The “Bent Spoon” award developed by people with bent thinking

Skeptics Australia, is an organisation noted for its biased opinions and its campaigning against a range of health groups.
Originally it was set up to debunk paranormal issues but its agenda seems to have been hijacked by people reflecting the vested interests of global corporates, in particular, those of Big Pharma.
I have commented in a previous article that they operate in a similar manner to an intelligence agency like the CIA, intent on spreading disinformation and disruption, and when I made that comment, one of their members was moved to write a derogatory article in The Conversation in an attempt to debunk some of the points that I had made, particularly the points reflecting their mode of operation.
They contribute nothing towards the integrity of evidence-based medicine quality data.

Skeptics specialise in targeting “soft” areas of health delivery that promote the non-use of mainstream drugs to their patients. Health professionals like homeopaths and chiropractors bear the brunt of these attacks.

It does not seem coincidental that health practitioners using mainstream drugs are never targeted except where there is a deviation or questioning from Big Pharma marketing philosophy (pharmacists fall into this category, particularly when they stray into complementary medicines).

While the modalities not promoting mainstream drugs appear to be safe in practice (their patient death rates are virtually non-existent) the death rates or patient damage from mainstream drugs is never publicised or challenged, despite the fact that it is very high.
The Skeptics demand evidence from the people they attack, and do not use evidence that gives validation for their own attacks.
But they will often invent a fiction (not evidence) to justify their attacks.
They are very quiet on iatrogenic problems of mainstream drugs and the subsequent high death rates.
What happened to the principle of “First do no harm”?

Australian vaccination policy is a flawed policy by being coercive which results in a mandatory vaccination policy.
It is a policy that creates a river of gold for vaccine manufacturers and provides an incentive for manufacturers to produce a vaccine for anything, whether it is needed or not.
It also stimulates efforts to induce the appearance of a crisis that will definitely need a vaccine of some sort e.g. the Zika virus – a hoax devised for the generation of a new vaccine and the diversion from the real problem, which in this instance was a pesticide sprayed on a Brazilian water source that caused microcephaly in infants.
Skeptics have been actively promoting the flawed policy for Australian vaccination, and have succeeded in polarising the surrounding debate into “pro” and “anti” factions with nothing in between.
Again, “safety’ has been lost in the rhetoric.

Because of the evolving controversy surrounding vaccination policy it looked like a good topic for an aspiring PhD student to shine a light on and bring some hard evidence forward so that governments and policy advisers would have a sound basis for any recommendation.
Enter Judy Wilyman.

Judy was a very conscientious student – a former school teacher and a Bachelor of Science graduate, set about obtaining a PhD qualification through an academic adviser, Dr Brian Martin, attached to the University of Wollongong.
With patience and tenacity, she pieced together the true story surrounding the entire vaccine industry, its promotion and its failure when translated into policy.
And it was all supported by solid evidence.

The thesis came under attack even before it was published and made available to be widely read.
No, that definitely did not suit the vaccine industry and its supporters which mainly comprised academics that could be said to be in a “conflict of interest” position.

A lot of these academics are Skeptic Australia members (or Skeptic-influenced), and are reliant on grants from industry sources and many are highly placed in academia with an ability to disrupt the proper processes surrounding the production of quality theses.

Judy and her tutor became the focus of constant criticism, personal and academic with many being the product of a vivid and manufactured mindset.

Now as a means of promoting in a negative light, the recalcitrants that will not bend to Skeptic bullying, an annual “Bent spoon award” has been created and promoted as a media event.
One doctor-related online publication that uses known Skeptic writers said:
“Dr Judy Wilyman (PhD), her academic advisor Dr Brian Martin (PhD) and the entire social sciences department at the University of Wollongong were declared joint “winners” on the weekend.
They were ‘honoured’ with the award based on Dr Wilyman’s PhD thesis A Critical Examination of the Australian Government’s Rationale for its Vaccine Policy.

Among other statements, the thesis claimed that the swine flu pandemic of 2009 was “declared by a secret WHO committee that had ties to pharmaceutical companies that stood to make excessive profits from the pandemic”.

““Wilyman continues to defend her degree with endless diatribes to all and sundry. Her university went into defence mode with a pathetic ‘free speech’ argument — which means free to present rubbish and be rewarded for it,” Australian Skeptics said in a Facebook post.

“Many within the university’s own staff, those who actually know what they are talking about, came out to criticise their own institution.”

While Judy’s thesis is supported with evidence, this latest attack on her integrity and her credentials as a researcher, in this instance extends to her tutor, the entire social science department – in fact the entire University of Wollongong as an institution – all without foundation or one shred of unmanufactured evidence.
Over time, Judy has substantiated all of her statements with appropriate evidence and has conducted herself ethically and respectfully – completely devoid from any behaviour that might be construed as “conflict of interest”.

The same cannot be said about her Skeptic critics.

From all of this controversy, Judy has held steady relying on truth and evidence to sustain her.
She has emerged as a “power of one” supported with a little help from her friends, i2P being one of the friends.
If you click on this link, you will find articles written by Judy that illustrate some of the problems she has had to deal with.

Below is an excerpt from her latest newsletter dealing with an ongoing problem that no PhD student should have ever had to deal with.(Unless, of course, she is deemed a danger to the vaccination industry and their marketing offshoot, Skeptics Australia).

Newsletter 138 Open Letter, University of Wollongong, ‘No Evidence for Mandatory Vaccination’
On 18 January 2016 sixty University of Wollongong (UOW) academics got involved in the vaccination debate by signing their names to a comment about the Australian government’s immunisation policies. This was published on the UOW website.

I have previously written several letters requesting the evidence for these statements yet to date no evidence has been provided by these academics to confirm the claims they have made about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. These claims are being used by the government to enforce mandatory vaccination policies on the public. If evidence is not provided for these claims of safety and efficacy then the Australian government’s vaccination policies represent an experiment on the population. 

Here is a 5 minute video clip of the misconduct in the research at the US CDC and the thousands of vaccine injuries that are occurring globally every day. These are being described by the Australian government as a ‘coincidence’ hence the government is not promoting an evidence-based policy. These adverse events are being suppressed by Australian journalists who are told not to report on the other side of the vaccination debate.

Below is my latest request to the Vice-Chancellor of UOW , Paul Wellings, requesting that UOW academics provide evidence for the claims about vaccination they are supporting on the UOW website. Until this evidence is provided UOW academics will be responsible for promoting misinformation to the public on a health issue that is causing harm to human life. This is an offence under the criminal code act:   

To the University of Wollongong (UOW)
Vice-Chancellor Professor Paul Wellings
18 November 2016
Dear Professor Wellings and UOW academics,
Thank you for getting involved in the debate on government immunisation policies and mandatory vaccination. I have previously attempted to participate appropriately in scholarly debate on this topic by publishing academic papers and presenting at conferences, but I have found that the media and lobby groups are misrepresenting my research to the public. Therefore I am contacting you directly to request the evidence for the statements that have been made about government immunisation policies on the UOW website and on other lobby group blogs. Prof Heather Yeatman has not provided any evidence for her claims about immunisation and they are contradictory to the evidence I have provided in my thesis – also published on the UOW website.
I am also requesting that Prof Alison Jones provides evidence for the allegations she has made about my research in the News Ltd media and on the Australians Skeptics Inc lobby group blog. Unsubstantiated allegations should not be made about academics and the content of their PhD thesis.
Here is my latest Newsletter 137 Australian Health Officials: No Evidence for Mandatory Vaccination that describes the false statements that have been made about my PhD thesis to the public and I would like UOW academics to either provide the evidence for these statements or alternatively correct these statements in a media release. This is necessary to ensure there is integrity in academic debates on scientific topics and hence to protect public health.
Kind regards,
Dr. Judy Wilyman
The Science and Politics of Government Vaccination Policies 

You can judge for yourself as to the quality of argument for either side.
Except that the debate framed by the Skeptics as pro, or anti vax is incomplete and distorted.
Definitely bent thinking.

The majority of pharmacists, I believe are “pro sensible and safe vax” which is a totally different perspective to what is really a bullying process trying to be forced on our profession and the general public.
As we rely on government to develop sensible and evidence-based policies we call on the appropriate authorities to pull your collective fingers out and produce the result you are paid to do.
In the process eliminate those who have a conflict of interest.
Australia also suffers from the malaise that has caused BREXIT in the UK and a surprise Trump election win in the US.
Those of us with “eyes wide open” have had enough and  who knows what political surprises are in our future.
And the people who invented the “Bent Spoon” award definitely should have the lowest possible award for the honour of having “The most bent and warped minds” to behave in such an anti-social and dishonest manner.

2 responses to “The “Bent Spoon” award developed by people with bent thinking”

  1. I would like to clarify that the research I have produced cannot be dismissed as a case of freedom of speech or cherry picking the data, because vaccination is promoted as an “evidence-based policy”. It is either evidence-based or it is not. The claims made by the 60 University of Wollongong Academics about vaccines (who have never studied vaccination policy) on the UOW website are not supported by evidence because the studies to prove or disprove these claims have never been done. This is called ‘undone science’ and it allows governments to claim vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ simply because they have not investigated the observed correlation between vaccines and serious adverse health events. For example, the link between vaccines and chronic illness/autism/autoimmune diseases in the population. The evidence for this ‘undone science’ is in my PhD thesis published on the University of Wollongong website. If the claims by UOW academics about vaccines were evidence-based they would have addressed the evidence in Chapter 8 of my PhD thesis – but they have not. Hence the UOW is promoting personal opinion and this is harmful to human health and against the Criminal Code Act. It is also a breach of the University’s charter to maintain academic integrity in public debates of scientific issues.

Leave a Reply

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