At Meryl's Request

Submitted by Gold on Mon, 2010-05-24 14:57
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gold [at] freelancers [dot] net [dot] nz
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:50:52 +1200
Subject: Regarding the AVN/Living Wisdom talk
From: Gold gold [at] evolved [dot] net [dot] nz
To: margaret [dot] allen [at] slwa [dot] wa [dot] gov [dot] au
Cc: meryl meryl [at] avn [dot] org [dot] au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello Mrs Allen,

It's recently been brought to my attention by Meryl Dorey of the
Living Wisdom news letter that the AVN are hosting a seminar at the
State Library of Western Australia.

While I understand, from Meryl herself, that this venue is accustomed
to hosting events that may be of a "controversial" nature (her word) I
would like to encourage you to not host the event.  Not because the
nature of the talk is controversial, because it's not. But because
Meryl tends to push an agenda that, at best, is misguided and
misinformed either through fear or willful ignorance.  Due to this, or
possibly as a result of it, the mis-information Meryl disseminates at
these seminars can have a noticeable on the health of the community at
large.

I believe it was Michael Specter that said it best; "Everyone's
entitled to their opinion... but you're not entitled to your own
facts. Sorry, you're not."

What Meryl promotes is opinion.  What that opinion is based on I can
only speculate at.  Unfortunately her opinion is not reflected in the
real world.  It is not supported by the scientific or medical
community at large.  It is not reflected in the facts (and you don't
have a right to your own facts).

In closing, allowing this seminar to go ahead would be the wrong thing
to do.  What Meryl and the AVN promote is tantamount to a health
hazard and allowing this to happen at a State Library gives it the
impression of State support.

Please cancel the seminar.

In accordance with Meryl's request in the Living Wisdom e-newsletter,
I have CC'd this to her also.

-- 
Regards
Gold
Evolved Development                                      +64 21 248-4653
http://evolved.net.nz/                               gold [at] evolved [dot] net [dot] nz

Trackback URL for this post:

http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/trackback/170

I would say counter her

Submitted by Michelle on Thu, 2010-05-27 17:40.

I would say counter her points. She's arguing for false balance and for her misinformation to be given the same weight as verifiable science but informed consent isn't based on what side presents the best case, but on giving people the truth and then letting them decide from there what action to take. It's clear what is being said is opinion and not fact, I've seen the case where they've complained about the AVN over in Australia. It's not that people are too stupid, it's that incorrect information and scaremongering don't give the person the opportunity to weigh up the risks and benefits for themselves as it's only targeted one way (don't vaccinate!) and it can be very difficult for the average person to do things like check references during talks, let alone when dealing with written material to see whether they are quoted correctly and fairly reflect the result of the research. Anti-vaccination campaigners absolutely rely on this.

This isn't about censorship of ideas this is about criticising the content of those ideas. You don't have to give anyone and everyone a venue to spread that content and misinform the public either. This is something that has very real effects on others, the death of Dana McCaffery from whooping cough is just one example. The anti-vaccination groups try and use reputable venues like this because it's a real possibility that the institution will be seen to be condoning the message. That's a ruse as well.

The only thing that is unfortunate is that you don't have the text of the talk in order to refute any specific claims made, I think she's relying a lot on that because then you don't really have much of a come back other than pointing to other information they've made public which won't necessarily be covered in a talk. That means she can reduce it to a he said/she said scenario and claim there are facts in there when there are not and if it's anything like everything else they say it's dodgy as anything. I've had those arguments before, and I'd suggest you ask she give you some content or see if you can find comparable content on You Tube or elsewhere to really pin them down on whether the content is factual or not.

If you need any help, email me. I'd be able to do reference checking for you for example.

Oh dear

Submitted by Gold on Mon, 2010-05-24 18:10.

I seem to have annoyed Meryl...

http://avn.org.au/nocompulsoryvaccination/?p=616

Is it worth taking the time to counter her points? Point out where her rather blatant lies are? Correct her on what an Ad hominem actually is?

Or would it just not be found by her target audience anyway?