Editor’s Note: Tirelessly, Judy Wilyman has been conducting a campaign against bad vaccination policy.
In this process she has peeled back the layers of Pharma financial interest that is the primary cause of this policy distortion.
As in the US, Pharma is beginning to “own” government in Australia.
In the two weeks preceding this edition of i2P, Judy’s volume of writing has substantially increased.
To keep track of questions asked, responses received, analysis of data and conclusions, I have organised Judy’s material into three different sections:
Section 1 – For publication of letters in and out to major government agencies connected with vaccination policy; Section 2 – For newsletters that provide chronology, analysis and opinion, and; Section 3 – For abstracts that examine evidence and data sent in support of letters, presentations etc.
As we keep stating, i2P is neither “pro” or “anti” vaccination – but we are for safe vaccination and a a full and informed consent by those patients receiving vaccinations and without coercion.
To us, government vaccination policy is not safe and has proven to destroy children’s health and is corrupt.
We understand that a High Court challenge is being prepared to legally reverse the distortions that have become rampant.
Section 1: Letters
To the Human Rights Commission
6 May 2016
Dear Professor Trigg,
I note that you did not reply to my letter dated 29 September 2015, titled ‘Censorship and Misrepresentation in the Australian Media’ that demonstrates how the public’s voice on vaccination policies is being removed from debate. Therefore I am providing you with another opportunity to respond. Here is a link to the previous email that I sent you published on my website http://vaccinationdecisions.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/HRC-GT-150929.pdf and below is a link to my latest newsletter copied to many academics at UOW.
I have also provided you with the attachments that I sent previously with Newsletter 81. The academics copied into this newsletter have observed the false and misleading information that is being spread about my reputation and research in the media and on social media.
Tim Wilson was ‘Freedoms Commissioner’ from 2014 to January 2016 and many breaches of human rights occurred in federal legislation during this time. Here is a summary of the loss of human rights that has occurred over the last two years http://vaccinationdecisions.net/commissioner-tim-wilson-and-human-rights-in-australia/
I hope that you will reply to this email promptly as many Australians are very concerned about their loss of human rights in government legislation.
Yours Sincerely,
Judy Wilyman PhD
To the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS)
6 May 2016
Dear A/Professor Leask,
It has been brought to my attention that you are seeking to undermine the academic process by questioning the University of Wollongong re the awarding of my PhD that critiques the Australian government’s vaccination policy. In addition, you have chosen to describe this award as “deeply concerning”. Here is the quote from your blog:
‘Another teleconference – this time to discuss a paper that I and colleagues are writing that covers the deeply concerning decision of the University of Wollongong to award a PhD based on a highly questionable critique of vaccine policy making in Australia. More on that later.’ (https://julieleask.wordpress.com/)
I am very concerned about your comments and actions particularly as members of lobby groups (SAVN and the Australian Skeptic groups) have misused the university’s processes to tarnish my research, instead of debating the issues. In fact, you also declined to publicly debate this topic when a public forum was organised at the University of Technology in Sydney (UTS) (15 October 2015). And like administrators of the SAVN lobby group and Australian Skeptic lobby groups, you prefer to attack the academic process and the person, instead of publicly debating the issues.
As your comments are criticising the UOW as well as my research, I am giving you this opportunity to publicly debate the issues you are concerned about. Here is a link to my thesis http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4541/ and I have copied this email to the Vice Chancellor as well as the academics who have observed the attacks on my research and reputation by lobby group members. These lobby groups have presented false and misleading information about my research in the mainstream media.
Therefore I am asking that you please provide your concerns about my PhD thesis to myself and the others copied into this email so they can be publicly debated. I would also like you to provide the reason why you and Professor McIntyre declined to attend the public forum organised at UTS in October 2015 to debate the issues surrounding the ‘No Jab No Pay’ policy. This issue involves financial coercion to use a medical intervention in a social welfare policy (not a public health policy) – a breach of the Nuremberg Code, the Australian Immunisation Handbook and many other human rights codes.
Please ensure that your response is copied to everyone in this email and it will also be debated with other concerned community members. I look forward to your prompt reply.
Kind regards,
Judy Wilyman PhD
To the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS)
8 May 2016
Dear A/Professor Leask,
As mentioned in my previous email it is a serious issue to undermine the academic process by personally attacking a researcher and a university. Please ensure you provide your arguments for doing so to everyone in this email this week. Please also provide the following information:
- the reason why you and Peter McIntyre did not attend the academic forum at the University of Sydney (UTS) for a discussion of the ‘No Jab No Pay/Play’ policy with the public, before the legislation was introduced (15 October 2015)? Government legislation needs to stand up to scrutiny by the public.
