The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network

[bluecat*dancing]

Good.

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

''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.''

[k0llectable5]

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.    

[boris1gary]

---

@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-ex...

[polksaladallie]

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

[k0llectable5]

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.

[polksaladallie]

---

@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.

[k0llectable5]

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.  

[polksaladallie]

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

[azureline**]

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"

OR 

"I am sure it is unrelated to the immunisation"

OR 

"it's just a coincidence"

OR

 "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.

[k0llectable5]

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)

[azureline**]

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