The Safe Vaccine Debate – 1. Dr Judy Wilyman: Newsletters #199 & #200 2. Robert Kennedy’s World Mercury Project: Are Cochrane Reviews Truly “Independent and Transparent”? 3. Jon Rappoport: Police raid scientists who discovered new vaccine dangers

1. Dr Judy Wilyman: Newsletters #199 & #200

Newsletter 199
The Sydney Morning Herald Providing False and Misleading Information about Flu Vaccines
25 May 2018

Here is an 11 min video of the science that is not provided to doctors in their education on the ingredients of vaccines.
This is significant because the promotion of more and more vaccines is harming human health and genetics, and doctors take an oath under the Declaration of Geneva to put the patient’s health and well being first.
Dismissing this science as ‘anti-vaccination‘ is a violation of the principles of good medical practice.
The video is titled  How I shut up My Doctor about Vaccines and it describes the mechanism by which the chemicals in vaccines can cause chronic illness in the population.
Your doctor is not being provided with the ingredients of vaccines in their education and journalists are also hiding this information from the public.

The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is currently providing a video to its readers on the Ingredients of Influenza Vaccine that provides false or misleading claims about these vaccines.
Here are four of the misleading claims it provides about flu vaccines:

  1. “Our main line of defence against flu is the flu vaccine”
  2. “It’s a cocktail of multiple inactive viruses that kick-start the body’s immune response, just like the real thing”. 
  3. “Flu vaccines are usually about 50-60% effective”. 
  4. “The World Health Organisation continually monitors flu around the world” 

Here is the information that the SMH should have provided to the public:

1. Our main line of defence against all infectious diseases is the body’s first and second line of defence.
This includes the physical and chemical barriers that prevent pathogens from entering the body; skin, tears, mucous, cilia, stomach acid, urine flow, good bacteria and white blood cells called Neutrophils.
The second line of defence is the immune response that involves specialised cells attacking the pathogen.
This is much more complex than the simple antibody response that is artificially induced by a vaccine and nothing like the real thing.
Our first line of defence is clearly not the flu vaccines because up until recent years most people were not getting a flu vaccine and most people were not, and are not, at serious risk from the flu.

2. According to the Australian government’s poorly presented list of ingredients for flu vaccine it contains – 3 (sometimes 4) strains of inactivated flu virus, formaldehydepolysorbate 80, antibiotics (gentamicin, kanamycin, neomycin, polymixin ), egg protein, and the mercury compound – thimerosal – in some multi-dose vials of flu vaccines.
These are not mentioned in the SMH video and many people are allergic to these ingredients resulting in anaphylactic shock in extreme cases.
Mercury is also a neurotoxin that has not been removed from all vaccines since 2000, as the government has claimed, and it can cause brain damage leading to dementia / Parkinsion’s disease – an increasing problem in the population. 

3. According to the research performed by the pharmaceutical companies these vaccines are only 50% effective, that is, the same risk as not having the vaccine at all.

4. The SMH should clarify that it is an advisory group to the WHO that continually monitors flu around the world and this is the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI).
This alliance which recommends flu strains and vaccines to the WHO is made up of the Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Biomedical companies, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and many others.
Many of these organisations profit from vaccines and they all have influence in the recommendations that the WHO provides to its member countries.

So whilst the WHO is chartered with providing objective science it is the front organisation for thte GAVI alliance (a corporate alliance) that provides the recommendations for vaccines to the WHO.
There is no independent assessment of these recommendations for objectivity in the statistics or the science that is used.

Epigenetics is the study of illnesses caused by chemicals, foreign protein and stress on human genes, and the triggers for these predisposed diseases, are all found in vaccines.

Did you know that the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) and the Australian government have ignored these facts about vaccines in their claim that humans can use unlimited vaccines in infant and adult bodies?
Yes this fact is true.
They have also ignored the fact that these chemicals are injected into the body bypassing the bodies first line of defence and can travel to every organ of the body.
This is in contrast to natural exposure to these viruses / bacteria / chemicals that pass through the respiratory or digestive system encountering the first line of defence. 

This means that the a flu vaccine, like other vaccines, injects these foreign inactivated pathogens plus chemicals (that many people are allergic to) directly into the tissues of our bodies and can trigger human genes that result in chronic illnesses (predisposition to disease).
For example, the autoimmune diseases that are escalating in the population.

Here is an 11 min video of this science – How I shut up My Doctor about Vaccines –  and the mechanism by which chronic illness is increasing in the population due to vaccines – that your doctor is not being informed about in their education on vaccines. 

Currently, the Australian government is running a multi-million dollar tax payer funded indoctrination campaign on vaccines.
Whilst the government is presenting this as an ‘education’ campaign it is not education when the government censors university research on vaccinations and the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) dismisses this science as “anti-vaccination“. (Also refer to Newsletter 198).