- The reason why Peter McIntyre did not provide the references for his article on the whooping cough vaccine that was published beside my article (fully referenced) in the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) newsletter in April 2009. This publication states that “references” will be provided on request. I would still like Peter McIntyre’s references for this article.
- The reason why my 5 abstracts were rejected from the PHAA National Immunisation conference in 2010 (attached). I submitted abstracts of my academic research on the ethics of coercive vaccination policies, whooping cough vaccine, HPV vaccine, influenza vaccine and swine flu vaccine. Some of this information was presented at the Australian National Health Promotion conference in 2009 and published in journals such as the Infectious Agents and Cancer, in 2013. This information needs to be included in the debate yet the PHAA and the mainstream media are preventing this academic information from being presented.
- Please explain why the PHAA National Immunisation conference (which is almost 100% industry funded) is supporting the lobby group activities of SAVN and the Australian Skeptics, that includes abuse, ridicule and false information being presented on social media?
I would appreciate your prompt response.
Yours Sincerely,
Judy Wilyman PhD
To the Human Rights Commission
13 May 2016
Dear Commissioner Triggs,
Thankyou for replying to my letter.
It was disappointing that you dismissed the concerns of the community without any attempt to address the issues involved or the questions we are asking. To date there has been no public debate of the development of Australia’s vaccination policies yet these policies are enforced on the Australian population – we have a right to be involved in this debate.
You have probably been informed by lobby groups that the University of Wollongong (UOW) is being heavily criticised for awarding me a PhD that critiques the government’s vaccination policies. I hope you have also been informed that UOW is standing by my thesis and whilst lobby groups are calling for an investigation of the processes for awarding PhD’s, UOW has stated that it will not be investigating my PhD.
Interestingly, my PhD thesis is freely available on the university website and on my own website for public debate, however, Peter McIntyre’s (director of the government NCIRS) PhD thesis is not freely available for public debate. His PhD thesis completed in 1995 is titled ‘Childhood Invasive Haemophilus Influenza Disease in the Sydney Region..’, is not freely available. So whilst my PhD is coming under attack from lobby groups in the media, I have been told that it will cost me $165 to access his PhD and it will take longer than 4 weeks for me to receive a copy.
Peter McIntyre is responsible for providing advice on vaccination policy to the government and I believe his research should be freely available for public scrutiny and debate. This is a public health policy that results in life or death decisions and affects our quality of life. If the evidence is there to support these policies it should be freely available for debate.
Here is the reply that I sent to many concerned community members today after receiving your letter. Again I hope that you will take the time to read it and investigate these issues and act on behalf of the Australian public that you serve.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr. Judy Wilyman
Section 2: Newsletters
Newsletter: Public Interest Science in Industry-Sponsored Universities.
6 May 2016
If the Australian Government wants the public to respect the law then it needs to make the law respectable (Suffragettes 1900’s)
In the interests of demonstrating how the Australian government is designing government policy on health and the environment, I would like to provide you with my experience of researching vaccination policy at an Australian university. This is important because it demonstrates how independent research can be removed from policy design when funding is not provided. My research has shown that Australia’s vaccination policies are being designed on research that is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and is not assessed by an independent board of researchers. In addition, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA), that approves and monitors the safety of vaccines, is 100% funded by industry. That is, the companies that benefit from the TGA approving their vaccines/drugs for use in the Australian population, also monitor the safety of these vaccines/drugs in the population. This represents an extreme conflict of interest.
I am providing this information because the Abbott/Turnbull government recently introduced the ‘No Jab No Pay’ social welfare policy that mandates 12+ vaccines for children under one year of age in order for parents to receive welfare benefits from the government. This is a discriminatory social welfare policy that coerces parents to use vaccines for financial benefit, even though Australia’s public health policy states vaccination in Australia is not compulsory. This policy is also dangerous for human health if the government is using pharmaceutically funded research that is not assessed by an independent board or an independent TGA. It is also unconstitutional and cannot protect the public interest in these policies because researchers use trade secrets to prevent all of the clinical trial data from being independently assessed.
Here is chapter 6 of my thesis titled Industry Influence in Research and Policy that describes the way science is being performed in industry-sponsored universities. Recently my research has been criticised by Associate Professor Leask, social scientist with the government funded National Centre for Immunisation and Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), and I have included my reply to her unsupported criticisms of UOW and my research in this newsletter. Below is a description of my journey to complete an investigation into the government’s vaccination policies,as an independent researcher who vaccinated her own children.
