"Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next?

[prosciencemum]

News from Australia - the anti-vaccination organization run by Meryl Dorey, "The Australian Vaccination Network" has been ordered by the NSW Fair Trading group to change their name (or explain why it's not misleading and deceptive). 

 You can read about it here: http://www.dilutedthinking.com/avn_namechange.php including the response from Ms. Dorey to the first request, which was followed up by NSW Fair Trading on 12th December with a second request to change the name. Ms Dorey can still ask for a review of the decision (by 7th Feb). 

I see a lot of parallels with NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) in the USA, but my guess is the US has really different fair trading rules to Australia. Has there been any concern from NVIC that this might cause requests that they explain why their name isn't misleading (for a website with a clear anti-vaccination agenda)? 

[Mirzam]

Dossier of attacks on the AVN

For over three years, two groups – the Australian Skeptics and their off-shoot, Stop the AVN – have been trying to force the Australian Vaccination Network to close.

The attacks from these groups and some of their individual members have been occurring on a daily basis. 

[Turquesa]

To be anti-vaccination is to oppose all vaccines for all people at all times. Do you have any indisputable, concrete, primary-source evidence that this is the official position of the National Vaccine Information Center?

From what I can tell, the organization is pro-informed consent and pro-choice on vaccines, ie opposed to vaccine mandates.

Their name is accurate because I get information from them on vaccines, including reports on vaccine-related studies, state laws, and pending legislation.

I know of no case in U.S. history in which a non-profit organization been forced to change its name, so I'm not sure how well that would fly over here. Australia's move is a short-sighted one. When you allow a government to suppress or compel the speech of your opponent, you open the doors for them to do it to you, too.

[shotinfo]

The constitution of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) and our code of ethics (which has been in existence since 1996) absolutely precludes us taking any stance that could be considered to be anti vaccination. We support freedom of choice and freedom of information and absolutely oppose any form of compulsion when it comes to vaccination or medicine.

If anyone would like to read more about this - the latest in a string of attempts by the government and the Australian Skeptics / Stop the AVN - to shut our group down, please read http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/12/16/government-puts-boot-into-the-avn-democracy-and-the-truth/

Australia does not have a bill of rights - we do not have the right to freedom of speech as Americans do though High Court decisions have upheld the right to freedom of communication. In a democracy, we should not have the government telling us what we can or can't call our organisation unless the name was slanderous or obscene. The Australian Vaccination Network is neither.

All the best,
Meryl Dorey
Australian Vaccination Network

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

News from Australia - the anti-vaccination organization run by Meryl Dorey, "The Australian Vaccination Network" has been ordered by the NSW Fair Trading group to change their name (or explain why it's not misleading and deceptive). 

 You can read about it here: http://www.dilutedthinking.com/avn_namechange.php including the response from Ms. Dorey to the first request, which was followed up by NSW Fair Trading on 12th December with a second request to change the name. Ms Dorey can still ask for a review of the decision (by 7th Feb). 

I see a lot of parallels with NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) in the USA, but my guess is the US has really different fair trading rules to Australia. Has there been any concern from NVIC that this might cause requests that they explain why their name isn't misleading (for a website with a clear anti-vaccination agenda)? 

you must not spend a lot of time on that website because they most certainly do NOT have CLEAR ANTI VACCINATION agenda. They have a CLEAR PRO INFORMED PRO CHOICE agenda. 

[Turquesa]

Agreed, Marnica. The words "clear anti-vaccination agenda" to describe NVIC are patently false and downright inflammatory. Ditto with reference to AVN. I simultaneously vaccinate my kids and support NVIC. But that surprises a lot of people given how simplistically this issue gets framed.

Thank you for shedding light on this, Meryl Dorey. Regardless of which new name you end up with, keep up the good work!

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

From what I can tell, the organization is pro-informed consent and pro-choice on vaccines, ie opposed to vaccine mandates.
 

and this we prove without a doubt why the names need to be changed.  The organisations (both the AVN and NVIC) are not pro-informed consent or pro-choice, they are both anti-vaccination to the point that they supply misinformation on the subject in an attempt to scare new parents into not vaccinating.  It is extremely unusual for Fair Trading to involve themselves in businesses in this manner, in fact i've never seen it happen before.  They have taken this drastic step to address the ongoing issues with the behaviour of the AVN right now.  The organisation is out of control, it's claims becomming more and more ludicrous, including recent claims that the school shooting in the US was due to vaccine injury (when we simply do not know what the vaccination status or medical status of the shooter is). 

