read several times about problems with subscriptions to the AVN magazine "Living Wisdom" (problems highlighted by people opposed to the AVN). Today I decided to look for myself to see what the problems are. Here's my summary of the situation based on information taken directly from the AVN-Living Wisdom website...

• Issue 1 - published October, 2008
• Issue 2 - published February, 2009
• Issue 3 - published May 2009
• Issue 4 - published  ? 2009
• Issue 5 - published December 2009
• Issue 6 - published March 2010
• Issue 7 - published July 2010

So it appears four magazines were produced in 2009 then just two were produced in 2010. The website shows Issue 7, published in July 2010, as the current issue - so it appears that no issues have been published in the last 16 months. I'm beginning to understand why some people are expressing concerns over the repeated calls for subscribers (calls that are often met with replies of "done" and "thanks", which suggest that there are subscribers out there who, one would presume, should expect to receive the prodcut they've subscribed to within a reasonable time frame.)

More interestingly, unlike other magazine subscriptions, regular Living Wisdom subscriptions do not appear to come with a time frame. When I, for example, have subscribed to other types of magazines, I received a set number (usually 6 or 12), within a fixed period (usually one year). But a Gift Subscription to Living Wisdom magazine states only that it includes six printed issues.

I can't find any mention of how often regular subscribers should expect to receive each of their copies.

But it gets much more complicated (please, if I'm getting this all wrong, tell me now so I can clarify)...

A One-Year Professional Living Wisdom Subscription includes six issues (not copies, but "issues") of the magazine in printed format. But, looking through the back issues listed above (and even further back when the magazine was named Informed Voice and Informed Choice), it seems clear that there aren't six issues being published per year. Indeed, anyone who took up a one-year subscription in the few months prior to December 2010 will presumably not have seen a single "current" issue, never mind six - and their one-year subscription will have presumably elapsed by now.

A One-Year subscription to the online version of the magazine also claims to include six issues, which suggests, to me, that it really does mean "issues" and not "copies" because who would want six copies of a digital magazine?

With a current publication rate of less than one per year, it could take a while for the six-issues subscription promise to be fulfilled.

UPDATE:


Living Wisdom - the gift that keeps not giving

More information on Living Wisdom subscriptions.

AVN cashes in on Roxon changes

As I predicted in my previous article, the federal government's changes to benefits, dropping the current immunisation supplement and tying some existing Family Tax Benefit supplements to vaccination status, will give impetus to the anti-vaccination lobby who will use the new rules to garner publicity and bolster support.

It has begun.

The following request from Meryl Dorey appeared this morning on the Facebook page of the Australian Vaccination Network (that link is not to the Facebook page)...

Here's the pitch [my bolding]...

Do you need the AVN? With the current government policies to penalise you for your vaccination decision, can you do without a strong pro-choice movement in Australia?  If you believe that what the AVN is doing is important and necessary, please subscribe NOW - we need your support and you need us too! 

It was just too predictable. Hopefully the Facebook page is irrelevant enough that few people will see the cry for cash but it won't end there. (***See note at end of article)

Things had been going poorly for the AVN for quite some time with the Australian media largely ignoring them after the HCCC issued a public warning declaring the AVN to be an anti-vaccination organisation that selectively quotes from research and promotes misleading information. That slide into irrelevance changed this week with AVN president Meryl Dorey turning up on at least two networks, including a sickeningly credulous effort on ABC radio,...

...and in one newspaper, expressing her views on the Family Tax changes. That's three appearances in 24 hours - that I know about! Dorey must think the gods have finally given her a break.

The Gillard government changes, announced by Nicola Roxon and Jenny Macklin, have made the anti-vaccination lobby group relevant again. Hopefully, while the government implements what is, it seems, little more than a cost-cutting exercise, "social media activists" will continue the hard work they've been doing to bring the AVN to account and to ensure such groups and their strongest supporters are seen as the fringe conspiracy theorists they are.

I repeat my view that this change, which was announced as a health initiative intended to increase vaccination around Australia, is a win for the anti-vaccination lobby. The best we can hope for is that it's a short-lived win.

***NOTE:

I was going to write a short note here about the confusing nature of subscriptions to the AVN's Living Wisdom Magazine - but the amount of confusion was such that I've made it a post of its own.

Burzynski meets Streisand

Someone named Stanislaw Burzynski is currently experiencing the Streisand Effect after a person claiming to represent him contacted Andy Lewis, a sceptical blogger at Quackometer, with apparent legal threats.

Lewis had earlier posted an article critical of  Burzynski's "cancer research".

JoBrody has posted days-worth of Tweets that demonstrate the exponential spread that occurs when the Streisand Effect gets going.

UPDATE:

Just had to link to this exchange that occurred mostly "behind the scenes" at Yahoo answers.

Govt fail a win for anti-vax lobby

Last night I wrote about a change in the way the Federal (Gillard) Government will seek to promote immunisation by imposing a financial penalty on families who do not get their children vaccinated.

I expressed concern that, to me, it looked more like a cost-saving measure than a health initiative and I questioned if people would be able to avoid the penalty if they registered as conscientious objectors.

My concerns have been vindicated.

Carol commented with a link to the government FAQ on the new policy in which Family Tax Benefits are supposed to be withheld from families where children do not meet specified vaccination milestones.

The existing Maternity Immunisation Allowance allows for parents to claim a conscientious objection to vaccination and this loophole was widely reported by the anti-vaccination lobby who advised parents opposed to vaccination how to get the money without vaccinating. It is clear now that conscientious objection will remain in the new system.

The problematic part of the objection form is this statement to be signed by the parent after speaking with an appropriate health professional...

I have a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the National Immunisation Program should not take place. On this basis, I choose not to have my child immunised.

In other words, parents can opt out of immunising their kids simply because they want to and yet still qualify for a government benefit that, supposedly, should not be paid to parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I wonder if I can claim a conscientious objection to certain tax laws so that I can claim a negative gearing benefit, without having to suffer any sort of loss usually associated with such claims? Perhaps I can claim a tax deduction for uniform and travel expenses and charitable donations, without actually incurring those expenses due to personal beliefs surrounding them?

Why is the government making up penalties they have no genuine intention of imposing on people who are actually familiar with the system? It's madness on a grand scale. The only parents who will lose out are those who do not vaccinate, for some reason, but who are ignorant of the system and the available loopholes they could otherwise exploit or who find themselves in front of an unwilling doctor. This means groups like the AVN could become more relevant as they seek to reach and inform these parents of "their rights" (like this) and to promote sympathetic doctors.

The AVN should be cheering this decision, it's a win for the anti-vax lobby. The pro-vax lobby should not.

So I repeat my initial conclusion that this looks like little more than the dumping of the much-rorted Maternity Immunisation Allowance and I find myself tempted to agree with anti-vaxxers who think this might just be a political distraction.

UPDATE:

At least one ABC report has this all wrong, describing the change as $2100 in "extra benefits" and "increased payments". The government FAQ states quite clearly "Families will need to have their children fully immunised to receive the existing $726 per child Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement, replacing the Maternity Immunisation Allowance from 1 July 2012." There is no "extra benefit" or "increase" here - there's actually less money on offer.

The story accepts comments. Please feel free to set them straight. (Though no comments have appeared yet. I know at least one was sent.)

UPDATE:

Since writing this, I've seen/heard Meryl Dorey's views broadcast on two different networks. It seems this change has made her "relevant" again.

Vaccinate or lose out

The following is based on a single news report and may not entirely reflect reality. Corrections may be made as things become clearer...

Since some parents are not convinced that the potential maiming or loss of their child to disease is enough reason to vaccinate against such disease, the Australian federal government is apparently set to impose financial penalties for not vaccinating.

Marianne Betts writes in the Herald Sun...

THE Federal Government will withhold more than $2100 in tax benefits for families who refuse to vaccinate their children.

The move is a drive by the Gillard Government to boost vaccination rates, with one in 10 Australian children not immunised.

She goes on to explain that the penalty will result from the withholding of a Family Tax Benefit supplement.

The supplement, worth $726 per child each year, will now only be paid once a child is fully immunised at one, two and five years of age, meaning more than $2100 could be withheld.

More interestingly, however, the report says [my bolding]...

The new arrangements will replace the maternity immunisation allowance which provides $129 for families who meet immunisation requirements when their child is two and five.

Hang on a minute...

The Family Tax Benefit part A supplement is currently $726.35 per child per annum. The Maternity Immunisation Allowance (MIA) is paid in two $129 amounts.

So if the FTB(A) supplement is to remain at the current level, it appears at first glance that all parents who would otherwise qualify for the MIA will actually be $258 worse off, per child. And this is a drive to encourage parents to immunise? Forgive my cynicism but "yeah, right!".

Now, I'm not suggesting the MIA isn't without its problems but, from where I sit, the biggest problem is the result of the government allowing people to claim it whilst having no intention of ever immunising their children despite having no sound medical reasons for not doing so.

It really is a case of..

A: "You have to immunise to get this money"

B: "But I don't want to"

A: "Okay then, here's the cash".

It's ridiculous.

That problem could have been solved by doing away with conscientious objector loopholes so that only parents who immunised or who could not immunise for medical reasons (some children cannot be safely immunised) could claim the payment. This would retain the carrot aspect of the program and ensure the money was properly targeted.

I'm not personally in favour of the withholding of general supplements to impose a financial penalty on parents who don't toe certain lines. These supplements are supposed to reflect the cost of raising children and it would be difficult to argue, simply, that parents who don't vaccinate do not endure the same costs of raising a family. Witholding a general payment comes dangerously close to compelling parents to do something that many people, even in the pro-vaccination camp, do not want to be compulsory.

It also adds yet another level of complexity and compliance to a system that already has some parents scratching their heads. What other conditions might the government impose to make the payments too difficult for average families to bother with.

If we want parents to vaccinate, then I'd prefer that we specifically rewarded parents who do vaccinate. It's a subtle but important difference, in my opinion, but it's also a position from which I could possibly be moved. (I'd also like an education campaign as to why we should vaccinate, and why groups like the AVN are a bunch of wallies, rather than leaving it to unpaid participants in social media to do the government's job for it - but that's another story. SEE UPDATE at bottom of this article)

So, while there might be some merit in penalising parents who are not acting in the best interests of their children or the wider community, according to the science-of-the-day, I think I see a cost-saving measure here being dressed up as a health initiative.

Either way, the anti-vax lobby will not be impressed as the loss of more than $2100 per child is going to sting a lot more than the loss of $258 per child - that they could always claim anyway. This assumes, of course, that the government don't continue to allow conscientious objection to immunisation in which case, this really is just cost-cutting - nothing more. After all, no matter what happens with vaccination rates, the government only stands to save money here - even if we hit an amazing 99.9% coverage.

We'll wait and see but, based on this report, I'll withhold my excitement.


HT to Carol Calderwood at SAVN.

Interestingly, I just checked the Australian Vaccination Network's Facebook page and there's still no mention of this story. Sure there's some nonsense misinterpreting a story about waning pertussis immunity in California and a conspiracy video featuring David "Lizards Rule" Icke (WTF?) and even something about mercury poisoning in the 1950s (WTF?) - but nothing about this significant change in Australian vaccination policy. 

Way to keep your fingers on the pulse guys. (That's a medical analogy, so they might not understand it. Pfft!)

UPDATE:

The Age expands on the story and confirms my concerns but also offers some detail. I remain convinced, at this stage, that this is a savings measure dressed up as a health initiative. Tell me why I should buy a tinfoil hat if you disagree.

Read more...

Gillard, Roxon and Macklin save money but make anti-vaccination group relevant again

How the new vaccination rules promote the anti-vaccination lobby

Meryl Dorey, AVN: The simple things in life...

There is an old saying that "the simple things in life are often the best". It was even used in an advertisement for breakfast cereal in the 1980s. However, for some people the simple things often appear to present unavoidable difficulties.

I've written previously about Meryl Dorey, president of the Australian Vaccination Network, and her apparent lack of understanding of relatively simple mathematical concepts. Specifically, in August last year, I noted her use of syllogistic reasoning when concluding that if 88% of people infected with a disease were vaccinated against it, then 88% of vaccinated people must be infected with that disease. It's akin to saying that if most dogs have four legs, then most things with four legs are dogs.

It was nonsense then, it's still nonsense now and yet her comment remains right there on her blog, without correction by her.

Today, as I leisurely strolled through the SAVN Facebook page, I saw reference to a thread on the AVN's Facebook page* in which numbers had reared their ugly head again. Immediately I thought to myself, "this can't end well". Sure enough, further down the thread, my prescience was confirmed as Meryl Dorey had another attempt at publicly wrangling some basic arithmetic - and lost.

Here's the important part of the comment in text format for you...

"...if it is only 3/5,000 who are not vaccinated, why are you guys so worried? Are vaccines so ineffective that your fully-vaccinated kids can be placed at risk when the rate of unvaccinated in the country is a mere 0.0006%? Sounds like much ado about nothing to me..."

I'm not a scientist or doctor so I'm not interested here in the validitiy, or otherwise, of the actual data set that lead to this mini diatribe, I'm just looking at the aritmetic.

Do you see the problem? 

Meryl states that 3/5000 = 0.0006%...

3/5000 does indeed equal 0.0006 - that's pretty basic maths. It does not, however, equal 0.0006% (percent). In fact, it equals just 0.06%. Meryl is wrong by a magnitude of 100 times.

For example, we know that 1/100 is just one percent (1%) and that 2/100 is just 2%. And yet, if we divide one by one hundred (1/100), we get 0.01 (note: originally had the wrong figure here). To get this into a percentage, we must multiply by 100 - as most of us will have learnt in primary school. 

So 1/100 as a percentage is ... 1 (divided by) 100 (times) 100 = 1%

Similarly...  3 (divided by) 5000 (times) 100 = 0.06%

Ordinarily, this sort of thing is inconsequential - after all, an awful lot of people struggle to get their heads around maths they perhaps learnt in primary school but have had little need for remembering since. But the AVN hold themselves up as experts in immunology and science, sometimes even claiming to have a better understanding of scientific data than the scientists who collected, tabulated or reviewed that data.

But they apparently can't do simple percentages properly.

If you don't understand primary-school-level arithmetic, then how can anyone trust your word on mind-bogglingly-complex issues like immunology or bio-chemistry? I wouldn't.

*My apologies for not linking to AVN websites. Frankly, they don't deserve the link boosts and I can't be bothered going into html-editing mode in order to paste a "no-follow" in every link.

HT to Sarah Norris at SAVN whose comment I noticed before writing this.

AVN: Facts and the law.

YOUR VERDICT: Test your knowledge in my legal quiz.

You were held back at work one Friday evening and are now driving home. You have plans for tonight and don't want to be late. You choose to travel at 90kmh for part of the journey.

Options

You can drive at 90kmh because:

A. It's the weekend and you are in a hurry.

B. Your car is a red V8 and has mag wheels.

C. Your cruise control is broken.

D. None of the above.


Answer:

Answer A will be acceptable to many of your friends and colleagues who can sympathise with your plight but it does not constitute grounds for travelling fast. Answer B is a widely accepted stereotype but your domestic vehicle's specifications do not invoke any extension of special rights. Answer C is also not correct. A broken cruise control is more likely to land you with an infringement than be accepted as a reason for travelling at speed. The correct answer, therefore, is D, none of the above.

While I'm no legal expert, and not even more knowledgeable than most on road rules, it's absolutely clear from the above example that it is never acceptable to travel at 90kmh.

Am I right?

Or could it be that, while answers A, B and C are indeed wrong, there are other, unlisted, possibilities that make driving at 90kmh acceptable. For example, what if the speed limit on that stretch of road was 90kmh or higher?

Obviously you can do 90 on that stretch of road but that option wasn't part of my quiz and so, for the sake of this quiz, the correct answer remains D: none of the above.

This quiz was prompted by a similar quiz at Australian Doctor in which the author poses a list of options for a doctor wanting to refuse to sign an immunisation conscientious objection form.

These forms allow a parent or guardian to claim a federal immunisation allowance without actually having their child immunised - because they want the money without fulfilling the immunisation requirement for the payment. It's an idiotic situation, to say the least, but that's a separate issue.

The sample doctor quiz offers three options based solely on the doctor's personal feelings about the objection form and avoidance of vaccination. The only other option, as in my own quiz, is "none of the above" and this is given as the correct answer for the doctor quiz. There are no alternative reasons given why a doctor might object to signing the form or if and when such reasons might be acceptable.

