• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AVN vs. HCCC

arthwollipot

Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
arthwollipot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
102,651
Location
Ngunnawal Country
Dave The Happy Singer has kindly been blogging about the case currently running in the New South Wales Supreme Court: Australian Vaccination Network vs. the Health Care Complaints Commission.

A highlight:
Very amusingly, the AVN’s barrister argued that Meryl Dorey’s evidence should be ruled in admissible for three reasons: Dorey’s opinion is not necessarily that of the actual plaintiff, the AVN and its committee (yeah, right); Dorey’s statement of her intentions is irrelevant to the facts of the matter; and her description of the AVN’s purpose in 2011 is temporally irrelevant to the AVN’s purpose in 2009. Whether the judge will consider it admissible was not revealed, but as it later transpired it seems Meryl Dorey did more harm than good to the AVN. Nothing new there, then. Cheers Meryl.

In case you missed that, here it is again. The AVN’s barrister requested that Meryl Dorey’s testimony be ruled inadmissible, so helpful was she to the HCCC.
Click to expand...

Read more: AVN vs. HCCC
 
Thanks for the update. Now if we can only make all the other lies from the anti-vax pro-disease nutters fall into the same category...
 
Yep. It's been ruled that the HCCC overstepped its powers in issuing the public warning. This both changes things and doesn't change anything. The AVN will now use this as vindication for anything and everything, while they are still egregiously in the wrong.

It's time to step up to the next stage.
 
More from Drunken Madman:

...the interesting part of the judgement, for me, lies in the AVN's application for certiorari.

Huh?

Well, to put this into layman's language, it appears that the case was actually a double-pronged attack against two targets. The AVN's team wished to use the case against the HCCC as a lever to overturn or challenge the later decision of OLGR to withdraw fundraising authority, arguing that the OLGR decision substantially relied on the HCCC decision and the resultant public warning. Cause... Effect.

This judgement explicitly declines to grant certiorari.
Click to expand...

http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2012/02/24/A-Note-on-the-AVN-vs-HCCC-Judgement.aspx
 
It seems it's all about the letter of the law in this case.

...it needed to be established that the AVN affected the clinical management or care of an individual client. In other words, among the evidence submitted, there would have to be a demonstrable case of a specific person’s healthcare to be affected. The HCCC argued for a broad net to be cast: if it could be reasonably inferred that someone had taken the AVN’s information into account, then the AVN had ‘affected’ their ‘care’. However, based on the evidence submitted, there was little in the way of specifics at hand.
Click to expand...

http://www.davethehappysinger.com/blog/2012/02/24/why-avn-won-against-hccc/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom