topic Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network in Community Spirit

The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

bluecat*dancing — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 01:33:34 GMT

Good.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/australian-vaccination-skeptics-network-banned-from-charity-sta/5327378

''The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network has been stripped of its registered charity status because potential misinformation could impact on children's health.

The controversial anti-immunisation group was last week forced to change its name from the Australian Vaccination Network because it was considered misleading.

The group actively campaigns against vaccinating children.''

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

lloydslights — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 02:04:27 GMT

So it seems their application for a registered Business Name was ultimately appealed by someone? In the meantime, they had applied and was granted charity status for that original named business. Then changed name to the skeptics title.

????????????????????

Who authorizes the granting of a registered charity status? It must be awfully easy to obtain.

DEB

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

azureline** — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:02:13 GMT

Charity has a special meaning under law. To be a charity, your organisation must:

be a not-for-profit
have a charitable purpose
be for the public benefit (other than where the charitable purpose is the relief of poverty).

Examples of charities include: religious groups, not-for-profit aged care homes, homeless shelters, disability service organisations, universities and colleges, animal welfare societies and artistic or cultural groups.

Who determines charitable status?

From 3 December 2012

From 3 December 2012, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) registers organisations as charities. Registration as a charity is voluntary. However, your organisation must be registered with the ACNC to access any charity tax concessions from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

punch*drunk — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:57:37 GMT

Wow, how on earth would they qualify as any kind of charity in the first place? Nice to see it's been stopped, wonder how long they were collecting money under false pretences though....and what did they do with it I wonder?

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

pct001wine — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:08:46 GMT

The "Church" of Scientology has tax-exempt (religion) status .... bit off-topic, but work that out !

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

azureline** — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:12:13 GMT

@punch*drunk wrote:
Wow, how on earth would they qualify as any kind of charity in the first place? Nice to see it's been stopped, wonder how long they were collecting money under false pretences though....and what did they do with it I wonder?

The ATO actually approved them before this change.

They probably qualified under the not for profit and for the public benefit. They seem to have many supporters.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

azureline** — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:18:25 GMT

and further investigation shows that they gave it up voluntarily? so no being stripped of it, it seems.

the group had wanted to get rid of its charity licence for years, having spent countless hours and resources "jumping through hoops" to comply with the NSW Charitable Fundraising Act.

"We no longer see ourselves as a charitable organisation," Mr Beattie said. "We just don't fit into that mould."

Under the Act, a group can qualify as a charity — and avoid paying income tax on its donations — if it has any benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose that relieves financial hardship, advances education or religion, or benefits the community.

Accounts show the AVN's total revenue for 2012 was $140,197 — including donations, membership fees and "other revenue".

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

lakeland27 — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:26:12 GMT

@pct001wine wrote:
The "Church" of Scientology has tax-exempt (religion) status .... bit off-topic, but work that out !

so do most. if we had a westborough outreach here they'd be eligible. fake 'research institutes' that are in fact lobbyists have the same tax free status. its actually odd that this group lost it's status, one doesn't have to be correct to have the status merely 'not for profit'

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

lakeland27 — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:28:03 GMT

scrap the last part. Az post explains why. miss reported as happens so often.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

bluecat*dancing — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:44:09 GMT

They were asked to respond in writing stating why their Authority to Fundraise should not be revoked. Rather than do so they surrendered their Authority to Fundraise instead.The Authority to Fundraise can be revoked if it is in the public's interest.

It s about time these crackpots are shown for the charlatans they are.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

k0llectable5 — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:04:54 GMT

I'd even go one further and put this article into the catagory of disinformation. The organisation according to its president Meryl Dorey has been trying to revoke it's charity status for YEARS (according to the website avn.org). As an organisation they couldn't be happier to have it gone.

And some interesting information I discovered reading through their website; when parents decide against vaccinating their babies they can fill out what is called a conscientious objector form. It's thanks to this organisations continual lobbying that this form even exists.

People really need to understand that it's more that just being pro or anti vaccination. This issue is so much bigger than that and there are alot of people who sit somewhere in the middle. I really think people need to do their own research on the topic and look at it from every angle before they make the decision on whether to vaccinate or not.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

boris1gary — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:18:21 GMT

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:
I'd even go one further and put this article into the catagory of disinformation. The organisation according to its president Meryl Dorey has been trying to revoke it's charity status for YEARS (according to the website avn.org). As an organisation they couldn't be happier to have it gone.

And some interesting information I discovered reading through their website; when parents decide against vaccinating their babies they can fill out what is called a conscientious objector form. It's thanks to this organisations continual lobbying that this form even exists.

People really need to understand that it's more that just being pro or anti vaccination. This issue is so much bigger than that and there are alot of people who sit somewhere in the middle. I really think people need to do their own research on the topic and look at it from every angle before they make the decision on whether to vaccinate or not.

Most people would probably need to rely on the internet for their research and there is so much rubbish out there from the anti vaccination crowd that it would be more confusing than helpful - maybe they could start with this -

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/grieving-parents-speak-out-against-anti-vaccination-extremists/story-fni0cwl5-1226650422913

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

polksaladallie — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:22:33 GMT

IMO that group should be charged with something, perhaps 'causing death'.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

k0llectable5 — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:47:34 GMT

I'm not advocating the behaviour of this organisation. I feel very sorry for the McCaffartys no one deserves to see their baby die in such a way and then have people accuse them of lying about it ect.

But what about the 145,000 children that have died in the last 20 years according to Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). The study was published in the journal of Human and experimental toxicology and it was comparing the data from 1990-2010 with the previous data from when children were given single doses at a time compared to todays schedule where sometimes eight combined vaccines are injected all together on the same day.

The McCafferty child was too young to have been vaccinated against whooping cough. I dont really see how posting such a link from an article nearly a year old which also seems to be full of misinformation can be helpful for people wanting to know about modern day vaccinations. It's trying to expose/slander the AVN thats it.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

polksaladallie — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:56:29 GMT

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

The McCafferty child was too young to have been vaccinated against whooping cough.

Not too young to acquire the disease from a contagious unvaccinated child ot adult though.

That group won't acknowledge that as well as putting their own children in great danger, they are putting other innocent babies in danger.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

k0llectable5 — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:14:08 GMT

That argument I'm afraid holds absolutely no weight with my point of view on this topic. It's a well known fact that people who have been vaccinated against these contagious diseases can still contract the disease and pass it on. The idea that the unvaccinated are carrying around these diseases and infecting vulnerable people is just fear mongering imo.

Dont get me wrong I understand that vaccinations have played a major role in the eradication of diseases like smallpox. But when the government needs to employ a whole department so people can report the adverse events following immunisation because of the inundation of reports to the adverse drug reactions department, something has obviously changed in the production and administration of immunisations over the years.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

polksaladallie — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:18:34 GMT

Can't say what I'd like to in answer to that.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

azureline** — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:26:31 GMT

I have personal experience in this, where children have had adverse reactions to immunisations.

Doctors do not report the reactions to the relevant departments as the standard answer is:

"he must have been exposed prior to the immunisation to something"

"I am sure it is unrelated to the immunisation"

"it's just a coincidence"

"adverse reactions are so rare it can't be considered"

My unvaccinated children were no risk to any other person, including their vaccinated siblings. They were the ones at risk.

More needs to be done about the adults who are not immune and those that NEVER have booster shots.

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

k0llectable5 — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:37:59 GMT

Can't say what I'd like to in answer to that.

Well that is a shame polks. This topic is very relevent to me and I am so interested in ALL points of view in relation to it.

For example what is the point of a year 7 student recieving a chickenpox vaccination if as a younger child they had contracted the disease naturally and recovered? (Even though they received the varicella vaccination at 12 months and 4 years old and contracted the disease when they were 7)

Re: The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

azureline** — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:49:19 GMT

That doesn't look right? I thought the MMRV was given at 18 months? and the MMR only at 4 yrs if not given MMRV