Featured

The Australian Vaccination Network Must Go: Sayeth the Government

December 16, 2012 by admin in Vaccines with 42 Comments

The right to free speech is under attack in Australia as government attempts to prevent a vaccine-skeptical organization from speaking, and allows personal attacks on those who speak out.

Freedom of Speech Lost, by Ahdieh Ashrafi (woman covered by newspapers, only eyes showing)

Freedom of Speech Lost, by Ahdieh Ashrafi

by Heidi Stevenson

Freedom of speech is being squashed in Australia. If what you have to say runs counter to what mainstream medicine and its lackey, the government, want promulgated, then dissenting views are being suppressed.

The Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), an organization that promotes actually thinking about the issue of vaccines, was recently ordered by the Australian government to change its name. They claim that it’s “misleading”.

New South Wales, Australia has been systematically stealing the people’s right to choose how they’re treated medically, or to choose not to be treated. They have claimed that sources “within the community” have complained that the name of the organization is misleading. When pressed for specifics, they trotted out the Australian Medical Association (AMA), which is little more than a front group for the medical industry, quite literally a organization whose purpose is to lobby for the economic benefit of the Australian medical industrial complex.

Needless to say, the AMA is against freedom of choice in vaccination, and they’ve gained control of the government to enforce its will on the people. And that means that the AVN must go.

Apparently, the AVN is effective in demonstrating the dangers of vaccinations, not to mention exposing the misleading propaganda of the medical industry and its lackey, the government. The demand that AVN change its name—without any explanation as to what’s wrong with it—is an obvious attack on freedom of speech.

Anyone who values the right to be open about their beliefs, even when they’re unpopular, needs to pay attention. This is not only an attack on those who demand freedom of choice in vaccination, but also on their right to state their views.

Attack by Skeptic Lackeys

Unfortunately, the attack on AVN is worse than just the government. Also piling on have been the skeptics, self-styled arbiters of truth, who apparently believe that their take on the truth is so righteous that they’ve the right to do anything they can to drive those with differing views underground.

One skeptic in particular, who shall go unnamed here, has sent Meryl Dorey, AVN’s founder, incredibly foul pornography to her home. It has been accompanied by threats, such as the following:

meryl be warned we’re coming for you. and you will be sorry you filthy baby killer. sharpening the knives now.

That’s a clear and obvious threat. But that’s not all. Meryl has received similar threats by phone. One whispers “Die in a fire,” over and over. The other says, “Die you bitch, just fucking die.” (You can listen to the clips by clicking on the quotes.)

Facebook has also been the site of such attacks. The following screen print of such a post states, “If the demise of the AVN brings with it the demise of Meryl Dorey herself, she only has herself to blame for that.”

Whether you agree with his view, this is clearly another attack.

Yet, in spite of the fact that there is are recordings of the voice, which makes it reasonably easy to assure identification of the caller, and also proof of who posted the Facebook attack, the police have decided to do nothing!

And now, a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack has been launched against the AVN website. This can be done for two reasons. One is as an act of protest against a corporation or government agency that is acting against the needs of the people—often when such agencies are deliberately attempting to destroy the people’s right of free speech. The other reason is an attempt by some groups to squelch others’ right to free speech. This is what has happened to AVN’s site.

As Meryl has pointed out, these self-styled skeptics are anything but truly skeptical. They accept whatever Big Pharma, along their medical medical and governmental lackeys, have to say. They say that vaccines have saved lives—despite clear evidence documenting it’s not true—so they believe it. They say that vaccines are safe—in the face of the autism epidemic, the likes of which the world has never seen—and they’re fine with it.

An Attack on Us All

It’s relatively easy to attack those who contradict the official party line of vaccines. Those people are in the minority, so most people will assume that the government and their banner-carriers, the skeptics are acting for the benefit of the people. But the reality is that this is an attack on the free speech rights of us all.

If the right of free speech can be taken from anyone for any reason beyond incitement of violence, then it can be taken from anyone for any reason. By allowing the attacks on AVN to continue, the Australian government is sanctioning them. Making a ridiculous demand to change their name (which would also mean giving up their domain name), based solely on the will of the most powerful private agency in the nation with a different view, clarifies that the government is acting for the benefit of that agency’s financial interests, not for the benefit of the people.

