An amusing quickie. It was quickly noticed in the wake of AVN v HCCC the amazing difference between the reactions of Stop the AVN and the supporters of the Australian Vaccination Network.
On the whole, Stop the AVN pored over the judgment, and consulted the lawyers within its ranks. We worked hard to understand precisely what had happened and what the upshot might be.
On the whole, the AVN said HURR I IS WINNAR.
Here’s a great example by Judy Wilyman, who calls herself a ‘PhD Researcher’ (she means student). The University of Wollongong’s dimmest bulb had this to say:
- HURR I A RESURCHER
The AVN is not a healthcare provider as the HCCC finally accepted after a 2 year court case. This is a surprising event because the AVN has clearly represented itself as a consumer group requesting choice in vaccination for almost 20 years. As such, consumers present a range of ethical, political, cultural and scientific reasons (and opinions) why it is necessary to have choice in vaccination and this has been posted on the AVN website.
Perhaps you could inform me why a government body (HCCC) feels it has to suppress the input of consumers by upholding a complaint made by a lobby group against it for 2 years. It is my understanding that the purpose of the HCCC was to investigate consumers concerns about health issues. As someone who has presented valid scientific arguments to the AVN I am intrigued at your assertions that none of the science on the AVN website is valid.
Could you please explain why the HCCC is acting against its remit in this instance? Are you suggesting that consumers have no right to an input into policy decisions (involving a medical procedure) that directly affects the health and well being of the population? Is this topic (that involves injecting substances into the human body) a taboo topic for debate in public forums? It would seem from recent experiences that this is the case. I hope you can explain for me why the HCCC took this action when the AVN is clearly not a healthcare provider.
Clearly Judy did not even bother to read the judgment in AVN v HCCC:
[10] Vaccination is a matter about health. The provision of information about vaccination is a health education service. It is common ground, and I accept, that the plaintiff is a “health service provider” within the meaning of s 4 of the Act since it provides “health education services”.
[30] It submitted that it is sufficient for the purposes of s 7(2) that complaints were made against the plaintiff, which admits that it is a health service provider. [...]
Judy, Judy, Judy. Of the many fails Meryl achieved with her supreme court challenge, one of the most wonderful is that it is now cast in legal stone: The AVN is a health service provider. Even the AVN accepted it.
With skills like this, it will be very interesting to see what becomes of Judy’s career as a ‘PhD researcher’.
5 Comments
I was fairly confident that the only issue was that the HCCC was unable to provide evidence of a person who had actually accepted the advice of the AVN and been adversely affected by that advice…..The reason being, no-one actually listens to the AVN!
Pretty much. If the complaints had demonstrated the ‘clinical management or care of an individual client’ had been affected then the HCCC would have had jurisdiction.
If the HCCC had known at the time of the investigation that this was necessary, they could have asked for such evidence, and would have been furnished with suitable evidence many times over.
That’s all. The AVN’s still a health service provider, and their website is still misleading.
That comment of hers in response to one of mine (below). Interestingly she manages to avoid making any reference to anything I actually said, whilst simultaneously putting frankly offensive words into my mouth so she has a strawman to burn.
Seeing that this is how she presents her case, it makes sense to me now that she gets along with Meryl Dorey so well.
My comment (especially note the part where I say consumers should have no part in policy making decisions, as Judy suggested I did. If you actually find that part, let me know!):
“No Judy, the AVN does not represent the science. As someone with a degree in immunology and who actually reads the journal articles the AVN cites, I can tell you the information they spread is not supported by the journal articles they cite (when they do bother to provide some form of reference at all), let alone any others on the same topic.
This is probably best exemplified by the AVN’s first response to the HCCC. Given what was potentially on the line, you would think that when it came to citing science the AVM would pull out their biggest and best studies supporting the statements they’d made. Did they? No. The articles didn’t support their conclusions, some were completely unrelated to the topic at hand. From the errors in some of the citations it was clear they were copied directly from conspiracy sites, and that the author, Meryl Dorey, hadn’t even read the articles:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3113778/Analyses-of-the-scientific-references-in-the-AVN-s-HCCC-submission
Is this what you call ‘presenting the science’? The statement of disproven hypotheses, and the concurrent presentation of journal articles that don’t support them?
And this is just when the AVN actually provides a reference for their claims. More often a representative of the group will instruct others on some aspect of human biology and get everything completely wrong, without even the pretence that there is any research behind what they are saying, such as this ‘instructive’ comment from the president of the AVN last month: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150645610338588&set=pu.143367983587&type=1&theater
Please Judy, stop claiming that the AVN are presenting the science. All I see scientifically from them are links to mis-interpreted journal articles that they haven’t actually read/understood.
Also, if you think my comment has been somehow derogatory or a smear tactic, please be sure to mention how, if you actually respond.
Love and light,
Tom Sidwell
PhD student”
There are many fancy machines out there that are overpriced,
so beginners look for cheaper deals. purchase candies best suited after Christmas, Valentine s evening and Easter and
place apart for the wedding. They are a convenient size and easy to transport so you can keep a stack
in your car or in your desk drawer to use whenever the need arises.
Marvelous, what a blog it is! This webpage presents valuable facts to us, keep it up.