Stop the AVN

[JC]

Hi all.

There is a group called Stop the AVN, or SAVN. I'm interested to hear
what people think about it, and why.

John

[Tasha David]

John,

I would like it very much if you would answer my questions on the posting of Greg's comments to the SAVN page, and will this happen again with other comments from this debate?

On the debating science thread you talk about Meryl's behaviour in harrassing grieving family members as disgusting, yet a member of your own SAVN group did the same thing.  If you go to this link that was posted on the SAVN page just yesterday...


http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2012/02/02/The-armour-of-grief.aspx

Tasha

[Tasha David]

John,

From what I have read on their page, you get the feeling of some educated people who say they are all about science and not emotion, yet the things they say and do prove the opposite.  They are just like the AVN in their passion and emotion, it's just that their beliefs are different.  But the biggest difference of all is that where the AVN wants to provide support and information to people to who want to make an informed choice considering both the risks and the benefits of vaccination, the SAVN agenda seems to be to destroy or ridicule others who do not share the same belief system as them (when it comes to vaccination and alternative health) and to put in to place a system where parents have no right to choose whether they vaccinate their children. 

Like I said before they come across like bullies, who spend a lot of time copying and pasting everything that Meryl does and says(or any other person who questions vaccine safety and benefits) and ridiculing and demeaning them on their page, to tell the truth it borders on obsession.  I believe in their right to free speech but I just wish they were able to do the same for others who don't necessarily agree with them (especially on vaccination), because there are families and children on both sides of this issue that are hurting and neither group should be more important or more entitled to free speech than the other.

Just my thoughts
Tasha

[Peter McCarthy]

I've put a reply to this on the debating science thread.

Cheers,

P.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

[JC]

Tasha,

Just take, for example, one recent post to the AVN blog:
http://bit.ly/yYGwxD

And then over on SAVN you'll see a link to a rebuttal to it...
http://bit.ly/wLCCQL

Here's Greg Beattie's latest data on whooping cough:
http://bit.ly/AkFRYf

And then over on SAVN a link to a rebuttal of it...
http://bit.ly/ywUBXp

So it's not really about suppressing free speech is it? It's not
about anti-choice, is it? It's about providing a constant rebuttal
stream to the misinformation and obfuscation that the AVN and it's ilk
constantly come out with. All about balance, which is very important,
don't you think?

John

[JC]

And lastly Tasha, when you think about freedom of speech, consider
this from the Australian Government:
http://bit.ly/73rGWm

"Freedom of speech

Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write
what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about
any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government
without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and
the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to
protect a person's good name and integrity against false information.
There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred
against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background.
Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others."

John

[Tasha David]

John,

If it was just about providing balance, there would not be a problem. But the SAVN is out to silence the AVN once and for all as is stated on their facebook page.  Where is the balance in that?

Cheers
T

[Tasha David]

John,

I am still waiting for your response to my questions, why you posted the comments you did to be ridiculed by your fellow members, and is this something that will happen again?  Maybe the moderator would consider amending the rules so that quotes from this debate are not allowed to be used in other public forums, so that situations like this do not occur again?  How do the rest of the you feel about this?

Cheers
T

[JC]

Hi Tasha,

Here's another example of the work of SAVN, and that is pointing out
some of the interesting applications of standards over on AVN...
http://on.fb.me/Alm9M1

John

[punter]

Right. So we are free to say what we want so long as it is done in
good faith.

SAVN believes we aren't acting in good faith therefore free speech
apparently doesn't apply to us.

Is this what you are trying to imply?

[JC]

Tasha,

The SAVN has a purpose stated on it's Facebook page:
"Stop the AVN (SAVN) is dedicated to stopping the deceptively-named
AVN once and for all. It is our mission to see their campaign of
misinformation and lies come to an end. We do this by exposing their
lies, their endemic corruption and their fraudulent practices."

It's quite simple really. Every time the AVN makes a statement in
public that is blatantly wrong, SAVN is there to correct it. It does
so with monotonous regularity because the AVN plays it's role in this
game with monotonous regularity.