It’s obvious that free speech is under attack, and the attack is first aimed at those who are least likely able to stop it. If you care for your rights, the time to speak out is now, while there’s a chance. Once the rights of people who question vaccines are gone, how long do you suppose it will take before you lose your right to say something contrary to whatever an industry-controlled government desires? You can be sure that time will come if you don’t stand in solidarity with those whose views may not be the same as yours.

Please take a look at the website of the Australian Vaccination Network. It isn’t necessary to agree with them. However, you cannot possibly call yourself informed about whether vaccines are either safe or effective unless you’re willing to investigate the information provided by those whose views are different.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Pingback: The Australian Vaccination Network Must Go: Sayeth the GovernmentGaia Health « No Compulsory Vaccination

  • Warren

    The government is not trying to silence Meryl. They only ask that she is clear about her motives. Both Meryl and her website are not pro choice about vaccinations and they are certainly not the “Australian Vaccination Watchdog” as she claims. She has not recommended one vaccination and disrespects anyone with a view that is different to her own and often bans them from her website. I would think that the people donating money to her would be happy about the name change as I’m sure they donate to promote an anti vaccine agenda and would prefer a name that clearly states what they are about.

    Also Meryl did not have a DDOS attack. The error recieved was “ërror 403″. Many things can cause an error 403 but not a DDOS attack. Usually its something on the website host side. I know you’re just trying to help out a mate but repeating her ignorance only reflects badly on yourself especially when a quick Google search of 403 error shows how wrong she was.

    • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

      As a matter of fact, I did verify that there was a DDOS attack before writing the article. The error message did give a mistaken impression. However, the host of the site did verify that they had such an attack. Therefore, they moved the site to the cloud, where it was possible to handle the excess hits from the attack and posted that particular message – which most assuredly was not appropriate, as it gave the wrong impression.

      No, Meryl does not know much about the technical aspects of websites. However, she did not invest the DDOS attack. She was informed of it by the host.

      However, there most assuredly WAS a DDOS attack – and it’s not the first on the site.

      They didn’t tell her to change the motto. And the government has absolutely no business questioning the organization’s motives. Besides, what does any of that have to do with demanding that the organization – not the site – change its name after well over ten years?

      That was a most pathetic attempt to justify the government’s behavior – and a quite mistaken claim about whether the site was subject to a DDOS attack. Any assumption that I was trying to help out a mate is pure ignorance – an assumption on your part. And your assumption that the facts were not verified is another mistaken assumption on your part.

      You should verify YOUR facts before making condescending accusations.

      • http://twitter.com/fisseux Rebecca Fisher

        If that’s what Meryl’s told you, then fair enough. However, a site being taken down by a DDOS attack will return nothing – not even an error message. If the site had been “moved to the cloud”, you would see the site. Not an error message. It seems Meryl is “being mistaken” to you in the same way as she’s “been mistaken” to pretty much everyone else.

        Regarding the main thrust of your blogpost though, Freedom of speech is not under attack. Far from it. Meryl is still free to spout her lies and hate speech about vaccines. She just has to do it using a name that doesn’t deliberately mislead. Which we can all agree is a good thing.

        • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

          As I explained above, that’s not true. It once was – but not with cloud technology. A site can be moved to the cloud, where the attack is more manageable, especially if a very simple page – like the one that was displayed – is delivered instead of the content.

          You’re wrong. Accept it.

          Yes, of course freedom of speech is under attack. If an organization is forced to change its name, it costs money, which limits its ability to function. It’s an inconvenience. People familiar with the organization will be unable to find it. It’s an attack on free speech.

          Besides, it’s none of the government’s business to do this! There is nothing misleading about the AVN’s name. It is a network about vaccinations.

          You can believe the government’s lies if you want, but that doesn’t mean you or the government have the right to limit the dissemination of a different view.

          You call what Meryl Dorey does lying. I consider your comments to be, at best, mistaken – as is clearly the case with your assumption about the DDOS attack being faked.

          • http://twitter.com/fisseux Rebecca Fisher

            No. You *can* move a site to the cloud to protect against a DDoS attack, but that will cost a lot of money, as it protects by using more and more resources to defend against it. However, doing that will simply mean that the site is being shown to a user as normal. The AVN site wasn’t simply showing an error page which was part of the site – requests to it were returning an actual error. There’s a big difference.

