Diluted Thinking
in Australian healthcare

High Court Challenge Scam


This is the latest in a long - very long - list of AVN fundraising scams. As an introduction, all you need to know is that in the 23 year history of the AVN, it has never - I repeat, never - applied raised funds to the intended purpose. Never. The NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing didn't revoke the AVN's authority to fundraise in 2014 for nothing.

update 4 Dec 2016: addendum

update 26 Dec 2016: High Court Legal Challenge Officially Ends

update 28 Dec 2016: NSW Fair Trading to Investigate AVN

update 13 March 2017:
NSW Fair Trading has advised that it can take no action against the AVN for the way this fundraiser has been conducted. This is not news; it has never taken action. So, if you want to rip-off the public without fear of recourse, here's my protip:

  1. Go to NSW Fair Trading and register an incorporated association
  2. Select a cause, any cause, that doesn't have a charitable purpose
  3. Beg! Lie! Don't be shy.
  4. ????
  5. PROFIT!!!

update 16 April 2017:
The NSW Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation, Matt Kean, has ordered an inquiry into the fundraising activities of the AVN. The AVN Public Officer, Brett Smith, was served papers on 13 April. For more information, please refer media article Complaint spurs inquiry into Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network's fundraising activities .

The Pledges

12 April 2015
The AVN announce its intention to mount a legal challenge against the government's No Jab No Pay legislation. To gauge public interest in funding this challenge, AVN website had an online form 'Pledge to Fight Compulsory Vaccination' (Dorey, M) where people could pledge the amount they were willing to donate. This webpage is no longer available but AVSN e-newsletter (undated) , distributed 13 April 2015, contains the pledge in full. Excerpts from this newsletter follow:
The AVN is in the process of establishing a fighting fund to oppose government moves to force families to decide between vaccination their children or putting food on the table. We are not asking for money at this time but we are trying to ascertain how much support will be available when we have successfully assembled a legal team to take the government to court.

Please read the following and click on the link to make your pledge:

I pledge the following amount to any and all costs necessary to oppose illegal government moves to take away my rights to make an informed choice regarding vaccination. Whether I vaccinate fully, selectively or not at all, that choice is mine under the Australian Constitution and I will provide financial support to the AVN in their efforts to protect my rights.

I understand that this pledge will only be called in should the means be found (e.g. a legal team or ethical politicians to take up this cause) to take this action, but my pledge is my bond to provide these funds when and if that occurs.

9 September 2015
The AVN again puts out a call for pledges , stating that ''…[we] will not be calling on the pledges until or if these laws come to pass''.

11 November 2015
But come 11 Nov 2015 , AVN start giving assurances, stating that ''pledges will be called in once we get legal advice that we can win this case''. Such advice could only come in the form of a written opinion by a barrister. The pledge page on AVN website remains unchanged (as it does so until deletion around May 2016).

23 December 2015
Nearly six weeks later, AVN enewsletter (sent 23 Dec 2015), advises that the cost of the High Court challenge will probably exceed half a million dollars and AVN expect to be calling in the pledges early in the new year. Again, Dorey states different conditions for the pledges, stating the money will be used for the seeking of legal advice and future court action.

6 February 2016
The next major update on the legal challenge was an AVSN newsletter (sent 6 Feb 2016). AVN advise it has ''retained the services of a barrister to write a detailed opinion regarding the ways in which No Jab No Pay / No Play can be opposed through the court system''. ''We expect to have the opinion back by the end of this month.''
[spoiler: as at 30 Nov 2016, AVN is yet to advise its supporters of this opinion, or even confirm that it's been done.] The conditions for the pledge this time state, ''Remember, we will not be calling in pledges for sponsorship for this court case unless we are given advice that there are strong legal grounds for opposing this legislation''.
I appreciate the difficulty AVN supporters had in remembering this, since it's the first time they've ever seen it.

10 March 2016
From AVN enewsletter (sent 10 Mar 2016), we are told ''The AVN committee received advice from our barrister this morning that he has identified a possible basis for challenging No Jab No Pay, but that his final advice will not be ready until next week'', and is followed by an urgent call for pledges. AVN stick with the previous pledge condition that pledges won't be called unless there are strong legal grounds to oppose the legislation.

This ends the pledge stage of AVN's high court challenge.

The main points of interest are:

  • the never-ending changes made to the pledge conditions in the solicitation of pledges (though the website form remain unchanged);
  • the highly irregular manner in which AVN is conducting a fundraiser for a court challenge.
A standard course of action for a legal challenge fundraiser is to proceed in stages. The first stage involves establishing that there are grounds for a challenge and it is not unusual to seek pledges during this period. Once it has been established that there are grounds for a challenge to proceed, a formal written opinion is then sought, and donations called for to cover this. Depending on the type of challenge the expected costs will vary for this stage, but up to $50,000 would be in the ball park for a high court challenge.
So, the fundraising target should only be to cover the final written opinion. Depending on the complexities of the challenge, one might even have an initial fundraiser just to cover the preliminary opinion.

At no time did the AVN advise its supporters of any target other than the grand total (a half million dollars) for the whole legal challenge. This way of conducting a legal challenge fundraiser is so unusual it makes me question whether there is a legal team at all.

The Donations

Anyone (including AVN supporters) who has ever looked at AVN fundraising, had alarm bells ringing just at the pledge stage; forever changing conditions as to when donations would be called and what the donations would be used for, and the high irregularity in the way in which the fundraiser was being conducted.

If you were thinking this was yet another con by the mistress of cons, Meryl Dorey, you would be bang on the money. So to speak.

26 March 2016
Let the money roll in! Excerpts from AVN enewsletter (sent 26 Mar 2016) :

The AVN Committee is very pleased to inform you that our barrister has now given us the go-ahead to ask our membership and the general public for their voluntary sponsorship of the court challenge to No Jab, No Pay legislation.
We have just received a preliminary oral opinion from him, stating that he has identified at least one avenue to challenge the constitutional validity of the No Jab, No Pay legislation. He is of the opinion that this avenue has reasonable prospects of surviving an application for strikeout or summary dismissal.
We are now asking if you could please make a donation - as much as you can afford, any amount would be appreciated - to help support this no-doubt very costly effort to regain the right to free health choice in Australia.

We will be holding all voluntary sponsorships for the No Jab, No Pay (NJNP) court case separately until our legal team requires us to transfer funds to their trust accounts.

Note: AVN do not advise its supporters of any fundraising target, just an urgent plea to ''give us all your monies!''

Ok, folks. This is where things start to get confusing. Just as Meryl Dorey planned it. She's been doing this for a long time.

Since we must keep these funds separate from other AVN operating funds, we ask that your sponsorships be directed as follows (this is very important as any funds not submitted in the following ways will be assumed to be supporting the AVN - not the court case):

Via the internet

A new page has been set up in our shop to allow you to make good on your pledges by either PayPal or credit card. Click this link to go directly to that page and fill in the amount you will be giving to this appeal.

By internet banking / direct deposit

Please transfer funds into the following account where they will be kept in trust for the court case.

Westpac Bank
Account name - AVN Community Solutions
BSB 032591
Account number 188223

This is VERY IMPORTANT! Please be sure to leave your name (first initial and last name is fine if you are limited in the number of characters) as identification on your deposit / transfer and be sure to leave the letters NJNP as well as that will direct the funds to the court case. A follow-up email sent to avnivm@gmail.com with your contact details confirming the amount transferred would also be appreciated.

Send a cheque or money order made out the AVN to the following address:

PO Box 88

Write NJNP in the memo field on the cheque or on the back and be sure your contact details are enclosed.

The single most obvious sign that a major con is taking place is that AVN
did NOT open a dedicated bank account for the legal challenge fundraiser donations.
Admittedly, they don't have to. All they need to do is ensure the funds can be identified. However, as with all past AVN fundraisers, the deliberate use of one bank account for everything lays the groundwork for a classic Dorey bait and switch. Note the AVN standard disclaimer, ''… as any funds not submitted in the following ways will be assumed to be supporting the AVN - not the court case''.

