The Safe Vaccine Debate – 1. Sacrificial Virgins 2. Dr Judy Wileyman Report: Newsletter#171 – Newsletter #172 – Newsletter #173 3. Over-Vaccination: Government-mandated over-vaccination in Australia

1.Sacrificial Virgins: UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID) and SaneVax Inc -( are pleased to announce the release of a new HPV vaccine documentary co-produced by Joan Shenton, Meditel Productions and Yellow Entertainment.
Sacrificial Virgins is a series in three parts written and narrated by Joan Shenton and directed by Andi Reiss.

“Sacrificial Virgins – so named because the vaccine is often given to girls before they become sexually active – will expose controversial evidence to the world in the hope of avoiding a global tragedy similar to the one left in the wake of Thalidomide use.”

View Sacrificial Virgins – Not for the Greater Good – Part 1, duration 12½ minutes.


The HPV vaccine is a treatment in widespread use but its efficacy in preventing cancer is medically unproven, while unintended, adverse reactions are blighting and even ending the lives of girls and young women across the world.
However, pharmaceutical manufacturers and many health authorities are refusing to acknowledge there is a problem and the medical community is continuing to offer the vaccine.
This is the subject of a three-part series of films – Sacrificial Virgins – the first of which is launched on YouTube.

“The parallels with the 1960s Thalidomide tragedy are inescapable,” said the series writer and narrator, Joan Shenton.
“The HPV vaccine approvals were fast-tracked, without long-term toxicity testing, and there is compelling evidence that the risk of severe, neurological side-effects outweighs its unproven benefits.
“Sacrificial Virgins – so named because the vaccine is often given to girls before they become sexually active – will expose this evidence to the world and hopefully help to halt another global tragedy.”

HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is commonly found in women’s cervixes.
In almost all cases the infection clears up without any symptoms.
However, it is claimed by those who administer the HPV vaccine that HPV causes about 80% of cervical cancer in later life*, which they attribute to the fact that fragments of HPV can be found in many cancer cells.
But the presence of HPV in cancer cells does not mean HPV actually causes the cancer – which is one of the film’s key arguments.

So, while the HPV vaccine may prevent infection, there is still no proof that it also reduces the frequency of cervical cancer. But programs of HPV vaccinations are solemnly based on this claim and such vaccinations are widespread – in the UK, the uptake in adolescent girls is over 85%.

However, according to Dr Christian Fiala, a Viennese specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology interviewed in the films, “No-one has shown that the HPV vaccine actually reduces the rate of cervical cancer but on the side-effects side it is clear that we have seen a huge number of serious, really terrible side-effects, like young girls being paralysed and actually condemned to death and even dying.”

In part one of the series, titled Not for the Greater Good, Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology at Berkeley, California, explains scientific studies that found cervical cancers are not actually caused by the HPV virus.
Fragments of HPV may be present in the cancers but, he says, “these are fossils of the HPV.”
Is there a causal relationship between HPV and cervical cancer?
“Absolutely not … it’s dead … it’s a fragment of virus, it cannot make RNA, cannot make proteins, it cannot be found in the tumour or tumour cells. Nowhere.”

The conclusion of the film is that, based on the scientific evidence presented, there is so far no proof that HPV vaccination of girls can prevent cervical cancer in her later life, while the occurrence of serious adverse reactions is clear.
So why take the risk?
The film also introduces some victims suffering such adverse reactions and pressure groups that are beginning to fight for their cause.

Joan Shenton concluded: “In the face of growing evidence of adverse reactions and public calls for a ban, Thalidomide was on the market for five years before authorities around the world called a halt. During those years, manufacturers continued to sell and doctors continued to prescribe. The HPV vaccine has been on the market for longer, since 2008, and is routinely administered, often paid for by taxpayers’ money and distributed through schools and health authorities. It too has severe side effects but, unlike Thalidomide, the HPV vaccination is not even proven to work.
Our films are intended as an urgent wake-up call.”

2. Dr Judy Wileyman Report: Newsletter#171 – Newsletter #172 – Newsletter #173

Newsletter 171 Myths about Vaccines Spread by University of Wollongong Academics and Australian Health Ministers
2 September 2017 

Please read the letter below that I have just sent to approximately 60 academics at the University of Wollongong, Australia: 
Open Letter
University of Wollongong (UOW) Academics
Copied UOW Vice-Chancellor, Paul Wellings,
Dear Professors Heather Yeatman and Alison Jones,
On the 10 July 2017 a one year old boy died in Perth 3 hours after receiving 6 vaccines.
This child was previously healthy but because of the personal judgement of the coroner it may not be recorded as a vaccine death.

It is well known that the adverse event statistics provided by the TGA and CDC only represent 10% of the actual serious adverse events that are occurring in the population.
This is because the industry-funded regulators use a voluntary – non-systematic reporting system.  

Please watch this 15 minute video that shows the false information that UOW academics are promoting on the UOW website whilst assisting in the suppression of the vaccination debate.
The Australian government is also suppressing freedom of speech in Australia on vaccination. It has used the terrorism laws to ban a US parent from entering Australia to talk about her child’s autism and other qualified health professionals have now been banned.

Further, the government dismisses the medical risks as “anti-vaccination” and the media is now using the words “cult” of anti-vaxxers and “cells” of anti-vaccination doctors to describe the community that has been informing you of the serious medical risks of vaccines – terrorist terminology.
Let me be quite clear.
The community questioning vaccines are not anti-vaxxers.
We are ex-vaxxers or selective vaxxers.

In this film, Jill Hennessey, the Victorian health minister, who has no qualifications in health, states “there are no risks to vaccination”.
This is a lie and the US government has paid over $3 billion dollars in compensation to vaccine damaged children – including autistic children.

She also says “don’t get your information from a quack on the internet”.
I suggest that the term quack should be applied to people like Jill Hennessy who are is unqualified to provide information on health.
However, in Australia it is being used by Hennessy (and the AMA and media) to refer to the medical doctors providing the clinical evidence and medical literature showing the risks of vaccines.

UOW academics are participating in endangering public health by supporting false information about vaccine safety and efficacy and by suppressing the scientific debate on this topic.
This has assisted the Turnbull government to adopt coercive and mandatory vaccination policies for multiple unnecessary vaccines (without justification).

Malcolm Turnbull’s wife, Lucy, is the chairwoman of Prima Biomed and her stake in this company is now worth $5.5 million.
Please act to ensure there is integrity in academic knowledge by providing the evidence for the claims you are promoting about vaccines on the UOW website or by addressing the arguments provided in my PhD thesis.

Newsletter 172 Undone Science in Government Vaccination Policies
7 September 2017

Here is the letter that I sent to 60 academics at the University of Wollongong:

Open Letter (6 September 2017)

University of Wollongong (UOW) Academics  

Copied to UOW Vice-Chancellor, Paul Wellings

Dear Professors Heather Yeatman and Alison Jones,

Here is the first instalment of a video series describing my research at the University of Wollongong and the undone science in the Australian government’s vaccination policies that demonstrates vaccination policies are not based on evidence-based medicine.

This 7 min video also describes why UOW transferred this research to the field of Social Sciences.

Dr. Judy Wilyman The undone science in government vaccination policies’ (Transcript here)

Please provide your response to this information because NSW is currently introducing the No Jab No Play policy based on false information about the control of infectious diseases and incomplete scientific evidence of the harm this policy will cause to the Australian population. 

The involvement of UOW academics in suppressing the scientific debate on vaccination in Australia will make you complicit in the harm this policy will cause to human health. I look forward to your prompt response. 

Newsletter 173 Vaccine-Created Herd Immunity did not Control Infectious Diseases
10 September 2017

Please find below the letter I have sent to ~60 academics at the University of Wollongong: 

Open Letter
University of Wollongong (UOW), Australia, Academics
Copied to UOW Vice-Chancellor, Paul Wellings
Dear Professor Heather Yeatman and Alison Jones and other UOW academics,
Here is the second instalment of the videos describing my research at the University of Wollongong that you have not addressed in your promotion of vaccines on the UOW website.
Dr. Judy Wilyman The Right to Choose how many Vaccines we use in our Bodies. (Transcript here).
I would like to invite you to come to the gathering in Martin Place, Sydney on Tuesday 12 September (10 am – 2 pm) to provide your evidence for the NSW No Jab No Play bill that will be debated in parliament on this day.
I will be there to present the case against this policy that will cause significant harm in the population if it is passed.
The concerned Australian public would like you to provide the evidence that refutes the conclusions made in my in-depth PhD research on this topic.

To date UOW academics have not participated in any debate on this topic and some UOW academics have actively tried to suppress this debate.
The concerned Australian public expect that a UOW academic with expertise in this field would be happy to come to Martin Place on Tuesday to justify this policy.

Sweden and now Columbia have stated that mandatory and coercive vaccination policies are unconstitutional.
There is extreme concern in the Australian population about the use of warrants to search doctors clinics who are speaking up against this policy and the banning of public forums in Australia for public debate of vaccination by academics and parents.
Kind regards,
Dr. Judy Wilyman
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 Social Science, Media and Communication (re-named the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry in 2014).   

3.Over-Vaccination: Government-mandated over-vaccination in Australia Time for citizens to demand transparency and accountability …By Elizabeth Hart

 1. In light of Australian Federal and State Government coercive vaccination policies and laws, and serious conflicts of interest in vaccination policy, there must be an urgent review of the ever-expanding taxpayer-funded National Immunisation Program Schedule.
Pending this review, there must also be a moratorium on the addition of any new vaccine products or revaccinations.
Children are currently expected to have at least 46 doses of vaccines, including via combination vaccine products and revaccinations. (This does not include annual flu vaccinations.)

Gross over-vaccination is occurring with this plethora of vaccine products. (See additional note re Point No. 1, attached.) (See also website

2. Conflicts of interest in vaccination policy must be examined, e.g.  The group that ‘recommends’ vaccine products for the taxpayer-funded vaccination schedule, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), is heavily stacked with academics who have associations with the vaccine industry, e.g. via their participation in vaccine clinical trials, and funding to participate in vaccine conferences etc.
The vaccination schedule must be urgently reviewed in light of these conflicts of interest, which the vaccination bureaucracy has been reluctant to disclose.  

Similarly the government ‘regulator’, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), is conflicted and must be examined.

The TGA receives funding from industry to assess medical products, and appears to simply rubber-stamp industry data. Academics associated with industry are also influential at the TGA, e.g. on the TGA’s Australian Influenza Vaccine Committee. 

An article by journalist Adele Ferguson, published in the Sydney Morning Herald in February 2010, illustrates the pharmaceutical industry’s influence over government, and includes reference to the questionable implementation of Gardasil vaccination; the exploitation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and drug companies taking advantage of “the revolving door between politics and other branches of the federal government and the industry”. See Adele Ferguson’s article: The other drug war – the politics of big business, SMH, 27 Feb 2010.

3. Consideration of vaccine safety.
We are assured that vaccines are safe, but the ‘peer-reviewed literature’ and government material is conflicted by associations with industry and other vested interests.
Matters to consider include:  
Consequences of over-vaccination throughout life – long-term cumulative effects are unknown.
Removal of medical exemptions for vaccinations – on what basis?  
Adverse events after vaccination are grossly under-reported. The TGA admits: “It is generally acknowledged that adverse events are under-reported around the world, with estimates that 90-95% of adverse events are not reported to regulators.”  
Possible increased adverse impact on indigenous children and other specific groups.  
Adverse effects of aluminium adjuvants, and other vaccine components.  
The potential for problems to emerge with the over-use of vaccine products, similar to what has occurred with the over-use of antibiotics.

4. Consideration of attacks on doctors concerned about vaccination policy and practice, and adverse events after vaccination, e.g. the case of Dr John Piesse.
It is alarming that doctors who question vaccination policy are being categorically labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’, and threatened with de-registration by the Federal Health Minister, Greg Hunt.
APHRA and doctors’ groups such as the AMA and RACGP have ill-served the community with their failure to question the burgeoning number of vaccine products and re-vaccinations being forced upon children by governments and the pharmaceutical industry.

5. The mainstream media, including the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS, has failed to provide objective and independent critical analysis of vaccination policy and practice.
The aggressive media campaigns waged by the Murdoch media and coercive vaccination lobby groups SAVN and Friends of Science in Medicine have polarised discussion on vaccination policy.
The term ‘anti-vaxxer’ is used to discredit and marginalise citizens concerned about vaccination. Citizens’ legitimate concerns about vaccination policy and practice are being censored, e.g. on the government and research sector-funded The Conversation website.
We urgently require more sophisticated and civilised discussion on vaccine hesitancy, and the impact of the bloated vaccination schedule on vaccine confidence in the community.

6. Consider the emergence of the ‘adult immunisation register’ – are we heading towards coercive vaccination policies for adults, e.g. ‘No Jab, No Job’, and ‘No Jab, No Pension’?