Contrary to what you may have heard from the AVN, the SAVN is not anti-
choice, or for suppression of free speech. Conversely, the SAVN is
exercising it's own freedom of speech to correct the AVN. No one in
SAVN is suppressing free speech, and I'm not sure how they'd go about
it if they wanted to. What the SAVN stands for is for provision of
good information, and not the misrepresentations that AVN is known
for. You only need to browse the pages of SAVN or look at
http://scr.bi/zDfA1n
to see how common they are. Does the SAVN do a lot of copying-and-
pasting? Of course it does, because it likes to show the AVN for what
it is. Ridiculing and demeaning? Well if the shoe fits, they should
wear it.

With the right to freedom of speech comes the responsibility of taking
responsibility for that speech. If your words are poisoned, then you
should be tough enough at take ownership of them. In other words, you
can't talk shit, and then claim suppression if that shit is put on
public display. It is not suppression of free speech - it is
exercising it. SAVN is not anti-choice. It is not for compulsory
vaccination. It exists for one purpose only, and once the AVN is
gone, so too will the SAVN. If the AVN starts behaving like they say
they do, by providing balanced opinions, then the SAVN will far seem
less busy.

John

[JC]

No Tristan, and once again you're paraphrasing in order to paint
someone in a less than flattering light. The AVN does this by
describing the SAVN as anti-choice, and pro-compulsory vaccination,
which it is not.

I take it by saying "us" you're a member of the AVN.

Please try and read words for what they are, rather than what you want
them to say. It would be most helpful.

John

> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[JC]

Tasha,

If I was to make up a whole lot of bunkum that was designed to
encourage people NOT to wear seat belts, I would expect others to
criticise me, ridicule me and try to close down my "Anti-Seatbelt
Network". That's called taking responsibility for my actions, and I
would take that criticism as valid. Seat belts and vaccination have
about the same levels of evidence of safety and efficacy. It should
come as no surprise then that SAVN is trying to criticise the AVN when
the AVN consistently comes out with such bunkum. In the examples
provided so far, can you see the misrepresentations that the SAVN has
caught the AVN of coming out with?

John

[JC]

Tasha,

There is no rules document, so I'm not sure were an amendment would
occur to the rules. Secondly, it would be impossible to police given
the fact that this is public, and the internet is vast. This is a
debating forum, and if people are going to contribute bunkum (my
favourite word of the day), then they should be aware that they are
making that contribution in a public forum.

John

[Tasha David]

John,

If this is all the SAVN did, there would not be a problem because they are entitled to voice their opinions...but that is not all that they do, and I think you are well aware of this fact.  They write numerous letters to any place that Meryl is going to present one of her talks and try to pressure the venues to cancel her talks, is this not a perfect example of suppression of free speech I do not know what is?

As for the SAVN not believing in compulsory vaccination, I find this hard to believe, so I am going to ask on your group what their thoughts are on this. 

T.

[Tasha David]

John,

What I see is differing opinions on data presented which again I do not have a problem with but you have yet to address the blog post by one of your SAVN members titled "Armour of Grief".  Is that part of the SAVN's balancing of credible information too?

Tasha

[Tasha David]

John,

So far the responses are that the SAVN is neutral to compulsory vaccination, so I stand corrected in this.

Cheers
Tasha

[QldKiwi]

I believe this is a ruling on how to conduct yourselves during debate
(and this was made clear at the very beginning)
"This is a place for people from both sides of this very polarized
vaccination debate to meet and discuss the issues concerning vaccine
safety, efficacy and necessity.

All viewpoints are welcome provided they are respectful. At the first
sign of abuse, name-calling, etc, you will be banned."
Although I can't find it without going through a lot of postings, it
was made clear that the comments made here were to stay here. We all
knew, but you are choosing to ignore or excuse it because it is a
public forum.
The admins need to clarify the rulings so we all have it in black and
white!

[JC]

See how easy that was?

Not what others would have you believe about SAVN was it?

John

[JC]

Tasha,
What he wrote I am not responsible for. I suspect he thinks the
twitter posts were fakes, but you'd have to ask the author.
John

[Tasha David]

John,

They were very open, honest and respectful (except one)with sharing their views about compulsory vaccination, I was pleasantly surprised at the way they treated me and my questions.  And because of this, something else occurred to me, do you feel it is possible to find a middle ground between the two groups? 