Now, I'm not a doctor or a lawyer so I won't even dare to guess at whether there might be other possible answers but Meryl Dorey (also not a lawyer of doctor), from the anti-vaccine Australian Vaccination Network, has jumped on this quiz (yes, QUIZ!) as if it's the final word on the legal requirements of doctors to sign the conscientious objection form.

On her blog she says...

Written by Dr Craig Lilienthal, a practising GP, medicolegal consultant and a member of Avant’s Medical Advisory Council, it appears that there is a legal requirement for doctors to sign these forms. This is information parents need to be aware of and, if doctors do refuse to sign, it looks as though parents would be well within their rights to file an official complaint with the healthcare complaints commission in their State or Territory.

It's a quiz, Meryl, not a piece of legislation. It's a quiz, just like mine, with three limited options or "none" to choose from, just like mine. It surely does not cover all possible options, just three very narrowly defined options.

Again, I'm no lawyer or doctor (neither is Meryl), but I suspect the rules governing a doctor's rights in regards to these forms is just a little more complex that a three-limited-options sample quiz.

The cognitive dissonance must be head-spinning.

Now, it may well be that, under the law, no doctor has good reason to refuse to sign the objection form (I simply don't know) - but the quiz itself is hardly solid evidence of this, unless there's also never a good reason to drive at 90kmh because my online sample quiz showed that to be true.

If the law makes it clear that a doctor is obliged to sign the form on request then, Meryl, show me the law, not a sample quiz apparently designed to explain a limited point. If there's a law that compels doctors to assist ill-informed conspiracy theorists to undermine immunisation policy and gain a government payment under seemingly false pretenses, then I'd like to know about it.

Meryl also takes issue with the claim in the quiz that the objection form relates to "Family Assistance payments". She writes...

(please note – this information is incorrect since the conscientious objector has nothing to do with school entry or Family Assistance payments – only the two payments noted above)

Note that here she's openly questioning the knowledge of the very same person she's holding up as the expert whose word, she suggests, is final. The cognitive dissonance must be head-spinning.

She might just be in a pedantic mood but the Maternity Immunisation Allowance is paid under the Family Assistance section of the "A New Tax System Act 1999" which, in my book, makes it a Family Assistance payment. It's even listed under "Payments" on the Family Assistance website. So once again, it seems that Meryl is simply wrong.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would trust the AVN as a source of information on something as important as the health (and life) of their child or children when even the simple things present major challenges to them - and when they apparently consider an online sample quiz to be rock solid legal advice.

I did my own research...

One morning, about a year ago, I got in my car, turned the key and nothing happened! Nothing at all except that annoying sound of the other keys jangling against each other. The car was, it seemed, quite dead.

I went inside and called the local mechanic. He said "it sounds like the battery's dead, we did tell you before that it was getting pretty old and that your alternator wasn't exactly in great working order."

He offered to come out and check it over and to bring a replacement battery to get me going again. Or, if I felt capable, I could take the battery in, get it checked and get a replacement if need be. Idiot, how could I get the battery to him without a car?

Although no money was mentioned, clearly his real plan was to charge me a call-out fee - and then more for a new battery - and then he'd "advise" me to get the alternator fixed too. It's always about money with those guys.

I'd been conned for years by mechanics pulling similar tricks. Every time the car went in for a service or tune, there was a bill. Every fourth or fifth time, there was always something extra that needed doing. I mean, seriously, why is it that they put on new brake pads and yet they keep wearing out? If they only last a few years, then they don't really work at all do they? And clutches and oil seals and thermostats and radiators... the list of things they keep telling you to repair seems endless. It's always about money with those guys.

The problem, as I found out, is that mechanics all basically learn from "the same book" - and the books are written by the same people who make the parts that keep wearing out. Toyota write books about maintaining and repairing Toyotas. Nissan, Holden and Ford do the same for their own cars - and all of those companies base their advice on the standard advice given by automotive engineers so all those books are really just one book, with different logos on the cover. As a result, mechanics just blindly give the same advice they've been taught in colleges and read in these books respectively run by and written by the auto industry.

Replacing the battery didn't fix their oil leaks or brake issues.

