Talk:Australian Vaccination-risks Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

It seems that some users are "blanking" this page. Please understand that it is considered bad editing etiquette to remove related referenced material from wikipedia. As such please discontinue doing so.

Well, one user really. And yes, it is poor form. But such efforts will just bring him/her to the attention of the AN/I which may result (or rather will result) in a blocking. Can I recommend you get an account? Shot info (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

I am concerned this article lacks notability. Specifically, I found no media coverage for this organization doing a googlenews search. Their website has a news section, but I didn't find any articles covering the organizarion, only health issues. I am tempted to nominate for deletion, but thought I might drop a note here first to see if the article could be quickly improved. Basket of Puppies 04:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree (for AfD that is) but rather than nominating it I noticed that a bunch of editors where starting to populate it with references - so I was willing to see where it ended up. However given the recent editwarring - there is more important behaviours that need to be taken into account before the article can go anywhere... Shot info (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article on the AVN is certainly warranted; their anti-vaccination stance is controversial in Australia, and journalists and advertisers need to know who they are dealing with. The last edit, where the article was emasculated, was made by "shotinfo", the nom de plume used by the President of the AVN, Meryl Dorey, on the Yahoo AVN discussion page http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AVN/message/37289. It is hardly approporiate that the President of the AVN censor the Wikipedia AVN page. The larger article should be re-instated.

Nice conspiracy, but User:Shot info has been restoring the negative material. You think Meryl Dorey is doing that? :-) Hesperian 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL - I'm this Meryl Dorey am I :-) But Hesperian is correct, I was trying to stop the editwarring (note to self - go to AN/I sooner....) rather than actually get into the heavy lifting or the whitewashing :-) . Shot info (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, if the org isn't notable then there is no need for an edit-war on the content as the article won't be around. Do you think it's salvageable? Basket of Puppies 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't know - I was doing tidying and started dropping in some facttags before I got editbombed out of existence. There was a bunch of other new editors doing the editing and the article seemed to in a state of flux. I guess this is why there was zero discussion here - but it seems that editwarring broke out before discussion could begin. Personally I think some of the "sourced" version is heavy handed but as I said - didn't have a chance to really see where the article was going before kaboommmm.... sighhh... Shot info (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely contentious organisation here in Australia with quite a lot of airtime given to subjects that have quoted the AVN. This is equivalent to the Generation Rescue wiki page which is in the US.

I'm not sure why Google news is not showing it, but look at the following google site search

• Google site search of abc.net.au

• An interview on a major Australian TV Network

• The old name of the website which has the same president, Meryl Dorey

• Meryl Dorey on 4Corners panel

There are literally hundreds of hits relating to the AVN and its president Meryl Dorey. This wiki site could be an extremely valuable to new parents who want to be well informed about vaccination.

Dick Smith, a prominent Australian, Dick Smith wiki, recently paid a $60,000 full page advert in defence of vaccination which was aimed at informing parents in regards to the poor informatino on the AVN website.

If you look at the references supplied at the bottom of avn wiki site you will see that they are mostly well referenced. Exazonk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC). Exazonk (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting! I wonder why google news didn't pick it up. How odd! Basket of Puppies 04:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I didn't jump in with an AfD - the references seemed to be quite valid from my perspective - although some of the wording in the article could've been improved in - most definately - unlike (say) the unsourced POV that the article was converted to. But o well - rewarding editwarriors seems to be some admins forte :-) Shot info (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's some references in reliable sources (eg. this, this and this), but recent versions of the article contain far too few of these and far too much opinion masquerading as fact. Statements sourced to blogs, to scpetics websites, to anywhere with no consistent record of fact-checking, aren't suitable for inclusion in the page.

I totally aggree with you about this. I have already deleted quite a few references that were not substantiated and more will follow when given the time. But also please note that this article is not even a week old yet. Good quality articles take months to complete and it is a gradual process - especially when it is a contentious source. Also, it takes time to get quality pictures that are not copyrighted. Hence I have not obtained a T-shirt picture yet and hence why I had the poor t-shirt slogan up. However, I was hoping that another person would provide a t-shirt pic as is usually the case. Exazonk (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are also undue weight issues about (for example) long spammy quotes of slogans, some BLP issues about criticising living people without proper sources, and too little attention to neutral presentation of the facts.

How about we use this page protection period to write a new, consensus version of the article here on the talk page, for transfer across when the protection expires.

Also, as you know the protected version is always the wrong one from someone's point of view. Otherwise there would never have eben an edit war in the first place.Euryalus (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The AVN is also under investigation by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission for breaches of the Public Health Act of 1993. http://scepticsbook.com/2009/08/03/health-care-complaints-commission-to-investigate-the-avn/

This is a very big issue as children can die if not vaccinated. A big case went to air recently (60 minutes) when a small baby died of pertussis :( Children can be vaccinated against pertussis so this need never have happened :( Meryl Dorey does not believe in vaccination for pertussis. She states she is pro-choice, however, I believe that given enough time, that we can provide evidence by debunking the information on her site. That is by cross checking all the information on AVN against wikipedia. Especially in the case that there is no link between autism and vaccination as was previously stated on the avn wiki page before it was deleted and locked down.

For example, take one of the last entries that happened this morning which currently debunks one of the myths:

The AVN has an extensive internet site selling merchandise and directly advocating distrust of medicine and science, disparaging both as overly influenced by pharmaceutical companies (see conspiracy theory).

Text on the AVN website include unfounded claims regarding two forms of polio vaccine:

Both vaccines are cultured on animal tissue and are known to be contaminated with many monkey and other viruses. Only 3 of these - SV-40, SIV and Simian Foamy Virus, have been studied. SV-40 and Simian Foamy Virus are both associated with the development of cancer in humans and laboratory animals. SIV (Simian Immuodeficiency Virus) is thought to be the cause of HIV infections in humans, leading to AIDS infections.

Links between SV-40 and cancer and between SIV and HIV were both debunked by large scale, peer reviewed scientific studies. Vaccination reduced polio incidence from 350,000 cases in 1988 to fewer than 2,000 in 2007.

The version of this entry as at 6/12/09 is a blight on Wikipedia. It is an example of the weakness of Wiki in the face of subversion and irrationality.

There must be a system to stop idiots using this as an advertising site for their pet hobby horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.163.77 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to offer changes or even to make them yourself. Shot info (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Redoing the article

Given that it seems that the AVN is sort of notable (although I would still !vote for a deletion IMHO) can I recommend to the various editors (mainly Exazonk) to have a look at Generation Rescue and put together a TOC for use on the future article and place it here (below). Then begin to populate it. I would recommend that comments by other editors above are taken on board with the various issues discussed and if "iffy" then best to leave them out unless there are third party sources (ie/ from a newspaper). And minimise the rhetoric so that when whitewashing from editors occur - it's rather obvious. Shot info (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime can the referenced version of the article be returned. I do not see why people can do work gathering references and another "blank" the article with no references and then that become the locked version. But I am new to this. Thank you. BTW It seem the person "blanking" the article is not interested in a fair representation of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.33.170 (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing doing. That version of the article is an opinion piece, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Hesperian 05:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. But what happens if the same thing happens here again?Exazonk (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, what Hesperian says is correct - which is why myself and others are recommending that the "future" article be written in this talkspace for future cutting over. Hopefully there are enough admins watching this space for the unfortunate recent events not to transpire again. And if they do - an appeal to WP:AN/I is all that has to be done. To IP 58.174.33.170 can I recommend you get an account? But to answer your question: the editor in question has been blocked for 31 hours, however nothing is to stop them from editwarring when they get back. Editwarring after a block normally results in longer and longer blocks until one is blocked "indefinately". As for Hesperian, your opinion is noted, however the role that admins have with (N)POV discussions has resulted in desyopping, so I recommend that you leave editing up to editors unless you wish to participate in that particular role. Shot info (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would have figured out by now that spurious references to ArbCom and desysopping don't scare me. Hesperian 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh, tell that to the WMCs and the like of WP. ArbCom don't like it when you wish to use your tools to fight content battles. Your call. Shot info (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Four.... Hesperian 06:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's borderline non-notable, but there's a "perfect storm" here right now - a temproary halt to editing hostilities, multiple potential references on this page and the attention of half a dozen editors with an itnerest in this page. Sounds like a chance for anyone who wants to, to spend this time creating a version of the article based on reliable sources listed here, that might survive an AfD if one comes along after the page protection. Euryalus (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that view of adminship ignores the fact that ArbCom also expect admins to solve disputes (and do many other things which in practice never happen because nobody wants to wade into the shark-infested waters). Hesperian took entirely the right action here IMO - he's an uninvolved party and has, as far as I know, no fear or favour w.r.t. the subject, so was in a position to halt the edit war in the immediate term so that consensus can establish an appropriate solution (it did, in the end, in my view). I like Shot info would probably also vote delete in an AfD, but we'll see what happens. Orderinchaos 16:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} The current wrong version represents a gross failure of WP:NPOV (it reads as a press release and includes weasel words, peacock terms and omits even the faintest hint of controversy). I suspect that the version before the WP:SPA Corruptioninmedicine had a go at it, [1], is probably the least objectionable in the history, so I suggest we roll back to that rather than leaving this advertisement in place. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the current version is terrible. But there are problems with your proposed version as well. Abecedare's version might be the best. Please continue to discuss and replace the request when there is some agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare's version

Just an FYI that User:Abecedare has created a new version at Talk:Australian Vaccination Network/Temp, which addresses some of the issues raised by others here. I think the swine flu/Meryl Dorey section is a little long and I don't think the "investigation" is likely to amount to much, but overall the proposed version is a vast improvement on the current "official" one.

I suggest we collectivley work on that one until the page prtoection expires, at which point we might have a stable consensus to swap them over. Comments, disagreement welcome. Euryalus (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The version I created is essentially based on three sources: AVN website, an SMH article and an ABC article, and the three subsections in the Temp version roughly correspond to what those three sources say. I agree with you that the Swine flu section needs a bit of editing - the quotes are a remnant of the previous version, and can possibly be summarized and paraphrased. I didn't look for more sources in rewriting the Temp version, but hopefully we'll be able to find some and expand the article. However, it may be best to do so once the article is in mainspace, so that we don't have to do messy history-merge stuff. There seem to be enough neutral eyes on the article now, that edit-warring and POV pushing can be easily dealt with if they re-emerge. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: Are there any objection to moving this version to the mainspace, and unprotecting that page ? I have pinged User:ThaddeusB and User:Hesperian about this. Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done it for now, and reduced protection to semi-protection (in order to better scope the problem) - it is a better version of the article. This method will enable regular editors to edit the mainspace page as necessary, or to achieve consensus here on the talk page in the event of dispute between them. In doing the history merge I chose not to reinclude much of the edit war. I'm quite amazed at the level of activity by recently-established user accounts :| one wonders how they all found out about the existence of the article. Orderinchaos 16:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I agree with the emergency action taken by Hesperian earlier today - it was clearly necessary to stop the thing in its tracks. Orderinchaos 16:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I filed an SPI on it, but it seems they have a plausible excuse - a related hot-button story is evidently in the Australian media at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at the silver lining: being a "hot-button story" should also provide us with more sources on the subject :-) Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the implication of "semi-protection in order to better scope the problem", that the problem here was solely the newbs and IPs. But that aside, I'm okay with what has been done here. Hesperian 23:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Can editors list any additional reliable source (i.e., media, journal article, book; not general pro- anti-vaccination websites, blogs etc)) they find here ? We can then use them to expand the article and determine due weight. There is no real emergency, so lets proceed with deliberate pace and avoid any edit-warring or successive reverts. PS If you find a reference data for a newssource but cannot locate the article online, I can try to look it up at Nexis. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check APA-FT and Factiva via my university connection and see if anything turns up. Orderinchaos 16:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources I found through Lexis (I have added an online link whenever I could locate one):

• Bit of a needle leads to a brawl, Canberra Times, September 5, 2009 (Note: This article is on AVN, but I couldn't find it available w/o subscription)
• Whooping cough deaths spark vaccination debate, ABC News.
• Get the jabs, for pity's sake, Sunday Mail (South Australia)
• GPs joust with foes who say jabs can kill your kids, SMH
• Parents on the run with baby after refusing vaccination, SMH
• Vaccine claims rejected, The Age

There are many more, but most seem to be just quoting AVN or Dorey as the "other side" in a larger vaccine-related article Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you anything I can find via email - including the Canberra Times article. I sent ThaddeusB a copy too, and will honour any requests for a copy by email (I'm always edgy about posting copyrighted sources publicly.) Orderinchaos 16:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can read the above listed article through Lexis, but it's useful to have them in one email, so that I don't have to keep logging into the database! Now it's just a matter of paraphrasing what these, and other sources we may find, say. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's tough to summarize the sources without introducing quotes like "conspiracy theory", "vocal fringe group", "Anti-Vaccination Network", "dodgy play" etc and turning this article into a hit piece. The only (grudging) independent praise I could find was: Dr. Page "credits Ms Dorey and her supporters with forcing the Government's hand on legitimate improvements to the vaccine regime - such as the move to subsidise the acellular whooping cough vaccine which causes fewer reactions."

Will take a break from the article for now; feel free to take your own stab at it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a physical copy of "The Inside Edition - Issue 1 - Why vaccines just don't work - and never will" which is a quarterly special edition just for AVN members. I think it is important to show that this exits from a factual perspective (NPOV). I am not sure if you would agree. I do not know the best way to show this. I was thinking a small photograph of the top corner showing the title. Additionally I think from a POV perspective this title demonstrates that the AVN is anti-vaccination even though in the recent HCCC investigation the AVN states they are simple pro-choice. Please advise. Thank you. 58.174.33.170. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.33.170 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

IP, it is not our job to quote AVN's writings extensively/uncritically, or to "show that this exits from a factual perspective". The former would violate our policies on self-published sources, while the latter is considered original research on wikipedia and not allowed. Instead, we simply present what independent, secondary sources have said about AVN, without taking sides. For example, the article makes clear that AVN doesn't consider itself to be anti-vaccination, while doctors and health experts do - now it is upto the reader to decide whom they trust more and choose to believe. Also see my response to Exazonk below. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Would you be open to a sub page that lists all of the Issues and Titles similar to a how television wiki page lists all of the episode names?

A video and transcript are available

• ABC 7:30 Report, interview that includes Meryl Dorey, 2 Sep 2009

otherwise a youtube version is here

• Youtube version of above 7:30 report interview that includes Meryl Dorey

Transcript comment from above:

MERYL DOREY: Just because someone is a doctor doesn't necessarily mean they're an expert on every area of medicine, and unless they've actually done some independent research into vaccination they may not know more than the average parent who's read a few articles and a book or two about vaccinations.

• Meryl Dorey comments on a New York Times article, Swine Flu Shots Revive a Debate About Vaccines, 15 Oct 2009

• The AVN mentioned in the New South Wales parliament

Books by the AVN

• Vaccination roulette : experiences, risks and alternatives / [produced by the Australian Vaccination Network]
• Vaccination? the choice is yours! : the official journal of the Australian Vaccination Network

• [http://avn.org.au/library/index.php/vaccination-information/10-reasons-why-parents-question-vaccination.html AVN: 10 questions why parents question vaccination]

• [http://avn.org.au/library/images/pdfs/hccc_reply.pdf AVN reply to the HCCC complaint]

Information on how the AVN views itself, ie as a group that "lobby in support of parental choice when it comes to vaccination and health and provide referenced information on the benefits and risks of vaccination"

From page 8 of HCCC AVN Reply

The HCCCʼs jurisdiction In his complaint, Mr McLeod claims that the AVN and myself are both under the jurisdiction of the HCCC because we are both health service providers and I am a health practitioner.

Reading the definition under the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, the relevant sections according to McLeod are: (f) community health services, (g) health education services, and (k) services provided in other alternative health care fields,

Neither the AVN nor myself provide any of the above services. We are not employed in community health, we do not teach or provide any other educational services nor do we work in the fields of alternative health or health care. We do not administer medications, diagnose, or provide medical advice.

We do however lobby in support of parental choice when it comes to vaccination and health and provide referenced information on the benefits and risks of vaccination. These activities would not normally fall under the HCCCʼs jurisdiction nor are they illegal or prohibited in Australia according to current legislation at either the State or Federal level.

The AVN position on the T-Shirts that they sell. Page 8

A T-Shirt slogan is simply that – a slogan. One that will appeal to some people whilst not to others. While the AVN itself is not anti-vaccine, we accept that a percentage of our members are and therefore, we provide a message that they will feel comfortable displaying. This T-Shirt does not necessarily reflect the opinion of all AVN members or of our committee, nor is it now or has it ever been our logo.

• AVN Yahoo group screenshot of Meryl Dorey quote, Membership is required for actual AVN Yahoo group

Exazonk (talk)

Exazonk, thanks for listing these sources, but note that wikipedia articles should not generally rely on primary or self-published sources, such as AVN's own publicatios, Meryl Dorey's own posts on the New York Times' website, or even records of parliamentary proceedings. Even interview videos and transcripts are not ideal, since these are usually not edited for relevance, accuracy or balance. We prefer to use independent secondary sources whenever possible, such as books published by reputable authors and publishers, magazines and newspapers. Hope that explains why the edits Thaddeus and I have made to the article, and the sources we have relied on. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Meryl Dorey and Prof Peter McIntyre 4corners exchange Exazonk (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added more information about the AVN response to the HCCC investigation. Though the response is a primary source (an AVN newsletter), it is incredibly enlightening about the AVN's viewpoint that they are not medical professionals and should not be held accountable for views on medicine, and yet should be listened to as a lobby group. This response also quotes literature in journals that are themselves highly contraversial (very interesting for example that Andrew Wakefield is an editor of one of these journals), as supported by the National Radio reference. I am a little new at editing wiki but it seems as if quoting scientific literature is acceptable for other articles, such as regarding the AAPS. Happy to make changes. talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

Swine flu views

I have removed the following text:

AVN has claimed that US and UN agencies have been planning a flu pandemic for at least a decade, and that the point of the conspiracy was "a massive and sudden depopulation of certain segments of the Earth's human population". AVN considered the 2009 flu pandemic to be a fulfillment of this prediction and said, "First, we said that a worldwide pandemic would be declared and that has happened. Because of the pandemic, we said that the government would use its emergency powers to enforce vaccination."

It is true that the cited news story ("Bit of a needle leads to a brawl") does attribute that view to AVN, but it does so based on what Eran Segev of Australian Skeptics told them. Mr. Segev seems to have been mistaken. I can find no evidence that AVN subscribes to that view and the direct quotes in the news story are from Sherri Tenpenny ([2]) who speaks out against vaccines, but is not affiliated with AVN. The second quote is indeed from AVN ([http://avn.org.au/library/index.php/vaccination-information/compulsory-swine-flu-vaccine.html]), but I see no reason to believe this "fulfilled prediction" was anything more than a literal reading of what the quote says. That is, that a pandemic would be declared and that declaration would lead to mass vaccination efforts.

It is possible that AVN agrees with the "man-made depopulation effort" conspiracy, but we need stronger evidence than a known critic saying they do before we attribute such a controversial view to the group. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! Besides the Canberra Times article I too don't see any evidence that AVN supports the man-made pandemic conspiracy theory; in fact it seems to be inconsistent with (my understanding of) their general objections, which are along the lines of "doctors don't know everything; doctors/governments follow conventional wisdom; vaccines are under-researched etc", rather than "there is a big conspiracy to kill people". So we should take the cautious approach and not re-add at least the first sentence quoted above without additional supporting sources.

Aside: Sherri Tenpenny may not be the original source for the conspiracy theory either. Searching google for 'Swine Flu' Pandemic Is Man-Made finds many older sources that make the same claim, often attributing it to "A. True Ott, PhD, ND". Of course, it's not our remit to go down this rabbit-hole. Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is addition evidence about Meryl Dorey and the AVN's views on swine flu being a conspiracy to cull the population and fund 'big pharma'. All references from the nocompulsoryvaccination blog, the official blog of the AVN and Meryl Dorey:

[3] Quote: "Those behind the conspiracy to cull the human population and turn the rest into little more than computer terminals are anti-life."

[4] Quote: (Re microchips for swine flu): "This is terrifying. And it is happening now."

[5] A blog claiming the WHO has released pandemic viruses into the community.

[6] Quote: "this incredibly ineffective vaccine has NO benefits - except for the bank accounts of Big Pharma, that is. "

While the above are not all written by Meryl, the fact she shares this information (and adds comments supporting it) clearly indicates that she is supportive of the theories. Cruiser-Aust (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted she seems to be (& most probably is) copying that from Icke. However we cannot associate her with someone else or their ideas (especially when it's someone like Ikie;) without a secondary source which explicitly states the association/similarity. Misarxist (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the statement Meryl wrote on the AVN blog (ie: "Those behind the conspiracy to cull the human population and turn the rest into little more than computer terminals are anti-life.") is a quote from David Icke's article. The blog links to the rest of the article through a (since deleted) Pakistan Daily news story, and the blog carries the same title as the original article. There's no doubt that she's simply quoted Icke, but if there is insufficient evidence to associate her blog with Icke's (ie it doesn't specifically say it's a quote of Icke's), then the other option is that these words and views are simply her own. Perhaps a line something like: Echoing the writings of [David Icke], Meryl Dorey wrote on the AVN blog that '"Those behind the conspiracy to cull the human population and turn the rest into little more than computer terminals are anti-life."' But personally, I think ThaddeusB's line was correct, referencing both the AVN blog and Icke's article. Cruiser-Aust 04:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

History

I originally had this history section below. One of the sources in from MSN which might be worth using The Australian Vaccination Network used to be called the Vaccination Awareness Network. They changed their name in 1999. MSN referring to Meryl Dorey as the president of the Vaccination Awareness Network.

http://health.ninemsn.com.au/pregnancy/parenthood/694262/is-it-really-safe-to-vaccinate-your-kids

1st Place - 2001 Millennium Awards

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2001/2001awards.htm

Comment from Peter Bowditch on scepticsbook.com

http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/23/the-abc-neglects-to-take-its-own-advice/

I have added the former name. I'll see what I can add about past "campaigns" of the organization tonight, but your latter two sources are almost certainly not relevant per WP:WEIGHT and probably would not be considered reliable sources either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction from Ken McLeod:

The last line was not correct. It said:

"The commission looked into the complaint, but concluded that it "did not have power to shut down or gag the Australian Vaccination Network."
  It should say:

“At the conclusion of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission’s investigation, the possible outcomes are: - making comments to Ms Dorey; - taking action under section 41A of the Health Care Complaints Act, (which relates to prohibition orders); - referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions,; or - terminating the investigation. Source: Letter from HCCC to K McLeod dated 12 October 2009 at http://www.antivaxxers.com/?p=1124

I have made the correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turlinjah (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The document you linked to is a primary source (the use of which is discouraged) and as a "private communication" can't really be verified either. However, I have updated the text to reflect the gist of the letter while sticking to what the secondary source (news story) says. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Sources

Meryl Dorey and Peter McIntyre comments

• Doubt cast on vaccine scare, The Age, February 22, 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exazonk (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Meryl Dorey and Australian Medical Association Queensland president-elect Doctor Mason Stevenson

• Beerwah vaccination push challenged, Sunshine Coast Daily Newspaper, 5th March 2009

THE AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS’ Bent Spoon Award has this year gone to Australian Vaccination Network president Meryl Dorey, of Bangalow. Mrs Dorey was awarded the spoon at the annual Australian Skeptics National Convention at the University of Queensland on Saturday.

• Meryl wins the bent spoon award, The Northern Star Newspaper, 1st Dec 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exazonk (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Exazonk (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination group investigation

• Vaccination group investigation, The Northern Star Newspaper, 18th December 2009 Exazonk (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Could these items be included? 1. An Australian court case decision which rejected the AVN’s complaint against another anti-vax group, and where the judge criticised the AVN severely, see para 13 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2004/625.html?query=title%28%20Vaccination%20%29

2. A speech in the NSW State parliament in which the AVN is severely criticised, see http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20020903039 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turlinjah (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am planning on changing the Complaints and Investigations section to Criticisms, Complaints and Investigations. I will look at the above info and possibly include. I think this section is warranted, given the heavy criticism this organisation faces from the medical and scientific community in relation to the information they provide. Such sections are common in similar Wiki pages , where the subject of the page makes claims or has views that contradict the weight of evidence and/or professional opinions. Cruiser-Aust 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

Article by Meryl Dorey

• Vaccination network ‘attacked’ unfairly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exazonk (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shutting Down

I have just been emailed this source [http://avn.org.au/nocompulsoryvaccination/?p=454 AVN to close its doors at the end of this month]. Would any editors care to comment and prehaps look at adding it into the article in due course? Shot info (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been more developments in the last day or so. [7] - cyclosarin (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not shutting down, just removing federal registration to work only in NSW.Cruiser-Aust 23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

AVN apology to AMA

Whoever changed the wording from "apology" to "statement" should comment here before changing it again.

"It has been brought to the attention of the Australian Vaccination Network that the comments published not only contained a number of factual errors but were felt to be offensive and embarassing to AMA (NSW), its officers and employees.

In particular it has been brought to the attention of the Australian Vaccination Network, the the Australian Vaccination Network accepts, that:

1- AMA (NSW) does not obtain any of its funding from pharmaceutical companies;

2- AMA (NSW) has not published any advertisement or advertorial for a pharmaceutical company in the NSW Doctor for a perios of at least four years, and at no time has the advertising in NSW Doctor been almost exclusively that of pharmaceutical companies;

3- AMA (NSW) does not actively censor information made available to its members.

The Australian Vaccination Network unreservedly apologises for any offence or embarassment the publication may have caused AMA (NSW), its officers and employees."Ninahexan (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are correcting the spelling on the quotation when you can plainly see that the spelling errors are from the AVN. Correcting a quote for spelling or grammatical errors is not the business of wikipedia editors.203.158.44.83 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's usual practice to keep spelling errors when they occur in the original, and follow them with (sic). This retains the integrity of the quote while informing the reader it is an accurate quote. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Second reference

The second reference

• Complainent: Mr Ken McLeod, Mrs Toni and Mr David McCaffery. Respondent: Meryl Dorey/Australian Vaccination Network (NSW Health Care Complaints Commission 7 July 2010).Text

is a dead link. It is cited 10 times in the article. Can someone please tell me what kind of document this is, or find another online copy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I found another copy of the file and fixed the reflink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs) 09:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link Ref 17

Ref 17 is a dead link. Found another copy of that pdf at http://www.mcnsw.org.au/resources/1295/Aust%20Vaccination%20Network%20v%20HCCC%20[2012]%20NSWSC%20110.pdf but having an issue adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.104.161 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC) A link that should work is http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/pjudg?jgmtid=157076 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.104.161 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reptilians

Why nothing about the AVN and its leader's adherence to various bizarre conspiracy theories?

To which bizarre, reptilian, conspiracy theories are you referring? Is there well sourced material available? Is it due content for this article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is well known that the leader of the AVN believes in that the world is controlled by evil reptilian aliens, including the Queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.19.250 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Media authority effectively bans AVN from media comment

I'm not sure where this should be used in the article, so I'm leaving it here for other editors to use:

• Broome, Hamish. Media authority effectively bans AVN from media comment. The Northern Star, 12 June 2013

Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Titles are not generally used

Titles such as Dr. and Professor are not generally used in WP. I have removed them in the article. Should someone feel they are important for particular instances please give some explanation here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to that policy for those curious: WP:CREDENTIALS. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Charitable status?

Reliable sources are saying that the AVSN has been "stripped of its registered charity status ... ", ABC - 18 March 2014, apparently by "New South Wales Fair Trading Minister Stuart Ayres ... ". Their WP page does state "The AVN's attempts to obtain tax-deductible charity status have been repeatedly refused by the Australian Taxation Office" (my italics) and "Until October 2010, they were the holders of a charitable fundraising authority in NSW, however their authority to fund raise was revoked by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing ...", so how have things changed?

The page may be a bit self-contradictory and possibly needs some clean up or re-write?- 220 of ^Borg 02:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting quote from comments to the ABC article I linked above:

"The AVN inherited our authority from the organisation we took over from in 1997, the Australian Council for Immunisation Information (ACII). "

interestingly from someone calling themself "shotinfo", who has also edited the article & commented on this talkpage. Never heard of the 'ACII', perhaps it should be added to the article if a reliable source can be found? 220 of ^Borg 13:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Different "shotinfo" :-) Shot info (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100804213638/http://avn.org.au:80/nocompulsoryvaccination/?cat=116 to http://avn.org.au/nocompulsoryvaccination/?cat=116

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)