Experiences in researching vaccination in Australia:
In 2006 I completed my Master of Science degree (Population Health) at the University of Wollongong (UOW) in the Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences. This included a major research project investigating the evidence for the Australian government’s policy on whooping cough vaccine An Analysis of the Federal Government’s Whooping Cough Policy. This project was awarded a high distinction in 2006 by UOW academics and I requested to continue my research in the Faculty of Health/Behavioural Sciences with a PhD. I was informed that this Faculty would not provide supervisors to investigate vaccination and that my PhD should be completed in the Faculty of Arts because of the politics involved. It was recommended that I complete this project in the School of Science and Technology Studies at UOW. Consequently my PhD research has been completed in the School of Humanities with Brian Martin (Professor of Social Science) as my principle supervisor. I applied for government funding for this independent research examining the development of the government’s vaccination policy but no funding was provided.
Since publicly debating my research in 2009 I have been attacked with false and misleading information in the media and on social media by journalists and individuals with links to theAustralian Skeptics and SAVN lobby groups. Please find below a copy of the letter I have written to Associate Professor Julie Leask, at the NCIRS to address the criticisms she has made of my research on her blog. This letter asks Julie Leask to support the criticisms she has made about the public interest science that I performed at the University of Wollongong and completed in 2015. I am waiting for Julie Leask’s reply to this letter and will publish it when I receive it.
Newsletter: The Australian Skeptics/SAVN and the disinformation campaign (astroturfing)
12 May 2016
I have been sent this very good video of Sharyl Attkisson’s TED talk regarding the manipulation of media messages by fake grassroots movements (astroturfing) funded by political, corporate, or other special interests. Sharyl Attkisson is an extremely good investigative journalist who has been investigating the pharmaceutical industry for many years and her talk is compelling viewing and insightful. I hope you will take 10 mins out of your day to view this and hopefully forward the link to your friends and family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU&app=desktop
The Australian Skeptics/SAVN lobby group have used the FOI laws to distort and mislead the public about the universities procedures/decisions and they also have the power to influence mainstream media and Wikipedia. They have made every attempt to discredit the academic process, myself and anyone asking questions of vaccines with falsified information but they never debate the information we are presenting. Clearly their motive is not human health!
Newsletter:The Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs, Responds
13 May 2016
Before I provide the response from the Australian Human Rights Commission to our request for answers regarding mandatory vaccinations in Australia’s Social Welfare policies, I would like to provide you with some background information. Firstly, I am an educated parent/teacher and researcher who has studied Australia’s vaccination policy for 10 years at university and is now choosing not to use many of the recommended vaccines. Yet Australia has recently brought in social welfare legislation that mandates all the recommended vaccines for the less wealthy members of the Australian community, who depend upon government welfare benefits to improve their livelihood.
Please note that vaccination in Australia is not mandatory in Australia’s public health policy but it is now mandated (January 2016) in social welfare policy. There can be no legitimate public health purpose for mandating vaccines in social welfare legislation if vaccines are not mandated in public health policy first.
Here is a selection of the letters I have written to the Australian government (over many years) requesting the evidence for Australia’s vaccination policies. This includes federal and state health departments, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and prominent public health authorities. The government’s responses to consumer concerns do not answer the questions we are asking and the letters expose the selective information that is being provided by the media on the use of vaccines. The one-sided media presentation of this debate is misinforming the public about vaccines.
The University of Wollongong (UOW) has stated that it does not promote or support my research on vaccination by claiming these are my ‘views’. Therefore, my 10 year in-depth study of the science and politics of vaccination from the peer-reviewed journals (published on the UOW website) is published on my website and only promoted by my own efforts. Instead the media and UOW are promoting the personal opinions of many members of the community and academics based on the claims made on the government website about vaccines. These claims are founded on selective information. Here is a link to how the information is selected.
I finally received a reply from the president of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, on 12 May 2016 stating that Commissioner Tim Wilson had responded to my concerns and therefore the Commission could not provide me with any more assistance. Here is a link to a summary of the breaches of human rights that occurred in federal legislation during the time Tim Wilson was Australia”s ‘Freedom’s Commissioner’ (2014-2016) according to the audit performed by the Institute of Public Affairs.
Here also is my Letter (6 May 2016) to Gillian Triggs, president of the Human Rights Commission, asking why she did not reply to my letter dated 29 September 2015, titled ‘Censorship and Misrepresentation in the Australian media’. The letters I have written to the government are published on my website.