Each group is doing what they feel is in the best interest of children/people everywhere in regards to vaccination, now if they could just keep the animosity and petty comments/actions out of it, it would be beneficial to all involved as well as to the general public.  If they focused solely on discussing the information that they feel is incorrect, in a respectful way, maybe then a more indepth discussion could ensue and who was right or wrong would more likely come out, or at the very least, a healthy "I agree to disagree" may occur.  There is no need for all the nastiness, not with mature and openminded adults.

The way things are now is really immature and petty and I would expect more from a group of obviously well educated people.  I have always believed that along with knowledge comes wisdom, but it is hard to see any wisdom amongst all the put downs and ridiculing of Meryl, Greg etc.  I am not saying that petty comments do not happen on the AVN side, but if you are being honest with yourself, you would admit it is seen a lot more often on the SAVN side of the fence. That would be the key to real free speech and even better a way for us all to leave all the negativity behind.

The other thing that it would stop is the bullying and harrassing of Meryl. I can't even begin to imagine how it would feel to be ridiculed on a daily basis by a group of over 3000 people, and that's not counting the others who are not part of your group!  It takes someone with a lot of inner strength and courage to be able to deal with this and still be able to keep putting yourself in the firing line because you feel that it is for a cause bigger than yourself.  She may not always say the right things but she is fighting for families like my own who are in the expendable section, we don't have a voice that the media and society in general takes notice of, so she has and deserves my respect.

Once again, just my thoughts, but I would love to hear everybody's views on this...
Cheers
Tasha

[Tasha David]

John,

The reason I brought this up is because you said that no member of your group harass a family member of a grieving family, he is a member of your group and he did exactly that.  Also as an admin of your group, are you not responsible for what is posted on your page?

Cheers
Tasha

[JC]

PS: have you ever wondered why the AVN can't or won't correct data
presented on the SAVN site?

[Greg Beattie]

Hi all

For a bit of background on groups like SAVN this makes interesting reading:
http://bolenreport.com/

Particularly this:
http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor%27s-Data-v-Barrett/moneytrail.htm

Greg

[Katie Brockie]

Quote from the article Greg has linked to.

In my opinion, the guy is a dangerous, nasty nutcase.

"I have always known pretty much how it all, the quackbuster consiracy, worked.  Pretty much.   It would have been nice, in the past, to have found one special place that wrote the checks, so to speak.  For then it would have been an easy thing to mount one destructive assault, wiping that operation from the American scene.  But it was never that way, or that easy, exactly. 

What used to be isn't happening now.  Certain parts of the quackbuster operation have always been self-funded, not meaning that some person put up their own money, but that certain people found "Expert Witness Fees" testifying in Court cases.  Others, it became obvious, were being, and are being, paid for their activities "under the table," so to speak. "

Plus - this is utter bullshit, and bears no relationship to the reality of the background of "groups like SAVN".

-K

[JC]

Greg,

Those links have nothing at all to do with SAVN. They have nothing at
all to do with justifying the AVN's misrepresentations.

Nice try and smearing, Greg.

John

[JC]

Hi Tasha,

I removed the post that offended you from the SAVN wall. I agree it
doesn't add much to the aim of SAVN.

I have no doubt that the AVN believes they are doing the right thing.
I have no doubt that they present themselves as very sympathetic,
comforting and supportive. that does not, however, make their stance
the correct one. How can there be middle ground Tasha? When the AVN
misrepresents the truth so often, and is caught out every day, and
will not admit a mistake or correct themselves, then how can there be
middle ground. As I've said before, the moment the AVN actually starts
commenting in an unbiased and thoughtful manner, the SAVN will cease
to exist.

You've already seen for yourself that the SAVN is not pro-compulsory
vaccination, no matter what the AVN claims the SAVN's attitude is.

Meryl would not be "harassed and bullied" is she did not attract the
attention of the SAVN every time she speaks. Take for example the AVN
Facebook comment, "It shows that a majority of those getting whooping
cough are fully vaccinated against it." This statement is, on the
surface of it, true, but it's only half the story. Do the sums, and
you quickly see that unvaccinated people suffer whooping cough 6 to 10
times more often than the vaccinated. Let me say that again - the
numbers show that vaccination reduces your chances of getting whooping
cough by 6 to 10 times less than if they are not vaccinated. The AVN's
statement is a direct result of the small numbers of unvaccinated
people in the age group, so their numbers are small. The actual story
behind it is that vaccination is very very protective against whooping
cough.

