Two doctors, the newspaper stressed, have seen that their professional practical rights are limited and reveal registers of social and health care professionals maintained by the Welfare and Health Supervision Authority (Valvira).
The group has justified its opposition to vaccinating children and adolescents by referring to a “record number” of adverse event reports and arguing that the World Health Organization (WHO) does not recommend vaccinations.
“It’s simply not true” Mika Rรคmet, Director of the Vaccination Research Center, University of Tampere, stated To YLE. “The WHO has decided that the vaccine can be used from the age of 12. The WHO has already decided that vaccinating 12-15-year-olds at risk is ok,” he recalled.
Rรคmet pointed out that virtually all information on the campaign site is misleading, intentionally or unintentionally. The group has also made questionable interpretations of the relative and absolute efficacy of the vaccine, the marketing authorization process and the adverse reactions reported by vaccine recipients.
โA conditional marketing authorization always comes first. Thatโs a perfectly normal way to start selling. As for the effectiveness of the vaccine, the research results are intentionally interpreted in a way that makes the effectiveness of the vaccines seem as low as possible, โhe said.
“The number of adverse reaction reports is not a sign of harm, but it is more important to monitor what kind of reports come in.”
The campaign has also been criticized for its name, which closely resembles the name of Save the Children. The NGO, which promotes childrenโs rights, has expressed frustration with the situation and stressed that it has no role to play in the campaign against vaccinations.
At Jarno Liml, A professor of cyber security at Aalto University, described the anti-vaccination campaign as fundamentally suspicious, given, for example, the lack of contact information on the website and the choice of its name. He thinks itโs clear that the campaign site is trying to influence peopleโs thinking.
โThis confusing choice of name was, I think, intentional. I find it very unfortunate, โhe told YLE. “They’ve given a familiar-sounding name and listed the medical professionals and their names.”
Rauli MรคkelรคThe otolaryngologist who participated in the campaign emphasized to Helsingin Sanomat that the campaign had no intention of running under the name Save the Children. – We tried to come up with a name that best suits the nature of our work. We couldnโt come up with anything better in a hurry. In hindsight, we could have done better, โhe said.
Mรคkelรค added that the campaign is not critical of vaccinations. According to him, the younger the recipient of the injection, the simpler the benefits of the vaccines simply decrease relative to the disadvantages.
โIf weโre talking about seniors with co-morbidities that predispose to them [to the disease], then the benefit-risk balance becomes such that it can be recommended. “
Kirsi Liukkonen, Valvira ‘s legal adviser, told the newspaper that while the authority is monitoring the situation, its hands are tied to disrupting the campaign, as doctors and other professionals have the right to express their opinions.
โOur authority does not extend to what, for example, doctors do in their spare time. We are talking about drawing a line; Everyone has a right to their opinion and freedom of speech belongs to everyone, โhe said.
“Valvira also doesn’t follow social media.”
However, a doctor pursuing a professional qualification must comply with his professional ethical obligations and draw a line between the activities of a private individual and the pursuit of a profession. If Valvira begins to suspect that the actions of an individual physician may jeopardize patient safety, it may initiate an investigation into the practical nature in general.
โDonโt give the impression that the claims are medically justified, generally accepted treatments. We talk about their own opinions, โLiukkonen outlined.
Aleksi Teivainen – HT
Source: The Nordic Page