You are on page 1of 5

Dear Brian, Thanks for the opportunity to respond before you make the article public.

I trust that invitation alludes to potential for correction. Firstly, I didn't reply to your rst email as I conclude it is axiomatic and well within academic capability to consult the source material and answer your own question. The answers are in your rst article. Added to this, you've selected only one comment in seeking clarication. The other comment is explicit; <<And here is part of my email to you (with evidence) from April 29th, refuting your above claim: "no SAVN member has challenged my account." >> Secondly, I confess to being surprised at the tit for tat tone, obfuscation of facts and the grossly misleading title "Shouting Down Our Freedom To Choose". In this light I must question the value of correspondence. Let's attend to my comments following your article. I wrote two comments pertaining to my email of the 29th - three days after your April 26th publication. Certainly, I erred in writing the 23rd of April - but a click on the link provides the email and date it was sent - April 29th. You'll notice the link in both comments (the second with the correct date) is the same.

My comments were: Brian, Here is my email of April 23rd clearly refuting your claim "I wrote a careful response to the comments by SAVN members, documenting their methods, and posted it on my website. This seems to have worked a charm: **no SAVN member has challenged my account.**" Part 1: Not only did I challenge your account - I provided evidence refuting it. Part 2:

Links to 3 articles: later removed temporarily by false DMCA claims by Ms. Dorey (I have her submissions). And you claim Ms. Dorey is subject to attacks on free speech?! Brian, The UDHR Article 30 states no one article may be exploited to suppress any other article. Hence free speech in this case goes further than the right to speak in dissent. It challenges the international right to health, of which the UN has a Special Rapporteur. We all have a right to freely voice our own opinion. I nd my defence of free speech stops at the border of freely voicing our "own facts". And here is part of my email to you (with evidence) from April 29th, refuting your above claim: "no SAVN member has challenged my account." " SAVN member has challenged my account" is what you wrote in the Mercury. That is in error, and I plainly showed it was in error. Yet now, in "Caught in the vaccination wars pt. 2" you seek to qualify this statement with bias that favours your position and supposedly weakens my account. You write; "That statement was made after I posted my response "Caught in the vaccination wars", notified several SAVN members mentioned in that response, and received no substantive corrections." I suggest shifting goal posts to "substantive corrections", is a retrospective attempt to mislead readers in your favour. Furthermore it is clear on a very small number of members are involved in challenging Ms. Dorey. Extrapolating to an entire Facebook page is unrealistic. You also write;

"I fail to see how this link to an article about microchipping and cancer relates to my account, much less refutes it. I emailed Gallagher asking him to explain. He did not reply." This is simply misleading. In "Caught in the vaccination wars", you write under "Background", "The attackers have used a variety of methods, including"; [Point 2] - claiming, with flimsy evidence, that AVN members believe in a global conspiracy to implant mind control chips. And; "The SAVN Facebook page contains, as part of the basic information about SAVN, the statement that the AVN "believe that vaccines are part of a global conspiracy to implant mind control chips....". And; "Given that Meryl Dorey denies a belief in this conspiracy, what remains? Only an inference that a 2009 post and web link indicate the true beliefs of AVN members or the AVN as an organisation. Far more investigation and definitive evidence would be required to take SAVN's claim seriously." The screenshot I sent you plainly shows Meryl Dorey's post. It reads; "This is an excellent video about the dangers of mandatory vaccination and microchipping. I had never heard of the link between microchips and cancers before. This is something we all need to be aware of!" You again obfuscate in Part 2 by writing, "I fail to see how an article about microchipping and cancer relates to my account", when it is providing a video offered by Dorey entitled "Mandatory Vaccination and Forced Microchipping". More so, Dorey states she hasn't heard of microchips and cancer before - not microchips and vaccination. By now, it must be clear I have refuted both your claim of receiving no "substantive" (if you wish) corrections, refuted both your references to microchipping and Ms. Dorey's denial that she believes in a conspiracy, in the email of April 29th. It is I Brian, who fail to see how you can possibly fail to see the aws in your own writings. More so, in my email I explained that Ms. Dorey continues to lend amplitude to conspiracies in posts. I noted that I consider it an unfortunate diversion and most SAVN members are more focused on illegalities and her distortion of facts. I also reinforced how she deletes and edits her writings to cast doubt on opponents.

I then provided links to three articles that expose Ms. Dorey's misrepresentation of pertussis vaccine efcacy, the plagiarism of a WHO document in which she cropped out explanatory text and added her own when replying to the HCCC and her calculated mistruths referring to the Netherlands pertussis outbreak. I trust you read these as they further refute your entire thesis of Meryl Dorey as a dissenter or whistle blower. This is not derogatory, threatening or pornographic. Not have I ever challenged Ms. Dorey's right to free speech. No long term SAVN members would consider doing so - it would not be tolerated. In fact quite the opposite. Ms. Dorey sought to, and successfully removed three of my documents by ling a false DMCA claim under threat of perjury. This is an attack on my free speech, carried out by abusing the legal avenue to protect copyright. These were restored when she failed to provide proof of ownership within the allotted period. Two days ago she again used the false claim of a failed pertussis vaccination [Notication 3] on her page. She refuses to debate but will sabotage correction and continue with demonstrable falsehoods. Ms. Dorey has a history of copyright abuse, and the illegal use of brand names and charity drives to raise money. Money that simply vanishes into AVN coffers. Ironically, you are defending her right to dissent and quoting the ling of complaints as a tactic. Yet the HCCC warning came about because she is refusing to admit she runs an anti-vaccination operation - in effect denying she offers the voice of dissent you are writing in defence of. Why does this denial go unnoticed but the denial of conspiracy beliefs receive much attention? As I wrote in the same email, everyone has a right to opinion, but one must draw the line of free speech at the construction of one's own facts. If taken seriously they have a deleterious and tragic effect on public health. Ms. Dorey has had this publically demonstrated to her hundreds of times responding by deleting material, banning those of opposing stance and lodging copyright claims to have other material removed. In truth, the cry of "free speech suppression" is a diversion from the very real illegalities she has perpetrated without challenge for almost two decades. It is quite plain she cannot voice any dissent or defend her position in an open, honest and transparent manner. Severe censorship and ridicule is the primary means of conduct. It is a manufactured illusion. Dorey creates her

own false conclusion and then sets about defending this straw man, whilst denying she is a voice of dissent by suppressing the free speech of others. In this light, your theory is indeed in tatters. In effect I have strongly challenged and/or dismissed, in that one email, claims made in "Caught in the vaccination wars" and "Shouting down our right to free speech". Of the six points in your opening of the rst article only ling of complaints holds merit. The imsy evidence lies with Ms. Dorey. Her reliability as a source is shattered by her own deception, invention, censorship and demonstrable fraud or error. In conclusion I reiterate. The UDHR article 30 is explicit. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." This expunges Ms. Dorey's ridiculous claim of free speech suppression, as an excuse for conducting several illegal activities that seek to destroy the international right to health and engage in illegal activity for monetary gain at the expense of innocent Australians.