AVN Vigorously Opposes HCCC Notice

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

26/07/2010 - For Immediate Release:

Consumer advocacy and vaccine safety watchdog group, the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), has just been informed by a media outlet that the HCCC has posted a notice on its website warning about the information provided by the AVN to health consumers via the website www.avn.org.au.

Our legal advisors had previously written to the HCCC regarding the conduct of this obviously biased 'investigation' and disputing their jurisdiction to either investigate or censure our organisation which is not considered to be either a healthcare provider or a health educator under the HCCC Act.

Three times since this investigation started last September, the AVN has provided the HCCC with information on their lack of jurisdiction. Each time, this information has been ignored.

Once again, the HCCC has chosen not to respond to the AVN and instead, they have posted their decision on their website - a decision which appears to have been predetermined due to the HCCC's requirement to support government policy which is pro-vaccination.

"The HCCC states that our information is misleading because we do not include data on the benefits of vaccination," says Meryl Dorey, Media Spokesperson for the AVN. "Yet this is a laughable assertion when you consider that nobody would expect nuclear safety advocates to issue statements on the benefits of nuclear power; Greenpeace to make films on the pleasures of killing and eating whales; or those who argue against fluoridation of the water supply to write reports about the benefits of mass medication without individual consent.

"Why then should we be expected to make statements we don't believe are factual and that are not supported by the medical literature? If the AVN is expected to show both sides of this issue, why aren't the medical community and the government likewise cited for their lack of disclosure on the risks and ineffectiveness of vaccines?"

The AVN is currently in discussions with our legal advisors and we are taking advice on future steps to defend against the unsubstantiated allegations that our information is anything but complete, unbiased and fully-referenced from the medical literature.