Who is looking after the public interest in government vaccination policies when the MBA, the govenrment and journalists are permitted to misinform the public about the ingredients of vaccines and to dismiss the risks of a medical intervention as ‘anti-vaccination‘?
It is up to the public to take a stand on this issue before another generation is lost to an ever expanding vaccination program.

Newsletter 200
The Sydney Morning Herald Corrects Itself: ‘Flu Vaccines “Do Little”‘
6 June 2018

Please note:
The 2018 Sydney Vaccination Conference: The Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia will be held on Saturday 30 June from 1-5 pm

If you are concerned about mandatory, coercivie and discriminatory vaccination policies that the Australian government is implementing in the NJNP/P legislation (with ~16 vaccines or 52 doses required by children)  then please take the time to come to the “2018 Vaccination Conference: the Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia.
This conference is being held on Saturday June 30 in Sydney and it is time for the public to take a stand to protect our human right to bodily integrity and to challenge the Australian government and the Medical Board of Australia for the evidence for these extreme vaccination policies.

The False and Misleading Information Provided on Vaccines by the Mainstream Media

On the 25th May 2018 I wrote Newsletter 199 titled The Sydney Morning Herald Providing False and Misleading Information about Flu Vaccines.
This was sent to the SMH editor for a response and on the 4th June 2018 the SMH published this article titled Flu vaccines ‘do little’, wear face mask instead says health expert.

In this article Dr. Chris Del Mar, Professor of Public Health at Bond University states “the influenza vaccine has been oversold in Australia” and this push by the Australian government ‘with a “weak” (flu) vaccine is overshadowing effective prevention methods such as hand-washing and mask-wearing’. 

Further, Dr. Tony Baratone, president of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), states “that the influenza vaccine is not as effective as a number of other vaccines” yet this information is not being publlcly debated and this has resulted in the Australian government recommending the mandating of the flu vaccine for all healthcare workers in aged-care facilities.

This has been adopted in some states even though the Australian government, the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) and the AMA have not provided any evidence to support this policy.
Whilst it is claimed in the mainstream media that there was a horror flu season last year, the AMA has not revealed that there was also a high uptake of the flu vaccine in 2017 (higher than previous years because of the advertising campaign) nor has it provided the number of people vaccinated with the flu vaccine last year that still got hospitalised with flu. 

The media and the AMA are being permitted to make claims about vaccines to the public without providing the evidence to support these claims and without publicising an accurate number of the deaths and injuries that are occurring to vaccines – or revealing the ingredients that are injected into the tissues with each vaccine.

The breaches of human rights and discrimination in the government’s No Jab No Pay / Play (NJNP/P) policies are described in my webinar that is published on the Australian Naturopathic Practitioner’s Association website.

The webinair is titled “Informed Consent to Vaccination in Australia by Judy Wilyman PhD and it describes why Australia’s national immunisation program (NIP) that is promoted by the Medical Board of Australia is not a ‘protective’ public health policy.

The NJNP/P policies are damaging human health and the genetics of the Australian population because they are not evaluated on the health of the population.
In 1995 it was decided by the GAVI alliance (private-public partnerships including the Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies) that global vaccination programs would be evaluated on the immunisation uptake in the population.

Hence doctors and consumers in Australia are paid to vaccinate to ‘raise the immunisation rates’ based on the assumption that this improves the health of the population – no proof is provided that this is the case because the statistics support the opposite conclusion. 

Did you know that chronic illness and autism has escalated 5 -10 fold since the 1990’s when the NIP expanded?
But the Australian government is not required to acknowledge or publicise this fact because they do not assess the success of these programs on population or children’s health.

The evidence for these facts are presented in my webinar describing the crime against humanity that is being committed by the Australian government with its current vaccination program and in my PhD thesis that is published by the University of Wollongong. 

Despite the fact that every other professional or parent who attempts to present the science questioning the effectiveness of vaccines is shut-down in the mainstream media as “anti-vaccination” the Sydney Morning Herald has decided to publish Dr. Chris Del Mar’s comments without labelling them as ‘anti-vaccination‘.
I wonder what has caused this change of strategy? (See the box below for the explanation). 

The public needs to demand that the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Government provide:

  1. The definition of the term ‘anti-vaccination‘ that they are using to direct health practitioners to promote government vaccination policies to maintain their medical registration?
    How can doctors and health practitioners put their patient’s interests first if they are not permitted to discuss the risks of vaccination without being deregistered from their profession?
  2. Why does the Royal Australian College of Physicians (RACP), that has thousands of members in Australia, have an official position of supporting fully informed parental consent to vaccination without financial coercion, but it is not required to enforce this position (that is embedded in all international human rights covenants and good medical practice guidelines) with its members?
    This situation is allowing the MBA to deregister doctors / nurses who present the risks of vaccines to their patients, by describing these risks as ‘anti-vaccination‘.
    This is not in their patient’s best interest and this is breaching the MBA’s medical code of conduct.
    It is also a situation that does not protect public healthin genetically diverse populations.    