Let's take a look at this sponsorship form. It's no longer available online but is reproduced (in part) below:

Sponsor the AVNs Legal Challenge

Your sponsorship will help build AVN into a social force with the numbers required to challenge and change government policy - in particular, the No Jab No Pay/Play vaccination laws.
Dearie me, straight off the bat, at the first call for donations, AVN ensure it will be able to spend donations via its online form any damn way it pleases. ''in particular''.
And do note that the instructions for paying via the AVN online form in the enewsletter also fails to instruct donors how to ensure their donations are directed to the court challenge. How incredibly convenient, as we shall now see.

22 April 2016
And it's up, up and away for Tasha David, AVN President, winging her way on AVN dollars to an anti-vaccination event in the United States. I wonder where AVN found the funds to pay for that. Quite a coincidence that donations for the court challenge had been pouring in, reaching half the pledged total by April 10, according to AVN enewsletter sent that day. Excerpts from Tasha David's blog post (dated 2 May) about her trip:

"On Friday the 22nd of April, I found myself sitting - quite unexpectedly and in a state of great excitement - on a plane headed to the United States.

The members of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network (AVN) had provided me with an opportunity to represent them at a two-day conference and rally which brought together health freedom fighters, scientists and experts from around the world."

Unexpectedly? Only to AVN supporters. AVN President and its Public Officer timed the call for donations perfectly, and ensured that certain donations could be spent however they wished.
"While at the dinner, I also met… Minister Tony Muhammad from the Nation of Islam; and many, many more wonderful and inspiring people."
FYI, Nation of Islam is a front group for Scientology.
"Minister Tony Muhammed from the Nation of Islam spoke next and if you were watching the speeches at the rally protesting SB277 in California which removed the rights of unvaccinated children to obtain a religious or philosophical exemption in order to attend school, you would have seen his extremely inspirational speech! It gave a lot of us in our global community against forced vaccination renewed hope for the future!"
Nation of Islam, again. Not surprising to see Tasha, AVN President, singing his praises. Scientology has become quite a central figure (from behind its front groups or pulling strings from the shadows) in the global anti-vaccination movement and Australia is no exception.

Tasha David and Del Bigtree
"Then we heard from a surprise guest - the man responsible for bringing Vaxxed to the big screen, Del Bigtree. Del was a former producer on the highly successful show, The Doctors. Once again, we heard from a very talented, humble and down-to-earth person to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. His work has given our children a voice that the world will finally hear!"

And now we get to the real reason for the trip. The diverted funds were not just to give Tasha a free holiday. No, this was the start of AVN's campaign to get Vaxxed to Australia.

"The second thing that was accomplished was an agreement to work on ways to finally bring the movie, Vaxxed, to Australia! I know you all really want to see it and, having viewed it myself, I can assure you that it will be real game-changer!

I just want to thank our wonderful AVN members so much for making this possible."

I do wonder how thankful AVN members and supporters really are seeing their high court challenge donations being frivolously spent on an expensive overseas trip and to the expenses involved in getting a movie screened in Australia that could already be legally purchased on DVD.

13 May 2016
Meryl Dorey posts to the Fans of the AVN Facebook page (she is an administrator), pleading for more donations. Dorey gives the assurance ''Not one cent of these contributions will be used for the AVN's running costs''. Well, let's ignore the fact that every donation made via AVN's online form is free for the AVN to spend how it wishes. No mention is made in this post of any other ways to make a donation. And I guess spending donations on trips to the USA and costs involved in bringing a movie to Oz aren't strictly AVN running costs.

14 May 2016
AVN newsletter (sent 14 May 2016) announced that donations had surpassed $100,000. Little wonder there was plenty of dosh to spend on USA trip and covering expenses to screen Vaxxed.
This enewsletter again states the fundraising target is $500,000 with no mention of costs for the first stage. In fact, they are yet to even appoint a QC for the final written opinion. I'll remind our readers that this is highly irregular; fundraising at this point should be restricted to obtaining a written opinion, up to $50,000. That Dorey has the gall to stick a zero on the end of this comes as no surprise to those of us familiar with past AVN scams. Excerpt from this enewsletter:

"AVN President, Tasha David, recently flew to the US to attend a rally and summit on the CDC Whistleblower's information regarding the strong link between vaccines and autism that is being ignored and hidden by the government and the media.