My interests are not their interests. Their interests are profits (Toyota made over $11BILLION PROFIT in 2006!!!). My interest is to get my car to stop wearing out. It's always about money with those guys.

So, on that frosty morning I decided to stop being a sheeple and just assuming mechanics knew what they were doing. They don't, they're just sheeple too. I decided to do my own research and find a better, more holistic and natural way to get my car going.

First I asked friends about their experiences with cars. Quite a few had endured similar problems and despite replacing the battery, still had problems.Not always the same problem, but replacing the battery didn't fix their oil leaks or brake issues. It was just one thing after another.

So I turned to Google and what do you know - it turns out engines can run on water - not just petrol. So I filled my tank with water. Thousands of dollars a year saved instantly and the solution is one of nature's gifts. In fact, I installed a rainwater tank in the boot, so it'll never run out. And since I also found out global warming is a conspiracy, I know it'll never stop raining.

There are engines that, once started, will never stop.

And apparently cars can be powered by sunlight, another gift from the universe. Why do mechanics never mention this? Answer: "it's not in the book". So I went to K-Mart and bought a dozen boxes of little garden lights and put them on the roof of the car. That would sort out the alternator problem. Cheap too at $30 a box of ten. And pretty. And there's no formaldehyde and not one cent went to Big Auto - DOUBLE BONUS!

Did you ever have a pushbike? I had one for years as a kid and never, NEVER, replaced the little rubber brake things. Obviously these were superior quality compared with the brakes fitted by mechanics, so I put some of those on the front wheels of my car. I left the back wheels alone because, let's face it, if the front stops, the back will stop too. It's logical. Four sets of brakes just meant four times the expense. You won't find cheap and reliable pushbike brake pads mentioned anywhere in any Toyota car manual. It's always about money with those guys. I think I heard somewhere that one of the Murdochs sits on the board too - have you noticed the Toyota ads in newspapers? Now you know why.

Doing my own research has been amazing. I never realised how much information is actually out there because no one in the car industry or media - or politics - ever tells us about it. But there's heaps.

Did you know there are engines that, once started, will never stop? They don't even need sunlight or water - and definitely no petrol. This information is actively suppressed because industry can't make money out of something that needs no parts or ongoing additives. When I find someone who sells them, I'm getting one of these engines. A small mortgage should cover it - and then, no more money to Big Auto and no one getting rich by scamming me.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the Truth shall make you free." - John 8:32

I found that quote at whale.to. It's so true. Whale is a website dedicated to telling the truth about almost everything that others won't tell you about. Did you know the world is run by lizard-people aliens? Neither did I until I did my own research. Whale has the evidence. It's amazing what you can learn when you avoid mainstream education and go and get the information and FACTS for yourself, from independent sources. Whale has amazing secret advice about vaccination and cancer cures too - information you won't find anywhere else.

I asked him to name every chemical used to make automotive paint - he couldn't name ANY!!!

So, one year later, I've done a lot of research into cars and I've learned a lot that my mechanic was clearly never going to tell me. I don't think he's dishonest by nature, I just don't think he even knew half of this stuff himself. He works hard (not for free, mind you and I suspect he gets kickbacks from recommending brake pad replacements every few years or so) but he's stuck in the wrong paradigm where each problem is diagnosed and treated individually rather than holisitically. If the brakes don't work, he fixes just the brakes. If it's the radiator, he repairs just that. Same with wiper blades and spark plugs. Not once has he suggested just giving the car a good, thorough wash with bio-degradable, organic soap to solve all the problems at the same time. I was so gullible to trust him.

It's been a tough year too. Plenty of sheeple friends and various sheeple mechanics I've spoken to about the problem insist "change the battery!", as if there's only ever one way to fix things. I stood firm but they treat educated people like idiots if we dare to question their particular kind of "knowledge". I just tell them now, "I did my own research" and when I lay out the facts, they're speechless!!!

I'm still doing my research but I already know more than my mechanic, which is a good feeling. I asked him to name every chemical used to make automotive paint - he couldn't name ANY!!! And yet I'm supposed to trust his advice. They contain cancer-causing volatile hydrocarbons, by the way, so I sanded all the paint off my car so it's is less toxic now and has taken on a wonderfully natural, all-over earthy colour. Plus, it hasn't had issues with the brakes for a whole year.