            So, if there was an attempt to launch a DDoS attack, and the site was moved to the cloud to protect it, it was done incompetently, as it was still returning 403-Forbidden errors, and it’s going to land Meryl with a very big bill, or there was no DDoS, just a cock-up on the usual web server – happens to us all from time to time – and Meryl has fabricated the DDoS to play the victim. Again.

            I know which one I’m betting on.

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            Not necessarily true. The host will protect itself with such a technique. And no, it doesn’t mean the site will be shown as usual because that takes more resources. Putting up a single unformatted page is far more efficient – and doesn’t mean moving the entire site to the cloud.

            The host stated that they used that page as a standard procedure. I agree it wasn’t an appropriate page – and your comment shows why. But that doesn’t mean there was no DDOS attack.

          • http://twitter.com/fisseux Rebecca Fisher

            As a matter of interest, who is the host in question?

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            I don’t think it’s appropriate to answer that question here. It’s private information.

          • Addryanne Adamsyn

            This is why IT people should not speak on IT issues. Rebecca, the information is freely available via google.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chris.fisher Chris Fisher

            You keep saying this put up an unformatted page rubbish. Is the host really incompetent enough to not know how to null route incoming DDOS traffic?

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            Are you so dumb that you can’t even figure out that you’re being an ass?

      • Addryanne Adamsyn

        Actually Heidi, it’s you that should verify YOUR facts. As you have been told, a DDOS attack would not return a 403 error, and this fact can be easily verified by a simple google search. It’s convenient to make claims about attacks from the ‘nasties’ but there is a really simple reality here. Dorey hit the news on the weekend, she then put up a ludicrous rant in response, it just stands to reason (to a normal person) that the sites traffic would increase dramatically on such a day. All her claims of having log files and IP addresses is also stupid because DDOS attacks are launched from infected insecure workstations out on the internet so the IP addresses would be irrelevant. It’s just another lie in a long list of them. So next time, verify YOUR facts, and don’t take your friends word for it, or risk looking like a fool.

        • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

          You’re not paying attention. Yes, that’s usually true of a 403 error. However, the host used that page as a filler when they put the site on a cloud. Sorry you can’t understand that there’s nothing magic about an error message. Yes, the host should have put a different message up – it would not have been so confusing. But they didn’t.

          It was the host who determined that it was a DDOS attack, not Meryl. The service requests came from a small number of IPs – clearly indicating that it wasn’t a natural increase in requests.

          Perhaps you don’t understand how much traffic would be necessary to increase demand to the point where the host couldn’t cope. But I can assure you that the AVN site has never come close to that point.

          She may be mistaken about the value of IP addresses and log files. It doesn’t matter. The fact is that I did verify the information – and not only from Meryl Dorey, but by checking with another host to see how they handle DDOS attacks. Sending them to the cloud is now commonly done. Putting up that particular message was sloppy on the part of the host. (I would personally not accept that of my host.) However, that procedure in a DDOS attack is how it’s done nowadays.

          By the way, the locations for launching DDOS attacks will vary with the sophistication of the attackers & type of attack. Only some attacks come from infected and insecure workstations. In fact, it’s clear that wasn’t the case here, because the attack came from such a limited number of IPs – which is what would be expected from a small group of skeptics.

          Be careful who you say looks like a fool – because it most assuredly could bounce back on you, as it just did.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chris.fisher Chris Fisher

            What is this “Sent to the cloud” rubbish?! Under a DDOS you null route any traffic coming in at your ingress before it gets to the hosts. And often only a few servers are all that are needed to effectively take out a smaller site, because of their bandwidth and connection caps. You know just enough to be dangerous please don’t pretend to speak as an authority.

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            And you clearly don’t realize that there are many ways of initiating a DDOS attack and that rerouting requests to a cloud most assuredly is done to help deal with the problem.

            It protects other sites on the same server.

            I never pretended to be an authority on the topic. But please, don’t pretend to know more than you do.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Bron.A Ancient Illyria

            What *we* realise Heidi is that a distributed denial of service attack cannot come from a small number of IP addresses. We also understand that a site cannot be “moved into the cloud”. We also know, well I do anyway, that the site remained available through the whole outage with the IP address giving very good ping responses for the whole time of the outage.

            ps, it’s not on a shared server.

  • VaccineRisks

    The Australian Vaccination Network site, leader and freedom of speech are all being attacked.
    It would be appropriate to rename the site: “The Australian Vaccination Transparency Network” – because that is what this is all about.

    • Addryanne Adamsyn

      Why? There is no Australian component, all information is copy/pasted from the work of others across the internet. It’s clearly anti-vaccination and like this site it deletes information it doesn’t agree with and is clearly therefore not a network.

      • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

        And you seem to believe that it’s okay to censor a view that simply disagrees with yours. If you don’t like it, just don’t look. Problem solved.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Bron.A Ancient Illyria

          Actually Heidi, if I see something I disagree with, i’ll respond. That’s what grown ups do. Rabid anti vaxers have a personality disorder, you are no different. You’re ignorant and too arrogant to see it. You are going to be my blog of the week :)

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            There’s a silly term used by immature boys that describes what you’re trying to do. It’s called a pissing contest. You’ll have to play by yourself.

  • The Justicer

    Warren, if you like vaccines just take lots of them and stuff them well into your children bodies. The AVN is fair and pro choice, and must not change its name. The government health agencies should change their name, e.g. into “Health attack and compulsion agency“. The government instead acts as forceful and doesn`t provide explanations. Is government pro choice, Warren? First off, the fact that diseases are spread via virus or bacteria is scientifically bogus, people who say so just echo the propaganda. If you say so, just demonstrate it. Demonstrate that, e.g., all polio victims carry the polio virus. And there are other criteria as well. After this is done, demontrate, in double blind, that vaccines do lower the incidence of a certain disease. Asking these demonstrations to any government is pointless, they don`t respond. Right, warren?

    • http://twitter.com/fisseux Rebecca Fisher

      What?!

      “First off, the fact that diseases are spread via virus or bacteria is scientifically bogus” ???

      Germ deniers in the 21st century? Good grief.

      • Addryanne Adamsyn

        The NSW Minister for Fair Trading labelled them ‘nutjobs’ on public radio

        • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

          Because the NSW Minister for Fair Trading labeled them you believe it? That speaks very poorly of your judgment – trusting a politician’s statement as if it were meaningful says all that needs to be stated about you.

          • yossarianc22

            So a fairly ordinary nut farmers wife takes a stand against vaccination and evidence based medicine contrary to the experience, research and qualification of medical science, and you believe it?

            That speaks very poorly of your judgement.

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            Your comment is based on nothing but ad hominem attack, and such is simply not tolerated here.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1245877541 Michael Fitzpatrick

            it would seem that your understanding or the “ad homme” is, like your
            understanding of immunology and biochemistry, somewhat limited.

            An AH is when someone attacks (for the sake of example) you, and not your argument.
            If someone were (hypothetically) to call you a mindless, conspiracy
            mongering idiot, that would be considered AH, though the conspiracy
            mongering is probably reasonably accurate description.

            Dory IS the wife of an ordinary nut farmer, is she not? That is scarcely a personal attack.
            if you are going to attempt to counter a point , at least use a cogent argument.

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            An ad hominem attack is making statements about the author of a piece of writing that are negative about that person. The purpose of that sort of pathetic argument is to make the person the topic instead of what the person wrote.

            I have no idea if Meryl Dorey is even married, and the fact is that it’s not the issue here. The comment was made and intended to be derogatory. It added absolutely nothing of value. It is a completely unacceptable means of debate – and will not be tolerated here.

          • Evan Castle

            You took a swipe at “the company you keep”, so they counter-acted with the same tactic.

            And I quote:
            “trusting a politician’s statement as if it were meaningful says all that needs to be stated about you.”
            Followed by:
            “An ad hominem attack is making statements about the author of a piece of writing that are negative about that person. The purpose of that sort of pathetic argument is to make the person the topic instead of what the person wrote.”

            By your own standards, you started it. Just saying.

          • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

            Excuse me? Context must always be considered – and you’re putting things entirely out of context.

            The comment I made was about the commenter’s argument. The argument made was a reference to a politician’s statement as if it were trustworthy. It isn’t – and that makes what the commenter suggests meaningless. The source of someone’s arguments is most assuredly a valid debate topic.

            That is certainly not equivalent to an ad hominem attack.

            When you have to dig that deeply to try to find an argument, perhaps you should be wondering why.

      • The Justicer

        That`s right. You are brainwashed by myths and propaganda. They say that harmless bacteria, or even viruses, which are so small, are the monsters to be stopped. Nobody knows that honest scientists, in the 1920` and 30` drank cups full of germs of cholera and so on in front of juries, to show that those germs are totally harmless. You don`t believe me? Diseases come mainly from 3 factors: 1) your thoughts 2) medicines that you take, mainly the deadly vaccines 3) what you eat, being this last one the most serious motive. I guarantee you that almost all diseases come from the putrefactions, the poisons, the anaerobic bacteria and the parasites thriving in the colon. I can`t explain you everything here, but I assure you that basically most of which is officially recognized as true is instead false, if you are interested in the truth you have to dig deeper, governments work for big pharma, and the banks which own most of them. And those people want us brainwashed and sick, and they are getting that, also by poisoning your tap water with sodium fluoride.

        • yossarianc22

          That entire conspiracy laden diatribe is best read with circus music in the background.
          You sir, are divorced from reality.

        • yossarianc22

          That entire conspiracy laden rant is best read accompanied by circus music. You sir, are divorced from reality.

          • The Justicer

            Bleah. I am well grounded into reality, while you are grounded in the air. When your government mandates your children to take vaccines, of course you are 100% sure that it acts for your own good, aren`t you? I am for freedom of choice, I would never force you NOT to take vaccines. You may have as much as you want :-)

    • Addryanne Adamsyn

      The AVN is neither fair or pro-choice. The AVN is clearly, and rabidly anti-vaccination to the point that they they have vilified and harassed grieving parents of dead babies to further their goal. Meryl Dorey verbally attacked a fundraiser from the breast cancer foundation and then boasted online about it. She claimed she was personally in contact with the families of 700 people who had died of vaccination, she has recently revised that down to 28, but is unable to name any. Unfortunately for you, the order to change it’s name has been given, and there is no option for the organisation.

      Contrary to the continued (and unvalidated) assertions of the anti-vaccination crowd the government in NSW is pro-choice. In fact, a point you may have missed and one that the admin of this page has removed, the government has not stopped the organisation from making it’s dishonest statements, it has merely ordered it to accurately name itself so people stop being scammed by them.

      What part of that is too hard for the antivaxers to understand? I’d really be interested in that.

      • The Justicer

        What part is too hard for the antivaxers to understand? One is where`s the proof in double blind that vaccines help prevent diseases. Official statistics tell the opposite. Does the NSW government provide data with this regard? Then, that those diseases are actually caused by the supposed virus or bacteria, I repeat that scientifically that claim is bogus. Unless anybody can show me proof of the opposite. Then, I am not australian, so you know better than me about vaccine compulsion. I`ve read that vaccines are not only forced upon babies, but also upon various types of workers. Are you pro government? Are you aware that your government does not care about you, to the extent that it poisons your tap water with sodium fluoride? (watch the movie `fire water`). Are you aware that the major pharmaceutical companies have a curriculum with countless penal condemnations for having killed thousands or millions of people? Do you know anything about eugenics?

  • Pingback: Australian government departments attack basic freedoms « No Compulsory Vaccination

  • http://twitter.com/pathsofnature pathsofnature

    Typical pseudoskeptic tactic. They attack anyone who questions the establishment and put it in the guise of “consumer protection.” Then they make ad hominem attacks by calling anyone who disagrees with them as “delusional.”

  • evedawn

    Time (and a possible ‘outbreak’) will tell who was right. The multi-vaxed people who didn’t get a chance to develop a mature immune response to many childhood diseases and flu’s, or the non-vaxed people who have strengthened their immune systems by using natural remedies to help their bodies overcome disease. Just go ahead and have yourself injected and let the rest be.

  • Pingback: Free Speech Rights Under Attack in AustraliaGaia Health

Search Gaia Health

Subscribe to the Gaia Health
Newsletter

Don't miss breaking Gaia Health articles.
Rest assured that your e-mail address will never be sold or shared.

newsletter software