This project helps Indonesian community overcome cultural barriers, false myths about autism
30/04/2025 32:15 is a national project funded by the Australian federal government that routinely delivers autism-related learning for schools and general communities. The project, which began in 2008, also provides resources in languages other than English to better serve communities with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds. Last October, this workshop was organised for the Indonesian speaking community for the first time and was held in Western Australia. The topic presented was about sensory proccessing. They will again hold workshops in Indonesian language with different themes this year.
Positive Partnerships' Indonesian delivery team (L-R: Josephine Ratna, Fenny Hadiwinata, Emilita Cornain). Credit: Supplied
'They [participants] can come out of the workshop with a strategy and have a bit of an idea of 'ok, now we have to go where and how',' said Emilita Cornain, a Perth-based psychologist who is also a member of Positive Partnerships' delivery team. Not only is she professionally associated, Cornain also has a personal connection with autism. Her youngest sister was diagnosed with autism more than 20 years ago while her family was still living in Indonesia. Cornain said that even now there are myths surrounding autism such as the condition being referred to as a curse, karma, bad luck, to due the wrong things the mother does while pregnant.
They're different but they're not less. They still deserve to have a good, productive life. Fenny Hadiwinata, mother of an autistic child Another member of the delivery team, Fenny Hadiwinata, is a mother whose child was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum when the family first came to Australia more than 17 years ago. She admitted having a difficult time especially with her Indonesian background where it was not customary to talk openly about autism. 'For school-age or pre-school children, sometimes it's not that easy for us to be sure that they're autistic or not,' said Hadiwinata, who continues to learn about autism because it's not a 'disease so it has to be cured.' Cornain and Hadiwinata said that the workshop they conducted with Positive Partnerships was delivered in a non-patronising way, and could be a place to share the burden and tips with 'those on the same boat'. Listen to SBS Indonesian's full conversation with Fenny Hadiwinata and Emilita Cornain. Listen to every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday at 3 pm. Follow us on and and listen to our .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
8 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
The Age
8 hours ago
- The Age
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
The Advertiser
11 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Major finding on health effects of PFAS revealed by NSW Health panel
The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence".