7. Pursue a review to assess the impact of the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ law, including a review of the Senate Committee Hearing re the No Jab, No Pay bill (2 Nov. 2015). (See additional note re Point No. 7, attached.)

Government-mandated over-vaccination in Australia Time for citizens to demand transparency and accountability Additional Notes:
Re Point No. 1, i.e. requirement for an urgent review of the ever-expanding taxpayer-funded National Immunisation Program Schedule, and a moratorium on the addition of any new vaccine products or revaccinations pending this review.
The burgeoning number of vaccine products and revaccinations is resulting in gross over-vaccination.

Also consider the following points:
* Definition of the justification for mass vaccination, i.e. what level of disease risk justifies mass vaccination?
Also consider questionable ‘estimates’ of disease and deaths, i.e. fear-mongering about risks.
* Justification for each vaccine product on the schedule, including re-vaccinations and multiple re-vaccinations, i.e. so-called ‘boosters’.
* Consideration of the coercive ‘No Jab, No Pay’ law’s conflict with the requirement for ‘legally valid consent’ before vaccination, as outlined in The Australian Immunisation Handbook, Section 2.1.3.
* Consideration of The Australian Immunisation Handbook, and the lack of transparency re current list of authors (2015 update), particularly potential conflicts of interest.
Also consider lack of open access for all material referenced in the Handbook, i.e. cited material located behind journal paywalls, and not freely and easily accessible for public perusal.
* Consideration of emerging problems with vaccine products, are the ‘magic bullets’ showing cracks? e.g.
o acellular pertussis/whooping cough vaccine, i.e. may be causing new strains of the disease to develop, and spreading the disease via vaccinated individuals;

o measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, i.e. failure to offer the option of antibody titre testing after the first dose to check if already immune; and consideration of early waning of maternally derived antibodies in vaccinated mothers and the implications;
o introduction of chickenpox vaccine for a mild childhood disease, and impact on shingles;
o Gardasil HPV vaccine, i.e. lack of informed consent for this fast-tracked, still experimental product; misleading information re effectiveness, i.e. cancer prevention; adverse events after HPV vaccination are emerging around the world, and the scientific/medical establishment is trying to suppress this matter, see recent email to Irish Minister Finian McGrath re the HPV vaccination scandal.
o annual flu vaccination, i.e. this repeated intervention is of questionable value (see for example Cochrane reviews on influenza vaccination);
o other vaccine products also to be considered in light of above.

* Also see material relevant to vaccination policy and practice prepared by Dr Judy Wilyman, i.e. her PhD thesis: A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy (2015), and her Master of Science thesis: An analysis of the Federal government’s pertussis immunisation policy (2007).
Coercive vaccination lobbyists have tried to censor Dr Wilyman’s work in this area, with the support of the Murdoch media.

Re Point No. 7, i.e. pursue a review to assess the impact of the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ law, including a review of the Federal Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hearing re the No Jab, No Pay bill (2 November 2015).
The conduct of the Senate Committee hearing must be subjected to investigation, including examination of the orchestrated adversarial situation set up between the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, and the Stop the AVN (SAVN) and Friends of Science in Medicine coercive vaccination lobby groups.
It is astonishing that members of the vaccination bureaucracy, i.e. members of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), were not called upon to attend the Federal Senate Committee Hearing re the No Jab, No Pay bill, and account for the taxpayer-funded National Immunisation Program Schedule.

About the author, Elizabeth Hart: Elizabeth is an independent citizen investigating vaccination policy and practice, particularly the over-use of vaccine products. She has a BA degree majoring in politics and philosophy (University of Adelaide), and has experience in scientific literature searching. This background has assisted her in researching and challenging over-vaccination. She is particularly interested in the ethical aspects of over-vaccination, especially government-mandated vaccination.
The potential conflicts of interest of academics working in the area of vaccine development and promotion, and the influence of these academics on government policy, needs to be examined. Elizabeth’s interest in vaccination was initiated after discovering companion animals were being over-vaccinated every year, and needlessly being subjected to the risk of an adverse reaction to vaccination. This was reported in the consumer magazine Choice in 2010, i.e. Over-vaccinating your pet could be harmful to their health as well as costing you money unnecessarily.
See Over-vaccination – a multi-billion dollar market for more background.

Leave a Reply

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