On Monday, Nov. 25, Australia ordered a vaccination firm to change its ‘deceptive’ name around 3:15 p.m. in the afternoon, claiming that the name was inaccurate and therefore misleading. The Administrative Decisions Tribunal concurred with a ruling by Fair Trading, which demanded that the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) change its name to better represent itself.
Magistrate Nancy Hennessy of Australia dealt with the application of the order.
Henessey specified what the problem was in the eyes of the Fair Trade in Australia. She explained that the name in dispute made it seem like the network would be solely in favor of vaccination, but “that was not the case.” The AVN instead had contradicted the so-called supportive vaccination name and was promoting an anti-vaccination appeal.
Hennessy’s advice to the network in Australia should be to rename their organization with words that made it clear they were skeptical of vaccinations, and emphasized how important it was for Australia to order this vaccination firm to be renamed.
Professor Brian Owler wholeheartedly agreed with Hennessy. As the President of the Australia Medical Association (AMA) his concern was about the parents who are approaching the AVN to get unbiased and thorough information, and that the parents would not obtain what they had expected. Owler made a statement insisting on the importance of vaccination:
“The importance of vaccination cannot be understated in helping to keep children free from harm.”
Roberts added that he was glad for the support of Australia government officials, and wanted AVN to be honest about what they are trying to do. He asserted Fair Trade would do what was necessary to collect the funds necessary in order to finalize legal issues involving AVN.
AVN refuted these statements. They said their position was to fight against government control over medicine, and argued that the government was inflicting harm to those who dared to step away from the Australia government’s approach to medicine. They accused the government of being more willing to spend an unlimited amount of money on court cases rather than try to find out more about the dangers of vacinnations.
The AVN further accused the government of wanting to spend millions fighting against their network, but would not bother with researching the risks of vaccinations.
Australia ended the session by concluding that the AVN must abide by the court ruling; the vaccination firm was ordered firmly to be renamed.
By Danelle Cheney