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.
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:
 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”.
 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’.