"Whilst there, she was able to meet with and speak to the producers of Vaxxed (Dr Andrew Wakefield and Del Bigtree) as well as Dr Brian Hooker, PhD, and was able to encourage them to work with us to bring the move to Australia in the near future.

"The film will be a game-changer which is why there are such strong efforts to stop it. We will keep you informed of the progress in bringing Vaxxed to Australia but this is just one more way in which the AVN - with the help of our members and supporters - are working hard to inform and support the community both here in Australia and overseas."

A game-changer, no doubt. For the AVN. Nothing like chilling out in front of a movie to distract people from thinking about the high court challenge and wondering where their donations for it went.

The most telling part of all that a scam is well under way is the fact that in this enewsletter we see that AVN has now dropped all mentions that a reference is required to ensure donations are directed to the high court challenge. In fact, the only mention that a reference was required was in the first call for donations on 26 March.

1 June 2016
AVSN enewsletter (sent 1 Jun 2016) announced donations now exceeded $135,000. Nearly enough for three independent, final written opinions but the AVN still has not appointed a QC to obtain one. The advertised fundraising target still stands at $500,000.

9 June 2016
With donations approaching the $150,000 mark, AVN finally announce in enewsletter (sent 9 Jun 2016) that it has retained the services of legal eagles to obtain an opinion. Excerpt from newsletter:

"They will now be preparing a preliminary opinion, outlining all the points of law that will be used in our application to the court. This initial process can take 2-3 more months and we have transferred a large chunk of the funds raised so far from our sponsorship campaign into the solicitor's trust account to cover the costs involved."
Funds raised so far from the sponsorship campaign less funds diverted to AVN running costs less funds used for overseas trips less funds used for bringing Vaxxed to Australia is actually the real total of the sponsorship campaign. Again, the AVN begs for more donations and with no mention of a reference being required to identify court challenge donations.

8 September 2016
AVN supporters had to wait until AVSN enewsletter (sent 8 Sep 2016) for the next update of the high court challenge. In the previous update AVN advised it expected the legal opinion by the end of July or August, but now we see AVN telling us it isn't expected until the end of September.
The fundraising total now stands at just over $160,000. In the absence of even the first written legal opinion, Dorey still begs for more donations, once again omitting that a reference is required to identify high court challenge only donations.

In case you've forgotten, the AVN only advised its supporters that a reference was required to identify high court challenge donations on one occasion, 26 March 2016, though AVN gave assurances on multiple occasions that high court donations would only be spent on the legal challenge. Easy to see what Meryl Dorey and Tasha David have done here. All previous assurances that donations will only be spent on the challenge are meaningless as a donation that can't be identified as being for the challenge can be spent any damn way they please.

13 October 2016
In Fans of the AVN Facebook post (dated 13 Oct 2016), AVN advise that ''All funds for the High Court Challenge have been and continue to be held in a separate AVN account and have only been applied to that purpose.''

This is demonstrably false, as indicated by AVN itself back on 23 March 2016, when it warned people that donations without a reference could be applied to anything. Not to mention that the account name and number is an account the AVN has been using for years.
This is a straight-out lie in a brazen attempt to cover-up a $160,000 con.

14 October 2016
Tasha David, AVN President, responds to allegations that the AVN is being less than honest with the fundraiser, in a comment on the 13 Oct Facebook post:

"We believe in what the Vaxxed team has done in the US and also that it is the best tool we have ahd in a long time to create awareness amongst the majority of people who do not understand this issue. If we can reach them then change will be so much easier to achieve."
"I and Meryl were invited to come to Atlanta to attend and speak at the CDC rally summit this weekend… This has been paid for partly by the AVN funds but not from the legal fund."
"Every cent of the legal fund is accounted for and only used for legal challenge matters, nothing else. Our accounts are audited and are available at every AGM meeting to our members."

