Greens leader supports skeptics and loses fight to introduce “offensive and disrespectful” changes for complementary medicines

Greens leader supports skeptics and loses fight to introduce “offensive and disrespectful” changes for complementary medicines

IN a major win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine activists like Doctor Ken Harvey, from Friends of Science in Medicine, and passed a reform package that protects traditional medicine.

The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February 15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and abolishes the current complaints system. A move, which according to a Your Health Your Choice Senate Submission will “remove a mechanism of influence for the anti-CM lobby”.

Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: “There is no alternative to Medicine”.

A Senate submission states: “The Australian Greens concur with the concerns of stakeholders including … Friends of Science in Medicine (FOSM)…”

One of his “concerns” was that people were being “misled” by traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine. He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: “This traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective”.

The Minister for Rural Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale:

“I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practice traditional medicine. It’s not consistent with the World Health Organisation.

“We as a country, have endorsed the World Health Organisation position on the role of complementary medicines in the national medicines framework, and this position acknowledges that traditional medicines do have a valid function in the modern medicinal framework,” she said.

“For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It’s been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine. So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines, Senator McKenzie said.

Here is what it means:

Informed choice protected

The Bill allows complementary medicines to continue to make traditional use claims (ie. what a particular complementary medicine has been traditionally used for).

For consumers, it means they’re able to continue making informed choices because complementary medicines will continue to carry claims such as “traditionally used to relieve muscle aches and pains”.

Skeptics had argued against the use of traditional claims saying it was an “endorsement of pseudoscience”. Skeptics wanted the Government to introduce mandatory disclaimers that complementary medicine products were “based on alternative health theories that have been discounted by modern medical science”.

New complaints system

As of June 30, the current Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP) which has included members of Friends of Science in Medicine and their supporters will be shut down. A Your Health Your Choice Senate submission argued by abolishing the existing Complaints Resolution Panel powerful skeptic groups would lose influence.

Australia’s medicines watchdog, Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), will be responsible for a new complaints system as of July 1.

Fast-tracks approval of medical products and medical devices

The Bill allows the TGA to use the work of comparable overseas regulators in the course of making assessments.

For consumers, it can mean medical products can gain domestic market approval from the TGA in a shorter timeframe.

Tougher penalties for advertising breaches:

As part of the Bill advertisements for complementary medicines will no longer need pre-approval with tougher penalties being used as a deterrent.

In a desperate bid to try to stop the Bill high-profile skeptics such as Doctor Ken Harvey and highly influential decision makers launched a scaremongering campaign in the media claiming the change would put public safety at risk.

Ludicrous stories included claims like: “dangerous products falsely touted as cures for cancer” would be advertised on prime time TV if the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill was passed.

Anti-complimentary activist, Professor John Braithwaite was quoted as saying: “People could die in the period between the shutdown of pre-approval of advertisements and the post-marketing prosecutions replacing them”.

Advertising safeguards

The TGA says the Bill will improve consumer confidence when choosing self-selected medicines and advertising will be subject to the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission rules.


Posted in Australian Skeptics, Dr Ken Harvey, Dr Ken Harvey,, Friends in Science and Medicine, Richard Di Natale | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The REAL STORY About the “Skeptic” Attack on Del BigTree…

Are We Sick of The Threats, Lies and Misdirection?

Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

The photo at the top of this article is indeed worth a thousand words, for it explains a lot about WHO, and WHAT, attacked “Vaxxed” producer Del BigTree.

Let’s explore that WHO, and WHAT.  Yes, the attack was easily repulsed THIS TIME, and yes, there will be a reckoning.  For it is time for a reckoning.

Video Player


For as long as I can remember there has been a version of the current “Skeptic” organization operating in North America.  Each time they appear, so to speak, they have been beaten, and shoved back into the septic tank with the lid closed tightly, right where they belong.

The earlier version of the current “Skeptic” organization was called the “Quackbusters.”  They were led by Stephen Barrett of the infamous scenario.  It took a while to crush him and them, but, in fact, crush them we did – lawsuits, traps, media campaigns, you-name-it-we-did-it operations designed to rid the North American health care world of a cockroach infestation.

What is consistent in the “Skeptic” and the “Quackbuster”    worlds is the “quality” of the people that run them.

In my earlier article on the attack I showed you another important photograph, reprinted just below.  It shows some VERY important things about “skeptic leadership.”  Let’s look at it again:

Skeptic Leadership Orac (David Gorski) and James Randi at an “Amazing Meeting” TRAINING younger people…

I pointed out, in that article, just exactly who and what James Randi is with an audio tape of him recruiting sex from a young boy.  Here it is again:

Audio Player

After I ran this story, and it picked up all over the internet, the “Skeptics” tried to circulate a story claiming  (insert laughter here) that “the local Chief of Police asked him to make those kind of calls…”

Go ahead – take a moment to laugh…

For the Story is About To Get Even Better…

Lets explain the photo…

On September 17th, 2011 I wrote a story about James Randi and his “live-in-lover” Jose Luis Alvarez (the person in the photo) called “US Federal Agents Arrest Top “Skeptic…”

Below is an excerpt from that piece that puts all of this into context:

“James Randi, the man who bills himself as the “Amazing Randi,” is one nasty little piece of work.

James Randi, along with CSICOP‘s Paul Kurtz, are the two people who organized, I believe, and run today, the worldwide “Skeptic” (pseudo-skeptic) organization.  At the second level of management are people like Steven Novella, David Gorski (Orac the Nipple Ripper)Paul LeeStephen Barrett, etc.  Although the group is essentially small, they organized to control health care articles on the Wikipedia website, and created a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) network designed to catapult their anti-good-health-care articles to the first page of Google and other Search Engines.  Viciousness is their game.

On September 8th, 2011, Federal Agents working for the US State Department, knocked on James Randi’s door, not particularly looking for Randi, but for Randi’s live-in-lover, a  person who calls himself “Jose Luis Alvarez,” a name stolen years ago, say the Feds, from a New York man.  In their newspaper article, “Celebrated South Florida artist Jose Alvarez accused of identity theft” the Broward County Sun Sentinel says:

Here is the quote from the Broward County Sun Sentinel:

“Celebrated Plantation artist Jose Luis Alvarez has earned an international reputation with colorful, modernist paintings that have been showcased in South Florida museums and galleries.

He’s always dabbled in abstract concepts involving personal and artistic identity, an exploration that began as a young man when he teamed with famed magician James “The Amazing” Randi on the world stage.

Now, there are deeper questions surrounding Alvarez and who he actually is — a mystery about the man himself, beyond his creative persona.

To federal authorities the 43-year-old Alvarez is a cipher, a man truly without any identity. They refer to him as “FNU LNU” — law enforcement acronyms for first and last names unknown.

Alvarez is now in federal custody, accused of stealing the identity of a New York man and misusing it for more than 20 years. Goateed and scholarly looking in hip eyeglasses, Alvarez — if that indeed is his name — had his first appearance Friday morning in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.

“We don’t know who this person is,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Bertha Mitrani told a magistrate, while explaining that authorities would seek to hold Alvarez without bail at a hearing next week.

Alvarez first began performing to international audiences in the late 1980s as “Carlos,” channeling the spirit of an ancient seer in contact with other worlds.

It was an elaborate hoax carried out as performance art.

Alvarez’s transformation into “Carlos” was part of Randi’s crusade to expose mystics and psychics around the world as frauds. The two men, who live together in Randi’s Plantation home, met when Alvarez was a teen, and they put on the “Carlos” performances for 15 years.

More recently, the artist’s paintings were featured this spring at the Norton Museum of Art in West Palm Beach, and have graced Art Basel in Miami and galleries in New York and San Francisco.

Alvarez’s alleged alternate reality came apart Thursday morning, with the arrival at his door of an investigator from the U.S. State Department who specializes in fraudulent passports, visas and other travel documents. Alvarez initially said he was born in Venezuela, then said New York, according to court records. He was arrested on a charge of supplying false information to obtain a passport, a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The charge filed against Alvarez alleges he stole a New York man’s date of birth and Social Security number, which he used to obtain a U.S. passport in 1987. He has since renewed the passport twice.”

