You mentioned that the decision made is a good one if the mob is well informed, and bad if they are not. Or, rather you said something along the lines that it is "Not True Democracy" if the majority are not well-informed.

Making a statement such as "this was not democracy because the voters were not informed" carries a lot of implications. If it wasn't democracy, then the result isn't valid. If the result isn't valid, then you have to concede that you want to disregard certain peoples' vote based on the fact that they were not well-informed.

You then have to deconstruct that as to what it means to be informed, and who get's to decide that. Ultimately, someone/something has to make the call about who gets to vote, or whether that vote counts.

As much as I dislike/disagree with Democracy, one person = one vote is a line that is clearly drawn in most circumstances. It removes ambiguity, arbitration and interpretation. As soon as you open up the can of worms regarding "voting based on how informed" one is, then you have a huge slew of problems that I believe will very quickly lead to the realization that either you accept tyranny by the few, or the informed; or that democracy is not a moral and fair system.

Are you implying that a vote for Brexit is equivalent to being an anti-vaxxer?

Not equivalent but comparable in certain ways. The claim I am responding to is that the entire concept of "expertise" is equivalent to a dictatorship.