I'll be honest with you too - some of the things I've tried haven't been entirely successful - I need to believe in them much more as it's clear my cynicism is messing things up.

My car still does nothing at all when I turn the key but I'm getting there. I'll have the answer pretty soon and I've only spent a few of thousand dollars so far on alternative technologies - like the mini-wind-farm - but none of it on petrol or mechanics, so I'm saving money all over the place. If you have any useful advice, I'm open minded, ready to learn and willing to try anything.

Just don't tell me to change the battery, I'm not that gullible.


**UPDATE:


A friend said I could borrow a spare battery. He put it in and the car started first time. I'm glad the solar lamps have finally worked. I guess it took time for them to charge up. I'm also glad I didn't fall for the "change your battery" mantra. 

But now it's making a coughing sound and it's stopped - must be my friend's battery causing trouble, like I knew it would. I'll put some more rain water in the fuel tank and see if that helps.


***Inspired by this article which should probably be read with this article on guaranteed cancer cures and this one on more guaranteed cures - in case the other guaranteed cures don't work.

AVN in WA: Politically incorrect

Barry Hasse, MHR, has spoken out against the Australian Vaccination Network and parents who fall under their spell.

This has naturally got under Meryl Dorey's skin.

Before I begin, let me say that where Meryl could have picked on Mr Haase, and where she might have found some support from me, is in the MP's labelling of some people as "tree huggers" and "hippies" as if these are the sole constituency of anti-vax-central.

According to a West Australian article, vaccination rates are low in areas of metropolitan Perth - areas not renowned for hippies but more likely the "blue rinse set". Places like Cambridge, Mosman Park, City Beach and Mt Claremont. I could stand corrected but unless things have changed since I left, these are not suburbs noted as hippie hangouts and they are somewhat devoid of forests.

Mr Haase has got some parliamentary campaigning to do if he's genuinely concerned about vaccination rates.
 
But Meryl was upset, in part, because Mr Haase wrote...

"Recent reports state the Australian Vaccination Network, an anti-vaccine lobby group; have been holding meetings in Western Australia. I find it illogical that sane parents would pay $15 to hear why they should not save the lives of their children."

Indeed.

Logic is not strong in a group that takes the incredibly small risks actually associated with vaccination and inflates them well above the much greater risks of infections.

Logic is, by definition, not strong in a group that applies syllogistic reasoning to simple data sets then expects us to believe they can assess complex scientific data.

Logic is not strong in a group that insists, repeatedly, that mortality, rather than incidence or morbidity, is the only way to assess the efficacy of vaccination.

Logic is not strong in a group that insists that if just one vaccinated person becomes infected with a disease, that the vaccination is therefore useless even if thousands of vaccinated people, exposed to the same contagion, don't become infected. See "Nirvana Fallacy"

I'll leave the question of sanity alone as that would require individual diagnosis by a qualified person.

But Meryl Dorey, as so often happens, has missed the point again. In a letter to Mr Haase, she wrote...

"As for the huge increase in cases of whooping cough – the current epidemic is now in its 4th year and the number of cases has increased exponentially despite a record high level of vaccination.  The vaccine is simply not working but yet [sic], the unvaccinated are deliberately vilified."

But Ms Dorey knows, or should know, that the overall vaccination rate is irrelevant in places like Denmark, in WA, where vaccination rates are reportedly as low as 73% and where whooping cough is at an all-time high.

If you live in a suburb where a high percentage of people regularly drink, drive and speed, then you are at much higher risk of accident than people who live in quiet suburbs - in other states! So while overall road safety awareness might be high, statistics in your suburb will suck and screw up the national road toll. In the very same way, if you live in an area where vaccination rates are low, below the level considered adequate for herd immunity, then it makes no difference to your children that other places in Australia have incredibly high rates of vaccination. Your region is going to contribute heavily to infection stats and your kids might be among those statistics.

Vaccines can't work adequately where large groups of people are refusing them. Expecting otherwise is also not logical.

---

I was originally going to poke fun at Meryl's failure to correctly post a link to the Kimberley Page article (she posted a "mailto" link instead) but thought it might seem petty. So I won't mention it.