Julian Gillespie - Health Alliance Australia

Julian Gillespie

Speaks with Australian Health Professionals

Recorded Live Tuesday 7th June 2022 and Hosted by Dan Hanson of Health Alliance Australia, Julian Gillespie outlines the federal court proceedings being brought against the Secretary of the Department of Health by The Australian Vaccinations-risks Network.

The Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN) needs your help urgently to end the use of C-19 Products in children as young as 6 months old. 

Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN) is a not-for-profit organisation that has operated in Australia. Since 1994, the AVN has provided information about the risks of vaccines and has been a proponent of informed consent and has actively sought open discussion and information from the relevant government organisations and pharmaceutical companies.

Why AVN need your help urgently

Federal Court proceedings: AVN v Secretary, Department of Health (NSD52/2022).

1.     Application for judicial review of the Secretary’s decision to approve the vaccine for 5-11 year olds.

2.      Mandamus case for the Secretary to consider the appropriateness to maintain the C-19 products on the register in light of safety, efficacy, and fraud issues.

These applications are ready to run with both parties having filed their evidence and submissions. A date had been set for hearing the Judicial Review case on 20 April 2022. However, quite unusually the single judge of the Federal Court ordered there to be a separate hearing first, on whether the AVN and the Second Applicant Mark Neugebauer, (a foster parent and health professional) had Standing to bring these cases. That hearing on Standing was held late March 2022. Her Honour took the view the AVN and Mark Neugebauer did not have Standing, despite a preponderance of legal precedent suggesting otherwise. As a consequence both the AVN and Mr Neugebauer lost the date for the Judicial Review. This blockade on Standing means the AVN and Mr Neugebauer must now appeal her Honour’s decision, but first an anticipated costs order for the Standing hearing of $180,000 is required to be paid.

The necessary appeal means the money raised for the Judicial Review and Mandamus case has had to be redirected towards first, the separate hearing on Standing, and now an Appeal of that decision.

What are the possible outcomes if funding is provided?

1. The end of the use in C-19 products in children 5-11 years, and the likelihood the Secretary of Health will be forced to think very carefully about seeking to approve C-19 products for children less than 5 years; and

2. End of use of C-19 products in teenagers and adults, and as a consequence, the end of C-19 ‘vaccine’ mandates.

To top