So this was taken to SAVN, and explained in great detail over several
entries. It's quite clear and unambiguous. So will Meryl publish a
story on the real message behind Greg's data? Of course not. Will she
claim the the SAVN is bullying her? Of course, but for doing what? For
analysing the numbers with a little more thought than she did? For
looking for the actual message behind the figures? That's not
harassment - that's simply being critical.

I don't doubt that she believes in her principles, or that she is
strong. But she and the AVN are, more often than not, wrong. If you're
going to persistently make incorrect and fallacious statements in
public on a continual basis, then it should come as no surprise to
you, Tasha, or her that she is feeling bullied - yet she will not, for
a moment, consider that the AVN is wrong. Never. "Never admit a
mistake" must be the AVN mantra, no matter how wrong they are. I also
doubt that Meryl really feels as bullied as she makes out. You can't
be strong, yet claim being weak at the same time.

Let me ask you something. To the "average Joe", do you understand the
numbers Greg presented? And which to you sounds more important - the
actual number of whooping cough notifications as per AVN, or the
protective effects of the vaccination, as per SAVN?

John

[Tasha David]

Hi John,

 

Sorry for the late reply, I must admit I was really happy to see that you removed the link from your page, not because I found it offensive but because you felt it was contrary to the goals of the SAVN.  To me this is a great example of finding the middle ground and if we can find a middle ground why can’t the SAVN and the AVN?

 

If the SAVN was to approach the AVN in a non combative and respectful way about the comments and information that they disagreed with, then the communication channels would not be shutdown.  When people are attacked and ridiculed are they really open to criticism constructive or otherwise, especially from their attackers?  Of course not, this is probably the first major hurdle to real discussion between these two groups. Now if we were to rectify this, would this not be a goal that would be beneficial for all concerned?

 

Take the situation that is happening at the moment, where Greg has released this data that the SAVN has interpreted differently to the AVN, how was this difference communicated to Greg?  He was called an “innumerate dingbat” after which he was ripped to shreds for making a comment that was approved by the department.  How different would it have been, if the person making the comments had simply said I disagree with the information presented, and this is why?  The exchanging of views could have been done without any of the nastiness and Greg would not have had to take the high ground alone.

 

How much could be learned especially for the average joe like myself, if both sides were able to communicate and really discuss their different points of view, instead of the bickering we see now. 

 

As for your view that Meryl can’t really feel that bullied, because you can not be strong and weak at the same time, I would have to disagree with this.  Everybody is made up of strengths and weaknesses, the challenge has always been facing up to your weaknesses and not letting them prevent you from doing what is most important to you.  This is what I feel Meryl has and continues to do, at her own personal expense.

 

Now to your question about Greg’s data, I find both notifications and protective effects interesting but both are still open to unquantified confounders, as stated by both Greg and Jason.  I do see why you feel that this data actually supports your argument, but I personally would consider the high incidence of whooping cough and the high vaccination rates, as well as the mutation of the pertussis bacteria which we discussed on the pertussis thread more noteworthy.

 

Cheers

Tasha

[JC]

Tasha,

It is the AVN who doesn't permit contradictory comments on their blogs
and Facebook page. I myself have posted several times to the AVN blog
in a respectful way and have never had these comments go through
moderation. Unfortunately I cannot prove this as Meryl is in control
and she can simply delete them.

What it comes down to is that Meryl and the AVN will not admit that
they are ever wrong. It is impossible for them to. Just recently she
gave blatantly incorrect advice to a student nurse. There used to be
a AVN moderator called "SB" who used to correct Meryl, but alas she is
no longer seen. In other words, all critics are silenced.

So what do the critics of the AVN do when their voice is not heard?
We use our freedom of speech and express a dissenting view, and we
call ourselves the SAVN. As for myself, I did not call Greg a
dingbat, so I cannot comment on that.

As for whooping cough, it's alarming that it is on the increase, but
it does that in 5-7 yearly cycles. The question is to vaccinate or
not. Is vaccination protective? Yes, it clearly is based on those
figures.

Here's another question - will Meryl admit she was wrong?

John

[shotinfo]

Hi Tasha -

I think I can answer your question. John has no intention of
discontinuing his posting of listemembers' information on the SAVN
Facebook page (or elsewhere) since the post that I put up this morning
was - within a matter of minutes - posted to Facebook. As for what we
think of SAVN - to me that is an irrelevant question. This is a place
to debate the pros and cons of vaccination - not the ability of hate
groups to attack a group providing information on a political and
health issue. SAVN is irrelevant as is this question - to me at least.