Very nice of Dorey to give Tasha the AVN Fundraising Scam Handbook. Must come with the position of AVN President. ''Our accounts are audited''. Not quite the point, is it Tasha. You might've mentioned that there is no regulatory body that oversees non-charitable fundraising by a non-charity. No one, nothing, audits the fundraiser to ensure funds were spent on the intended purpose.

27 October 2016
Well, AVN didn't waste any time spending donations any damn way they pleased. Three AVN officials, Tasha David (President), Meryl Dorey (Public Officer), and Jennifer Smith (member), all showed up in Atlanta, USA, for the CDC Truth Rally. At the very least, both Dorey and David were there courtesy of AVN bucks, of course. Excerpts from AVSN enewsletter (sent 27 Oct 2016):

Tasha David, Meryl Dorey, Jen Smith at
the CDC Rally for Truth in Atlanta, USA

"As many of you may already know, Meryl and myself are over in the US at the moment and the connections we are making have been amazing! We met with Del Bigtree, Polly Tommy, Sheila Ealey and the rest of the Vaxxed teram, Dr Brian Hooker, Marcella Piper-Terry founder of vaxtruth.org, Forrest Maready, Minister Louis Farrakhan and Brother Tony Muhammed, Michelle Maher-Ford, founder of VIAL and so many more."

"Another of the great opportunities arising from our attendance at the CDC Rally was talking to the Vaxxed Team about how to bring their very important message to Asutralia so that we can find out the truth about the CDC Whistleblower. Plans have been made and discussed and we need you all to help sponsor our efforts so that we can make this a reality. If getting Vaxxed and some of the Vaxxed team over to Australia to do Q&A's are a priority for you, please help us with your sponsorship at…" [link redacted].
Now that the most important business has been covered (Vaxxed), AVN chuck on a little high court update at the end, which is nothing more than a cut'n'paste of the last update:
"Our fundraising at this point stands at just over $160,000. This is less than half of the funds that will be necessary to even get into court so if you are able to give more or, if you haven't yet given to this appeal, now is a great time to do so. You can donate using your credit card, PayPal or by internet banking at this link or feel free to post a cheque or money order to:

PO Box 88

Now let's take note of the date. 27 Oct 2016, a full month after the AVN said it expected to have the final written opinion (which we were initally told would be ready by end of July or August, but let's not dwell on that).

And now let's pop on over to the AVN's online sponsorship form (excerpt):

Sponsor the AVN and help us to help you!

Your sponsorship will help build AVN into a social force with the numbers required to challenge and change government policy - and protect informed choice in Australia.
No mention of the legal challenge. Nada. Let's continue:
If you prefer, you may also make a payment via internet banking/direct debit to the AVN bank account.

Westpac Bank
Account name - AVN Community Solutions
BSB 032 591
Account number 188223

Oh my Tasha David, what is this, using the dedicated high court challenge donations bank account for general sponsorship? Meryl Dorey has taught you well.

At the time of writing, 30 Nov 2016, there has been no official update from the AVN about the high court challenge. No acknowledgement that the final opinion has even been completed, though I think the change to the AVN sponsorship form in October is fairly telling.

But the sponsorship form has undergone yet another change. This is how it reads today:

"Sponsor the AVN to fight the No Jab No Pay vaccination laws!

Your sponsorship will help build AVN into a social force with the numbers required to challenge and change government policy - starting with the No Jab No Pay vaccination laws and protect informed choice in Australia.

Sponsorship payments may be made via Credit Card or Paypal using the form below. Just make sure to put No Jab No Pay fund or NJNP in the title if you want to help fund the legal challenge.

If you prefer, you may also make a payment via internet banking/direct debit to the AVN bank account.

Westpac Bank
Account name - AVN Community Solutions
BSB 032 591
Account number 188223

Amazeballs! The first sign a reference is required for legal challenge donations since 26 March! Ok, they conveniently left it out for internet banking/direct debit payments, but hey, how else are Dorey and Tasha expected to fund their next overseas holiday?