There is extreme anxiety and concern in the Australian community regarding the suppression of the scientific debate on vaccination and the removal of the public’s voice in government policy.

The Sydney Vaccination Conference will be held from 1-5 pm on Saturday 30 June 2018 with many speakers that are listed on this link to the tickets for this event.
Places are limited so please get in early for a chance to hear from independent researchers and citizens explaning why this debate is being censored in Australia, and globally, and why these government vaccination policies cannot protect our health. 

Judy Wilyman PhD
Bachelor of Science, University of NSW
Diploma of Education (Science), University of Wollongong
Master of Science (Population Health), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong.
PhD in The Science and Politics of the Australian Government’s Vaccination Program, UOW School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. 


2. Robert Kennedy’s World Mercury Project: Are Cochrane Reviews Truly “Independent and Transparent”?

On the 50th anniversary of the death of Robert Kennedy, all of us at World Mercury Project would like to honor this incredible, inspiring man whose passion was pursuing justice for all, during a time when such topics were taboo.
Bobby, as he was affectionately known, spoke out against poverty and racial inequality, and he did this for the single fundamental reason that it was the right thing to do.

Today, we want to take a moment to reflect on his words, “Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or frightened to speak up or speak out, we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.”

As an organization we pledge to follow his example and stand up to threats to the health and wellbeing of our children and not turn our head when it comes to pursuing justice and a healthier world for future generations.

By the World Mercury Project Team

Policy-makers often attach considerable importance to systematic reviews when they make decisions about health care strategies and future policy directions. A systematic review is a “study of studies” that reviews the available body of evidence for a given disease or health topic in a “standardized and systematic way.”

…a look at Cochrane’s disclosed funding sources raises the question of whether the organization’s vaunted independence may be more talk than substance.

The London-based Cochrane organization (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration) bills its Cochrane Library as the “international gold standard for high quality, trusted information,” a characterization with which many researchers agree.
Cochrane is prolific, publishing over 5,000 reviews in its first two decades.
In addition to featuring a noble-sounding tagline (“trusted evidence, informed decisions, better health”), Cochrane burnishes its reputation through its avowed unwillingness to accept any “conflicted funding” and its professed freedom from “commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest.”

In fact, according to Cochrane’s website, no-strings-attached funding is “vital” in allowing the organization’s global network of reviewers to “generate authoritative and reliable information, working freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.”
Precisely how Cochrane defines “conflicted funding” is not readily apparent.
And a look at Cochrane’s disclosed funding sources raises the question of whether the organization’s vaunted independence may be more talk than substance.

Funders with agendas

Cochrane’s top funders (in terms of amounts donated) feature some of the world’s largest government health agencies, including the research arm of the UK’s National Health Service as well as the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID); the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the U.S.; Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council; and health ministries all over the world.
These powerful agencies are no strangers to quid pro quo funding arrangements—for example, the NIH cancelled research on alcohol marketing to underage drinkers because it was “wooing the alcoholic beverage industry to contribute tens of millions of dollars” for research on alcohol’s purported heart health benefits.

Desirous of extending the reach of its information globally, Cochrane also receives funding from and works in partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO); in 2016, Cochrane bragged that its systematic reviews had been included in 90% of WHO’s guidelines that year.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), which happens to be the largest non-government funder of WHO, is also a Cochrane donor.
Curiously, BMGF’s contribution to Cochrane in late 2016 and a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in early 2017 were shared only in fleeting press releases rather than on the permanent donor list on Cochrane’s website.

As Cochrane accepts more funding from foundations with highly partisan vaccination and Big Data agendas, what are the implications for its “gold standard” reviews?

Why might these two large U.S. foundations be interested in supporting Cochrane?
According to the press releases, the foundations’ targeted pots of money appear to be helping Cochrane build a “next-generation evidence system” that will use technological advances and machine learning to maximize the impact of “Big Data.”
Vaccination is one of the policy arenas where the rollout of Big Data is being most enthusiastically embraced, with researchers acclaiming Big Data’s potential to streamline the delivery of “rationally designed vaccines” and to “track the success of vaccination campaigns.”
Both U.S. foundations are “all in” in this regard.

BMGF is actively promoting Big Data as a vaccination tool in the developing world, where it can “track pandemics” and help vaccine workers “determine what percent of a region they have immunized from a disease.”
As a major funder of the GAVI Alliance, BMGF also is supporting the use of comprehensive medical digital databases in remote developing country regions to boost vaccine coverage by closely tracking “when and where” children receive vaccines.

