An interesting comment was posted on the Australian Vaccination Network’s Yahoo! Group. In the comment Fran Sheffield, owner of Homeopathy Plus, calls for Meryl Dorey to be honest about the true intent of Dorey and her Australian Vaccination Network. Like the bulk of anti-vaccinationists, Dorey demands that she is not anti-vaccine. Honesty suits Fran. She should try it more often:
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?
It is possible to be BOTH anti-vaccine and pro-choice but when the anti-vaccine label is denied in the face of evidence to the contrary, it makes us look dishonest – something the judge hinted at with her ‘coy’ statement? It also places our pro-choice position in the back seat, out of people’s minds.
As far as public opinion goes, I don’t think the anti-vaccine position is the problem – they can cope with that.
The problem is that most people, even supporters in secret, now believe the AVN is dishonest and this has caused the AVN more harm than anything else. This is what will take a long time to get over, not any perceived anti-vaccine stance which they can respect even it they don’t agree.
Do we have a blind spot?
If the AVN wants to be perceived as being a truthful organisation then it has to proudly accept the anti-vaccine label or do something that explains (repeatedly) why most of the information it provides about vaccines and vaccine promoters is negative.
I love the info that the AVN provides so people can make an informed choice – and I want it to survive – but I can’t tut tut about them calling us anti-vaccine and I hate feeling as though I have to support the deception.
Dishonest…coy…dishonest…deception. You go girl.
I would have added “disingenuous” as well as many other terms to indicate that a deliberate ruse was at play.
Own it, Mrs Dorey.
And so begins the Great Anti-vax Schism.
Fran’s also suggested Dorey display something to the effect the AVN provides non government information (ie: the other side).
So in effect it sounds like Fran is suggesting this “victory” doesn’t undo the damage Meryl has done in maintaining dishonesty and she should have just complied initially.
Another member has replied:
“Hi Fran… I think what you wrote is refreshingly honest. I think that once you have discovered what vaccines really are it would be hard to be prochoice….”.
Dorey has already misrepresented the judgement as “confirming” the AVN’s *original* contention re jurisdiction. Get this (srsly):
“I am just so pleased that the Supreme Court agreed with our original contention that the HCCC had no jurisdiction to investigate us based on the complaints which were not valid complaints according to the HCC Act.”
Which would mean the original contention was based on complaints not denial of being a health care provider. More dishonesty. Poor Fran.
Chuck it on the “rewriting history” pile.
I and many others have misread the judgement. To put matters straight. The Court ruled that the HCCC should not have instigated an investigation based on my complaint, as my complaint was not valid under the Act.
The Court has not ruled that the HCCC does not have jurisdiction; it does.
The Court did not rule that the findings of the HCCC investigation are incorrect; they are.
I’m happy to correct my mistakes when I find out I was wrong.
Pingback: The significance of Meryl Dorey’s insignificance « Losing In The Lucky Country
Pingback: Dear NSW Premier and Ministers: this is what Meryl Dorey and her AVN really think | reasonablehank
Pingback: ACCC v Homeopathy Plus 21st November 2013 – Sheffield evidence. | mochuck's musings