If you are concerned about your human rights in Australia I hope that you will take the time to write to the Human Rights Commission and also view this 10 min video of how media messages are being distorted by fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate or other interests.
Section 3: Abstracts used in support of letters, presentations etc.
Title: Evidence for Coercive Immunisation Policies in Australia: how ethical is this policy?
Presenter/ Author: Judy Wilyman (PhD researcher) Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Perth.
Abstract The aim of this research is to determine whether coercion should be used to encourage the uptake of twelve vaccines recommended on the childhood immunisation schedule. Evidence for this policy requires an accurate long-term knowledge of the harm caused by using multiple vaccines in infants. This evidence is not available. An indication of possible harm can be provided by assessing the health of Australian children. There has been a significant increase in chronic illness, allergies and autoimmune diseases since 1993 which coincides with the push to increase vaccination rates in Australia. The chemicals in vaccines include thiomersal and aluminium compounds – neurotoxins. Antibiotics are an ingredient and a known cause of hypersensitivity. Foreign proteins are present and can stimulate the production of autoantibodies: a known cause of autoimmune diseases. Animal studies such as the Purdue Study found a significantly elevated concentration of autoantibodies in vaccinated dogs. Scientists have correlated the increase in autoimmune diseases in dogs and cats to increased vaccine use. If it is biologically plausible that using multiple vaccines in infants could cause autoimmune diseases and other chronic illness in an unknown number of individuals then the onus is on policy-makers to provide conclusive evidence to the contrary before coercive immunisation policies for multiple vaccines are implemented.
Will Human Papillomavirus Vaccine (Gardasil®)) Prevent Cervical Cancer: how conclusive is the evidence?
Judy Wilyman Faculty of Sustainability, Environmental and Life Sciences, School of Environmental Science J.Wilyman@murdoch.edu.au
Abstract: This paper examines the evidence used to conclude Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine will prevent cervical cancer. The etiology of cervical cancer is believed to be multifactorial. Whilst HPV infection with one of 15 or more strains of HPV plays a role in cancer development it is not sufficient to induce cervical cancer. HPV is a common infection in women but it uncommonly progresses to cancer. High-risk co-factors known to cause cervical cancer are multiple partners, Herpes Simplex Virus 2, prostitution, unprotected sex, conditions conducive to sexually transmitted diseases, immunosuppression, smoking, oral contraceptives and diet. The incidence of cervical cancer is very high in developing countries but the incidence of HPV 16 and 18 is not higher in developing countries. Australian women are commonly infected with HPV 16 and 18 but cervical cancer is a very low risk for Australian women. In addition, thirty percent of cervical cancer is not associated with the two strains of HPV virus covered by the vaccine and it is almost 100% curable when detected by Pap smear screening. The clinical trials were performed on women 16 -26 yrs for four years: an age group that rarely gets cervical cancer. Efficacy was based on the prevention of precancerous lesions even though thirty percent of lesions in this age group clear quickly – rarely leading to cervical cancer. Autoimmune diseases were noted as a significant adverse event in trials and Gardasil was marketed before the trials were complete. This research concludes that the vaccine has been promoted on misleading information. It also concludes that the therapeutic benefits of this drug have been promoted before appropriate safety and efficacy data was completed.
Title: Questioning the evidence for vaccinating against Bordetella pertussis in Australia
Presenter/Author: Judy Wilyman (PhD) scholar Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Perth.
Abstract: This research investigates the effectiveness of vaccinating against Bordetella pertussis in order to prevent whooping cough in the Australian population. By 1950 whooping cough in Australia was considered a common but non-serious disease in the adult population. It is a disease caused by three species of bacteria but the vaccine only protects against one – Bordetella pertussis. Ninety percent of mortality occurs in children under 6 months and children are not protected until three doses of vaccine have been administered- over 6 months. Fully vaccinated children still get whooping cough. In order to evaluate if this vaccine is effective it is important to know the percentage of hospitalized cases that are vaccinated. Children under 6 months represent the most serious cases of this disease. The incidence of this disease in the Australian community declined as social conditions improved. Incidence, mortality and morbidity data are affected by changes in surveillance and case definitions. An accurate measure of harm caused by the vaccine is unknown. This disease is rarely serious in children older than one and natural infection in childhood confers long-term immunity that is not provided by the vaccine. Hence whooping cough is now a more serious disease in adolescents and adults. The risk /benefit for this vaccine should be re-evaluated using Australian data as surveillance and social conditions vary between countries.