Jump to content
The Education Forum

How the anti-vaxers lie to you


Recommended Posts

r_meryladvertising.png

Yet again, a post about one of Meryl Dorey's regularly scheduled SocialOomph tweets. And guess what? Meryl is lying again. Oh, sure, she's probably just repeating something she's heard somewhere else. Sad thing is, though, she's been told she's wrong repeatedly and she's still carrying on, so it's crossed from merely repeating a rumour without checking into the territory of outright lie. She's repeating this on the "official" twitter channel of the Australian Vaccination Network, which claims to be an independent watchdog. It's not a watchdog. It's a half-blind junkyard mutt with three legs.

So, are pharma companies the biggest buyers of advertising?

Well, no.

Dave The Happy Singer sent me this link from Advertising Age, summarising the top 100 ad spends from companies worldwide in 2009.

In at number one? Procter & Gamble. Do they have any pharma products? Well no, unless you count tampons and razors as pharma, which I don't. Yes, I know you can buy them at the pharmacy. They're not pharma.

Number two in the list? Unilever. A direct competitor to the #1 company, Unilever are also conspicuously short of pharma brands, but they're nevertheless pervasive. I'm drinking Lipton's tea right now, a Unilever brand.

Third in the top 100 is L'oreal, the world's largest cosmetics firm. Wait a minute! doesn't Meryl Dorey run a company called "Fountain Of Beauty"? Why yes! Cosmetics firms are the third largest buyers of advertising. Think about that next time you see

.

Fourth - and don't worry, I'm not going to do all 100 of them - is General Motors, owners of the Holden, Opel and Vauxhall brands. Oh, those evil Holdens and Vauxhalls! But do they manufacture any drugs? Not unless you count pure adrenaline!

Coming in at number five, The Toyota Motor Corporation. I think we all know who Toyota are. They make cars that just don't stop. No drugs here. NEXT!

Sixth in the list: Coca-Cola. Now, despite schoolyard rumours, Coca-Cola no longer contains cocaine. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to call Coca Cola a pharma or chemical company, even if they do market Monster Energy.

Now, at seven with a global spend of $2.6bn, Johnson & Johnson. Finally, a pharmaceutical company. Possibly best known for their sanitation products like gauzes, cotton tips and dressings (they got started in surgical dressings), J&J do actually have a stake in the vaccine business. That's right. They got into vaccines in 2009 when they bought a european research biotech company.

OK, so we find a pharma brand at number 7, though admittedly it's a brand more well known for cotton tips and tylenol than "proper" clinical products. Where are the others?

8. Ford. Not pharma, though their cars are known to put me to sleep

9. Reckit Benckiser (chemicals and 'health' products including Gaviscon, Nurofen and Clearasil). Only vaguely pharma. We'll give it half a point, if only for products like Suboxone.

10. Nestlé. A food company. Not very ethical, but also not "pharma". Also, a verb meaning "to move or arrange oneself in a comfortable and cozy position", if you leave off the accent.

11. Volkswagen. Nobody mention Hitler.

12. Honda. Any drugs here? Just the ones being taken by the designers of this thing.

13. Mars. Formerly Masterfoods. Vegetarians don't like them much any more, but not because they manufacture evil drugs. It's because they started using veal byproducts in their chocolate bars. Mmmmm. Veal.

14. McDonalds - I've often joked that their food is addictive, but it ain't no drug, Meryl.

15. Sony - don't get me started on Sony. They put rootkits on their music CDs, but they don't manufacture pharma.

Damn, this is a struggle. Up to fifteen and only one and a half pharma companies

16. GlaxoSmithKline. Yay! Another pharma company with an ad spend of $1.83bn. Fourth largest pharma company in the world, seemingly the second (maybe third) largest ad spend of the pharma segment. And they definitely make vaccines. But at number 16, they're clearly not pulling their weight for Meryl. Pick up your game, GSK.

17. Deutsche Telecom. I think we can discount these guys. I'm pretty sure that DTAG's product line fails to constitute a pharmacopeia. I just wanted to use the word pharmacopeia. Move along.[/font][/font]

18. Kraft Foods. Vegemite is not a drug! I'm not addicted. I can quit any time I want.

19. Nissan. Boring cars are not pharmaceutical products.

20. Walt Disney Company. Pure unmitigated evil, but again they don't count as pharma. Not even for fantasia.

So there we have it. Only two and a half pharma companies in the top 20 Ad spenders worldwide, and none above seventh-placed J&J, which is there by virtue of a massively diverse product base. That's 12.5% of the list. Even if we expand the domain to include "chemical companies" we only really add half a point for Reckit Benckiser, notwithstanding that all matter is composed of chemicals and therefore any company with a physical product is therefore a chemical company.

Here's the lowdown: Meryl is lying. Again.

Hang on, I'll put that in big, so the message is clear

Meryl is lying. Again.

Got that?

http://www.mycolleag.../06/03/491.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r_meryladvertising.png

Yet again, a post about one of Meryl Dorey's regularly scheduled SocialOomph tweets. And guess what? Meryl is lying again. Oh, sure, she's probably just repeating something she's heard somewhere else. Sad thing is, though, she's been told she's wrong repeatedly and she's still carrying on, so it's crossed from merely repeating a rumour without checking into the territory of outright lie. She's repeating this on the "official" twitter channel of the Australian Vaccination Network, which claims to be an independent watchdog. It's not a watchdog. It's a half-blind junkyard mutt with three legs.

So, are pharma companies the biggest buyers of advertising?

Well, no.

Dave The Happy Singer sent me this link from Advertising Age, summarising the top 100 ad spends from companies worldwide in 2009.

In at number one? Procter & Gamble. Do they have any pharma products? Well no, unless you count tampons and razors as pharma, which I don't. Yes, I know you can buy them at the pharmacy. They're not pharma.

toxic tampons?

Number two in the list? Unilever. A direct competitor to the #1 company, Unilever are also conspicuously short of pharma brands, but they're nevertheless pervasive. I'm drinking Lipton's tea right now, a Unilever brand.

?

Third in the top 100 is L'oreal, the world's largest cosmetics firm. Wait a minute! doesn't Meryl Dorey run a company called "Fountain Of Beauty"? Why yes! Cosmetics firms are the third largest buyers of advertising. Think about that next time you see

.

The intake of a woman can be as much as a kilo of lipstick, for example, in a lifetime

Fourth - and don't worry, I'm not going to do all 100 of them - is General Motors, owners of the Holden, Opel and Vauxhall brands. Oh, those evil Holdens and Vauxhalls! But do they manufacture any drugs? Not unless you count pure adrenaline!

smog

Coming in at number five, The Toyota Motor Corporation. I think we all know who Toyota are. They make cars that just don't stop. No drugs here. NEXT!

ditto again

Sixth in the list: Coca-Cola. Now, despite schoolyard rumours, Coca-Cola no longer contains cocaine. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to call Coca Cola a pharma or chemical company, even if they do market Monster Energy.

Aspartane, Sugar, sugar, sugar and caffein

Now, at seven with a global spend of $2.6bn, Johnson & Johnson. Finally, a pharmaceutical company. Possibly best known for their sanitation products like gauzes, cotton tips and dressings (they got started in surgical dressings), J&J do actually have a stake in the vaccine business. That's right. They got into vaccines in 2009 when they bought a european research biotech company.

tainted talcum powder et.c.

OK, so we find a pharma brand at number 7, though admittedly it's a brand more well known for cotton tips and tylenol than "proper" clinical products. Where are the others?

8. Ford. Not pharma, though their cars are known to put me to sleep

9. Reckit Benckiser (chemicals and 'health' products including Gaviscon, Nurofen and Clearasil). Only vaguely pharma. We'll give it half a point, if only for products like Suboxone.

10. Nestlé. A food company. Not very ethical, but also not "pharma". Also, a verb meaning "to move or arrange oneself in a comfortable and cozy position", if you leave off the accent.

11. Volkswagen. Nobody mention Hitler.

12. Honda. Any drugs here? Just the ones being taken by the designers of this thing.

13. Mars. Formerly Masterfoods. Vegetarians don't like them much any more, but not because they manufacture evil drugs. It's because they started using veal byproducts in their chocolate bars. Mmmmm. Veal.

14. McDonalds - I've often joked that their food is addictive, but it ain't no drug, Meryl.

15. Sony - don't get me started on Sony. They put rootkits on their music CDs, but they don't manufacture pharma.

Damn, this is a struggle. Up to fifteen and only one and a half pharma companies

16. GlaxoSmithKline. Yay! Another pharma company with an ad spend of $1.83bn. Fourth largest pharma company in the world, seemingly the second (maybe third) largest ad spend of the pharma segment. And they definitely make vaccines. But at number 16, they're clearly not pulling their weight for Meryl. Pick up your game, GSK.

17. Deutsche Telecom. I think we can discount these guys. I'm pretty sure that DTAG's product line fails to constitute a pharmacopeia. I just wanted to use the word pharmacopeia. Move along.[/font][/font]

18. Kraft Foods. Vegemite is not a drug! I'm not addicted. I can quit any time I want.

19. Nissan. Boring cars are not pharmaceutical products.

20. Walt Disney Company. Pure unmitigated evil, but again they don't count as pharma. Not even for fantasia.

So there we have it. Only two and a half pharma companies in the top 20 Ad spenders worldwide, and none above seventh-placed J&J, which is there by virtue of a massively diverse product base. That's 12.5% of the list. Even if we expand the domain to include "chemical companies" we only really add half a point for Reckit Benckiser, notwithstanding that all matter is composed of chemicals and therefore any company with a physical product is therefore a chemical company.

Here's the lowdown: Meryl is lying. Again.

Hang on, I'll put that in big, so the message is clear

Meryl is lying. Again.

Got that?

http://www.mycolleag.../06/03/491.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hmmm my post (contribution) does not seem to have taken. I wonder if I have met her. Can you without giving too much away tell something of her location.

Anyway, aside from all the rest, I think I posted about aspartane, caffeine, and something about the large number of clients I've worked with suffering from the aftermath of vaccinations. The fairly rapid and dictatorially enforced adoption of the tripleantigens on younger and younger infants one can only speculate to an extent about long term effects perhaps including a compromised natural immunity. In traditional chinese medicine the only ''bad'' childhood disease is diptheria. But even then there are very good peaediatricians that with early intervention can make it an easy ride for the child. Also different countries have different approaches some by simple research. A look at xome of the vaxx data from the latter quarter of last century in Britain and Sweden for example has led to diverging policies. I suppose many have had illness parties for theior children knowing it will give them a lasting natural immunity fully constructed within the persons body.

A lot of these companies are intertwined. You go to the supermarket and while there may be 30 odd different shampoos to choose from you're really only dealing with few companies. Many of these products are sold at pharmacies in oz, some are given more prominence than others. Various chains tend to have a particular supplier which is prepared to make it woth while for their products to form a large part of the stock . These are chemicals (promising all sorts of weird (ty C) and wonderful things) and many leading to disorders that then must be treated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Are there risks associated with vaccines? Yes. Are they large risks? No. Do the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks? A resounding YES.

Vaccination is important for those too young to be immunised; herd immunity can help protection.

http://podblack.com/2010/07/live-blogging-the-telethon-institution-lecture-on-vaccination-the-experts-the-facts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you looked at the development (historically) of the approach taken in Sweden (which one can hardly describe as backward) and England, and their approach to vacination based on long term studies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of stuff when googling about comparing results in Britain and Sweden during moratoriums on various vaccinations in the 70's 80's. Basically it shows that high quality health care makes vaccination unnecessary in instances. Poor services in poor countries with bad hygiene and nutrition etc can benefit, but there is always the issue of who benefits financially and whether the immune system suffers in the long term where the choice is quality care or blanket vaccination. ie, universal health care, good nutrition, clean water, etc are likely better in the long term in many instances. However keeping things as they are and having lots of war fills wallets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccine opponent risks charity status

KATE BENSON

August 5, 2010

THE Australian Vaccination Network has three weeks to show why its charity licence should not be revoked after an audit revealed it was soliciting donations without permission.

Charity inspectors from the NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing visited the group's office in Bangalow to examine records and interview staff after it received a complaint that the group was calling for donations even though its licence had expired.

The group, run by Meryl Dorey, was granted a fund-raising authority from July 5, 2002, to July 4, 2007, but allowed that to lapse for two years. During that time, it is believed the group asked supporters for money to provide brochures on vaccination to be inserted into gift packs, called Bounty Bags, that are given to new mothers across Australia.

But Megan Baker, the organiser of Bounty Bags, said yesterday she had never had discussions with the group and would not permit its brochures to be distributed in the bags, which contain product samples, such as nappies, baby wipes and rash creams, educational materials and parenting magazines.

''We only insert information which follows public health guidelines set down by the [National Health and Medical Research Council] and the AVN doesn't follow public health guidelines. They are just so controversial,'' she said. ''We would only insert materials in support of immunisation.''

A spokeswoman from the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing said the audit had detected a number of breaches of the charity fund-raising law. They included: fund-raising without an authority; unauthorised expenditure; and failure to keep proper records of income and expenditure.

She said other possible breaches of the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 had been referred to the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

The demand to show cause comes a week after the Health Care Complaints Commission issued a public warning against the group for refusing to display a disclaimer on its website that indicated its information should not be taken as medical advice.

The commission also found that the group's website presented incorrect and misleading information which was solely anti-vaccination and quoted selectively from research suggesting that vaccination may be dangerous.

The Vaccination Awareness and Information Service, which opposes Ms Dorey's work, claims she also solicited donations from June 2006 to test vaccines for mercury, lead and other heavy metals, but the testing never occurred.

''And in 2009 the AVN solicited donations to place an autism advertisement in a magazine. Despite raising thousands of dollars from the general public, these ads were never placed. We are not aware of these donations being refunded,'' the service's website says.

In a Lismore newspaper article yesterday Ms Dorey challenged the vice-president of the Australian Medical Association, Steve Hambleton, to a debate after he publicly sided with the complaints commission.

When contacted by the Herald, Dr Hambleton rejected the offer, saying: ''I have no interest in providing her with any further oxygen. People want mainstream advice from their medical practitioners.''

Ms Dorey did not return the Herald's calls yesterday.

http://www.smh.com.a...0804-11fog.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

AVN stripped of charity status.

http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/anti-vaccination-group-stripped-of-status/story-e6frfkur-1225938818276

Like many of her ilk, she squeals and complains when in fact she practices the very evils she claims to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way does she practice the evils she fights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The name Australian vaccination network is misleading, since they are anti-vaccination. Their logo, for instance: "If you love them, never vaccinate them".

2. She claims they are not anti-vaccination, but the only material they make available is anti-vaccination... and is almost always inaccurate, misinterpreted or discredited. There is no material talking about the benefits of vaccinations.

3. She wants free speech but denies it to others. On her forum, if you try to talk about the benefits of vaccination or challenge her sources, your posts are deleted and you are banned as "having an agenda". The only people who can post are those that support her view.

4. She claims to want informed choice, but knowing promotes such snake oil as "homoeopathic" remedies. Amongst the claims are that it can protect against all the diseases, cure cancer, etc.

5. She claims harassment because a single lady scientist attended attended one of the AVN public meetings, yet happily questioned whether Dana McCaffery really did die of whoopingcough, insinuated her parents had something to do with it, and launched a campaign of harassment against the McCafferys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok. I think I can see why you wish to highlight this issue. For fairness, do you think she would respond to an invitation to join this forum? I thinl it could be interesting to hear what she personally has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...