We've been following the Australian Vaccination Networks -AVN - belligerence since mid 2013, when the anti-vaccination group was ordered by Australia's Therapeutic Drug Authority to change its name.
The group has finally conceded.
AVN has changed its name to one that more clearly reflects its anti-vaccination views, the group will now be known as the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network.
The New South Wales Fair Trading Department has been pursuing the group for some time after receiving complaints about its misleading name.
The organisation tried to challenge a direction to find a new name but was last year ordered by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to call itself something different.::
NSW Fair Trading Minister Stuart Ayres says the association's original name was misleading.
image source: indeepmedia
"The title wasn't reflecting their strong anti-vaccination stance and so we after receiving numerous complaints requested them to change their name," Mr Ayres said. "They've now complied with that request and the new title reflects their anti-vaccination stance."
The Australian Medical Association - AMA - says it hopes the name change makes sure the organisation is not mistaken for a government agency.
AMA president Dr Steve Hambleton says the new name is much clearer.
"I think it certainly is a lot better than what it was before and I think that people when they see that word 'sceptic' and perhaps even if they see it spelt incorrectly they're actually going to look at it and be a bit suspicious," Dr Hambleton said. "I would have preferred if it was 'the anti-vaccination network', which is well and truly what it is. Lots of people have believed that it was a government site with balanced information."
RELATED! AVN Ordered to Change Name
Our least favourite getup group, the Australian Vaccination Network has again been ordered to change its name, after losing an appeal against a ruling that its current name is misleading.
The New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal has upheld a ruling by the state’s Fair Trading department that the anti-vaccination group’s current name could mislead the public.
The AVN can elect to make a further appeal against the ruling, but Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts has warned the organisation risks a hefty legal bill because the department will seek legal costs.
“The AVN must change its name now,” Mr Roberts said.
The Australian Vaccination Network, which is clearly an anti-vaccine soapbox, claims to be a lobby and support group that promotes health choices. However, the New South Wales Fair Trading Department maintains that the groups name is intentionally misleading, saying the group “is in fact, an anti-vaccination group.”
The Australian Medical Association was among those that complained to Fair Trading about the AVN’s name :: Read the full article »»»»
RELATED! Anti-vaccine Group Ignores TGA Order
The anti-vaccination group that goes under the banner Australian Vaccination Network – AVN – has failed to comply with a Federal Government order to stop advertising a product as a treatment for cancer. The Therapeutic Goods Administration – TGA – found the group advertised “black salve” on its website and on a promotional DVD.
Black salve – also known as cansema is sold as an alternative treatment for cancer, including skin cancer. The product is commonly classified as an escharotic - a topical paste which burns and destroys skin tissue, leaving behind a thick black scar called an eschar - The TGA warns the substance is extremely corrosive and can leave significant scarring.
The authority ordered last month the group must stop advertising the product as a treatment for cancer, or suggesting that other cancer treatments are ineffective. The TGA said in its ruling the AVN “was not able to produce valid supporting evidence in relation to their claims”. It also said there was “no credible, reliable clinical or scientific evidence to demonstrate that the product is effective in the treatment of any cancer” :: Read the full article »»»»
RELATED! New Study Finds Vaccination Rates of Australian Children are ‘Reassuringly High’
Research from the National Health Performance Authority has found 77,000 Australian children are not fully immunised. The study – Healthy Communities: Immunisation rates for children in 2011-12 – measures the percentage of children who were considered fully immunised at one, two, three and five years of age. It found 32 areas where the percentage of children fully immunised was 85 per cent or lower for at least one age group. The Australian Medical Association says anything below 93 per cent is unsafe.
The success of immunisation programs depends on public support. A lack of public support for these programs can contribute to a significant increase in preventable diseases, and can be directly linked to the resurgence of once common illnesses like measles and pertussis – whooping cough – of which we’ve recently seen outbreaks of in Australia.
Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of large-scale immunisation is well published, in the US full-vaccination from birth save an estimated 35,000 lives annually and prevents an estimated 14 million infections. Some opponents of vaccination argue that the reduction in infectious disease are a result of improved sanitation and hygiene – rather than vaccination – or that the diseases were already in decline before the introduction of vaccination, unlike medicine however, they don’t process any evidence for these anecdotes.
Repating sometimes is the only way of getting a point across; for vaccination programs to work, 93 per cent of people need to be immunised, any number below this presents a danger for communities. In Australia there are pockets with rates of immunisation as low as 85 per cent. More concerning however is that there are communities relying on Dr Google for medical information, forming what the perceive as informed decisions and lowering immunisation rates in the process. Affluent Eastern Sydney for example has an immunisation rate of 89 per cent, this well educated region is choosing to place it’s children in danger of serious infection due to misguided information? :: Read the full Cankler article »»»»