Did you get the picture here?  It is ALL About Lies and Misdirection…

From another article in the Sun Sentinal comes:

“Alvarez is not just an artist, but an ardent backer of Randi’s philosophy of using science to debunk the assertions of people who fraudulently claim to possess paranormal abilities, Dmitrovsky said…

A lecture he gave at the University of California in Berkeley earlier this year about his artistic pursuits was described thus: “Jose Alvarez will guide us through his own personal journey of investigation into the realms of consciousness, mysticism, spirituality, magic, shamanism, space exploration, and paranormal phenomena. Utilizing the concept in theoretical astrophysics of parallel universes and space as a continuum membrane with no beginning or end, Alvarez will place his cast of characters as a stand-in for the strong human desire for knowledge and transformation and his continued visual inquiry into the realms of the fantastic and the philosophical.”

State Department investigators got onto his trail last August, when a New Yorker named Jose Luis Alvarez applied for a passport to attend his sister’s wedding in Jamaica. His application was flagged as potentially fraudulent, because a passport had already been issued in his name.

“He’s had my identity for 20 years,” the New York Alvarez said Friday, when reached by telephone by the Sun Sentinel. “Why is he stealing my identity? Is he illegal?”

The Attack on Del BigTree…

Is very similar in design, and execution, to the attacks on Andy Wakefield, Mark and David Geier, AVN’s Meryl Dorey – and, in fact, Suzanne Humphries MD.

Are We Sick of The Threats, Lies and Misdirection?

Let’s make this simple.  It is time for a reckoning…

Stay tuned…

Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen


Posted in Andy Wakefield, Anti Science, Del Bigtree, Dr David Gorski, James Randi, Jose Luis Alvarez, Meryl Dorey, Skeptics, Social Skepticism, Tim Bolen, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible

Skeptics are losing the argument; losing the war for the American mind, and for good reason. Their actions appear to indicate confidence in the strategy of screaming louder, accusing everyone of being anti-science, conducting more personal attacks and pushing more idiot-but-celebrity personalities into the journalistic limelight; hoping that this approach will somehow rescue themselves in their plight.
However, in the end all this bray will prove to constitute is not a defense of science, rather simply the squeaking noise of their fingers desperately clutching at the metal surface, descending down the slide of irrelevance into posterity.

t1larg.angry.toddler.thinkstock - Copy - CopyVirtually all skeptics believe that, in order to improve the quality of life experienced by those who inhabit this world, then the scientific literacy of our leadership and that of the general population must be enriched. I agree with this sentiment. This Kantian a priori reasoning is belied however, as skeptics are frustrated by an ever increasingly difficult or opposition-minded audience with regard to the conclusions they attempt to foist under such a guise – on both the American population, as well as their elected representatives.

Scientific American published a series of articles recently by Joe Horgan, director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology. The articles revolved around an original work criticizing the skeptic movement for focusing too much on soft/easy targets, and contending that ‘the skeptic movement needs shaking up’.  Coupled with a complete change of landscape towards specific issues of social conscience since the Social Skepticism movement was launched to protect corporate/social/political client interests in 1972, specific mistakes are combining to change the dynamic of how the public conscience is swayed regarding critical issues of research and epistemology. Ways which were not anticipated by the smarter-than-thou leadership the skeptic community hails; indicating an ominous foreboding for Social Skepticism. For instance, celebrity skeptic PZ Meyers has decided he is done with the ‘asshole skeptic’ movement for good. Fake skeptics, science communicators, MSNBC, CNN are all being collectively filed in the circular file of the American public mind. Heck, even celeb-wanna-be and journeyman skeptic Sharon Hill has thrown in the towel over disgust with the intransigence and fecklessness of the ‘skeptic’ community:

I am not happy with the status quo in what is termed the “skeptical community” and have removed myself from group activities. My beef has been with the lack of effectiveness of promoting a skeptical worldview. The reason for this ineffectiveness has multiple factors. I’ll leave that longer discussion for some other time (or never, since I might as well talk to a wall for all the good it does). But here, in a nutshell, is what is going on in my head right now on the topic:

The fundamental shortcoming of the various organizations and the collective network is that it is missing a thoughtful mission with coherent goals.

I’d suggest such a mission would be simply to promote skeptical evaluation of questionable claims for the benefit of society.

This mission has nothing to do with secularism, humanism or atheism at all and it’s not simply cheerleading for science and reason. If anyone thinks that progress has been made by skeptical organizations to make society better, show me the metrics. I would be so happy to see them.‡

To her credit, Sharon gets that there exists a problem in the community, as exemplified no better than in her last two sentences; however she does not yet grasp the philosophical and scientific bad habits which have served to precipitate this problem.

  1. Skepticism, at least real skepticism, does not possess a ‘worldview’. Only noisy fake skeptics foist this idea.
  2. Skepticism does not ‘evaluate questionable claims’, science does.

‘Skepticism’ which attempts to foist a worldview and preempt and act on behalf of science – is known by another name. But delving into that is not the purpose of this blog post. In a nutshell, Ms. Hill is experiencing what is called Skeptive Dissonance. She is stepping into the realization that what is taught as popular skepticism stems simply from feckless ego. She is undertaking the Road Less Traveled By, and on to maturity out of  anosognosia and concealed tantrum.

Skeptive Dissonance

/philosophy : pseudoscience : ethical dissonance/ : the difficult to articulate or grasp, cognitive discomfort experienced upon one’s first perception of the disconnect between fake skepticism and real or effective science. The discomfort one experiences in overcoming a former fake skeptic anosognosia. Usually considered the first step in ethical skepticism.

Skepticism is a philosophical disciplining of the mind undertaken by the person who intends to conduct science. Ironically, the role of skepticism is to protect from ‘worldview holders’, the prejudicial status of ‘questionable claims’ and challenge the assuredness of their favored provisional ones. The role of skepticism is to protect us all from social justice warriors and their ‘worldview’ taking over science in the first place. Ms. Hill does not get this at all. Never has. Only science can evaluate questionable claims, and science does not possess a ‘worldview’ – other than the gnosis-body of what it has found.  These bad practices of skepticism promoted by Ms. Hill, are exactly why the community is disintegrating through dissonance. They are falling apart because of bad instruction as to what skepticism even is. Bad skepticism.

So, perhaps this failure in mission on the part of Social Skepticism (not real skepticism) is indeed not indicative so much of a decline in the rational/scientific mindset of the general population, as it is reflective of a specific set of mistakes being wrought inside the skepticism movement itself.  Perhaps, the public is a lot smarter than social skeptics give them credit. They can sense chicanery but find it hard to articulate their discomfort around it. Fake skeptics exploit this, along with errant descriptives of science and skepticism to enforce their agendas. ‘Worldview’ in their jargon has increasingly come to be associated with a specific political party, a specific paranormally-obsessed religion, specific medical diagnoses/obfuscation and specific view on failed economics; all compressed inside the circumspection and experience-lacking footprint of arrogant cubicle-constrained and celebrity infatuated academia. Americans get this.

Our feckless, low value/soft target fake skeptics do not get this. As a skeptic, if you are worried about tin-foil hats, bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, brainwashing children and how stupid everyone is, you are going to lose credibility, period. Americans are smarter than this, and they demand more than rhetosophy dressed up as science.

Skeptics are Losing the Battle for the American Mind and Here are Ten Reasons Why

Why do leading periodicals such as National Geographic today decry the “War on Science?”  Perhaps this conclusion is not so much an outcome of diligent epistemology, as it is a push propaganda message on the part of social skepticism’s effort to dominate the media. An effort we have observed to be riddled with critical and harm-enabling mistakes. Through our research conducted over the past decades across a wide range of social topics, we have drawn this conclusion: Cognitive biases cause skeptics to habitually skip past critical research, fail to understand the actual scientific method, focus too much on correctness and control, instruct others as if they are idiots, try too hard to fit in with each other (ironically as if a ‘community’), chronically seek celebrity status and depend too much on experts in a single sub-field to provide a basis for opinion on broad venues of life and social discourse. All serious mistakes of non-science and Popper/Wittgenstein Error. In this article we discuss how these deeply ingrained skeptic foibles interfere with their message—through ten specific weaknesses in message and practice which have manifested over the last 20 years.

     Skyrocketing Medical Debt and an Increasingly Sick Young US Demographic

so-much-more-important-copyAside from the argument surrounding the latest “1 in 45” autism parental survey, an entire list of new diseases has not only sprung up, but have become the top ten most prescribed-for maladies; and only in the United States for the most part, and within the last 20 years.(1) (2) In their report “U.S. Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health (See more at: the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine cites the condition wherein Americans are watching our selves and our children grow increasingly sick as a nation. And as we watch our loved ones suffer and die from a new class of diseases which did not exist 80 years ago, and as our family medical budgets rise by an average of $3,185 per year† and destroy our lifestyles (not to mention economy), the arrogant screams of the self-proclaimed ‘skeptics’ at Science Based Medicine begin to ring hollow and appear more and more malevolent to the average American. With autism skyrocketing in our children, IBS skyrocketing, alimentary canal cancers growing, diabetes skyrocketing much faster than calories, sugar and lethargy can explain, and our loved one’s beginning to die earlier, people are beginning to doubt what oppressive groups claiming to represent medical science in the media have to say. This is not a Baby Boomer phenomena, as these diseases are now regularly striking victims in high school and college. Being a skeptic is one thing, and most of us will afford you the leeway to play your virtue signalling game into bounds of intellectual arrogance, so long as it does not affect our families. But now it is personal, deadly and despair inducing. People are no longer tolerating the arrogance of voices of denial and correctness when it pertains to national health moving in the wrong direction.

And while parents and their children suffer, as if the ‘movement’ was rubbing salt and taunt into the public’s wounds, they insist on using their holier-than-thou science minds and superior knowledge of scientific reduction to what?  …waste copious amounts of time debunking the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, for the 400,000th time. People get the malicious insult, perhaps even more than do the social skeptics themselves. This fakery and misplaced priority set may serve to do more damage to the ‘community’ than any other single issue.

     The Social Pressure Crucible They Created Around Fringe Subjects Has Been Shattered

The internet and social media is serving to shatter the social pressure crucible that has traditionally bound us from speaking of our paranormal experiences.(3) Ghost hunting, ancient mystery and bigfoot hunting shows are the rage. Despite the fact that every single social media site which even remotely discusses fringe topics, is assigned a team of 3 to 6 token skeptics to patrol the site and ensure that secular nihilism is taught as if it were true science, people are not buying this. They are rejecting the message along with the arrogant meatpuppet patrols who act as their prison keepers. They are buying the evidence instead. Society no longer regards the 768 subjects condemned by the Skeptic’s Dictionary (with very little real research), as all invalid. I have had four close friends, friends who have died – dead – on the operating table, all of whom have come to me (because they trust my ability to be objective and not call them crazy) and shared privately the extraordinary experiences they had. Experiences during, and only during the time in which they were dead.  Four incredible, honest and information verifiable experiences. Were this thirty years ago during the golden age of methodical cynicism, they would never have come forward to anyone. How do I dismiss their observations (they are not ‘claims’)? As a skeptic I do not dismiss them. I ponder, catalog and watch for further information. These four persons are no longer afraid to come forward, much to the chagrin of the fake skeptic crowd of thugs seeking to enforce their religious choice, Secular Nihilism. Most everyone is understanding that two things now are invalid responses to such challenging observations: Knee-jerk denial, and Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence-styled oppression. Those days, along with those fake skeptics are all a thing of the past.

     Statistics Show that People are Not Buying ‘Big-A’ Atheism

Despite the fact that a recent Pew Research study elucidates that a full 50 million Americans have departed or declined traditional religion(4), fewer than 12% of those in this newly apostate population even privately profess atheism when queried. Given the enormous amount of vitriol spewed by the group claiming scientific knowledge as to the basis of their belief validity concerning religion and gods, why then the refusal by even the most open minded of the general population to accept what this group has to say? The simple fact is that ‘Big-A’ Atheism (as it is commonly called – the A standing for a variety of terms) is shallow, arrogant and every bit as dogmatic and religious as is fundamentalism.(5) It is a fundamentalist religion after all. ‘Big-A’ Atheism (Secular Nihilism) is a religion; but quietly, rational people regard ignostic atheism as not constituting a religion, rather simply a thinking disposition regarding gods only. This allows them to ponder something besides the false dilemma of Atheism and Theism. Something more intellectually challenging and stimulating; something which does not boast of knowledge one cannot possibly hold.

     Science is Being Abused to Enslave Not Free Us

The University of California Berkeley cites in its guidance on science, that “Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge” and “Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.”(6) Despite this, science under the SSkeptics’ watch since 1972, is not being employed to free us and our minds; rather is being abused to support specific oligarch businesses, an oppressive religion and to harm/economically enslave families.(7) The Social Skepticism movement manifests its goals through support of several specific special interest groups. These are interests of allegiance without exception inside the ‘community’, in which Social Skepticism seems to have an irrationally high focus, were it solely comprising an unstructured movement of individual ethic and science alone. Key among these partner special interests are the very familiar laundry list of control groups which manage our economically inflating agriculture, healthcare, health insurance, education, asset insurance, pharmaceuticals and universities. Science in the hands of, and under the watch of Social Skepticism, has played a key role in precipitating economic predation inside these seven hyper-inflating verticals, damaging Americans, their families, their nation. Most people are beginning to see this manifestly.

     Skeptics Tend to Scream Conclusions and Not Conduct Research of Ideas

As ‘fringe’ and ‘paranormal’ researchers bring a continuous flow of higher and higher quality evidence, skeptics do absolutely nothing but scream louder and continually demonstrate that they do not possess the grasp of science nor scientific method of which they all-too-frequently boast.(8) Increasingly, the Baloney Detection Kit produced by Carl Sagan in 1995, is simply being employed to enact the squelching of thought, observations, research and ideas. Ideas which social skeptics do not favor, and seek to have blocked from access to science. Proof gaming (demand to see final proof before research ever starts) and squelching of Sponsors and Discovery Science Methodology are the chief tactics of fake skeptic. Americans get this hypocrisy intuitively, and sense a reason to distrust this group. This is one reason why skeptics are not well liked people – and not because they represent science. People grow in their insistence regarding observations under a paranormal moniker, and grow increasingly tired of being called delusional, stupid or liars by those in the arrogant Social Skeptic community. Besides the role models are often horrible persons, ones whom most Americans find shallow, attention seeking and mean.(9)  Celebrities, blogs, defamation and social exclusions are no longer enough weaponry in the Social Skeptics’ arsenal, wholly now insufficient to keep the population in line. The community is viewed as a cabal of spoiled screaming children. Sorry Social Skeptics, it’s just not working anymore.

     Employment of Trolling Punks Obsessing Over Persons & Politics and Not Science

Social Skeptics coordinate through specific social media sites such as Reddit and patrol a variety of popular fringe topic forums. According to Google Ad Planner the median Reddit user is male (59%), 18–29 years of age, and is connecting from the United States (68%). Pew Research has stated that 6% of all American adult Internet users have used Reddit and males were twice as likely to be Reddit users as females.(10) Reddit is a notorious hangout for the arrogant, inexperienced, shallow and criminally defamatory. These are persons who suffer Fanaticist’s Error. Skeptic ranks increasingly comprise inexperienced, thug minded, Reddit-styled-gang mentality, ignorant, hot-headed, overconfident punks. Most Americans either sense or see this, fully cognizant of meaning behind the Shakespearean quote “Methinks he doth protest too much.” When the number one circulated presentation at TAM2014 involved instructing Social Skeptics how to “Not be A Dick,” you know that there is a high-visibility problem in the Cabal with this.(11) Social Skeptics mistakenly think that this negativity will constitute a strategy of success. They routinely underestimate the ethical quality of Americans, presuming us all to be exactly like themselves. This approach will not succeed with Americans. The last few years have seen our first serious lawsuits requiring Social Skeptics to establish legal defense funds because of tortious interference and business tampering litigation regarding persons and businesses. People of science, like me, have already seen the political motivation, and the puppet show of fake science. We are not buying the poser posture.

     The People Impacted are the New Peer Review

The availability of information and scientific studies is allowing diligent common persons to conduct in-depth research on their own. Contentions can be readily presented and refuted. Mom’s in particular are the primary observers of their childrens’ health for example, in contrast to ‘Science Based Medicine,’ who is not. They are disagreeing and are speaking up. Fake skeptics will tell you that skepticism is about the ‘simplest explanation’ (see the fake Occam’s Razor) and then turn around and tell smart mom’s that they are too dumb to understand the science, so shut up. Let’s be ethically clear here: if  you are the victim, impacted by a new action of science – then by default – you ARE the peer. These stakeholder peers are questioning when government regulators take Vice President and higher jobs inside the corporations for which they just crafted legislation. They are elucidating the malfeasance, financing and a priori influences on authors involved in studies touted as being ‘unbiased’. They are not intimidated by extraordinary claims that others represent science, and that mom’s are stupid or delusional. Again, it is just not working. Moms are the scientists now, they are making the first hand observations and doing the testing – mostly because they have to. Social Skepticism has abandoned them, for the Potter’s Gold of celebrity and career promotion. In comparison, the fakers are simply talented at making 80 year out-of-date noise. Activist organizations such as Thinking Moms’ Revolution are making a big splash – a manifest of the increasing health and financial pressure on us which has resulted from the abuse of science by Social Skepticism since the 1970’s.

     Scientists Quietly No Longer Support Social Skepticism

Scientists do not think as does the Cabal of Social Skeptics and studies make this clear.(9) (12) Scientists after all are people. Their kids get sick, their food damages their health and they have paranormal experiences too. A recent Edge Survey of science journalists and real scientists reveal an enormous schism developing between these two groups as to what constitutes good science, and the chief concerns of scientific endeavor.(12) In fact, the number one regarded issue among real scientists expressed inside that study was concern over ‘Screening of Information/Control of What is Regarded as Acceptable Science’. This contrasts dramatically with science communicator top two concerns focusing on ‘pseudoscience/religion promotion’ and ‘conspiracy theory/anti-big institution activism’.  At a certain point to the ethical mind, tenets of philosophy must yield to sound evidence. The evidence is around us every day – we are being media manipulated by social skeptics. Scientists have strange occurrences in their houses, some have seen Sasquatch and UFO’s or have children who have had vaccine injuries or an entire neighborhood with allergies, cancer and diabetes. Does this make them immediately credulous on such issues? Does this mean they are making a claim to proof? No, of course not. They simply may desire some of the 768 forbidden subjects of skepticism be in fact, …I dunno, maybe researched? An inverse negation fallacy in contrast is a condition wherein you decry the de rigueur 768 topics, and the set left standing after all this rancor, just happens to overlap 100% with the religion you adopted at age 14. This fakery is tantamount to making a pseudoscientific claim – and dressing up as a scientist in an attempt to belie that reality. It cannot be defended by masquerading an Omega Hypothesis through a ‘Oh it’s the null hypothesis’ baloney – real scientists get this. All this does serve to give them pause, and opens the question: “Are our arrogant voices of conclusive certainty, maybe premature?”  The resounding answer to the ethical scientific mind, is Yes.

     People Now Think Outside the Box and are No Longer Intimidated by a Claim to Represent Science

Media is discovering that not only are people interested in the strange; moreover, and even more importantly, they possess an increasing thirst to know more about the world around them. They are not afraid of out of the box thinking or tough questions; a fear socially enforced through Bernaysian Engineering 150 to 50 years ago. This public sentiment makes Social Skeptics scoffing and furious – the 1972 handbook on fake science skepticism is not working! Don’t they know who we are? Why does the public not come to them, the smartest people in the room, for such information? Obviously the public is a bunch of idiots. The growth in paranormal oriented media, has not only detracted from the stream of violent soap-opera-fiction big network and fake news fare, but has spawned a whole new generation of channels dedicated solely to paranormal, science fiction and the strange.(13) The public grows ever more suspicious of people who make the extraordinary claim to represent science, yet at the same time refuse to examine the evidence on a variety of challenging issues. An interesting dichotomy in character.

     The American Public is Weary of Being Called “Anti-Science”

The American public is simply and justifiably tired of this; and they are calling out people like Steven Novella for making such grandiose and unfounded claims: “Not only do people reject the science specific to their issue, they reject science itself.”(14)  So claims Steven Novella (and yes, this is a claim and not an observation, under the scientific method). National Geographic recently produced a rather shallow and associative condemnation laden article on everyone who disagrees with five litmus scientific ideas, as all being one tin-foil-hat-wearing ‘War on Science‘ crowd. Social Skeptics everywhere giggled with joy. The simple fact is that the Anti-Science accusation crowd acts more like unto a political party and oligarchy movement, and nothing else. People sense this, and science is damaged in the process of its being used as ruse and football for these, less than scrupulous persons.(15) When one issues a MiHoDeAL Claim – people are no longer seeing such a claim as being based upon science. Religion, it is not just about a bearded grandfather in the sky anymore. We are not stupid, delusional, irrational, unscientific, anecdotal-conclusion vulnerable, not as susceptible to hoaxes nor are we liars as your ‘community’ implies. This continual insult of the American public, is nothing more than an attempt to remove constitutional rights, import votes from foreign countries and increase your client billing revenues. It is simply the squeaking noise skeptic fingers make as they desperately cling to the metal and skid down the slide of irrelevance into posterity.

Guys. You are losing the battle. Your horrid behaviors, darkened hearts, and control freak minds are sticking out like dead tree stumps in a forest. Those of us highly involved in science and the questions on the mind of the American population, are going to make sure that you do lose. Our society cannot afford your fakery any longer. In the end, Social Skepticism will prove simply to be a cautionary tale parents tell the children of the future.

epoché vanguards gnosis

1.  “Endocrine-Immune Disruption and the Exorbitant Cost of Social Skepticism Induced Bliss,” The Ethical Skeptic, Aug 2, 2014;

2.  “The Urgent Need to Reform the Cartel Science Around Glyphosate,” The Ethical Skeptic, Nov 19, 2014;

3.  “Obedience, Social Pressure, and their Fatality,” Anti Essays, extracted Nov 15, 2015;

4.  “If the New Religiously Unaffiliated are Not Atheists, Then Just Who are They?,” The Ethical Skeptic, May 15, 2015;

5.  “No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist,” The Ethical Skeptic, Jan 7, 2015;

6.  UC Berkeley, “Understanding Science: How science really works,” extracted Nov 15, 2015;

7.  “The Corrupt Oligarchy of Social Skepticism,” The Ethical Skeptic, Apr 18, 2014;

8.  “Survey Shows Rise in Paranormal Beliefs,” Center for Inquiry, Dec 12, 2009;

9.  “U.K. paranormal survey shows rise in belief,” Doubtful News, Sep 16, 2013; http://doubtflnews/2013/09/uk-paranormal-survey-shows-rise-in-belief/.

10.  Duggan, Maeve, Smith, Aaron, “6% of Online Adults are Reddit Users,” Pew Research Internet Project.

11.  Phil Plait, “Don’t Be a Dick,” Discover: Bad Astronomy, Aug 17, 2010;

12.  “Real Scientists Disagree with SSkeptics About World’s Top Concerns for the Future,” The Ethical Skeptic, Apr 3, 2013;

13.  “Paranormal Media: Audiences, Spirits and Magic in Popular Culture,” Oxford Journals, vol 53, issue 4;

14.  “The Rising Age of the Cartel: Your Freedoms Were Simply an Experiment,” The Ethical Skeptic, Jul 7, 2015;

15.  “The Anti-Science Party,” MSNBC, May 15, 2014;

†  Bob Bryan, “Americans’ out-of-pocket healthcare costs are skyrocketing”, Business Insider, Sep 14, 2016; – 10% annual rise on individual average US cost (as identified by the Commonwealth Fund annual report) of $7,960 in 2011, for a family of four.

‡ Sharon Hill, “Teaching the kids critical thinking looks like the BEST place to focus efforts”; I Doubt It, May 24 2017; extracted same;



Posted in Anti Science, Atheism, Autism, Bernaysian Engineering, Childrens health, conspiracy theory, Fake Skeptics, Joe Horgan, Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, obfuscation, real skepticism, Sharon Hill, Skepticism, Skeptics, Skeptive Dissonance, Social Skepticism, War on Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

McCaffery hate group tried to bully TV station into canning vaccine injury story

I’m not ashamed to say that I wept hard when the New South Wales parliament recently passed a totalitarian vaccine law prohibiting my children from being enrolled in any kind of early education service from January next year.

My sadness soon gave way to anger as I reflected on the cold, hard reality that my children’s life opportunities are being curtailed due to a nasty and dishonest, eight year long campaign, conducted by Toni and David McCaffery, and their well-connected associates.

I am an Ex-Vaxxer not an Anti-Vaxxer

For the record, my daughter suffered Encephalitis following her 12 month vaccines, and now has the diagnoses of Epilepsy, Esotropia due to cranial nerve damage, and developmental delay.  Prior to this she was hitting all of her milestones.  She was walking independently, saying a few words, and sleeping and feeding well.

All of this changed when she received the vaccine poison!