Next up, we... oh, wait a minute, hang on. I've just noticed something.. the instruction about inserting a reference for legal challenge donations in the title field on the form...

Sponsor the AVN web form

There is no title field.

So there we have it. Only mention the reference where it can't be used, conveniently neglect to mention it where it can.

The status quo is maintained. Meryl Dorey and Tasha David are free to spend supporters legal challenge donations any way they like. And it appears their favorite shopping spree is bringing the movie Vaxxed to Australia. I can only imagine such an endeavour is an expensive exercise, what with copyright/public performance rights, classification, and multiple trips to the United States to meet with producers.

At least we all have something to watch while we wait for the legal opinion.


I've been freely using the word 'con' in this post because it was clear from the very beginning that the legal challenge fundraiser is one. In the absence of a cashed-up sponsor from the outset, AVN never had a realistic prospect of raising $500,000 from its supporters. And the way this fundraiser has been conducted tells us all we need to know.
AVN should only have fundraised for the initial written opinion which, in my opinion, should've been less than $50,000.

AVN ensured that it could spend high court challenge donations any way it wanted. This is Dorey Scamming 101, the same tactic she's used in every previous AVN fundraiser that never got spent on its intended purpose.

Some things never change. But our new batch of antivaxxers, the nojabber clowns from conspiracy circus, just learnt a valuable lesson. Caveat emptor.

Addendum: How to Conduct a Legal Fundraiser

To highlight the irregularity in the way AVN conducted its high court challenge fundraiser, let's run through how a different, but ethical, organisation may have conducted a similar campaign.

The government announces a new piece of legislation will be introduced in, let's say, 8 months time. Our organisation realises the legislation will negatively impact its supporters so decides to challenge it. Seeking initial legal advice, it quickly (and cheaply) determines that only a High Court challenge can stop the legislation, and is also given an overview of the process and the approximate costs involved.
In this particular case, our organisation is advised that the total cost may be as high as a half million dollars, and will initially involve a lawyer identifying if any grounds exist to challenge the legislation. If such grounds are identified, then a formal written opinion can be sought, costing up to $50,000 and required up-front.

Our organisation, which has no money, knows that the costs for a high court challenge will need to be fully funded by supporters. Realising that its own support base has no chance in hell of raising the required funds, it starts a pledge campaign to gauge public interest in funding the challenge, as this legislation also affects people outside of the organisation's own support base.

The pledge campaign carries no obligation; it's simple purpose is to determine if the full costs of the challenge can be met. People are reassured that donations will only be asked for on the conditions that grounds are identified to challenge the legislation AND the dollar amount of pledges indicates the challenge can be funded. Our organisation also sets a target date, in this case, shortly after the legislation comes into force.

During the pledge campaign our organisation excitedly announces that grounds to challenge have been identified. It is hoped this will increase the pledges.

The target date is reached. Our organisation looks at the total amount pledged, a mere 30% of the required total. There is no point in seeking a written opinion for a challenge that can't be funded. Disappointed beyond measure and with no prospect in this universe, or any other, of raising the $350,000 shortfall, it announces that the high court challenge will not be proceeding.

No donations were required. Not a single cent.

The End.

High Court Legal Challenge Officially Ends

The AVN officially announced that the High Court legal challenge was not proceeding via its enewsletter distributed 26 December 2016. Here is the enewsletter in full:

We are so sorry to be the bearer of bad news…

The AVN Committee would like to sincerely thank you for your support of our High Court Challenge against the tyrannical 'No Jab, No Pay' federal legislation. As you would be aware from previous communications, the AVN received preliminary advice from a barrister in March to the effect that we had potential grounds to mount a challenge to the constitutional validity of 'No Jab, No Pay'. On the basis of this advice, we retained a legal firm and invited our members and supporters to sponsor the legal challenge. Our legal firm then retained the services of a leading SC (Senior Counsel) and barrister in the field of constitutional law and human rights. SC is the equivalent of Queen's Counsel (QC). Unfortunately, having considered every possible avenue to challenge 'No Jab, No Pay' - including the possibility of challenging the Immunisation Register legislation - counsel has advised us not to proceed due the poor chance of success and the high costs of a High Court challenge. As you may be aware, the Australian Constitution does not guarantee most of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by some other western democracies. Our constitution relies on the principle of representative democracy, which unfortunately, does not serve well the interests of unpopular minorities.