Thanks,
Meryl

On Feb 4, 1:35 pm, Tasha David <tashamda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
>

> I would like it very much if you would answer my questions on the posting
> of Greg's comments to the SAVN page, and will this happen again with other
> comments from this debate?
>
> On the debating science thread you talk about Meryl's behaviour in
> harrassing grieving family members as disgusting, yet a member of your own
> SAVN group did the same thing.  If you go to this link that was posted on
> the SAVN page just yesterday...
>
> http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2012/02/02/The-armour-of...
>
> Tasha

[Peter McCarthy]

Terms like "hate group" are subjective, derogatory and inappropriate for this debate site. Trying to demonise a group that argues against you/yours in this way demonstrates anything but a desire for open and constructive debate.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

[JC]

Dear Meryl,

There's a thread here called "Stop the AVN" that has had 30 posts to
it. Clearly there's some people who are interested enough in it to
debate it. I don't go to other threads and declare my non-interest in
it, so why do you do it here? Are you trying to exert some sort of
influence over topics to be discussed? If so, you should have
remained as a moderator. Why don't you try and contribute where you
can, and leave your thoughts on relevance to the other debaters.

I know you think SAVN is irrelevant. Calling it a hate group is like
calling it anti-choice or anti-information, something that Tasha found
isn't true when she asked a question on the SAVN Facebook page
recently. You can throw it, Meryl, but it doesn't stick.

Calling AVN a source of misinformation though remains valid though, as
you persistently demonstrate.

John

[Meryl Dorey]

John,

In case you haven't read it, here is the description of this group. It
might be a good idea for you to refresh your memory about this as you
have obviously either never known or have forgotten:

This is a place for people from both sides of this very polarised

vaccination debate to meet and discuss the issues concerning vaccine
safety, efficacy and necessity.

SAVN has nothing to do with the pros and cons of vaccination. The
members of SAVN have said many times that they are not there to
discuss, give advice or provide information on vaccination. They are
simply there to try and force the AVN to close down in any way they
can. This is not involved with a discussion of the issues concerning
vaccine safety, efficacy and necessity, is it? So this discussion, in
my opinion, has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

As for your claim that SAVN is not a hate group, I beg to differ. Here
is an excellent definition of what constitutes a hate group:

an organization or individual that advocates violence against or
unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations
identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, gender or disability. Also including organizations or
individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with
regards to these persons or organizations for the pupose[sic] of
vilification.[1]

SAVN fits in there very nicely.

John, I'm worried about you, I really am. It can't be good for your
health to be so angry all the time. You might want to take a few deep
breaths before posting next time, just to calm yourself down. All that
bile can make you really, really sick.

Kind regards,
Meryl

[JC]

See what she did there Tasha?

She called SAVN a hate group. She said it, and so people fall for
it. As you can see, the SAVN is merely about correcting Meryl's
misinformation. Just today she's provided more than enough examples
of her mistaken opinions of subjects that she is not an expert in.
It's my freedom of speech that allows me to publicly correct her. Is
that hate? No, of course not. It's just that when she makes so many
errors, the corrections are also numerous. Painting SAVN as a hate,
anti-choice and anti-information group is yet another Meryl mistake,
but I suspect a deliberate one to make us look evil. She's
convincing, she's sympathetic, yet she's wrong.

John

[Katie Brockie]

I'm sorry Meryl, but that definition of a hate group bears no resemblance to SAVN at all.
SAVN has never encouraged any sort of violence, it also does not disseminate historically inaccurate information. Or, if it does, and then gets corrected, it will disseminate historically correct information.
And as for this: " unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability." Where does the AVN come into this? The AVN is a group which provides information. Information upon which people make important decisions for their children's health. If the information is incorrect or misleading - SAVN will point it out. Nothing to do with race, sexual orientation, religion etc etc etc.

Calling SAVN a hate group is casting slurs and smears against a very large group of people who are all involved for various reasons in this debate.

There are also good split-off FB pages and groups which are all about proving accurate information about the latest in vaccine safety, the latest studies etc. A good one is: The AVN Corrected.

Cheers
Katie