I now have an extremely difficult life raising a disabled child, and it will only get harder now that I will not have access to childcare services for my two pre-school aged children, both of whom are not vaccinated due to what happened to my daughter.  I also have two other school-aged children, both of whom are vaccinated, however they will not be receiving any more vaccines so will also fall foul of future school mandates, which the McCafferys also have firmly in their sights.

Toni and David McCaffery are Vaccine Injury Denialists

It’s quite telling to me that not once during their eight year long campaign have Toni and David McCaffery acknowledged or expressed empathy for vaccine injury victims.

Not once.  Ever.

They are what is known as vaccine injury denialists, and as you will see below, they and their associates will go to any lengths to ensure vaccine injury victims have no voice.

It’s all about them, and their selfish, evil crusade to force vaccinations on anyone and everyone just because their baby died.

Dana McCaffery’s death was not preventable

Dana McCaffery, who died from Whooping Cough, was too young to be vaccinated, and contrary to what the McCafferys have been telling any politician willing to listen, vaccination of every single close contact of Dana (so-called cocooning – a scaled  down version of herd immunity) would not have helped.  Whooping Cough vaccination doesn’t even protect vaccine recipients, let alone third parties who have not been vaccinated.  That cocooning does not work, is, in fact, the reason why vaccination of pregnant women in the third trimester of pregnancy is now recommended in Australia (not that I agree with that recommendation either).

The McCafferys know this, yet continue to promote the cocooning/herd immunity lie to this day.

Picture: Toni McCaffery lying to the Prime Minister: “if all of the children in my daughter’s child care centre had been vaccinated, Dana would still be alive”.

This is the reason I have decided to speak out now.  The real McCafferys are anything but sugar and spice and all things nice, as they are portrayed by their supporters, and I will do everything in my power to expose them for what they are: spiteful, lying hate-mongers.

While they are courting politicians all over Australia with their cocooning lie, I’m having panic attacks about how I am going to cope without access to childcare services.

In the end, I’m just so sick of liars getting away with being liars, and these liars are now hurting me and my family!

The McCaffery Hate Groups

hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

Source: Wikipedia

Contrary to what their supporters portray, the McCafferys are not merely grieving parents.  Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (SAVN) is a hate group formed in 2009 to avenge the death of Dana McCaffery as well as silence all dissenting voices against vaccination.   Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters (NRVS) is a subsidiary group of SAVN  formed a couple of years later, and based in northern New South Wales.  Toni and David MCaffery are active members of and contributors to both SAVN and NRVS.  A third group, Light for Riley, was launched in March 2015, by long-time SAVN member Catherine Hughes, and her husband Greg Hughes.  I intend to write about Light for Riley in the not-too-distant future.  Watch this space.

NRVS made a vexatious complaint to the media regulator

An investigation report, found on the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) website, reveals that NRVS made a complaint to the media regulator against 9 News Perth, which, during 2014, had run a story about a man named Ben Hammond, who had been permanently disabled by a dTap vaccine he had received in 2012.  You can read the full report here.  The complaint can be found at Attachment B on page 18 of the report.

Unsurprisingly, ACMA found that the story did not breach the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 in any respect.

The complaint was all about trying to suppress the danger of vaccines and silence the inconvenient voice of vaccine injury victims.

Toni and David McCaffery have blood on their hands

Ben Hammond’s injuries are actually a legacy of the McCafferys evil agenda to have every adult vaccinated against Whooping Cough, which may explain why they were so committed to erasing his story from the public record.

In May 2012, Toni McCaffery petitioned four states’ health ministers, including Western Australia’s, to continue funding cocooning vaccines.  The petition was in response to announcements by a number of states that cocooning vaccines would no longer be funded after June 2012 due to an absence of evidence for the effectiveness of the strategy.  In fact, there has never been a hint of evidence to suggest that vaccination of close contacts of newborns prevents them suffering Whooping Cough.  It’s a strategy which was concocted by vaccine manufacturers to sell more product.

During 2011, two applications were made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for subsidisation of cocooning vaccines under the National Immunisation Program, one from GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Boostrix dTap, and another from Sanofi-Pasteur, the manufacturer of Adacel dTap.

With respect to both applications, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) admitted to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee that there was no evidence to support the cocooning strategy.

The submission and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) pre-PBAC submission advice acknowledged the absence of empirical data supporting the effectiveness of a cocooning strategy. (page 2 Adacel Public Summary Document)

The PBAC, in its findings, also noted the dangers of expanding the immunising population.

However, the PBAC considered that should a cocooning strategy be approved, it would likely result in an expansion of the immunising population, which may be associated with an increase in adverse events due to differing levels of experience in injection technique. (page 6 Adacel Public Summary Document)

Unfortunately for Ben Hammond, Toni McCaffery’s petition found favour with the Western Australian government and the rest, as they say, is history.

I wonder if Toni and David McCaffery have ever apologised to Ben Hammond?

There is much more to report about Toni and David McCaffery but this will have to wait for another day.  Before I finish I will leave you with one final insight into Toni McCaffery.

Toni McCaffery’s Tough Love

Back in March 2017, Toni McCaffery described totalitarian vaccine laws as “tough love”.

Tough love?  Really?  Love or narcissism?

Well, how’s this for tough love Toni McCaffery?

Game on.  You will not get a free pass to lie anymore.  I will ensure every politician in Australia knows that when you claimed Whooping Cough is an easily preventable disease you were lying.  You will not deny my children’s right to an education.

That’s a promise.

Next Week: Toni McCaffery is a lying mouthpiece for Sanofi-Pasteur





Posted in Australian Skeptics, Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI, Ben Hammond, GlaxoSmithKline,, Light for Riley, Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters (NRVS), Sanofi-Pasteur, SAVN, Stop the Australian Vaccination Network, Toni and David McCaffery, Uncategorized, Vaccine Injury Denialists | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Death threat Skeptic crowned 2017 Skeptic of the Year


Christine Bayne, who, back in 2010, implored her Twitter followers to “put a bullet” in AVN founder Meryl Dorey’s brain has taken out the Australian Skeptics top award at Skepticon.

In an attempt to avoid responsibility for those tweets, Christine Bayne made her tweets private for that Twitter account shortly after she posted them in 2010.  Her main Twitter handle currently is @DilutedThinking but there are others.

It is always a great source of amusement when the deceptively named Australian Skeptics hands out awards to its own for seriously questionable, if not, downright illegal activity, and let’s be honest; it’s not as if one would list this award on one’s CV.

The award seems to be reserved for the most repugnant of a repugnant lot.

Previous winners of Skeptic of the Year include anti-complementary medicine campaigner, Ken Harvey (2016), serial cyberstalker Reasonable Hank aka Peter Tierney (2014), Friends of Science in Medicine (2012) and Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (2010).

Dr. John Cunningham, a long time member of hate group, Stop the Australian Vaccination Network, was, quite ironically, awarded the 2017 Thornett Award for the Promotion of Reason.

Previous winners of the Thornett Award include none other than Victorian Health Minister Jill Hennessy (2016), Catherine and Greg Hughes (Light for Riley) (2015), and Toni and David McCaffery (2009).

Readers may recall that, earlier this year, the Murdoch media reported that Cunningham had attempted to coerce Village Cinemas in Melbourne into breaching its contract with the AVN, using financial inducements, after cinema management had refused to buckle under the weight of heavy mobbing and bullying from Cunningham and other fanatical sceptics.  Nice promotion of reason doc.

The AVN had made the booking with Village Cinemas as part of the hugely successful Vaxxed tour of the eastern seaboard of Australia, which included a screening and Q and A session at The Australian National University (ANU), no less.

Cunningham has a longstanding obsession with freedom of choice/vaccine safety advocates.  In addition to relentlessly bullying and attacking AVN founder Meryl Dorey and Dr. Judy Wilyman for years, he has also targeted current AVN President (and widowed mother of eight), Tasha David.

In 2015, he publicly questioned the paternity of Tasha’s eight children not once but twice in two separate articles, claiming that the older six children had a different father from the youngest two.  He did this for the sole purpose of trying to discredit Tasha’s lived experience of raising six vaccinated children who suffer from a range of developmental and immune disorders, and two completely unvaccinated children who are extremely healthy and disorder free.  For the record, Tasha’s healthy unvaccinated children and severely vaccine injured children have the same father.

Cunningham’s defamatory claims are made worse by the fact that Tasha’s husband died suddenly in late 2010, and Tasha and their children were the ones who found him. Cunningham knew this before making his callous and false statements but he chose to disregard the emotional impact that these hurtful mistruths would have on Tasha and her family just so he could try and undermine Tasha’s family’s vaccine injury experiences.

In our opinion, Cunningham is not a fit and proper person to be a member of a profession which the general public holds in such high regard, yet the government have rewarded his tactics with an Order of Australia Medal for promoting immunisation.

Alas, an Australian Skeptics event wouldn’t be complete without some serious hating on, and mockery of vaccine safety activists.  In fine sceptic tradition, Catherine Hughes of Light for Riley fame gave a presentation denigrating “anti-vaxers” and “conspiracy theorists” on Day 2 of Skepticon.  Her presentation was called “The harsh reality of the anti-vaccination movement”, in which she even employed the cliché, tinfoil hat meme so loved by the sceptics.

Such love from a person purporting to be merely promoting awareness of so-called vaccine-preventable disease.

Light for Riley followers could be forgiven for believing that Catherine Hughes is only a newcomer to the dirty business of vaccine activism.  After all, she’s only been at this since March 2015, right?


She’s actually a veteran anti-choice groupie.  On 27 March 2015, she made the following post to Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (SAVN) Facebook page, admitting to her longstanding commitment to the silencing of vaccination sceptics (the real sceptics).

Finally, in a major sceptic fail, Jane Hansen’s article about the so-called baby formula tampering scandal, has provided free, unprecedented, and worldwide publicity to Brandy Vaughan’s organisation, LearnTheRisk.Org.  Brandy went Live on Facebook to thank Jane for her help.

Thanks Jane. XXX

Posted in Australian Skeptics, Catherine Hughes, Christine Bayne, Dr John Cunningham, Dr Judy Wilyman, Jane Hansen, Light for Riley, Meryl Dorey, SAVN, Stop the Australian Vaccination Network, Tasha David, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

How skeptics are trying to influence the Senate

Post Image

AUSTRALIA’S anti-complementary medicine groups have launched a scaremongering campaign claiming changes to the Therapeutic Goods Act will put public safety at risk, which is nonsense.

The amendment Bill they’re fighting protects the current labelling that consumers rely on to make informed choices about complementary medicines, which two in three Australians use to support their health.

The truth is the public health scare campaign is a smokescreen for anti-complementary medicine lobby groups such as ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’ (FSM) that want to preserve their influence on government bodies handling complaints against medicines.

The Position of Friends of Science in Medicine for example is that: “There is no alternative to Medicine”. Dr Ken Harvey, a FSM Executive, is leading the current campaign.

Right now, members of at least four groups with a history of anti-complementary medicine activism sit on the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP) – the government committee that considers complaints relating to medicine labelling and claims:

  • – Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM)

(FSM’s Dr Ken Harvey was a representative of Choice on the CRP until early 2017)

  • – Choice (Australian Consumers’ Association)
  • – Consumers Health Forum (CHF)
  • – Access2 (The Foundation of Effective Markets and Governance) – Allan Asher, the CRP Chair.

The new TGA Bill takes away these groups’ power by shutting down the CRP and handing responsibility for investigating complaints to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) – a more impartial body.

According to the Your Health Your Choice Senate submission:

“… the abolition of the Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP) removes a mechanism of influence for the anti-CM lobby to target CM products and advertisers”.

Skeptics Senate submission One submission, many voices

Dr Harvey’s Senate submission protesting abolition of the CRP, is on behalf of the anti-CM groups he belongs to and shows how they are networked:

  • – FSM
  • – Choice
  • – CHF
  • – Access2
  • – Australian Skeptics

As well as being a FSM Executive, Dr Harvey is also:

  • – Life member of the Australian Skeptics
  • – Life member of Choice
  • – Representative of the CHF as a complementary medicine ‘spokesperson’


Skeptics are against the new TGA Bill because if passed, it will abolish the CRP – which is stacked with representatives from these anti-complementary groups. These uncontrolled conflicts of interest have irreparably compromised the CRP as a workable instrument.


The Your Health Your Choice Senate submission details how Dr Harvey, while he was a member of the CRP, ran Monash University ‘summer school’ programs in 2015 and 2016 where he coached his students to generate complaints against complementary medicine products to the CRP. Student submissions were ‘checked by a FSM reviewer’ before being lodged.


While Dr Harvey was a member of the CRP, he described the Panel has a “like-minded group” in a public speech (ANZAAS Medal Speech), referring to its active support for his anti-CM activism. He also acknowledged the support of his colleagues at FSM, Skeptics, Choice and the CHF.


Your Health Your Choice supports the TGA Bill to abolish the existing CRP, ending a culture of cronyism and bias in the complaints handling process.

In its Senate submission YHYC wrote: “The abolition of the CRP removes the mechanism of influence for the anti-CM lobby to target CM products and advertisers”.


More than a month before the deadline closed, Dr Harvey published three of his students’ Senate submissions as well as the CRP Chair’s submission on his blog, Medreach – breaching Senate rules.

The student submissions were removed from Dr Harvey’s page after Your Health Your Choice notified the Senate secretariat of the breach on 19 December, 2017 – but he kept the CRP Chair’s submission up “for ideas” to inspire others.

Dr Harvey coached students in preparing Senate submissions as part of his 2017 ‘summer school’ program at Monash University.

Read the Your Health Your Choice Senate submission here.



Posted in AHPRA, Dr Ken Harvey, Dr Ken Harvey,, Friends in Science and Medicine | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Jane Hansen’s trail of lies and deception.

Jane Hansen has written a Daily Telegraph hit piece about blogger and mother Taylor Winterstein. Taylor has amassed a huge social media following sharing her journey from a toxic lifestyle to health and wellness in her blog ‘Tay’s way’

Taylor will soon be joining the Australian Vaxxed tour in January 2018 where she will be interviewing vaccine -traumatised families who are ignored by the mainstream media, and giving them a much-needed platform to be heard!  Jane Hansen has used a misleading and dramatic headline ‘Manly star’s wife Taylor Winterstein takes on role as Aussie face of movie Vaxxed’.

Jane Hansen is attempting to make Taylor the “face” of the movement. Taylor disagrees with this label and says

‘I am part of a large team who are fearless in the pursuit of spreading truth and awareness’.

The Pharma-backed press ignores vaccine injury stories as they, along with pharma-backed government, fear that covering them will discourage people from vaccinating. This issue affects the lives of millions of children worldwide. Parents deserve to hear the science without conflicts of interest.

Jane Hansen is often assigned to the dirty work in Australian media . Her previous job for Murdoch was selling the lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so the government could justify the Australia’s senseless involvement in the war. The US government had to finally admit the truth after the war was over.

In 1997, she was a journalist on tabloid TV show A Current Affair where she did a story on electronic repair man ‘Benny Mendoza’ and exposed him for not fixing some equipment he claimed to have fixed. The advertising for the story ran all weekend and sadly he committed suicide.  Upon reflect ion over this senseless tragedy Jane Hansen told Australian Story

I was just doing my job and I know that’s the Nuremberg defence but I wasn’t in the position to say, “Shove it, I don’t think it’s a good story.” Which is how I felt anyway. I didn’t think it was a good story. It was my job and I wasn’t in a position to be a prima donna.’

With over 20 years of tabloid journalistic experience Jane Hansen is still ‘just doing her job’. For the last few years she’s been assigned to sell mandatory vaccination policies to the public. She is dismissive of anyone who disagrees with flawed vaccination science and ignores all vaccine injury stories. This is because she works for Rupert Murdoch who used his paper the Daily Telegraph to drum up public support for the No Jab No Pay/Play policy they created. Murdoch has financial interests in the pharmaceutical industry and his son James Murdoch was even on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

Jane Hansen exploited the tragic death of Imogen Petrak from pneumococcal meningitis by implying that her unvaccinated child gave it to her. This resulted in public backlash against Imogen until her grieving family called out her lying on social media. Jane also failed to disclose that Imogen’s health went downhill 2 days after she received the whooping cough vaccine. 