In the U.S., the RWJF has been partnering with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on a “500 Cities Project,” which is busily monitoring health data and health objectives down to the “small area” neighborhood level, including tracking compliance with vaccine recommendations.
RWJF’s president was formerly a top CDC official and served as acting CDC director during the 2009 H1N1 influenza scare. (Some Europeans criticized that episode as an exaggerated and even “false pandemic” that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.)

Cochrane’s 2018 HPV review

As Cochrane accepts more funding from foundations with highly partisan vaccination and Big Data agendas, what are the implications for its “gold standard” reviews?
A recent Cochrane review highly favorable to the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine—one of the most disastrous vaccines ever rushed onto the market—suggests that the foundations are getting plenty of bang for their charitable buck.
Despite ample indications that manufacturers used phony placebos and other statistical gimmicks to hide the serious risks of HPV vaccines, and mounting evidence of other “deceptive practices by officials of ‘authoritative’ international public health institutions,” the May 8 Cochrane review of HPV vaccines reported no increased risk of serious adverse effects and concluded that deaths reported in HPV studies “have been judged not to be related to the vaccine.”
These conclusions likely were well received by RWJF, which routinely promotes the HPV vaccine in its Culture of Health blog and supports studies assessing how best to implement HPV vaccine mandates—and by BMGF, which has supported the HPV vaccine’s introduction around the world (although BMGF’s reputation has been tarnished by controversy in India, where reportedly unethical HPV vaccine trials supported by the foundation resulted in children’s deaths).

Criticisms of Cochrane reviews have surfaced since not long after the organization’s inception. In 2001, for example, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) questioned the reliabilityof some Cochrane reviews, describing the implications for Cochrane’s reputation as “serious.”
The BMJ authors suggested that “the Cochrane Collaboration needs to clarify [explain] how it discharges its responsibilities for the quality of reviews published under its imprimatur, and how it responds when they are shown to have come to unjustified conclusions.”

A more recent examination of Cochrane reviews in 2016 concluded that while “the methodological quality of Cochrane reviews is good compared to…non-Cochrane reviews, …it would be inappropriate to assume all Cochrane reviews are good quality and are at low risk of bias.”
Cochrane’s new and chummy partnership with Wikipedia to include “relevant evidence within all Wikipedia health articles,” announced in early 2017, also may raise some eyebrows given Wikipedia’s reputation for bias.
All of these factors suggest that it might be time to take Cochrane’s supposedly neutral relationship with its funders with a grain of salt.


3. Jon Rappoport: Police raid scientists who discovered new vaccine dangers

—Two scientists discover that vaccines are contaminated, in the manufacturing process, with many small particles of metals that are toxic to humans when injected.  Alarming.

The published research is ignored.  Then the scientists are raided by police.
James Grundvig, at and the World Mercury Project, reports (3/17/18):

“Last week, the Italian police raided the home and science laboratory of Drs. Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari.
The police snatched all of the digital assets owned by the husband and wife team of nanopathologists, grabbing laptops, computers, and flash-drives—and with it, years of work and research.”

“Because Gatti and Montanari had taken their research of nanodust and nanoparticles…to what unseen contamination might reside in vaccines in 2016, they came under the microscope of the United States, European, and Italian authorities.
They had touched the third rail of medicine.
They had crossed the no-go zone with the purported crime being scientific research and discovery.
By finding nano-contamination in random vaccines, Gatti and Montanari revealed, for the first time, what no one knew: Vaccines had more than aluminum salts adjuvants, Polysorbate-80, and other inorganic chemicals in them, they also harbored stainless steel, tungsten, copper, and other metals and rare elements that don’t belong in shots given to fetuses, pregnant women, newborns, babies and toddlers developing their lungs, immune and nervous systems.”

“When the scientists published their findings in January 2017, ‘New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination,’ the logical next step for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should have been to open an investigation into their claims, hire independent scientists to run their own lab tests to confirm or refute the findings.
If confirmed, then the healthcare agencies would enact new policies on safety of the vaccine supply chain, and enforce strict quality control and quality assurance programs.”

“But none of that happened.
A year went by.
It was cheaper for the authorities to attack the Italian scientists than upset the vaccine gravy train that supports the politicians.”

This is an official form of research: censorship by raiding the researchers.

Note that the two Italian scientists weren’t simply testing a batch of one vaccine from one manufacturer.
They were looking at random vaccines.
Suppose this chilling disaster turns out to be endemic to all vaccinemanufacturing?
For the ubiquitous “all vaccines are safe” pronouncement, substitute: “dangerous across the board.”



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *