Things that used to be on a blog.
Meryl Dorey and the rape analogy
September 11, 2013
One of Meryl Dorey's complaints to the court about me was that I had made a tasteless remark. Here is an article from The Millenium Project showing the depths of tastelessness to which she will descend. It did not surprise me, because when it comes to opposing vaccines the end always justifies the means.
It is being reproduced here as part six of a series about lies told by the Australian Vaccination Network running each day until September 18, the date set down for the District Court to hear Meryl Dorey's appeal against the dismissal of her frivolous and vexatious application for an Apprehended Violence Order against me.
===================================
An outbreak of common sense (15/1/2011)
[Link to original article]
You can't drive around with a child in your car unless the child is properly restrained in an appropriate safety apparatus. You can't carry your kid on the back of your bicycle unless the kid wears a helmet. You can't take your son out to sea fishing in a boat unless he wears a lifejacket. But if you are misinformed or terminally stupid you can expose your child to life-threatening diseases by refusing to have them vaccinated. Now at least one judge has decided that the welfare of children is important and overrides parental stupidity. This story appeared in several Australian papers on January 15, 2011 (but I read it in The Daily Telegraph).
Ordered to have vaccine
A Sydney mother has been ordered to have her five-year-old daughter immunised in a controversial Family Court decision.
The girls' father, who remarried and had another child, wanted the girl vaccinated against preventable diseases for her own wellbeing and the health of his other children.
But the girl's mother said her daughter was healthy and the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases was very small.
The couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, separated before their daughter was born.
The court heard the father initially consented to the child not being immunised but claimed it was because he was desperate to establish a relationship with her.
The father now wants her vaccinated, producing medical evidence immunisation provided no unacceptable risks for his daughter.
He said if the girl remained un-vaccinated, she would be forced to withdraw from school during outbreaks of some diseases.
She would also be unable to spend time with any new children he had as she was not immunised against whooping cough.
The mother produced opposing evidence that the vaccinations were unnecessary but was criticised in the judgment for submitting evidence from an "immunisation sceptic", who made what the magistrate described as "outlandish statements unsupported by any empirical evidence".
Outside the court, National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance research head Professor Robert Booy said immunisations prevented very serious diseases.
He said 97 per cent of parents had their children vaccinated and that immunisations formed a chain of protection around those vulnerable to infection.
"The only way we can protect the vulnerable, and that may be a newborn or someone with an immune deficiency, is to ensure other people are vaccinated," he said.
However the decision shocked paediatric chiropractor and author Dr Warren Sipser.
"It's a sad situation," Dr Sipser said outside court.
"I think it's dangerous to impose [immunisations] on anyone when there are two opposing viewpoints and when there is credible evidence they may do more harm than good," he said.
Why anyone would ask a quack calling himself a "paediatric chiropractor" for comment about vaccination is a mystery, but I suppose he was at the court to provide misinformation on the mother's behalf and was handy for the reporter to talk to. At least the reporter also talked to Professor Booy who was able to talk sense (and is a real doctor).
As expected, Meryl Dorey from the Australian Vaccination Network had to have something to say about this.
When even some of her supporters suggested that they might be uncomfortable with the rape analogy, Meryl Dorey offered the following apology. It further illustrates her complete lack of contact with reality.
I feel that the only proper response to this disgusting comment is a Kind and Gentle email to the lady herself. And I use the word "lady" loosely.
Dear Ms Dorey,
Congratulations.
I didn't think you could demonstrate your detachment from reality any better than you did in your famous blog post about the genocidal mind-control microchips in the H1N1 vaccine, but you have succeeded. Your equating vaccination with rape not only shows that you are prepared to say anything at all if it reflects badly on vaccination but you don't care how disgusting you look while you are saying it. I'm not sure what you could do to be even more revolting to sane people, but I am sure you can rise to the challenge. I look forward to your next effort in the campaign to clearly distinguish anti-vaccination campaigners from members of civilised society.
Look for me in court on February 14. I will be the person sitting in the audience with a square of black silk on my head. Metaphorically speaking, of course – I wouldn't want to do anything that you could construe as a death threat.
Your friend
Peter
Note: Ms Dorey did construe it as a death threat and offered the email to the court as evidence of my awfulness. Naturally, she did not include the context.