We were absolutely devastated when we received this advice as we wanted so much to believe that justice still exists in Australia. Our heart goes out to those parents most affected by this law. It's difficult to imagine a more callous and inequitable piece of legislation; legislation which violates various fundamental rights, such as the rights of the child, the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, and the right to work.

However, we do not believe in quitting. We are fighters who never give up no matter how much the government and vested pharmaceutical interests want us to. There is simply too much at stake. This is your fight just as much as it is our fight, so we need your help to decide the best way forward. At the present time, we have removed the Sponsorship option from our website and shop page. We are also requesting that sponsors cancel any regular internet banking sponsorship that they have set up through their bank unless they would like to continue their support of the AVN. Thanks to their generosity, altogether we raised $152,203.73. The total cost of the AVN's advice was $72,526.37.

These are the options as we see them:

  1. We can refund the balance of each sponsor's donation returned to them at $0.52 on the dollar (after deducting the costs the AVN paid for legal advice-on a pro-rata basis), which we are more than happy to do.

  2. We could use the donations on several "Plan B" options that we have been discussing with our solicitor. These options include investigating a range of alternative legal avenues by which to introduce much-needed transparency and accountability into Australia's vaccine program. Currently, there is none. Vaccines are being licensed and recommended without sufficient evidence of effectiveness and/or safety. This needs to change. Australians are being maimed every year by vaccines which don't even work.

    The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) which licences vaccines, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) which recommends vaccines, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) which recommends taxpayer subsidisation of vaccines, need to be held to account once and for all for the harm they cause. The tort of misfeasance in public office may be one way to go about this. A far cheaper way would be to lobby our representatives for a Royal Commission into Vaccination. As you would know, the balance of power shifted in the Senate following the recent federal election, so there may be fresh opportunities in this respect which weren't available to us last year.

  3. We could also use the donations to start the process of finally bringing together the people who could help start a retrospective fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children's long term health outcome study. Or help fund the real change that needs to happen in Australia, that is, education of members of the general public, most of whom are blindly following vaccine recommendations out of fear or deference to authority. To this end, we could bring top international experts to speak in Australia. We could also purchase advertising around Australia that promotes free and informed consent to vaccination.

    We also want to hear from you and welcome any other suggestions from our members or sponsors as to how the legal funds could be best utilised. Please don't hesitate to contact us to share your ideas.

We will never give up this battle! We will not rest until your rights to choose how to prevent and treat an illness as well as your ability to decide how to raise your children (their diet, their education and their health) is guaranteed and protected in this previously great democracy of Australia. We are the AVN. We have been here for you for over 22 years and if it is within our power to do so, we will be here for you as long as you need us.
Thank you again for standing with us!

Yours in health,

The AVN National Committee

Points to note:

  • on multiple occasions AVN had previously advised the total funds raised was over $160,000 yet the total stated on 26 December is only $152K;
  • the costs AVN said it incurred for receiving the legal advice is extraordinarily high, especially considering AVN had previously advised some of its legal work was being conducted on a pro-bono basis;
  • the actual date AVN first received advice of the formal opinion (verbal or written) has been omitted;
  • how much of the costs incurred are related to expenses involved in AVN bringing the movie Vaxxed to Australia and the subsequent screenings;
  • AVN has not divulged how it managed to fund multiple trips to the USA in 2016 for its President, Tasha David, and non-committee member, Meryl Dorey;
  • AVN needs to explain why non-committee member, Meryl Dorey, is in charge of the AVN bank accounts and is responsible for AVN fundraising.

AVN Legal Challenge Fundraiser Under Investigation

The article ''Fair trade authorities to probe anti-vax advocates over fundraising '' (The Australian, 28 Dec 2016, subscription required) states that NSW Fair Trading will be conducting an investigation into the AVN legal challenge fundraiser.

Share to: