The AVN does not present science. It *misrepresents* science. These are two very different things.

As a social sciences student, Judy, I wouldn't expect you to have much of a grounding in immunology, statistics, chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, pharmacodynamics or any of the other fields represented among the membership of SAVN, whose primary role is debunking the AVN's misrepresentation of the science.

The most emblematic example of the AVN's blatant misrepresentations, for example, is Meryl's repeated claims that pertussis vaccination "just doesn't work", when in fact the studies she misreads show an ~85% efficacy rate. I explain this egregious failure in the following blog post, among many others similar to it:

http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2010/07/13/502.aspx

Science? The AVN wouldn't know it if it slapped them with a fish

The AVN is misrepresenting the science.

FTFY

Judy, would you mind awfully giving a reference, preferably a URL, for your claim "The AVN represents a range of consumer opinions on vaccination...." I just can't seem to find any pro-vaccination opinions.

The AVN is presenting the science? No, they often present scientific literature that has been misunderstood and misinterpreted, as is well demonstrated by Tom Sidwell above regarding Meryl Dorey/AVN and their response to the HCCC. They present this information with their own flawed interpretation, alleging outcomes that are simply not supported by the literature. How can this possibly be considered useful information for consumers to base health related decisions upon.

You assertion that government provided information on vaccination does not include information on the downsides of vaccination is completely incorrect. I assume that as part of your research for your PhD, you are well acquainted with the Immunise Australia handbook (http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook-home) which quite clearly provides information on the ingredients of the individual vaccines, adverse events, precautions and links to the multitude of research completed on our current vaccination schedule. Your proclamations that "there is no evidence" is astounding, and suggests you have not familiarised yourself with the starting point of information you should look at for doing your PhD. Don't tell me it's taken so many years to look at it?

Judy, you say "The AVN is not a healthcare provider as the HCCC finally accepted after a 2 year court case."

Clearly, you have not read the judgement, or you spectaculalry misrepresented it. See para 10 of the judgement at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/ni/history/12/0225avn_scdecision.pdf

“Vaccination is a matter about health. The provision of information about vaccination is a health education service. It is common ground, and I accept, that the plaintiff is a "health service provider" within the meaning of s 4 of the Act since it provides "health education services".

Dear oh dear, Judy. Let me quote Judge Adamson:
10. ... It is common ground, and I accept, that the plaintiff is a “health service provider” within the meaning of s 4 of the Act since it provides “health education services”.
30. ... complaints were made against the plaintiff, which admits that it is a health service provider. ...

Maybe you should read the judgement. The only reason the HCCC lost was becasue the complaints did not inlcude the name of an individual who was persuaded by the AVN to avoid vaccination and was consequently hurt. The judge ruled that the language of the law requires such an individual to be identified rather than simply show that vaccination rates have dropped in areas where the AVN is particularly active.

I should also point out that while consumers do have a right to have input into policy matters, they do not have the right to cause harm to the public (see "yelling fire in a crowded theatre"). It should also be noted that while the AVN says it promotes "choice", it doesn't really need to do anything because the law in Australia already provides people with the choice the AVN is supposedly fighting for. All the AVN does is try to scare people off vaccinating, and it does so using deception and misleading information.

"The AVN is not a healthcare provider as the HCCC finally accepted after a 2 year court case. "

- Completely incorrect, Judy, as is in the court judgement. AVN is in fact a health care provider, within the definition of the law.

"Perhaps you could inform me why a government body (HCCC) feels it has to suppress the input of consumers by upholding a complaint made by a lobby group against it for 2 years. "

- The HCCC's orders never stated that any part of the AVN was to be shut down, but that a consumer warning be put in place. This order was largely due to AVN's misrepresentation as to its purpose and stance on vaccination, namely anti-vaccination.

"It is my understanding that the purpose of the HCCC was to investigate consumers concerns about health issues. As someone who has presented valid scientific arguments to the AVN I am intrigued at your assertions that none of the science on the AVN website is valid. "

- Some, although a minority, of AVN's material is of a genuinely scientific nature. The issue the HCCC took with AVN is its presentation of this material in its propensity to quote-mine it, distort its findings, or insert unfounded interpretation into the material that distorts its genuine meaning. Hence HCCC's decision to issue a public warning, i.e. that even scientific material was being misrepresented on the site.

"Are you suggesting that consumers have no right to an input into policy decisions (involving a medical procedure) that directly affects the health and well being of the population?"

- Now, just where did you get that from? Certainly not from any of the statements here. Please do not misquote people. It's rude.

"Is this topic (that involves injecting substances into the human body) a taboo topic for debate in public forums? "

- No, but misrepresenting facts is definitely taboo. Hence the umbrage many of the commenters here have taken to the AVN, and your comments. Similarly, the HCCC's opinion was that AVN misrepresented facts.

"It would seem from recent experiences that this is the case."

- I cannot comment on the other circles that you may choose to congregate in, but factual discourse is never a taboo in here.

"It would seem from recent experiences that this is the case. I hope you can explain for me why the HCCC took this action when the AVN is clearly not a healthcare provider."

- Please see first point. The AVN is a service provider, as is defined in law.

I'm more than happy to correct any further erroneous or irrelevant statements that you may wish to make.

Yours kindly,

Ilijas.

Ms Wilyman: can you please comment that you now understand that your premise, on which the rest of you argument is founded, is incorrect? Thank you. People of integrity apologise and retract that which they know to be untrue, upon correction.

Judy Wilyman, 2 hours ago, The Conversation comments thread, said this:

"It is a pity you don't check your information before you make untrue statements and put out misinformation."

So, there are now two (2) Judy Wilymans posting in this thread now? This is getting confusing.

Judy,

As everyone has pointed out, the premise of your assertion that the HCCC had no grounds to investigate the AVN is incorrect, as they (the AVN) themselves admitted in court to being a health care provider. To answer your question, no I am not suggesting that the public has no right to express opinions on immunisation and immunisation policy making. What I have a problem with is the public being deliberately misinformed regarding immunisation, which the AVN does, by repeating claims that are contradicted by the science they say supports them.

Also, interestingly, I did not assert 'none of the science on the AVN site is valid', but I will gladly assert that none of the (what they call their) science I have read from the AVN is.

Again; I read the sources cited by the AVN in their first HCCC submission and found the papers did not support, directly contradicted, and in one case had nothing to do with the claim being made. Every now and then a journal article will be cited on the AVN blog or facebook page, and I continually find a disconnect between its contents and the claim the AVN makes for it. The AVN provides misinformation that is contradicted by science, and is unable to provide supporting evidence when requested.

If you find an error in the HCCC's findings regarding the AVN providing information not backed by science (http://www.scribd.com/doc/51130605/HCCC-Final-Report-Text-seachable), or my analyses which demonstrated the claims the AVN chose to substanciate in their first HCCC response were unsupported by the articles they cited and contradicted by the medical literature (http://www.scribd.com/collections/3113778/Analyses-of-the-scientific-references-in-the-AVN-s-HCCC-submission), then please do. As I said, All I see scientifically from them are links to mis-interpreted journal articles that they haven't actually read/understood. If you can demonstrate otherwise, you would be doing the AVN, and indeed yourself at this stage, a big favour.

Please, if you are going to reply to this comment, please address its contents, rather than raising an irrelevant, incorrect point and then arguing at an opinion which I didn't even present, as: https://theconversation.edu.au/anti-vax-network-wins-court-case-but-its-claims-are-still-misleading-5568#comment_26240

Regards,

Tom Sidwell
PhD Student

Given that StopAVN is a Facebook Page, what do you think 'subscriber' and 'member' actually mean? Further, how do you account for the fact that Dick Smith has not actually Liked the Facebook Page in question?

And what do you mean by 'PhD researcher'? Do you mean a post-grad student?

Here's the Aus Skeptics release on the 2010 awards

http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/news/skeptics-2010-awards/

PhD researcher, huh?

Oh, and full disclosure: I am neither a member of, nor a subscriber to, Australian Skeptics - though I certainly move in the same circles as many members, have attended some of their events, and appeared on their podcast.

Judy, with respect, you need to your research more carefully rather than throwing wild accusations at individuals who are not here to defend themselves.

Dick Smith had nothing to do with the HCCC complaint. That is public information that you can locate in the court ruling of AVN vs HCCC. I would expect you to employ your "PhD Researcher" skills and find out this information before making such statements here.

I would suggest to you that you start with Google - which is a search engine - and type in HCCC vs AVN. It will bring up a list of links, many of which will lead you directly or indirectly to the court ruling.

Secondly, the AVN are in fact resolutely anti-vaccination. There is no debate about this. Debate cannot take place when AVN's entire catalogue of material and comments revolve around invented dangers of vaccines.

Thirdly, I have never seen AVN even remotely interested in discussion or debate. Conversely it has been largely preoccupied with forming a cult dynamic that demonises all of its ideological opponents with the same brush.

Regards,

Ilijas.

You're really not up to this, are you Judy?

SAVN is not part of Australian Skeptics. Never has been. Dick Smith funded a national advert in conjunction with the Australian Skeptics, not with SAVN. It's no wonder you ddon't actually have a PhD yet if it takes this amount of effort to make a point sink in.

In return I'll note that your only contribution to this topic is dog whistling and unsubstantiated (and plain wrong) assertions.

I hope next time you'll think before you set your fingers to the keyboard, though I understand this is a long shot.

Judy, I and others have attempted to correct you on this claim of yours, but I can't seem to find anything from you making a correction or substantiation. So would you mind awfully substantiating your claim that "Dick Smith ......fund(ed) the advertisments for SAVN"?

Thanking you in anticipation.

Glad to see it's almost sinking in, Judy.

You still missed the fact that SAVN is not in any way related to Australian Skeptics except for the fact that some fans of A are subscribers to B.

You also missed the fact that Dick Smith was quite aware of what he was funding: a quarter page advert in The Australian on the topic of vaccination and antivax propaganda.

Oh, and "helped to found Aus Skeptics". Not "founded".

But it's an encouraging start. Have a biscuit.

Any time you want to bring the science on, feel free.

No he didn't, no it isn't, and no I didn't. There is absolutely nothing in your message that is even close to the truth. It is laughable that you should say Rachael doesn't stick to the truth.

Ms Wilyman. You are clearly inept. Dick Smith has not funded any ads for Stop the AVN. This has been conveyed to you in several different ways in an attempt to get you to understand. Clearly, your only reason for continuing to make the accusation is to make derogatory comments about people, on subjects you cannot even begin to fathom.

Please, hand in your student card. Give the placement to someone who deserves it, and who is not intent on making slurs in lieu of accurate comments.

How does criticism, whether of the science or the person, posted on the SAVN facebook page or anywhere else act to suppress debate?

Judy, I'll be blunt: Dick Smith did *not* fund any campaigns held by SAVN.

Now, for goodness' sake, get your facts straight before you embarrass yourself any further as an inarticulate ill-informed buffoon in here.

> As the AVN website states that the organistion stands for choice in the use of vaccines

Yep, and OJ Simpson said he was completely innocent.

In this case, we cannot judge merely by the AVN's claims - we must judge by their statements and actions, and those statements and actions reflect an entirely, unyielding anti-vaccination stance. Even Fran Sheffield, one of the more deluded people I've encountered on the internet, has written to Meryl Dorey expression the opinion that the AVN should just confess their anti-vax stance and have done with it, because to do otherwise is making them look dishonest. And I quote:

"I think almost everyone, supporters and non-supporters, believe the AVN is antivaccine in spite of its protests to the contrary.

How can they do otherwise when 99.9% of information about vaccines released by the AVN is anti or reveals their problems? When there is not explanation why this imbalance exists?"

Orac has written again recently on this "I'm not anti-vaccine" nonsense

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/once_again_antivaccine_not_pro-safe_vacc.php

And here's Fran Sheffield's statement in full. You'd do well to heed it yourself, Judy.

http://reasonablehank.com/2012/02/25/fran-sheffield-declares-the-australian-vaccination-network-anti-vaccine/

Ms Wilyman - the point of this story and ongoing discussion is not what the AVN describes themselves as, but what they really are. Quite apart from the issue of jurisdiction, the HCCC investigation report makes this clear. Which parts of their report do you consider to be erroneous and what is your evidence?

I would emphasise once more, Judy, that this is not about the Australian Skeptics.

The fact is that so far your public face has been indistinguishable from that of an anti-vaxer, so when you dodge and evade questions, as you've been doing constantly on this thread, there is no possible way to distinguish you from an archetypal anti-vaccine advocate.

I personally see no reason to change my evaluation of you as an antivaxer, Judy. You've presented anti-vaccine material at seminars run by an anti-vaccine organisation and in tandem with, and at the invitation of, a known anti-vaccine advocate (Dorey). This material has been used by Dorey multiple times to attempt to undermine confidence in the current vaccination schedule, and at no time have you questioned Dorey's use of it. When you lie* with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Secondly, why exactly is your "research" into multiple vaccines, as a social studies student, in any way as valid as the multiple published studies from epidemiologists, public health specialists, immunologists and other specialists actually in the field?

Perhaps, as a social studies student, you may have something valid to say about the attitudes of the public, and about the cult-like mentality of the anti-vax movement, or about the strategies used by both sides. I don't, however, see that you have any credibility in a field relevant to the actual science.

So in summary, I see this as a bunch more "I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm pro-choice" nonsense. You are presenting misinformation on the topic and deserve as much scrutiny as any other non-specialist claiming expertise.

* see what I did there?

Of course this place is fine.

As a vaccine advocate and defender of accuracy in reporting medical information, I'd like judy to take part in the debate, if not for any other reason but to see some of her arguments and logic...

John

"If people state they are actually Napoleon, it is not your place to state that they are not"

FTFY

Judy, if you live by your example above, how would one *ever* spot dishonesty? Would you watch Nixon on TV and repeat to yourself "Yes, of course. That man is NOT a crook"?

Frankly, if someone claims they are "A" while behaving like "B", I'm perfectly within my rights to state that they are not "A" but "B".

Your schtick is kinda funny, but ultimately tiring. Grow up.

So what, Judy? Dorey has vaccinated children too. Doesn't stop her being Australia's most prominent anti-vaccination campaigner.

People change their minds, surely you, as a social sciences student, should know this?

Judy, do you mean to say that your declaration of being pro-choice cannot be criticised?

Rather an arrogant position to take, don't you think?

It would be possible for you, and everyone else for that matter, to be pro-choice if the nature and content of the material you produce, commentary and public contributions were in fact encouraging choice.

In truth, your, and AVN's content is extremely limited to repeated dissemination of material that has not one single positive thing to say about any vaccination, and unequivocally states that vaccines have no medical benefit.

If you say that vaccines have no benefit, and invent a fictitious government mandate for compulsory vaccination, then surely you ought to at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that your position is resolutely anti-vaccination.

"It is not your place to inaccurately present other peoples positions on this issue."

Rather ironic comment, considering that you have made numerous misrepresentations of SAVN's and Australian Skeptics' positions and actions regarding the issue of anti-vaccination.

Also, the "It is not your place," is a statement that we (whoever that may be in your mind) have *no* right to misrepresent? Even inadvertently, through error, perhaps?

Odd declaration of rights.

"Just what exactly is a "PhD Researcher"?"

An invented title that allows Wilyman to put 'PhD' next to her name without qualification.

There is nothing derogatory in my post. My post is factual. My question of you "what exactly is a PhD Researcher" is a reasonable one. I have spoken with a number of people who hold PhDs and none of them are familiar with your self bestowed title. They have all, without exception, stated that your correct title should be PhD Candidate. The title you are using is misleading. I would really like you to answer my simple and definitely not derogatory question "what exactly is a PhD Researcher"?

Your title of PhD Researcher is one that you have made up. I have not been able to find any evidence of it being a legitimate title in use at any Australian university. It is a misleading title in that it suggests to people, who are not familiar with tertiary qualifications, that you already had a PhD qualification and you are therefore qualified to write about things for which you hold no qualifications.

The correct term is PhD Candidate and you should use it. This is not a derogatory post at all. I am making a relevant statement about a misleading title you are using.

Sorry, Ms Wilyman. Even Fran Sheffield (yes, Fran Sheffield) believes the AVN is dishonest and, by extension, so are you. It would appear that Fran has no need of a special dictionary, shared by you and Mrs Dorey, which redefines the English language to suit your arbitrary definitions:
http://reasonablehank.com/2012/02/25/fran-sheffield-declares-the-australian-vaccination-network-anti-vaccine/

Tell me, Ms Wilyman: can you point to some of your research which shows the risks and benefits of immunisation as compared to non-immunisation. The real risks and benefits. Please do not cite VAERS as a primary source. I beg you, please do not use VAERS to show that Gardasil is deadly. Deal?

"Coercive measures in vaccination policy put population health at risk without this evidence."

What, more so than lowering community resistance by allowing vaccination rates to drop?

Judy, like most antivaxers, you're inflating a tiny risk of complication for which no firm evidence exists and ignoring entirely the very real risk of the re-emergence of infectious diseases once held at bay. We're seeing this in the wild, right now, but you prefer to think a hypothetical and extremely small risk of complication is worse?

It's like citing injuries caused by seat belts as a valid reason to remove compulsory seat-belt laws. Yes, sometimes people can be injured by seat belts and airbags. But far more people are saved. Your question begging will not affect these real world statistics.

Oh, and I note you still failed to answer Linda's simple and direct questions. Well played, Judy.

Heh. Parents are "bribed" to vaccinate? Not that Ms Wilyman is anti-vaccine or anything.

Your first two sentences here are just plain wrong. Comparison against a control is a powerful tool, particularly in fields such as medicine, but it most definitely is not used in "any valid scientific study".

Secondly, the use of a control group lets you identify "correlations" with the variable being controlled for it does not let you infer causation, let alone "prove causation".

Judy, in view of the doubts that have arisen over your credibility, do you have any substantiation for this statement of yours?

"On the 13 September 2010 Prof. Fiona Stanley's Telethon Institute for Children's Health (TICH) held a community seminar on infectious diseases. At this seminar it was admitted that there were no long term health studies of the combined effects of 12 vaccines in an infant, adult or animal....."

Mafia Don to subordinate:

"I'm going to make you an offer you cannot refuse. Do this thing for me, and you will be rewarded. Or you can sign here and you will be rewarded anyway"

Doesn't have the right kinda ring to it, does it?

Judy, I'm also a member of the Eurobodalla Ratepayers' Association. Would you like to draw some inference in that?

Oh, and you STILL haven't answered Linda Hilton's simple and direct questions. Evasive much?

Here is a good post with which Ms Wilyman should acquaint herself. It has a graph. The only difference in health outcomes for vaxed versus unvaxed cohorts was that the unvaxed suffered more vaccine preventable disease. Just like the current Measles outbreaks, what?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/for_the_anti-vaccinationists_out_there_t.php

Judy, of course people are entitled to their opinions. However no one is entitled to place the wider community in harms way because of that opinion. In many other situations the government will punish you for endangering the community.

Driving to fast, Driving while intoxicated, Lighting Fires during a fire ban, Improper disposal of waste product. These are just a few of the many things that people can get punished for because they put other members of the community in danger.

So what's the punishment for anti-vaxxers....? Oh, they have to sign a form.
Get a grip Judy. You're embarrassing yourself.

Judy - you still have not answered my science questions that I posed a number of days ago. You are so busy defaming everyone that you won't do the thing that you demand of us, which is to deal with the science.

All the assertions that you are making about individuals and groups are wrong, so you need to move on.

Judy climbs onto high horse, falls off the other side.

I care about children's health too Judy. Please answer my questions. Just scroll through and look for Orinoco.

My Wilyman - you assert that "Vaccines contain many ingredients that have synergistic, cumulative and latent effects."

WOuld you please direct me to the evidence that shows what these ingredients are and the evidence of their "synergistic, cumulative and latent effects"? What effects are they, how have they been measured and who displays them?

Ms Wilyman, what is the nature of your research? Is it basic science, laboratory science, clinical, epidemiological?

Ms Wilyman, you finally managed to get some of the facts right, though I have no idea why you need to write a post that is comprised entirely of regurgitated (and somewhat misinterpreted) facts from other people's posts.

Let's go point by point:
* "Ken Mcleod is a subscriber of the Canberra Skeptics" - almost. Ken was a subscriber to the Australian Skeptics magazine, The Skeptic. Based on what he's saying, he was also a lapsed member of Canberra Skeptics, but this information did not come from me as I have no idea whether it's true or not.

* "he made the original complaint to the HCCC" - one of two, but YES, you got it right! Well done!!

* "He received the Australian Skeptics Thornett award for this complaint in 2010 and received $1000 with this award" - almost. He received it for all of his activity, but the complaint featured prominently in the considerations.

* "The Australian Skeptics committee wrote the first advertisement for the 'Stop the AVN' group and this was funded by Dick Smith - a prominent Australian Skeptic." - again, almost. Stop the AVN was not involved in any way whatsoever in the first ad, and the ad was not written 'for' anyone. In a previous post, I wrote this: "Dick Smith did not EVER fund an ad for SAVN." Somewhat naively, I thought it's clear. Obviously, I was wrong, so let me make it as clear as I possibly can: "Dick Smith did not ever fund an ad for SAVN, DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY."

* "The term SAVN was established after this advertisement in the Australian newspaper and future advertisements were funded by the SAVN page subscriber and other doners." - another correct answer - well done! But if you knew SAVN was established after the ad was published, why did you insist in the previous statement that the ad was written for them? Do you not understand that it's a contradiction?

* "This information has been provided by Eran Segev, the president of the Australian Skeptics." - I think "based on information provided by Eran Segev" would have been more accuarate, but never mind that. I'm still not sure what this post was meant to do, other than repeat information that's alreay available on this thread.

So all in all, not a bad effort in the accuracy front.

And finally - I applaud you for correcting your title. It was the right thing to do.

Judy, Eran has corrected your inaccuracies quite well there.

But I pose to you this question: even if your statements were true, how would this be relevant? How would it devalue the criticisms that have been cast at the AVN as an organisation?

In other words, Judy, what's your point? Are you insinuating that there is an organised mafia of skeptics out to get the AVN? Is that all you have to say on this point?

I'm curious as to how you reconcile the dichotomy between AVN's material being exclusively against vaccination, and even Meryl Dorey's own comments such as these where she proclaims her stance on vaccination:

"While we are already seen as rabid, idiotic fringe-dwellers by so many in the mainstream, it does our argument no good at all to bring in conspiracy theories which, though we may subscribe to them, are unprovable."

and -

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AVN/message/36449

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.

When that time comes, will you be able to say that you did everything in your power to help bring the truth out? Support your local pro- vaccination choice organisation, speak to friends and family about these tragedies and never, ever stay quiet about the dangers of vaccination. Those of us who know owe it to others to speak our truth.

All the best,
Meryl"

Even the presiding judge in the AVN vs HCCC commented quite pointedly on Meryl shying away from the AVN being a resolutely anti-vaccination organisation.

I don't understand why you keep on repeating this statement. It is patently silly and unfounded, and quite frankly does little to enhance the credibility of your argument.

Secondly, Australia does *not* have a compulsory vaccination policy, and the SAVN do not promote compulsory vaccination, so AVN stating that it is against any compulsory vaccination is totally meaningless.

Please revise your statements in light of these presented facts.

Thanks,

Ilijas.

..........Judy, your point is..............................

What are we doing? Playing "who's on first"?

I.can't.go.on.

Ms Wilyman. Why did it take you so long to attempt to gain a factual chronology of who did what and when, instead of making derogatory comments about some grand skeptic conspiracy.

None of this is hidden. Why is this so hard for you?

Judy, what *is* your point? And what is a "skeptic" website?

This may shock you, but the majority of the members of the SAVN, for example, do *not* identify themselves as being skeptics. Nor atheists. Nor pro-"Big Pharma". What they are objecting to is the misinformation within AVN's material.

Your comment is derogatory, Ms Wilyman. Please point to evidence of misinformation instead of spamming this forum with slurs against good people.

Judy,, it seems to me that you are the one relying on derogatory comments and smear tactcs. You could correct this impression by admitting you were wrong when you made untruthful statements regarding:

" Dick Smith found (sic) the Australian Skeptics...." Wrong,

"Dick Smith fund(ed) the advertisements for SAVN in the media (demonstrating his affiliation) " Wrong.

"Wikipedia states that 'the Australian Skeptics offer $100,000 in prize money' and states that $20,000 goes to the person who nominates the successful claimant for the Skeptics of the Year award." Wrong,

"Perhaps you could clarify how much money SAVN and Ken McLeod received for the the Skeptics of the Year award in 2010? " Was this a derogatory comment or a smear? Either way, SAVN and I received no money for the Skeptic of the year Award.

I could go on, but you should get the picture by now.

Forgive my failing memory, but what do we call someone who condemns derogatory comments and smear tactics while at the same time using derogatory comments and smear tactics? Oh, that's right, "hypocrite."

"I hope next time that you investigate before you make derogatory comments."

Gosh, Judy, you should try that yourself. You have made several slurs against me and others without investigating beforehand, and got them wrong. You should be apologising, not lecturing.

Judy, *we* can follow the threads. There are visual cues that help one to do so. I thought you were smart?

By the way, that brings the instances of "derogatory" in this thread up to at least 24. The internet applauds you

Judy Wilyman - could you please answer the following questions that I posed the other day and you have not answered as yet;

Do you believe that vaccinations cause autism? If you do, please explain how they cause autism.

Do vaccinations in Australian contain heavy metals? If so, which vaccinations and in what quantities?

I look forward to your response.

The l33t h4x0rs are being derogatory!! Doesn't the internet care about the SCIENCE from the UNIVERSITY??

I am not aware of having made derogatory comments. I was just asking why someone would post an unconfirmed opinion on a thread where the post was authored by a person from the organisation in question. Please point out to me which comments I made that were derogatory.

- correction -

Questions generally have a question mark at the end of them.

Could you please re-write your question with a question mark at the end of it so that others here may respond?

Thanking you in advance.

Ilijas.

Ms Wilyman - the record is above. You made these assertions: "The Australian Skeptics committee wrote the first advertisement for the 'Stop the AVN' group and this was funded by Dick Smith - a prominent Australian Skeptic. The term SAVN was established after this advertisement in the Australian newspaper and future advertisements were funded by the SAVN page subscriber and other doners." (sic) - (I presume you meant donors).

These assertions were not posted as questions. They were also incorrect. Hence my question to you - why would you post such assertions if you hadn't confirmed that they were true?

So - correcting incorrect statements and questioning one's abilities in basic 'research' is now a strawman argument and 'playing the player'?

There was gross misrepresentation of a group of awards and complete insinuation of conspiracy in Ms Wileyman's comments. As a joint recipient of those awards I chose to comment, as the attempted muckraking inherent in the incorrect statements affects my name as well. Ms Wileyman always titles herself as 'PhD Researcher" then any lax efforts in that area are open for critique. That is not 'playing the player'. That is correction and critique of incorrect statements that Ms Wileyman herself chose to make with little research and even less substantiation.

Michael Bending,

In my understanding, a strawman argument is when you reframe what somebody has said and then destroy the alternative, though similar, argument, that the original positor never stated.

I can't see how that has happened here. Judy Wilyman has stated:
- she is a PhD researcher - INCORRECT
- the AVN is not antivaccine - INCORRECT
- The Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN are linked - INCORRECT
- Dick Smith was a founder of Australian Skeptics - INCORRECT
- Dick Smith funded SAVN advertisements - INCORRECT
- Dick Smith is a member of SAVN - INCORRECT
- Implied that payments from the Australian Skeptics of $100k and $20k perhaps made their way to the Stop the AVN organisation and Ken McLeod - INCORRECT
- AVN provides an open forum to discuss vaccination - INCORRECT
- SAVN is an organisation which has subscribers/members - INCORRECT

About the only correct thing she's said is, " Articles which misrepresent consumer views about a medical intervention are preventing proper public debate and are therefore a risk to public health and safety"

No need to strawman here - her "arguments" are such utter rot and based on incorrect assertions and implications that we only need discuss her *actual* arguments and not a proposed strawman one.

I'd just like to add, on top of what everyone else has said: Health-freedom.com.au is one butt-ugly travesty of a website, quite aside from its lack of factual content.

At least pay a designer, please.

So, by "researcher" he means "some guy who uses Google". Makes Ms Wilyman with her "PhD Researcher" silliness seem perfectly sensible by comparison.

Note to both of you, Michael and Judy: scientists do not call themselves "researcher until they finish theit PhD, and sometimes until they have a couple of post-docs under their belt and their own research program. There's a very good reason why they do that: to differentiate those whose research should be looked at by others from those who can be summarily ignored. To ensure reading comprehemsion, I might make it clear that you both belong in the second group (unlike Dr Rachael Dunlop, for example).

Your comment is derogatory.

Why don't you identify what this "misinformation" on Rachael's site actually is, Judy? It's not like you haven't been asked. I've seen several instances of you being asked about this on this very page, as well as other direct questions which you've dodged every time.

But surely, Judy, you gave a copy to Meryl Dorey? You've spoken on the same platform as Dorey on more than one occasion, and you've lent her support (and received support in return) on numerous occasions. You've, seemingly, endorsed the AVN, and they have endorsed you in return.

Are you, in fact, a member of the AVN or not? Enquiring minds want to know.

Interesting. Any time I have presented posters at conferences, I have always published by university and hospital affiliation on them, and have not been restricted on the widespread dissemination of them with the affiliation clear and available.

I wonder why Murdoch University is trying to disassociate itself from your poster?

Ms Wilyman. Please correct any of my above comments, instead of making generalised claims on fact-checking. Did you, or did you not, create the poster with the Murdoch logo?

Did Murdoch University request that you then remove the logo from the poster?

Did Murdoch University chase the poster everywhere it was published, logo intact? (Protip: we know they did).

Did Murdoch University request that the logoed poster be removed from publication, wherever and whenever they found it, due to the presence of the Mudoch University logo? (Protip: we know they did).

Did you then re-publish the poster, sans Murdoch university logo, which is not a problem for Murdoch University? (Protip: we know you did, and we know they are okay with that).

It would appear that Murdoch University was concerned over brand mismanagement, by their logo being included on an anti-vaccination poster.

Unrelated: why did you leave Murdoch University at the time the poster was being chased all over the internet by Murdoch University lawyers?

Ms Wilyman: you say, "It is a pity you don't check your information before you make untrue statements and put out misinformation."

I find this comment highly amusing, given that you cannot read Justice Adamson's judgement that the AVN *is* a health service provider; yet you claim the opposite. Are you embarrassed by the disparity between your words and your actions?

Ms Wilyman. In the interests of transparency, and to avoid any perceived COI arising from your many claims and accusations, I will reiterate Jason's question, which you have not answered:

Are you a member of the Australian Vaccination Network, or a subscriber/financial supporter of the AVN in any way.

Thank you in advance.

Do you think it's fair to say that Professor McIntyre knows how to spell 'cited'?

Odd that you make that statement, Judy, as it completely contradicts Murdoch University's position that you used the logo without their permission, and that that is the reason why they have been pursuing third parties who have displayed the poster in a public setting.

For further clarification on this particular issue, given that Murdoch University and yourself are giving contradictory information on the events surrounding the poster, I would strongly recommend that you contact the university and clarify this matter once and for all.

Kind regards,

Ilijas.

Erratum:

^ received from Murdoch University's solicitors (pg1)

Judy, would you mind clearing up one issue that has been bothering me, please.

Did you have the permission of Murdoch University to add the University's name and logo to your poster?

Thanking you in anticipation,

You first, Judy. Where are your references?

If the newsletter does not publish references, then how can you make the statement that Prof McIntyre's article had no references? Did you read the draft copy with the references intact? Were you personally notified that PHAA did not receive any references?

If not, then you need to retract this comment, as it is an unfounded assertion.

And please provide your references. As it stands it is a published article without references.

Your co-operation would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Ilijas.

Ms Wilyman needs to do some research on the "too many, too soon" argument she is using here, which is also a favourite of anti-vaccination campaigners like Ms Wilyman and the AVN:
"Conclusions: Timely vaccination during infancy has no adverse effect on neuropsychological outcomes 7 to 10 years later. These data may reassure parents who are concerned that children receive too many vaccines too soon."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/05/24/peds.2009-2489.abstract

Also, Ms Wilyman: you would do well to look up "Poisoning the Well", a fallacious Ad hominem argument used by those who wish to make derogatory comments about their critics, whilst specifically refusing to answer any substantive questions that have been put to them. Your comments: you're doing it. You need to stop. This is the arena of conspiracy theorists, who make connections based on the whiff of the flimsiest of connections.

Ms Wilyman - is the research that you say you have been conducting for many years available for us to read? Is it laboratory based or population based? What did you measure and what are your findings? Do you have a cohort of children that you are following? Do you have a control group of unvaccinated children?

I am interested to know how someone outside the immunology or clinicial science community conducts this type of research without collaborating with clinicians to assess the children.

Judy, I do not believe Richard Saunders was linking you with the use of homeopathy or psychic powers. He was explaining the $100k award and $20k finders fee given for proof of psychic powers or evidence of pseudoscience such as homeopathy.

Again, you seem to misunderstand English, and take it as some kind of smear, or derogatory statement and trying to link your antivaccine views with a belief in paranormal science. You seem awfully touchy on this front. You keep asking us to keep the discussion scientific, non derogatory and to avoid a smear campaign, yet the strategies you have employed are derogatory smear campaigns, and no actual scientific discussion.

Please, present some scientific evidence to back up your wild assertions. All you have done here is make incorrect accusations and not corrected them when pointed out the error in your understanding.

" the media has never allowed a proper debate of this science."

Firstly, the media's job is to sell storeys. Not facts and research so I don't know why you're trying to bring them into a scientific issue in the first place.

Secondly, science is never settled in a debate it is settled in the lab through experimentation and observation.

Thirdly, if the scientific community did offer you a "debate" we would be deceiving the public into thinking that anti-vaxxers have anything worthwhile to say. You might be ok with misleading the public but we aren't.

The link provided by Dr Dunlop is entirely accurate in its content. It is a shame that Ms Wilyman can't understand the content, nor where she has made some fundamental and embarrassing errors in her accusations intended to smear and silence critics. Here is another link for Ms Wilyman:
http://reasonablehank.com/2012/02/06/judy-judy-judy-are-you-attempting-to-censor-others-right-to-free-speech/

All of Ms Wilyman's outrageous attempts to smear and silence legitimate critiicsm are included in the links as referred. What would Dr Brian Martin say of Ms Wilyman's attempts to silence dissent? It makes me wonder.

Careful. If you employ sarcasm, it might go over the head of a certain person.

Still, it is *entirely* irrelevant to the topic at hand, but it's very much relevant to Judy's increasingly desperate attempts to paint opposition to the AVN as a conspiracy orchestrated by interested parties. The conspiracy goes something like:

Big pharma, takes your money in exchange for poison
It gives your money to the JREF
The JREF ships it to Aus Skeptics.
Aus Skeptics gives it to SAVN
SAVN uses it to "harrass" the AVN with their light aircraft of pharma evil
The neck bone's connected to your head bone
Hear the word of the lord

Judy appears to sincerely believe that the only reason that anyone could object to the AVN is if they're paid to do it. It smacks of intellectual laziness and a failure of imagination. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to want to oppose the AVN, not the least of which is that they're continuously, spectacularly wrong in their interpretations of reality.

Hi Judy, would you mind awfully providing some relevance for your comment "Perhaps you could take a head count of how many of these contributers are subscriber's (sic) to the Australian Skeptics?"

I can't see the relevance, but maybe you can elucidate me. (Incidentally, your post reminded me that my subscription had lapsed some time ago, but that oversight has now been corrected.)

Ms Wilyman. I have it on good authority that some members of the Catholic Church are also members of the Stop the AVN Facebook page. It goes all the way to the top I tells ya. You're only a couple of degrees away from Icke and Burgermeister. Did you know that?

Without straying too far from the topic Judy, I find this new "attack Rachael Dunlop" game of yours quite telling. No doubt an extension of the irrationality peculiar to the Australian Skeptics - itself a construction of Ms. Dorey to fill the vacuum wherein evidence should be.

Rather than watching you accuse and pronounce judgement, I'd be delighted if you could provide some actual studies for your anti-vaccine claims (which are identical to the fallacies pushed by the AVN). Indeed you are a key member of the AVN, travelling and teaming with Dorey.

In your article "Coercive and mandatory vaccination" you infer that pertussis vaccination lacks epidemiological credibility, in part, because it was added to the NHMRC schedule in 1954 and by then fatality had fallen to only 15 cases per year (p. 6). Another "vaccines did nothing" contention.

But there were 429 (not 150 - 15X10) deaths in the decade to 1955, indicating a rapid fall in mortality. I wonder why? In the decade before there were 1,693 deaths. In the decade before (1925-35) this there were 2,808 deaths. Yet you omit that the vaccine was introduced in this decade.

In effect "Mortality had declined to 15 deaths per year" in 1954 thanks to 2 decades of vaccination and was THE VERY REASON it was added to the schedule. Can you explain this disparity please?

In W.A. - June 30th, 2010 you spent ages feeding erroneous notions about ingredients in vaccines, failing to balance this with fact. Aluminium takes up much of your time but you fail to inform that in 6 mths, 2.5x the dose from vaccination comes via breast feeding. 10x via formula, 40x via Soy formula. We eat, breathe and drink Al all our lives excreting all but 1%.

You also misled greatly on the presence of Hg in vaccines omitting to add it is in only 2 childhood vaccines and is ethyl mercury - safer than eating fish.

Research has constantly replicated no link in the following:

-sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and any vaccine.
-autism and MMR vaccine.
-multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccine.
-inflammatory bowel disease and MMR vaccine.
-diabetes and Hib vaccine.
-asthma and any vaccine.

Also The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety & WHO rejects any association b/w MS and HBV vaccination.

Yet in W.A. you raised every one of these failing to inform the audience that these positions are also the Oz Gov positions. It seemed to me that where others might provide this balance you chose to smear the government with unverified conspiracy claims. Or attempted to make the audience feel betrayed/alienated by using the Australian Framework for Environmental Health Risk Assessment provision of community consultation and asking had *they* been consulted.

You told them this generation of children is the sickest of any - but with no explanation of what the figures mean or of diagnostic improvements, nor the definition of "chronic disease".

You said (verbatim): "We’re being educated by the media who have pharmaceutical interests". And:

"If vaccination was based on science then the media would not have to work so hard to suppress the information. You will notice the media reports rely on discrediting individuals and organisations and running fear campaigns to encourage parents to vaccinate. Did they mention in the papers that myself and XXX are both PhD researchers?"

That's enough is it? Appeal to your own authority?

You also said (verbatim): “The government treats vaccines as if they have no harmful effects at all”. Please explain then these few Oz Gov items:
Definition of adverse events following immunisation.
Post-vaccination procedures - which covers ADE eventualities.
Adverse Events Following Immunisation in Australia (study).
AEFI procedures and forms for health practitioners, etc, etc.

Nor did you inform your audience that your "research" is rejected by medical science and has been debunked by every attempt to find it valid. How is this informed choice or providing the other side? It isn't. It's deliberately misleading people.

Also: "We deserve to see the evidence that vaccinating for all these diseases is good and necessary for the community".

Apart from the explanations needed above, you are that evidence Judy. That we live in a time that allows the luxury of seeking out junk science to pick and choose baseless fears is due in so many ways to the success of medical science.

The truth is you are more free and more able to self sabotage your life and damage that of countless others than ever before. Yet when a bunch of citizens calls your bluff you fail to offer evidence, but have the gall to accuse them of baseless nonsense and cry foul to the editor.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I am a subscriber to the Australian Skeptics. I'm also a subscriber to White Dwarf magazine and MOJO, which is equally relevant to anything I or anyone else here has to say (not at all).

Okay, Ms Wilyman. This is now so misinformed it *is* scary. How many times did Prof Stanley respond to the "many letters" you have written her? I know that you write "many letters" to many people, even putting Ministers on notice etc. Now, *that* is scary.

When I was little, I wrote many letters to Fonzie. He never replied. Scarred.

Dear Judy, please cease and desist from posting so much incorrect material on this page, otherwise you will compel the readers to lodge complaints against your posts on the grounds of trolling.

This is becoming unacceptable. Every single post that you have made has had numerous errors, and I am strongly suspecting that you are wilfully stating untruths for the sake of argument.

Your conduct so far has not demonstrated that you have approached this issue in good faith, and with any intention of settling any disputes of facts, but rather to troll the page and fill it up with misinformation.

As per the above comment from Jason Brown, you are now well aware of the criticism from Prof Stanley (if you hadn't been before - which I find difficult to believe) and it would be appropriate for you to address the error.

I do not expect you to do so, however, as you have not addressed a single error you have made in any of your posts. Which in itself leads me to believe that you are not interested in the facts with regards to AVN, vaccination or any of the matters that arose as a result of AVN vs HCCC.

I do not look forward to any replies from you. Discourse with you so far has been a very frustrating exercise in witnessing obfuscation, red herrings, non-sequiturs, and numerous factual errors.

~ Ilijas

"Someone else's research", huh, Judy?

The blog I posted the link from is run by Paul Gallagher, the person to whom you were originally responding in this thread.

Also, how ironic that you of all people would criticise "selectively publishing someone else's research". I'm pretty sure.... yes, definitely... that one broke my irony meter. Stop, Judy. Just stop.

"Selectively publishing someone's else's research with your own meanings is not a debate. "

You keep on saying that, but you have yet to show how anyone has inserted any meaning into that quote from Prof Stanley, for example, that wasn't already there. Quoting someone doesn't automatically insert a new and erroneous meaning into a phrase, sentence etc.

Surely you would be aware of that in the many citations you must undoubtedly have you in your well researched PhD thesis-in-the-making.

VAERS is a US database of raw reports, unconfirmed and unreviewed. Why would you even think that's relevant, Michael?

Oh, and referring to Obomsawin? Why don't you just link to whale.to and have done with it?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/the_intellectual_dishonesty_of_the_vacci.php

Tell me. These cases you cite. Were they confirmed as vaccine-linked after admission to Westmead, or only by you?

Mr Sichel. Are you still treating "vaccine injured" autistic children with chelation therapy, and with MMS (bleach)? I've asked you this question on several forums, yet, you always decline to answer. Hint: I have seen your newsletters that you send to the parents to whom you sell your miracle solutions.

Citing VAERS as a primary source to *prove* a causal link between vaccines and temporal conditions is a poor tactic, Mr Sichel.

Who diagnoses these "HUNDREDS of damaged children" who have suffered from "vaccine injuries", Mr Sichel? I have asked you this question several times on different forums, to no avail.

That's right Carol, anyone can make a VAERS report, no matter how absurd or far fetched the story. For instance: HULK SMASH

http://momswhovax.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/incredible-hulk-vaccine-side-effect-or.html

Hi Michael,

I am interested to know what physiological cause you think would cause intractable grand mal seizures in a child commencing within six hours of vaccination that could be attributed to vaccination? I assume that the child in question has no abnormalities in the structure of the brain such as cerebral dysgenesis, as a structural lesion would be a far more likely cause of recurrent seizures than a toxic one.

Mr Sichel - you say "see who is right – the AVN warnings, or the Skeptics who seem to know nothing of what is reality and have nothing to offer except vitriol." On the contrary, many people who oppose the misinformation spread by the AVN are active clinicians who are very much in touch with reality - as well as real research data. You repeat the mythical story of the child who was a little ray of sunshine until the regressed within hours of their shots - and yet autism does not work that way. CHildren with developmental or leaqrning disorders do not regress overnight - unless they have a serious condition like meningitis or a head injury.

Your claims are just not credible - just like your misspelling of "osetopath".

Mr Sichel is self-described as "Naturopath and osetopath" (sic)

Mr Bending - what is your area of research?