There are people out there who are misled by the name of the AVN into thinking they are a legitimate organisation that does offer, as they deceptively claim, 'balance' on this subject. I should know, I was one of them.  I refused to immunise my child for MMR based on their seemingly legitimate claims that MMR causes autism, when the reality is that the study that suggested that was deliberately flawed (for financial gain) and the 12+ studies that have been done since, have failed to show any hint of a link.    

Everyone has a right to setup a digital soapbox in the park, but no one has the right to spread misinformation on a subject that puts childrens lives at risk.

and by the way, there is no compulsory vaccination in Australia and no risk that any will be implemented.  I'm unsure of why people continue to push that agenda.

[tuxcomputers]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

you must not spend a lot of time on that website because they most certainly do NOT have CLEAR ANTI VACCINATION agenda. They have a CLEAR PRO INFORMED PRO CHOICE agenda. 

The AVN sell T-shirts that have the slogan, "Love them, protect them, never inject" is pretty clearly anti-vaccination. If it is not anti-vax please explain how that slogan fits into the supposed pro-choice stance.

http://shop.avn.org.au/products/Love-them-%28text-only%29-T%252dShirt.html

Name a single vaccine that the AVN has recommended, EVER .......will a decade be long enough to find it?

The president and spokesperson has described vaccination as "rape with full penetration". Please explain how that fits in the supposed pro-choice stance.

[tuxcomputers]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

To be anti-vaccination is to oppose all vaccines for all people at all times. Do you have any indisputable, concrete, primary-source evidence that this is the official position of the National Vaccine Information Center?

Name a single vaccine that they have recommended for a single person.

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by shotinfo 

The constitution of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) and our code of ethics (which has been in existence since 1996) absolutely precludes us taking any stance that could be considered to be anti vaccination. We support freedom of choice and freedom of information and absolutely oppose any form of compulsion when it comes to vaccination or medicine.
If anyone would like to read more about this - the latest in a string of attempts by the government and the Australian Skeptics / Stop the AVN - to shut our group down, please read http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/12/16/government-puts-boot-into-the-avn-democracy-and-the-truth/
Australia does not have a bill of rights - we do not have the right to freedom of speech as Americans do though High Court decisions have upheld the right to freedom of communication. In a democracy, we should not have the government telling us what we can or can't call our organisation unless the name was slanderous or obscene. The Australian Vaccination Network is neither.
All the best,
Meryl Dorey
Australian Vaccination Network

What an interesting thing for you to say Meryl, the high court determined that you were anti-vaccination during your hearing this year with the HCCC.   Indeed, you site sells a t-shirt that says "love them, protect them, never inject them", now I can't see how you can possibly try and present yourself as pro-choice.   I notice that you have once again presented the "opposition to compulsion" argument which I don't disagree with, however it is a strawman as there is no compulsory vaccination in Australia and there never will be.  It's another deception designed to gather support, and it's one of the considerations the government had prior to ordering you to change the organisations name.

There has been no attempt by the NSW Government to shut down your organisation, it has simply determined that the name of your organisation is deceptive and needs to change.   They did however, point out again that the information you disseminate is not accurate, and they did suggest very strongly that you stop disseminating misinformation, but again that cannot be considered an attempt to shut your organisation down.    I note that your automatic and constant response to anything is to blame the SAVN (Stop the Anti Vaccination Network) and skeptics, I have not once seen you address the issues raised.  Indeed, in the letter you sent to the Fair Trading office when the issue of your organisations name was raised you didn't once address the issue of the name, you simply tried to blame the SAVN and asked what would have been considered by any reasonable person to be a smart alec question about your organisations name.    I would suggest that the Fair Trading office has to operate under the law as set, and had you supplied them with a valid reason to not change the name, the order would not have been issued.

The High Court upheld the right to free communication in this country with regards to POLITICS Meryl, not with regards to the dissemination of misinformation on a subject that puts lives at risk. I note that during your high court appeal and at other times you have presented yourself as a 'political organisation', but that puts your organisation at odds with the charity legislation which requires you to not be a political organisation in order to have fund raising status.

Your opinion on what we should and shouldn't do in a democracy is noted, however I absolutely disagree.  A charitable organisation, and an organisation that deals with health care issues most definitely should not be allowed to hide behind a deceptive name.   There is no question that your organisation is anti-vaccination, it is clearly shown on your website, your alternate website, your facebook page and it was determined in the High Court of Australia this year.   Accordingly, I believe the government is doing the right thing in ordering you to change your name.  

And as a personal opinion, hiding an anti vaccination organisation behind the name Australian vaccination network is obscene.

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

The words "clear anti-vaccination agenda" to describe NVIC are patently false and downright inflammatory. Ditto with reference to AVN.

Sorry, but you are not correct.

Fooling Ourselves - the fundamental value of vaccines

The Age of Austism - Mercury, Medicine and a Man Made Epidemic

Making a Killing: the Untold story of psychotropic drugging

Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis

What Vets dont tell you about vaccines

Fooling ourselves - on the fundamental value of vaccines

Shots in the Dark

Vaccines, are they really safe and effective?

 

and lets not forget the t-shirt .. "love them, protect them, never inject them". 

 

 

this is the list of vaccine related books on the site, they are ALL anti vaccination.  There is no balance on this site.   How can you claim that a site that sells such books and t-shirt is not anti vaccination?    Not only that, the High Court determined they were anti-vaccination, so rather than being blatently false and downright inflamatory, in the instance of the AVN it's actually true and verifiable.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

and this we prove without a doubt why the names need to be changed.  The organisations (both the AVN and NVIC) are not pro-informed consent or pro-choice, they are both anti-vaccination to the point that they supply misinformation on the subject in an attempt to scare new parents into not vaccinating. 

1.  Define anti-vaccination

2.  Have you been to the NVIC site?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

Not only that, the High Court determined they were anti-vaccination, so rather than being blatently false and downright inflamatory, in the instance of the AVN it's actually true and verifiable.

Something is true because a high court decides so?  Logically, that does not hold.

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/25/12 at 5:26pm

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Something is true because a high court decides so?  Logically, that does not hold.

shotinfo  (of AVN) ...it looks like WendyAdams (not of AVN)  followed you here.

This post gives us a very interesting insight into your personality.   You and I, we have opinions ..   the High Court is the highest arbitrator in this country, they take our opinions and arbitrate on them based on the law, so yes, it is true because the high court decides so.  However, it really doesn't take a mental giant to understand that if an organisation only supplies (mis)information that is anti-vaccination without the balance of the pro-vaccination information, then the organisation is anti-vaccination.

If they were truly pro-choice we'd see the "love them, protect them, inject them" t-shirt for sale along side the "love them, protect them, never inject them" t-shirt now wouldn't we.

There is no doubt in the minds of anyone other than anti-vaccinationists that this organisation is anti-vaccination and that's before we get into all the other actual evidence to prove it.

If you wish, there is plenty of interesting information on the AVN and their behaviour available online, just google "meryl dorey"

Are you asking how I found this site?  I get alerts from google when things I am interested in get a mention, then I go take a look ...   the internet is such a fantastic toy ....   

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

1.  Define anti-vaccination

2.  Have you been to the NVIC site?

1.  What part of anti vaccination don't you understand?  the term seems self explanatory.

2.  Yes, nice looking website, much more professional than the AVN's site .. same claims, same focus on 'gimme money' though.   

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

This post gives us a very interesting insight into your personality

From one post?  Assumptive.  

1.  What part of anti vaccination don't you understand?  the term seems self explanatory.

It is not.  I doubt we agree on what it means, although I could be wrong.  I do invite you to give your definition.  I see anti-vaccine as anti vaccine in all or almost all circumstances - those who think vaccines should not exist at all.  This is quite different from someone who is critical of vaccines for one reason or another for their family.  

2.  Yes, nice looking website, much more professional than the AVN's site .. same claims, same focus on 'gimme money' though.   

I don't get "gimme the money".  It is possible it is part of their site (and many non-profits do ask for funds - nothing wrong with that).  It is hardly the focus of the site, however.  

[WendyAdams]

Still aren't convinced the AVN is anti vaccination?

“There will come a time – I pray to God that it will happen in my lifetime – when those who have pushed vaccines upon innocent, helpless babies – doctors, pharmaceutical companies, government officials – will be proven to have lied and cheated these instruments of death into our children’s bloodstream. When that occurs, the outcry will be heard around the world and there will not be enough hiding places on the globe for these murderers to hide or enough money to pay for compensation. Of course, it will be too late for the babies, like this poor child, to be saved. But we will be able to take satisfaction from the fact that never again will anyone have to be pushed to poison their child because for once and for all, it will be known as poison and we will all wonder how it was we fell for the vaccine lie for as long as we did.” 

Meryl Dorey, President, Australian Vaccination Network AVN Yahoo group, 17 Dec 2008,

and:  

"Court orders rape of a child. Think this is an exaggeration? Think again. This is assault without consent and will full penetration too. If we as a society allow this crime to take place, we are every bit as guilty as the judge who made the order and the doctor who carries it out..."

Source: Meryl Dorey - AVN Facebook page, 15 January 2011

and:

"And when you look at the list of ingredients in vaccinations, the list of poisons, there's no other word for them. They call them toxins, it's just another word for a poison. It's hard to imagine, ok, where did we ever get the idea that by injecting poisonous substances into the human body we're developing health. I don't understand where that idea ever came from. The only thing that poisons do, is poison. So, if you are going to be putting something that's poisonous into the human body, what do you expect to happen. You expect it to get poisoned. And, as you said, where are the benefits of vaccination?"

"Vaccines don't work. Vaccines are dangerous. And people who think that when they vaccinate their child they're protecting them, unfortunately, the evidence shows that that's not the case. Vaccines don't immunise. All they do is sensitise. They make you more susceptible to allergic problems, to food allergies, to asthma, to excema, to autism, to all of these other problems that didn't used to exist, or didn't used to exist in the numbers that we see now, for sure."

Source: Voodoo Children webinar, 2009

Health watch dog?  Pro choice?   Absolutely not.   Anti-vaccination.

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

This post gives us a very interesting insight into your personality

From one post?  Assumptive.  

1.  What part of anti vaccination don't you understand?  the term seems self explanatory.

It is not.  I doubt we agree on what it means, although I could be wrong.  I do invite you to give your definition.  I see anti-vaccine as anti vaccine in all or almost all circumstances - those who think vaccines should not exist at all.  This is quite different from someone who is critical of vaccines for one reason or another for their family.  

2.  Yes, nice looking website, much more professional than the AVN's site .. same claims, same focus on 'gimme money' though.   

I don't get "gimme the money".  It is possible it is part of their site (and many non-profits do ask for funds - nothing wrong with that).  It is hardly the focus of the site, however.  

Haven't quite mastered the quote thing here so excuse the difficulty in formatting.

No, not assumptive, just shows the way your mind works.  It's something you start to recognise when dealing with those who oppose vaccination.

I would have suggested that being anti-vaccination means that you're anti-vaccination at all times and as we've seen with the AVN to the point of plying misinformation in order to scare others into the same stance.

That's your opinion (re the site), it's the first thing that drew my eyes on the front page.  Not one button, but two (donate now!  paypal donation!).   The buttons are in red, designed to draw the eyes.   All these organisations slap their hands out looking for funds, I have insufficient knowledge of NVIC to know what they do with it, but the IAS (NZ anti vaccination organisation) has recently lost it's charity licence and the AVN has been caught time and time again not using the money it's collected for the purposes it advertises AND has failed to submit financial records for 2 years in breach of the legislation.   This, and many other behaviours is why the AVN is currently being investigated by the NSW Department of Fair Trading.

Any organisation that truly believed it was pro-choice or a 'watchdog' (something by the way I find quite arrogant and inaccurate) would do well to distance themselves from the AVN as I suspect there is more fallout coming for them (in a legal sense).    

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

Any organisation that truly believed it was pro-choice or a 'watchdog' (something by the way I find quite arrogant and inaccurate) would do well to distance themselves from the AVN as I suspect there is more fallout coming for them (in a legal sense).    

Why is a watchdog organisation something you find arrogant and inaccurate? Watchdog organisations in general (and you said "any organisation") can be useful to the public in bringing to light important issues.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by tuxcomputers 

The AVN sell T-shirts that have the slogan, "Love them, protect them, never inject" is pretty clearly anti-vaccination. If it is not anti-vax please explain how that slogan fits into the supposed pro-choice stance.

http://shop.avn.org.au/products/Love-them-%28text-only%29-T%252dShirt.html

Name a single vaccine that the AVN has recommended, EVER .......will a decade be long enough to find it?

The president and spokesperson has described vaccination as "rape with full penetration". Please explain how that fits in the supposed pro-choice stance.

umm perhaps you need to reread my post. I was referring to NVIC website. I am not really familiar with the AVN. 

[WildKingdom]

Regarding whether or not the AVN is anti-vaccine, in Meryl Dorey's own words:

Quote:

MERYL DOREY: Our position is to provide information that balances the information that parents get from their doctors and from the government. We have never said that we provide both sides of the story. We don't.

Also from the same article- she actually harassed the parents of an infant who died of pertussis, claiming that the baby died of something else.

Quote:

TONI MCCAFFERY, PARENT: Our daughter wasn't even buried and it began. It began the day before her funeral. It began with phone calls to the Health Department to get her medical records contending she didn't die of pertussis.

STEVE CANNANE: This email from Paul Corben, the director of public health at the North Coast Area Health Service, backs up Toni McCaffery's claims.

PAUL CORBEN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH, NORTH COAST AREA HEALTH SERVICE (male voiceover): "Ms Dorey called me on 12 March seeking details of your daughter's illness and death. Ms Dorey contended that I had misled the public in attributing your daughter's death to pertussis."

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2951651.htm