Level Nine Sports, where families ski and ride...
 

 advertise with indeep media

Anti-vaccine Group Forced to Change Name

Posted: March 17th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Favorite New Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anti-vaccine Group Forced to Change Name

Anti-vaccine Group Forced to Change NameWe’ve been following the Australian Vaccination Networks -AVN – belligerence since mid 2013, when the anti-vaccination group was ordered by the 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 :: Read the full article »»»»


Anti-vaccine Group Ignores TGA Order

Posted: June 24th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: REBLOG! | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anti-vaccine Group Ignores TGA Order

Vaccination Rates of Australian Children are ‘Reassuringly High’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 »»»»