That’s it. I’ve had it with Meryl Dorey.
That link is to a story on the ABC News website about the safety warning issued recently by the Healthcare Complaints Commission against the Australian Vaccination Network – Meryl’s baby. The AVN has however refused to include on its website a notice on their website to the effect that they are anti-vaccination. This was one of the things the HCCC ruled should be displayed prominently, given the clear anti-vaccine misinformation spewed by the AVN.
As to why the AVN has refused to add such a notice, teh Meryl, AVN’s spokeswoman, is quoted as saying:
The only thing that the AVN refuses to put up on the website [is] the Health Care Complaints Commission wants us to state that we are anti-vaccination.
We are not, never have been, anti-vaccination. We are pro-information, pro-choice and a health safety watchdog.
Well. First for a clear, reasoned, dispassionate and logical rebuttal: BULLSHIT!
Ok, so I failed at the reasoned and dispassionate first response. Never mind, I’ll try again …. Fighting … urge … to shout …. Bile … rising ….
Basically, though I hate to send them even a single hit, and had to force myself to click on their site, I would suggest having a look at the AVN site, and specifically the vaccine information they provide. Remember teh Meryl says the AVN is “pro-information” and “pro-choice” – not anti-vaccine. Since they’re pro-information, and not anti-vaccine, they will of course provide all the relevant information about vaccines. Right? So certainly: information about failing, adverse effects and so on; but also information about the benefits, and in fact overwhelming safety of vaccines. Like, perhaps, oh, here at Science-Based Medicine?
Unsurprisingly no: the AVN website has nothing but some anecdotal/spun/exaggerated stories about harm, and nothing about benefit. They in fact seek to paint the deadly diseases so effectively combatted by vaccines as mild and really nothing to worry about.
That isn’t pro-information; it’s pro-the AVN’s beliefs. It’s not pro-choice; it’s pro-the choice the AVN believe you should make.
- And Meryl Dorey, in saying they are not anti-vaccine, either has a spectacularly idiosyncratic understanding of the English language, or is a liar. The AVN website includes only anti-vaccine information, despite the existence of plenty of pro-vaccine evidence that could sit there for “balance”. Ergo, the AVN is anti-vaccine.
Meryl, if you’re going to say your organisation isn’t anti-vaccine, you’re going to have to have at least some pro-vaccine information on your website. Y’know? Teach both sides of the manufacturoversy ‘n’ stuff? Just sayin’ …. I know you’d hide it away and surround it with caveats and disclaimers, and steer your visitors away from it, but to not have it there at all, and yet to say you’re pro-information, and not antivax? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Popularity: 4% [?]
And the really sad thing about this? The AVN will gain from this publicity…
'tis certainly possible – no such thing as bad publicity and all. The overall tone seems to be that they're laughable though, which is good