"Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next? - Page 2

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

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

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.

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

I read the article.  She called the health department and questioned  if the child received a proper pertussis test.  I do not know the full story, but based on the link you provided I would not say Dorey harassed the parents.

I think death certificates are a matter of public record in many places.

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/26/12 at 9:40am

[chickabiddy]

A stranger's medical records are absolutely none of her business.  Death certificates may be public record, but the treatments/tests/whatever leading up to the death are certainly private.

I would not care for it at all if a stranger to me called the doctor to ask about the results of my mammogram, and I would be horrified if those results were given out.

[chickabiddy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Vaccination_Network

AVN members continued to harass the McCafferys through to July 2010 by sending emails, letters and AVN brochures to the family. AVN president Meryl Dorey wrote another blog disputing the McCafferys' version of events, the treatments and effects Dana suffered and the diagnosis of Pertussis. Dana's mother was forced to publicly defend the facts of the case again, pleading to be left alone by Meryl and other AVN members.

http://danamccaffery.com/hccc_avn_release.html

Within weeks of going public, the McCafferys received letters to their home, emails to a site dedicated to Dana (www.danamccaffery.com) and posts on Internet blog sites.

[Marnica]

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.  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.

I'm responding soley about the NVIC since I don't really know enough about the AVN to comment. To the bolded I would say BOLLOCKS. What the NVIC supplies is not misinformation. It's information that you happen to disagree with. I have met Barbara Lowe Fisher. 'I've spoken with her and  I've heard her speak. She is not "anti" vaccine. She will never and has never told any parent not to vaccinate their child. She encourages parents to do their own research and inform themselves before making any choices. 

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I read the article.  She called the health department and questioned  if the child received a proper pertussis test. 

I saw that too.

It seems like if one had been done and it was positive, they'd be throwing it in her face. The fact that they ignored this question makes me suspicious. 

[chickabiddy]

It makes you suspicious that a health department refused to reveal private medical information?  Or that grieving parents chose not to discuss the details of their daughter's last illness with an activist who had already shown herself to be, at the very least, inconsiderate of their grief?

Wow.

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

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.

Not the organisation, but the claim.   Any organisation that is agenda driven cannot by it's nature be a 'watchdog'.  A 'watchdog' needs to be unbiased, and the clear check for bias is to look at the nature of the information.  The AVN & IAS are ALL about not immunising, there is nothing on their sites that says anything positive about immunisation.    Can you link to something on NVIC that supports vaccination?

If you went to their site and you spoke positively about vaccination what would happen?  On the AVN / IAS sites you would either be belittled or vilified or have your posts removed.   This is not the behaviour or a legitimate or reasonable organisation and certainly not the behaviour of a 'watchdog'.

AVN in the news:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3601416.htm

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I read the article.  She called the health department and questioned  if the child received a proper pertussis test.  I do not know the full story, but based on the link you provided I would not say Dorey harassed the parents.

I think death certificates are a matter of public record in many places.

Interesting.  You clearly didn't read up on the whole incident or you have chosen to ignore that she demanded that he run the right tests.

But more importantly, why do you think it's OK for someone to ring a medical examiner to discuss the autopsy of a child that isn't theirs?

I don't know if they're a matter of public record here, but the point isn't actually relevant here.

[Chicharronita]

Seeing as they use the "babies too young to be vaccinated die of pertussis so every single person near a baby must be vaccinated!!!!" ploy to get people to vaccinate, yes it ought to be revealed if said babies in fact did die of pertussis. 

But I'm sure most people are just so shocked (as well as they should) that a baby has died that it's hard for them to think about tests. So I'm glad that she brought that up, even though they ignored her. 

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

I'm responding soley about the NVIC since I don't really know enough about the AVN to comment. To the bolded I would say BOLLOCKS. What the NVIC supplies is not misinformation. It's information that you happen to disagree with. I have met Barbara Lowe Fisher. 'I've spoken with her and  I've heard her speak. She is not "anti" vaccine. She will never and has never told any parent not to vaccinate their child. She encourages parents to do their own research and inform themselves before making any choices. 

Whether I agree or disagree with information is based on the accuracy and validity of the statement.  I don't choose based on my personal opinion, I use the science as the decider.

Wiki tells us all we need to know:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.^[1] The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child. Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 I have met Barbara Lowe Fisher. 'I've spoken with her and  I've heard her speak. She is not "anti" vaccine. 

I've seen her speak too.. She's the daughter of a nurse and I believe has other medical professionals in her family; this is why she was so shocked when her son developed convulsions and brain inflammation within hours of his fourth DPT shot.

Barbara is a very powerful speaker due to her personal experiences with him.

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I saw that too.

It seems like if one had been done and it was positive, they'd be throwing it in her face. The fact that they ignored this question makes me suspicious. 

That's a very interesting statement, but unfortunately it says more about you than the doctor involved.

The law forbids him from discussing the autopsy with anyone except her parents.   Even then, he would wait until the autopsy is completed.  Ringing and questioning his decisions and demanding he do one test or another is actually called "perverting the course of justice" and is actually a breach of the law in Australia and she could have been arrested.  The doctor if he had handed out information could have also faced legal repercussions including being struck off the register.     

So, a doctor following the law makes you suspicious?    Interesting.

[lanamommyphd07]

Regarding finding out for sure that an infant died of pertussis.....yes!! I want the data!! If this is going to be an illness that is reported to the government, you bet I want verification that it was, in fact, the illness in question. Maybe it's just that parents like me are a bit jaded after seeing parents jailed for SBS only to find later through testing that no, it was a jab. 

People get too wound up over communicable diseases. It's awesome media, gets folks all crazed. If something is going to hit the press, I want verification of the facts too. It's believable that a child died from pertussis. It's also believable that a child died from a pertussis vax, and it's believable that a child died from something entirely different that is being called pertussis because of where we are in the world and what gets people excited, and what the general agenda is in politics and greed. 

Most likely, the name AVN is being called misleading since it is more of a AVInformationN as opposed to something provax. But here's the deal--there are plenty of things out there on why vaccines are so great, so it's nice to have some balance. I would think that any thinking person would want all sides of an issue before making decisions about health. People who put out the information are not hurting anyone.

If we can't sue Pharma, we shouldn't be able to sue information providers either.

[lanamommyphd07]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I saw that too.

It seems like if one had been done and it was positive, they'd be throwing it in her face. The fact that they ignored this question makes me suspicious. 

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 

People who put out the information are not hurting anyone.

Well that's not exactly true. If after reviewing all the information more and more people decide against vaccines, there go the vaccine profits. ;-)

[MeepyCat]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I saw that too.

It seems like if one had been done and it was positive, they'd be throwing it in her face. The fact that they ignored this question makes me suspicious. 

So, your theory is that this wasn't pertussis because the grieving parents aren't behaving the way you think they would behave?

The hospital can't say whether they had a pertussis test done, or what the results were, because of patient privacy law.  No matter how much they'd like to throw it in everyone's face, patient privacy law still applies.  They can report to the government that they had X cases of (disease), but they can't put names to those stats in the public reports.

That leaves the parents.  How much are grieving parents required to share medical information with the media?  Because last time I checked, it was "not at all."

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I've seen her speak too.. She's the daughter of a nurse and I believe has other medical professionals in her family; this is why she was so shocked when her son developed convulsions and brain inflammation within hours of his fourth DPT shot.

Barbara is a very powerful speaker due to her personal experiences with him.

Interesting.

I'm wondering, Chicha, have you personally reviewed her son's medical records?  If not, why not?  I mean, if the McCaffery's have to release their daughter's private information in order to be believed by you, shouldn't Barbara Loe Fischer, also?

[lanamommyphd07]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Well that's not exactly true. If after reviewing all the information more and more people decide against vaccines, there go the vaccine profits. ;-)

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I've seen her speak too.. She's the daughter of a nurse and I believe has other medical professionals in her family; this is why she was so shocked when her son developed convulsions and brain inflammation within hours of his fourth DPT shot.

Barbara is a very powerful speaker due to her personal experiences with him.

and Toni McCaffrey, mother of the baby in question is a powerful speaker due to her experiences. Why is it that you're only interested in one side of the issue?   Surely, people who are 'educated' and 'researched' on this subject wouldn't be closed minded to the other side would they?  Oh wait, they are.   The evidence is actually within this very site.    Where there is a thread on a child with tetanus in New Zealand, which has been totally ignored by the anti vaccination crowd. They don't want to discuss children who are affected by the diseases, they'd prefer they're not even mentioned at all.

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Seeing as they use the "babies too young to be vaccinated die of pertussis so every single person near a baby must be vaccinated!!!!" ploy to get people to vaccinate, yes it ought to be revealed if said babies in fact did die of pertussis. 

But I'm sure most people are just so shocked (as well as they should) that a baby has died that it's hard for them to think about tests. So I'm glad that she brought that up, even though they ignored her. 

So, we have established that you aren't that interested in waiting for the facts, preferring the misinformation.

We've established that you're not that fussed about issues of privacy (but i'll bet you'd fight to the death for your own privacy)

Now, how would YOU keep those babies safe?

[WendyAdams]

Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 

Regarding finding out for sure that an infant died of pertussis.....yes!! I want the data!! If this is going to be an illness that is reported to the government, you bet I want verification that it was, in fact, the illness in question. Maybe it's just that parents like me are a bit jaded after seeing parents jailed for SBS only to find later through testing that no, it was a jab. 

People get too wound up over communicable diseases. It's awesome media, gets folks all crazed. If something is going to hit the press, I want verification of the facts too. It's believable that a child died from pertussis. It's also believable that a child died from a pertussis vax, and it's believable that a child died from something entirely different that is being called pertussis because of where we are in the world and what gets people excited, and what the general agenda is in politics and greed. 

Most likely, the name AVN is being called misleading since it is more of a AVInformationN as opposed to something provax. But here's the deal--there are plenty of things out there on why vaccines are so great, so it's nice to have some balance. I would think that any thinking person would want all sides of an issue before making decisions about health. People who put out the information are not hurting anyone.

If we can't sue Pharma, we shouldn't be able to sue information providers either.

Well, here we have a classic example of anti vaccination.   Lots of facts without evidence.

1.  SBS = vaccine injury .. well, it's actually shaken baby syndrome, but lets not let the facts stand in the way of a good story shall we?

2.  Don't worry about communcable disease = the death of children to VPD's is irrelevant to the anti vaccination crowd, we have to focus on the mythical dead babies to vaccine injury instead of focussing on the actual dead children due to VPD's.

3.  Balance.  this is a favourite of mine.  I agree that balance is important, but if it's dishonest, it's not balance, it's just dishonest.    The AVN is being called misleading as it only supplies a single side to the discussion, and one that is not honest.  Balance would imply that both sides of an isssue were addressed, and by their own admission that is not what they do.

4.  and the ultimate marker for an anti vaccinationists .. the term 'big pharma' ...          I blame hollywood .. some people just cannot differentiate between reality and make believe.