Jane Hansen is a friend of cyber bully and harasser of vaccine-injured families Reasonable Hank . He helps her find smear stories to write against vaccine-choice advocates.  He has been awarded ‘Skeptic of the year’ in 2014  and is a proud member of the hate group Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN. In the past they have sent death threats to pro-choice activists such as Meryl Dorey founder of the Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network. You can get an idea of how creepy the Skeptics are here


Alison Greig questions Hansen’s journalistic integrity in her article ‘Jane Hansen – A seasoned journalist with a murky past’ and writes

 “And we have to ask Jane Hansen, what choices do journalists make when they choose one side of a story? It is a choice it seems to exclude balance. It is a choice to manipulate the news and what the public know when they only report what they want  to report, rather than to offer their audience a choice as to discern the truth. “

Posted in Jane Hansen, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is Informed Consent Possible for Vaccines in the Current Political Environment ?

By Dubius Anonymuus **

Informed Consent

There is considerable pressure for doctors to enforce strict adherence to vaccination schedules, but many patient and parents are not convinced that this is the best option for maintaining good health.


In this setting informed consent is of great importance, however in the current setting most doctors do not know enough about vaccines to actually give fully informed consent.


There are a number of issues that may be of concern for parents, but for the sake of argument the presence of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines is a good starting point.


Recently  ( May 2017) the Medical Board of Australia sent out a newsletter to doctors, reminding us (amongst other things) of the importance of the Vaccination Schedule:

(May Newsletter Australian Medical Board)


The  subject of vaccination is covered about ½ way down this page.

“Vaccination information resources for doctors

General practitioners have an important role in guiding parents about child vaccination issues.

The Australian Child Health Poll, conducted on behalf of Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, found that more than 25 per cent of Australian parents had some concerns about vaccination, although most still vaccinate.

General practitioners are a trusted and frequently accessed resource about vaccine concerns. There are resources available to help doctors skilfully address parent’s worries, including the following:


I decided this was a good opportunity to test the quality of the resources supporting doctors in decision making”


I initially followed the “Resources for Health Professionals” link:


Finding nothing useful there I followed through to the “Clinical Updates” page:


After a great deal of trial and error I clicked on the link for  “The Science of Immunisation Questions and Answers”


Article “The science of immunisation”

click on hyperlink 2

“What’s in a Vaccine”


Track down to Adjuvants and read:

“In most human vaccines that contain adjuvants, the adjuvant is an aluminium salt (known as alum), which has a track record of safety dating back to the 1950s 49. Some newer vaccines incorporate more active adjuvants, derived from naturally occurring oil in water emulsions, fats from bacterial cell walls, or sugars. These can produce more vigorous and better targeted immune responses against the infectious agent 50.”


Then click on hyperlink 49

Which is the only reference I could find to aluminium in all this mess


  • Edelman, R. (1980) Vaccine adjuvants. Rev Infect Dis 2 (3), 370–83.



So the final answer is that after an enormous amount of hunting around the doctor would finally learn that the only reference to the safety of aluminium adjuvants is 1980– 37 years ago.

My first literature review using the terms aluminium   neurotoxicity:

reveals 423 papers


However a more comprehensive review summed up at Vaccine Papers provides very strong evidence linking aluminium (especially at the low doses associated with vaccines) with neurotxicity.


So the current situation is that it is almost impossible for doctors to do anything more than say that “The authorities tell me they must be safe, so therefore they must be”. Few doctors would take the trouble to track all the way through these resources, and even fewer of them would know that there has been a great deal of research done on the aluminium adjuvant- brain inflammation link since that 1980 paper. Additionally there never has been research done on a population exposed to aluminium adjuvants versus one not so exposed, but that fact is not accessible to casual investigation. To make matters worse the guidelines for paper selection for ATAGI and the National Immunisation Committee in Australia specifically exclude any studies relying purely on in vitro or animal studies, and thus these guidelines cut the committees off from important information, which would give any individual valid reason to refuse vaccines for themselves or their children.


Given those observations, I suspect that it is actually not possible to give legally valid informed consent for vaccines.

** Dubious Anonymous is a medical practitioner who has enough sense to keep a low profile when offering an intellectual critique of his profession, because he knows they can’t take it

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Tactics of Social Control by the Skeptics

 By  Dubius Anonymuus

Friends of Science in Medicine get together  (L-R) Dr Ken Harvey, Loretta Marron OAM, Prof Alistair MacLennan AO, Dr Sue Ieraci, Prof Marcello Costa, Jo Benhamu RN, Prof Rob Morrison OAM, Prof John Dwyer AO 


  It is helpful to look at the extent to which the “Friends of Science in Medicine” and their allies will go to dominate the conversation, scare off opponents, and give the impression that there is a groundswell of opinion in their direction. Friends of Science In Medicine pretend to be a group supporting skepticism and science but they are always highly partisan in the approach they take. They fail to take in to account the huge problem in science created by the lack of replicability of most science and the massive distortions created by industry influence.  Additionally the targets of FOSM and allied  groups such as Australian Skeptics and facebook hate group SAVN ( Stop the Australian Vaccination Network)  are  ALWAYS consistently attacking treatments which are low cost, have demonstrated low risk, and may take market share away from the major pharmaceutical groups and medical interest groups. In this setting we should all remind ourselves that the third largest cause of death in the USA is medical misadventure.


There is substantial evidence that pharmaceutical groups actually directly pay people (often from overseas call centres) to make repeated comments on message boards and skew the public conversation and make their opponents look stupid. The question of paid astroturfing is complex enough to require a post of its own, so this post will focus on tactics used.

Skeptic and pro vaccine troll Dr David Gorski

These two posts were taken by a US pro choice group, from a discussion thread that started in April 2012 on Dr David Gorski’s blog “Respectful insolence” Dr. David Gorski is a Skeptic and  pro-vaccine oncologist with ties to the Barbara Anne Karmanos Cancer Institute, notorious for experimental cancer treatments and drugs that have been fast-tracked by the FDA. I have personally sighted the original but it took a good deal of work to trawl through the thread to find the original comments, and it was like wading through a sewer.  The comments clearly illustrate unethical tactics that we have all seen employed by the pro-vaccine lobby in the months since Pauline Hanson’s statement about parents doing their own research.
Note the contempt for the intelligence of their perceived opponents: 
This is from an article entitled ” Pro vax trolls are impersonating disease injured families on comment boards” 
Poe2go @ 12 is right on target: post that kind of schizophrenic word-salad on the anti-vax sites in large quantities, under various pseudonyms, and clog up the sites with it until it appears that a large fraction of the members are downright wacko. This will seriously turn off undecideds who check out those sites.  
Poe2go’s comment is an excellent template for this tactic, but you can easily make up your own by inserting random words into sentences and then going on digressive riffs about the random words. Be sure to Capitalize occasional Nouns and Verbs as well.Really: listen up folks, the way to fight this crap is NOT by “patiently explaining” to people who are already way past being persuaded that the Earth isn’t flat. You may as well be talking to rocks (healing crystals?:-). The way to fight it is by sabotaging the anti-vaxers with crazy stuff that drives away undecideds. The way to fight it is with emotional narratives that undermine the ones that the anti-vaxers are pushing.And some editorial comment from the owners of the site  “The Refusers”
MB Comment: Message boards on the virulently pro-vax web site ORAC Respectful Insolence (Gorski) advocate fraudulently impersonating disease-injured families and insane people on the comment sections of vaccine injury and vaccine freedom websites such as Age of Autism, Mothering Magazine and Amazon.

These pro-vax maniacs’ purpose in life is to discredit anything that casts doubt on vaccines, which is their pseudo-scientific religion.

The next time you see comments saying: ‘My unvaccinated child has autism’ or ‘My immune-compromised child can’t take vaccines – it is your duty to immunize your child so my child doesn’t get sick’ or ‘My sister got measles and died’  etc. – please be aware that these may be totally fabricated lies concocted by vaccine fanatics to intimidate and discredit vaccine freedom and awareness websites and facebook pages. They also advocate setting up phony email accounts and IDs so that their dishonest comments cannot be traced back to the source.

This despicable behavior makes it impossible to believe the veracity of any pro-vax comments you may read on news articles, Amazon forums, Mothering Magazine, etc., where these slimebag commentators lurk.

If you needed any further proof that vaccine zealots will stoop to any level to deceive and intimidate parents who are looking for truthful vaccine information, read on.

 So the question becomes one of what to do about this. Firstly recognise the nature of the problem we are dealing with, the comments on Dr Gorski’s blog are clearly unethical, and as blog owner he has a responsibility for them. He has probably said them himself somewhere, but I believe there is good reason for the conduct of his blog to be reported to the local medical board, and to let them decide.

Secondly manage and contain the problem. All blog holders need to be aware of this and to moderate comments wherever possible. In the case of Facebook Communities, unacceptable posts need to be swiftly deleted and repeat offenders excluded.

Thirdly, the provaccine/ anti complementary medicine groups will be posting widely elsewhere, aiming to influence public opinion. The best answer to that is to link to this article every time you see a post that appears to be made by a confused, semiliterate “antivaccine” person.

Dr John Dwyer and Dr Ken Harvey have guilt by association for being aligned with the Skeptics 

Given the dangers of guilt by association, the members of FOSM such as Dr John Dwyer and Skeptic  Dr Ken Harvey need to be aware of the murky depths and unacceptable tactics of the “skeptic” movement. We all also need to be aware that as C.S. Lewis said, in this secular age many people show the same sort of unthinking obedience to “science” as they would have to their tribal shaman, or to the priest who sold them indulgences. In this day and age, calling anything “scientific” is a great way to pull the wool over people’s eyes. The members of the FOSM must also remain mindful of the poor replicability of the “science” underpinning much of medicine ( as detailed in my recent article “Trust Me, I’m a doctor”, and has been supported by the recent collapse of the saturated fat/ heart disease hypothesis) 
Posted in Dr David Gorski, Dr Ken Harvey,, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Trust me, I’m a doctor ! Science, Guidelines, Clinical Practice and Patient Autonomy

By Dubious Anonymous **


Pauline Hanson dared to suggest that parents should do their own research.

In late February 2017, Senator Pauline Hanson created quite a storm by suggesting that parents should do their own research and make their own decisions about vaccinations. This comment sounded rather innocuous as, after all we do live in a society which respects the right of the individual and insists on informed consent for all medical decisions (Good Medical Practice, The AMA Code of Conduct Item 2.3).


However it was met with a barrage of derision, and insults to the patient or parent’s capacity to make a decision, or to do adequate research on the matter. These comments clearly indicated that the commentators had no idea that many parents are far more


Pain Specialist Dr Michael Vagg says you don’t need to do your own research into vaccines

sophisticated in their search methods than just using Wikipedia or Google.

One of the most representative, and most distasteful, commentaries was provided in “The Conversation” by a Dr Michael Vagg, a pain specialist who, under current AHPRA regulations would be regarded as not qualified to give any opinion on vaccinations.(As a precedent I would cite the difficulties faced by Dr Gary Fettke, an orthopaedic surgeon who has been cautioned by AHPRA for giving (accurate and legitimate) dietary advice to his patients, when his specialist qualification does not specifically qualify him for that.



This comment stood out more than anything else: “You don’t need to do your own research” Unless you’re a senior research scientist with your own lab, a posse of postdocs and serious wad of cash, we don’t need your help.

Firstly we need to separate out doing research in labs and investigating the state of the current research and the process of synthesising that research in to guidelines, and then into clinical practice.

How Accurate Is the Science that we base our decisions on?

The first point of concern is that there is a serious crisis in the scientific world concerning the replicability of scientific research. John P. A. Ioannidis writes about this in his paper ” Why Most Published Research Findings are False” 

Further commentary and links to unsatisfactory results are found at this Open Science blog: This blog links to several resources including studies by Bayer in 2011 showing that more than 75% of their studies could not be replicated, and another study by Amgen, which looked at 53 studies deemed to be landmark studies but could only reproduce 6 of them.


How Biased is the Science that we base our decisions on?

HeartattacklawyersThere has been extensive discussion around the problems caused by the funding of research by pharmaceutical companies and many examples of dishonest practices. One of the most dramatic of these was the distorted research data that allowed Merck (also a vaccine manufacturer) to get its new anti-inflammatory Vioxx authorised by the FDA. That was shown to cause many heart attacks with a minimum of 50,000 deaths, and resulted in a damages payout of 4.85 billion dollars from Merck in a class action.This is only the tip of the iceberg, but it is pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines and they are indemnified against damage caused by their products.


However the issue goes much further than fraud. According to an article in European Journal of Clinical Investigation, it observes that in the USA between 57 and 87% of guideline authors have a conflict of interest.

Stamatakis et al list a number of areas of concern. Studies are funded by for profit organisations are four times more likely to find in favour of the studied drug. Furthermore the for profit studies are not looking at non drug treatments and the authors comment that “medical research is doomed to navigate only questions posed by the industry and their extensions.There is increasing direct evidence about the manipulation of reported results in industry-sponsored trials, which demonstrate favourable results and the avoidance of inconvenient findings.”

So the outcome of this is that only the questions that interest large pharmaceutical companies get studied. The corollary of this is that proponents of pharmaceuticals, and their allies in the so called “Science Based Medicine” movement are able to attack and marginalise complementary medicines with a view to removing them from the market because they don’t have any science to support them. These claims are usually false, but the total volume of published science in complementary medicine is clearly lower. Stametakis et al also highlight that between 57 and 87% of members of committees involved in establishing guidelines have conflicts of interest.

Guidelines and their flaws.

The published science is only part of the equation governing clinical care. Prepared clinical guidelines are becoming more dominant and while they were meant to inform clinical practice now they are increasingly dictating it, with the result that non compliance is seen as malpractice.However the preparation of clinical guidelines is a complicated process and there are many points at which it can fail.

I will use as my example here the Australian Immunisation Handbook, 10th Edition (2013) There are three committees involved in vaccination decisions ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, the (NIC) National Immunisation Committee and the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Vaccines (curiously the name of that committee has dropped removing the word safety).

The first problem is the selection of the committee that will drive the guidelines process.In the case of the Immunisation handbook the committee can be found here:This list NIC contains no consumer representative and no representative of any dissenting views.

It is relatively easy to find a conflict statement from the NIC (and 8 of the 15 committee members have disclosed conflicts ranging from payment for travel by vaccine companies to doing research partly funded by vaccine companies) but I could not find conflict of interest statements for the other two groups.Again Stamatakis et al observe that in the USA between 57 and 87% of guideline authors have a conflict of interest.

The science used by the NIC. The first problem with any Guidelines is the currency and relevance of the evidence.

Edition 10 of the Australian Immunisation Guidelines was published in 2013.

criteria for the data searched can be found here:

The criteria for exclusion were

• Publication year – searches were generally limited to items published from 2006–2011

• Language – searches were limited to items in English.

• Human – items discussing only animals were removed.

• In vitro – items discussing only in vitro studies were removed

• Abstracts – search results restricted to items containing abstracts.

So, by the time of publication, the research base was already 2 years out of date. In some areas it may be much more. For instance the Cochrane Collaboration was mentioned. The most recent Cochrane review of aluminium adjuvants appears to be 2004, based on 21 papers, all published between 1968 and 2003. By way of comparison this quick check on Pubmed using the terms “aluminium” and “neurotoxicity” revealed 417 papers, and many of them were recent:

Secondly we have no real information as to the extent of the searches being done by the NIC. We do know that the CDC has managed to find reasons to avoid considering many studies, and we have no assurance that the same is not happening in Australia.

Thirdly, we have no idea if the search terms used were adequate, and did not reflect the research and cognitive biases of the committee members. Restricting searches so that they avoid references to abstract only items is simply unacceptable. If a full article is not available for free then the Health Department should be paying for it.

The restriction on papers not written in English is unlikely to be a major problem given current practices ensuring that most science done is written in or translated to English Regardless of that an attempt should be made to at least assess the abstracts using translation software.The last two restrictions, however are more serious: namely the exclusion of animal only or in vitro studies.

The major concern here is around vaccine adjuvants. There is ample evidence of the toxicity of aluminium, and the only real question is the toxic dose. I suggest it would be impossible to get an ethics committee approval for a human study trialling injections of aluminium. It would also be hard to find a control population that was not dosed with it.

So in reality, when we look at the Australian Immunisation Guidelines it is clear that there are serious issues with the selection of the research which is used to inform the guidelines, that guidelines in general can never be current, and that the process that establishes these committees is lacking in transparency and is probably not free from bias.

So, in short, to answer Dr Vagg, and those who support his views, it is simply not possible to say that the science is as settled, complete and unbiassed as he claims. In this setting there is no way that imposition of mandatory vaccines, abolition of the right to refuse consent, or penalties for not vaccinating can ever be appropriate.

** Dubious Anonymous is a medical practitioner who has enough sense to keep a low profile when offering an intellectual critique of his profession, because he knows they can’t take it














Posted in AHPRA, ATAGI, Dr Michael Vagg, Pauline Hanson, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments