The Safe Vaccine Debate – 1. World Mercury Project: The Vaccine Program’s Unintended Consequences: A Tale of Two Hepatitis B Studies 2. Dr Judy Wilyman Report: Newsletter #188 – Newsletter #189 – Newsletter #190 3. AVN Newsletter: Pro vaccine death threats against Dr Humphries and the Tommey family + The Truth about Vaccines -What every parent needs to know

1. World Mercury Project: The Vaccine Program’s Unintended Consequences: A Tale of Two Hepatitis B Studies
 By the World Mercury Project Team








In 1991, US public health authorities began recommending that all infants get the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, stipulating that they receive three doses within the first six months of life, starting at birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) followed suit with its own recommendation in 1992, instructing countries to vaccinate from birth even where hepatitis B virus was uncommon. Two 2018 studies (one in the US and one in India) take a closer look at the outcomes and implications of these blanket prescriptions. Although the studies focus on different aspects of their countries’ respective vaccine programs, both are cautionary tales, highlighting the fact that one-size-fits-all vaccine recommendations frequently steamroll over important biological risks and immune system subtleties, thereby introducing troublesome unintended consequences.

U.S. children and taxpayers on the hook

Until the early 2000s, the HepB vaccine in the US contained organic ethylmercury in the form of the preservative thimerosal—totaling 37.5 micrograms across the three doses. Regulators have never bothered to set any safety standards for ethylmercury, but government researchers have shown that the toxicity mechanisms of ethyl- and methylmercury (the type of mercury found in fish) are similar, and some believe that even the tiniest amounts carry a risk of adverse neuropsychological outcomes.

Fixated on the sole indicator of increasing HepB vaccine coverage, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bragged in 2002 about having achieved a 90% national coverage rate in young children. However, a 2018 cross-sectional study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health strongly suggests that the 1990s-era thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine had far less praiseworthy consequences, causing considerable harm to children and also exacting a high price from US taxpayers.

The researchers used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data to consider 1,192 boys aged 7-8 years—a sample statistically representative of over 24 million American boys. Building on their own and others’ prior research linking thimerosal to developmental disabilities, they considered boys who either did or did not receive three doses of thimerosal-containing (1994–2000) or thimerosal-reduced (2001–2007) HepB vaccine in infancy (the “exposure”), defining the outcome as increased long-term risk of receiving special education services. They restricted their sample to boys because of males’ greater susceptibility to mercury toxicity.

…in the decade from 1991–2001, exposure to thimerosal-containing HepB vaccines in the first six months of life resulted in an estimated 0.5–1 million US children being diagnosed with learning disabilities

For the subgroup born between 1994 and 2000, boys who received three doses of thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine were at a more than nine-fold significantly higher risk of receiving special education services compared to boys receiving no doses of HepB vaccine. Extrapolating to the US population as a whole, this means that almost 1.3 million US boys born from 1994-2000 received special education services directly attributable to receiving three doses of thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine—costing taxpayers over $180 billion. An earlier study by some of the same authors found that in the decade from 1991–2001, exposure to thimerosal-containing HepB vaccines in the first six months of life resulted in an estimated 0.5–1 million US children being diagnosed with learning disabilities, representing lifetime costs in excess of $1 trillion.

Vaccine-induced versus natural immunity

As noted, the WHO has strongly promoted universal HepB vaccination and particularly the initial birth dose. However, in India, which introduced the HepB vaccine around 2006, approximately three-fifths (61%) of women deliver at home rather than in a health facility, making it next to impossible for health providers to administer newborn vaccines. In recognition of these realities, the Indian government’s two-pronged policy is to give HepB vaccine at birth to the 39% of babies born in institutional settings but to otherwise administer the first dose at six weeks. About 45% of Indian children receive the birth dose (although the WHO wants to double that number); irrespective of timing, 86% of Indian children reportedly receive all three HepB doses. However, India is home to an estimated one-third of the world’s unvaccinated children, meaning that many children still do not receive any HepB vaccine at all.

A 2018 study published in the Indian Journal of Pediatrics took advantage of these ready-made comparison groups. The multiregional study (2013–2015) recruited children 1-5 years of age who were already having blood drawn and whose parents consented to hepatitis B testing (N=2,671). Three-fifths (59%) of the children had received at least three doses of HepB vaccine, and just over half of these (880/1566) had their first dose at birth. The research team considered several intriguing questions:

  1. Are there any differences in vaccine efficacy for the two HepB schedules (birth dose versus six-week dose)? After testing all samples for a marker of chronic hepatitis B infection, the investigators concluded that birth vaccination offered “no added protection”—lending support to the government’s “pragmatic” approach of waiting until six weeks to vaccinate babies born at home.
  2. What are the levels of protective antibodies in fully HepB-vaccinated children, and do they change over time or according to birth dose? The researchers measured antibodies in a subset of 865 children who had received three doses of HepB vaccine. Seven in ten (70%) had protective levels of antibodies—but 30% of fully HepB-vaccinated children did not [emphasis added]. Moreover, when the researchers considered the children’s age, they found that vaccine-induced protection waned rapidly and significantly, falling from 82% of under-one-year-olds to 47% of five-year-olds. Receiving a birth dose made no difference.
  3. What are the levels of protective antibodies in children who have not received any HepB vaccine? Finally, the researchers examined hepatitis B immunity in 370 children who had never received any HepB vaccine. Nearly half (45%) of non-HepB-vaccinated one-year-olds were naturally immune, and 29% still had antibody protection at age 5. The researchers credited these protective levels of antibodies to natural, passively acquired immunity from unvaccinated mothers.

Overzealous promotion

The results of the two hepatitis B studies touch on many facets of the vaccine debate that the public health community is rarely, if ever, willing to discuss. These largely ignored topics include:

  • The ongoing, adverse neurodevelopmental impact of toxic vaccine ingredients such as aluminum adjuvants and thimerosal, which is still present in annual flu shots, some meningococcal meningitis vaccines and the Td (tetanus-diphtheria) booster;
  • The fact that economic and political factors—rather than vaccine effectiveness—are often key drivers of decisions about vaccine timing and schedules;
  • The failure of HepB (and other) vaccines to reliably generate protective antibody levels in all fully vaccinated individuals—this phenomenon of impaired immunogenicity is a widely known “Achilles’ heel” of many vaccines; and
  • The corresponding (and vastly underestimated) importance of natural immunity.

Regarding this latter point, the authors of the Indian HepB research, led by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, call attention to the “surprising” persistence of passively acquired hepatitis B antibodies in their own study population and in other studies. Pointing to studies of measles immunity, they note that mothers in highly measles-vaccinated communities have lower antibody levels and, therefore, far less ability to confer passive protection to their babies. This is because the measles vaccine “induces lower antibody levels than does natural infection and the antibody levels of vaccinated cohorts are no longer boosted by exposure to wild-type infection.” A study in the Czech Republic that compared 18-29-year-olds who were vaccinated and unvaccinated for mumps found that only 19% of vaccinated individuals in that age group had acquired immunity versus almost half (48%) of the unvaccinated, leading to the conclusion that only natural infection can lead to “long-term persistence of antibodies.” A growing number of studies also are indicating that prior exposure to natural infections such as measles and mumps may be health-protective later in life.

Back in 2003, Dr. Puliyel wrote a letter to the editor that questioned other researchers’ overestimation of the benefits of hepatitis B vaccination in terms of vaccine efficacy and cost per life-year saved. The letter concluded with a caution to guard against “overzealous” vaccine promotion. In the current climate of an ever-expanding vaccine schedule and hundreds more vaccines in the pipeline, those words of warning seem timelier than ever.


2. Dr Judy Wilyman Report: Newsletter #188 – Newsletter #189 – Newsletter #190

Newsletter 188 – Why the Australian Government and UOW are Suppressing the VaccinationDebate
22 January 2018

It is necessary for the Australian government and UOW to suppress the academic debate of vaccination because my university research shows unequivocally that vaccines did not control any infectious diseases. Without this premise there is no justification for the mandatory and coercive vaccination policies that Australia has already implemented. .

Whilst the Vice-Chancelor of the University of Wollongong (UOW), Professor Paul Wellings, is informing the public that academic research on vaccines should be debated in the ‘appropriate channels’, he has not explained to the public why council venues are not an ‘appropriate channel’ or why UOW has allowed UOW academics, who have never researched the control of infectious diseases, to promote false and misleading claims about vaccines on the UOW website. 

If this statement were not true I would be defaming the university that is standing by my research.

I believe this is a breach of academic integrity by the UOW and in November 2016 I requested that the NSW Ombudsman investigate this situation. In my complaint I asked the following question:

Why has the University of Wollongong allowed it’s policies to be used (and misused) by industry lobby groups to harass, initmidate and discredit a UOW student’s academic research in the mainstream media?’    

The NSW Ombudsman made a final conclusion to this investtgation in December 2017 – without addressing this question. Here is my response to the ombudsman’s conclusion.

The lobby groups in Australia that have used abuse and ridicule to harass and discrdit my research include the Australian Skeptics Inc. and their associate group SAVN (Stop the Australian Vaccination Network).
It also includes the Friends of Science in Medicine and the PHAA (Public Health Association of Australia) that runs the 100% funded Australian Immunisation Conference and openly supports SAVN at these conferences. 

My UOW supervisor, Emeritus Professor Brian Martin, has stated in his article about the suppression of the vaccination debate in Australia:

I have studied issues of intellectual freedom for many years; never have I heard of a campaign against a research student more relentless and abusive than the one against Judy.” 

Yet the leader of the Australian Greens, Richard Di Natale, has supported these SAVN activists in the Australian parliament with false comments about the conduct of SAVN.

Here is the article by Professor Brian Martin that describes SAVN’s attacks on my research and the abuse and ridicule that powerful industry lobby groups are using to intimidate professionals and parents who are providing academic arguments against mandatory and coercive vaccination policies.

Individuals who have provided false and misleading information about my UOW research, using the UOW’s policies, have included a medical doctor, Dr. John Cunningham – leader of the SAVN lobby group. In 2014 UOW perrmitted an investigation into my 2006 whooping cough research based on John Cunningham’s fabricated allegations of misconduct. This was an investigation that was run 8 years after the research was completed.  

UOW permitted this investigation even though John Cunningham did not provide any supportive evidence for his claims and even though the UOW executive knew of Cunningham’s previous inappropriate behaviour in publicly discussing my research. 

In March 2017 I made a complaint about John Cunningham’s conduct as a medical professional to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) and I have not received a conclusion to this complaint.

To date the Australian government has not justified its mandating of 16 vaccines in Social Welfare policies and also in employment situations and university courses in Australia.

There is no legislation or regulation in any Health Act in Australia to support mandatory legislation for any Australians and these new vaccination policies and regulations that include university courses and employment situations, have not been publicised or debated by Australians.

In other words, vaccines are now compulsory for some Australians but not other Australians. This clearly demonstrates that there is no legitimate public health purpose for mandating any vaccine in Australia. Particularly as vaccines have always been voluntary.

Hence the human right to informed consent for all medical interventions in Australia, that is protected in the Geneva Convention (1948), has been breached for everyone who is discriminated against in Social Welfare policies, university courses and employment situations on the basis of vaccination.   

In addition, Australian doctors who are supporting mandatory vaccination policies because of their medical registrations are in breach of the World Medical Association’s code of conduct for medical practitioners.

It is time for the Australian government and the UOW to explain why they are allowing powerful industry lobby groups to misuse the university’s policies and the mainstream media to discredit university research on vaccines. Until there is a fair and open debate of the academic literature, human rights will continue to be lost in Austalia and this will signigiantly harm human health.

Newsletter 189 – Dr. John Cunningham’s Order of Australia Medal (OAM) in 2016
29 January 2018

John Cunningham is a leader of the SAVN lobby group that uses abuse, ridicule and false information to reduce the credibility of university research. Professor Brian Martin has written several articles on the abuse and harassment that my research has received from the SAVN lobby group that is supported by corporations and promoted (at the almost 100% industry-funded) Australian Immunisation Conference run by the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA).

In his article Emeritus Professor Brian Martin states:

I have studied issues of intellectual freedom for many years; never have I heard of a campaign against a research student more relentless and abusive than the one against Judy.”

Whilst the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wollongong, Professor Paul Wellings, has stated that students are expected to debate their research through the appropriate channels‘, these channels have not been open to me because of the influence of powerful industry lobby groups in the Australian media and the way in which the University of Wollongong (UOW) has allowed organised lobby groups to use and misuse its policies to discredit university research on vaccination.

On the 26 january 2016 Dr. John Cunningham, who has no qualifications in public health, immunology or vaccination policy received an Order of Australia Medal for ‘Immunisation and Science’ one week after he had published his false and derogatory comments about my university research on vaccines in the Australian newspaper.

This award was publicised by the industry-associated lobby group – Australian Skeptics Inc. John Cunningham is a medical doctor specialising in the spine and he is an activist for a lobby group that uses inappropriate strategies to suppress scientific debate of vaccination in Australia. He has no published articles in the field of public health, immunology or vaccination policy.

This conduct by John Cunningham, a medical practitioner, was reported to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) in March 2017 and I have not received a conclusion to this notification. My complaint is in regards to his:

  1. Promotion of false and derogatory comments about my university research and the inappropriate methods that he has used to promote his false and misleading opinions of my research.
  2.  Conduct in fabricating allegations about my whooping cough research that were baseless and harmed my reputation in public debates. This is dangerous to population health because the University of Wollongong (UOW) was not required to rectify the false comments and allegations about my research in a public press statement.

My complaint was dismissed by AHPRA in September 2017 on the grounds that he cannot be spreading false and misleading information about vaccination “based on accepted scientific-evidence”. But this is not my complaint. John Cunningham has spread false and misleading information about accepted university research on vaccines.

In addition, my complaint was about his conduct as a medical professional in making fabricated, anonymous complaints about a university student”s research, eight years after the research was completed and by misusing the university’s complaint procedures to do this. The only outcome that was achieved was to harm my reputation in public debates with false allegations. This is not a demonstration of a committment to academic integrity in scientific debates.

A lack of integrity in academic debates is dangerous to public health and this is compounded by the University of Wollongong’s policies because they are not required to rectify the false and harmful allegations about student research in a public press statement.

This allows professional activists such as John Cunningham to succeed in confusing the public (and politicians) about the credibility of the academic literature on vaccinations and this results in harmful health policies.

In October 2017 I challenged AHPRA’s dismissal of my notification on these grounds and I am still waiting for their response. I will publicise their response as soon as I receive it.

One Australian politician who has been influenced by John Cunningham and SAVN’s false information is the leader of the Australian Greens Party, Richard Di Natale. 
He has mislead the Australian Parliament about the activities of SAVN  and some of their activists (also with no health qualifications) that have abused Australian citizens in public debates.

If Australia’s mandatory and coercive vaccination  policies were about the HEALTH of Australians the government and the University of Wollongong would not be contributing to the suppression of the academic debate. Here is a link to my PhD thesis that provides evidence of the harm these policies are causing to human health. 
Newsletter 190 – AHPRA Responds to the Conduct of Dr. John Cunningham
2 February 2018 

Dr. John Cunningham is a spinal medical practitioner and SAVN lobby group activist, who has misused the university’s policies in an attempt to discredit university research. The role of universities is to ensure academic research presents the accepted scientific evidence for the topic under investigation. The University of Wollongong would be breaching academic integrity if it approved a PhD thesis on vaccination that did not provide accepted scientific arguments for this health intervention.

My University of Wollongong research is a critique of the accepted scientific-evidence for the risks and benefits of vaccines and yet John Cunningham dismisses this accepted scientific-evidence as “anti-vaccination”. He also uses unsupported comments and opinions to discredit the research in the Australian media to prevent public debate of the scientific arguments in my PhD thesis.   

John Cunningham is a leader of the SAVN lobby group that uses abuse, ridicule and false information to reduce the credibility of university research. Emeritus Professor Brian Martin has written several articles on the abuse and harassment that my research has received from the SAVN lobby group – a lobby group that is supported by corporations and promoted at the (almost 100% industry-funded) Australian Immunisation Conference run by the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA).

In his article Brian Martin states:

I have studied issues of intellectual freedom for many years; never have I heard of a campaign against a research student more relentless and abusive than the one against Judy.”

The following conduct by John Cunningham was reported to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) in March 2017. The complaint was in regards to the following conduct:

  1. His conduct in misinforming the public about the medical risks of vaccines presented in my PhD thesis. He dismisses the risks of vaccines as “anti-vaccination” instead of allowing the scientific evidence and arguments in my PhD thesis to be assessed in public debates.
  2. His promotion of false and derogatory comments about university research on vaccines and his actions in promoting his opinions about a UOW student’s research in unsolicited emails to the public in February/March 2014. He had no official connection to the University of Wollongong at this time yet he copied UOW academics into these emails in a way that could imply, to the public, politicians and journalists, that his false information was endorsed by the UOW academics. This strategy allows any member of the public to discredit university research in Australia. In other words, it devalues Australian degrees and it is being assisted by the University of Wollongong’s policies.
  3.  His conduct in fabricating allegations about a UOW student’s research and integrity, eight years after the research was completed (2006) and the degree awarded (2007). The allegations were baseless and the only outcome of his conduct was to harm my reputation in public debates of vaccination. This occurred because the confidentiality of the UOW investigation was allowed to be breached before the investigation was completed.

My complaint was dismissed by AHPRA in September 2017 on the grounds that John Cunningham “cannot be spreading false and misleading information about vaccinationbased on accepted scientific-evidence”. I challenged this statement in October 2017 and I received a response from AHPRA on 30 January 2018.

I challenged AHPRA’s decision on the basis that John Cunningham dismisses the accepted scientific evidence for the risks of vaccines as provided in my PhD thesis as ‘anti-vaccination’. He is suppressing the scientific evidence without open debate of the medical literature. Public health cannot be protected by suppressing the academic arguments and this is contrary to the accepted practice for medical practitioners under the Geneva Convention: the ethical code of conduct for doctors with respect to informed consent for all medical interventions.   

Doctors are required to demonstrate honesty and a commitment to academic integrity in their professional conduct.

AHPRA dismissed my challenge to their decision (30 January 2018) by claiming that the conduct I have described “does not relate to the professional conduct or performance of Dr. Cunningham occurring in the course of his practice as a medical practitioner.”  Therefore it does not constitute a ground for notification under Section 144 (1) (a) or (b).

Yet John Cunningham promotes vaccines to the public, politicians and journalists in his capacity as a medical professional and he is using false information to discredit the accepted scientific arguments in a PhD thesis. This is confusing the public about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and it is dangerous ot public health.

In January 2016 after he had written several unsupported and derogatory opinion pieces about my university research in the Australian  media, John Cunningham was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for his conduct and contribution to “Science and Immunisation”.

A lack of integrity in academic debates is dangerous to public health and this is being assisted by the University of Wollongong’s policies because they are not protecting student’s reputations and research. This allows professional lobby group activists such as John Cunningham to succeed in confusing the public about the credibility of academic literature by misusing the university’s policies. These strategies are devaluing Australian degrees as well as harming human health.

Industry-lobby groups (such as The Australian Skeptics Inc / SAVN / Friends of Science in Medicine / The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA)) are using these strategies to remove credibility from independent research on vaccines in Australia. This is assisted by universities in Australia because they are not required to rectify the academic record for the public when false allegations and comments are made about their university research or protect their reputations in public debates of their research.

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).
Vaccination Decisions  

3. AVN Newsletter: Pro vaccine death threats against Dr Humphries and the Tommey family + The Truth about Vaccines -What every parent needs to know

We were all shocked to hear that Dr Suzanne Humphries received a extremely vile and graphic death threat not only against her, but against everyone living at the Autism Trust Centre – which includes the courageous Polly Tommey and her whole family.
Instead of just ignoring this threat, Dr Humphries and Polly decided to go public, to show the world just how much some people are willing to go to keep the truth about vaccines away from the public.

Here is the live video that they aired outlining the details of the threat (be warned that there is strong language)

A second and more repulsive threat was received a couple of days later but Dr Humphries has chosen not to share the contents of this email as it is just too sick and depraved. She explains her reasons and demonstrates how incredibly brave that she and Polly really are!

A gofundme campaign has been set up to cover the costs of installing a security system for the Autism Trust Centre and if like me you appreciate all that Dr Humphries and Polly have done for us, you will donate what you can, no matter how small, every little bit counts.

It is our turn to stand up for our heroes in the community who literally put themselves and their families on the line every day to protect our right to make health choices for our families and educate everyone about the truth about vaccines.
For decades, vaccines have been the proud standard of medical advancement.

The Truth about Vaccines

Vaccination programs are given credit for eradicating some of the most devastating illnesses of the past, like polio, diphtheria, and smallpox. But they’re no longer immune to controversy.
In recent years, concerns about vaccine injuries, mercury toxicity, and autism have increased substantially.
And many parents are becoming resistant to follow the recommended vaccine schedule for their children.
Some are refusing to vaccinate their kids at all, and others are doing it selectively, depending on the risks and benefits of each vaccine.
Meanwhile, public debate and controversy stirs, and every year there seems to be public panic and disease outbreak somewhere in the world.

The simple fact is there are viable arguments on both sides, but most parents are caught in the middle, and don’t know how to make the right decision for their families.
That’s why I’m so excited to tell you about a brand new documentary mini-series that’s about to air on January 25th.
It’s called The Truth About Vaccines, and you need to see it.

Filmmaker Ty Bollinger, the man behind the popular “Truth About Cancer” series, has done it again, this time taking a hard look at the vaccine industry, its history and its influence on your children.

He’s put together an all-star list of 60 of the top medical experts on the planet to take an honest look at BOTH sides of the debate.

And did I mention he’s releasing the whole thing commercial-free?

Click Here To Learn How to Watch it >>

If you’re a parent or would like to be someday, you need to see this.

P.S. Register NOW to get first access to this cutting-edge documentary series.

Register here to watch for free.

Leave a Reply

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