It is time the pharmaceutical community should wake up and become aware of some of the biased agendas surrounding them.
One of our specialist writers, Dr Judy Wilyman PhD has been surrounded by controversy because she dared to select as her PhD thesis subject “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy‘“
Continuous attacks on her personally (over seven years, even before she completed her thesis), on her PhD supervisor Professor Brian Martin (an experienced and qualified supervisor) and in a last ditch attempt, the smearing of the University of Wollongong itself and attempts to suppress academic freedom.
Fortunately the University stood up and rigorously defended its academic standards.
As Professor Brian Martin states:
“Her opponents attack her as a person, repeatedly express outrage over certain statements she has made while ignoring the central themes in her work, make no reference to academic freedom or standard practice in university procedures, and simply assume that she must be wrong.”
There are organised groups, all with a common denominator, involved in these attacks, and Judy has identified them as part of her thesis.
Judy states that Australian Skeptics, Friends of Science, and SAVN are hindering public debate through the mainstream media.
But first, hear what Judy herself has to say about the extraordinary attacks that these groups have made on her:
“Many of you will know from media coverage that my PhD thesis has been accepted by the University of Wollongong (UOW) and that I graduated in December 2015. My thesis, titled ‘A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy’, is now published on UOW’s website. On Monday, my PhD supervisor, Professor Brian Martin, posted a document entitled “Judy Wilyman, PhD: how to understand attacks on a research student”. In it, he summarises the four main critical points in my thesis concerning Australian government vaccination policy. Also, concerning people making criticisms of a research student’s work. He lists four “tell-tale signs indicating when these are not genuine concerns about quality and probity but instead part of a campaign to denigrate viewpoints they oppose.”
Within a day of the announcement of my graduation, opponents had made allegations about my thesis that were then reported in articles in The Australian. Two things are worth noting. First, the articles in The Australian did not address any of the four main critical points in my thesis. Second, nearly all of the subsequent social media commentary ignored the four main critical points and exhibited one or more of the four tell-tale signs listed by Brian.
I look forward to seeing these commentators present their arguments in scholarly forums that do not rely on media stories. In 2015 I was involved in organising a public forum to discuss the new mandatory legislation for vaccines (the ‘No Jab No Pay’ policy) that was introduced in Social Welfare policies in Australia in November 2015. This forum was held on 15 October 2015 at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). The directors of the government NCIRS, Peter McIntyre and Robert Booy, and many other government and medical professionals were invited to attend to discuss this legislation with the public. All of these authorities declined to attend.
My thesis is now published on UOW’s website. However, some information has been removed. This includes: Appendix 1: The Ingredients of Vaccines (Reference: The Australian Immunisation Handbook (Ed 9 and 10), Appendix 2: Case Study: Thimerosal (Mercury compound) in Vaccines and Appendix 3: The Australian Government NIP (Reference: Australian Government’s Immunise Australia Program (IAP) website (2013). The stated reason is ‘copyright’.
The Australian newspaper presented my research in an article titled “Uni accepts thesis on vaccine ‘conspiracy’ (Kylar Loussikian,13 January 2016). SBS presented my PhD as ‘Wollongong uni accepts anti-vaccination thesis’ (Andrea Booth, 13 January 2016) and ABC ‘University of Wollongong criticised over thesis by anti-vaccination activist’ (Emily Laurence, 13 January 2016). The words ‘conspiracy’ and ‘anti-vaccination’ are not used in my thesis to describe the evidence I have presented from the academic literature. Pro-vaccine consumer lobby groups such as the Australian Skeptics, Friends of Science, and SAVN are hindering public debate through the mainstream media.
In the Australian editorial titled ‘Academic standards on the line’ (15 January 2016) Peter McIntyre, director of the NCIRS, claims that he has offered to discuss my research with me but he has found me “not willing to ‘entertain evidence’ contrary to her views”. I am making an open request for the Australian editor to provide evidence for this statement.
Many Australians want an open and civil debate on this topic, moving beyond name-calling and providing accountability for the national vaccination schedule. The mainstream media must be more responsible in reporting this issue as public health is at risk.
Judy Wilyman PhD
The common denominator to all the critics noted above is a subsection of the Australian Skeptics which we at i2P call Medical Skeptics. This so as to not confuse genuine skeptics who were more worried about paranormal phenomena rather than policies and evidence surrounding medicines.
The common thread of attack is suppression of information that may affect government policy, and delivery into the community, of patented medicines.
The most recent of these groups, the Friends of Science in Medicine, has been successful in influencing the NHRMC, Australia’s highest forum for research, into accepting that there is no evidence supporting the modality of homeopathy.
That the process involved dubious behaviour and conflict of interest of one or more members of FSM does not absolve people and other organisations relying on that decision.
For example, pharmacy’s peak policy body, the Australian Pharmacy Liaison Forum, was galvanised to affirm a policy banning homeopathy from being practiced within pharmacies because of it.
This must stand as one of the most irrelevant policies ever generated, particularly as there are real problems within pharmacy needing some positive input and are simply being neglected.
What was the political trade-off here?
Or has FSM infected this policy forming body – it feels like one of their strategies.
So you have to ask the question of who really benefits from all this type of activity which is definitely not “normal”?
The only possible beneficiaries are the global pharma industries and the people that feed off them – those people commonly with professor or doctor as their first name who earn big fees spouting and supporting pharma propaganda.
More particularly those who are endowed with generous research grants to provide research that supports a marketing initiative, rather than a truthful and balanced evidence paper.
And this type of researcher could logically be found within the FSM and by extension, naturally supports medical skeptic disruptive and unethical tactics.
So wake up Australian pharmacists and take an interest in what is actually happening around you.
Even i2P has been targeted in a similar way through a critique in The Conversation and republished in the Medical Observer.
I almost feel privileged because I wrote the material featured by these publications.
But when you understand that medical skeptics were involved in both instances, I feel honored to stand beside Judy Wilyman and provide a joint conduit to get the real message out there.
According to Professor Martin, the organisations targeting Judy Wilyman, follow a standard pattern:
1. They attack the person, not just their work.
2. They concentrate on alleged flaws in the work, focusing on small details and ignoring the central points.
3. They make no comparisons with other students or theses or with standard practice, but rather make criticisms in isolation or according to their own assumed standards.
4. They assume that findings contrary to what they believe is correct, must be wrong or dangerous or both.
And this approach is remarkably similar to that used by global pharma’s when attacking detractors exposing potential or actual academic fraud associated with pharma influence.
So congratulations Dr Judy Wilyman on a well-earned PhD for your thesis exposing flawed government vaccination policy.
And it begs the question as to when this vaccination policy will be reviewed with real evidence and structured debate with the community at large.
No doubt Judy will keep on asking the right questions at every opportunity.
And we would also ask when the formal investigation will be undertaken to find out how the government’s vaccination policy was hijacked, and who was involved.
Because of the extent of biased influence being exerted through medical policy forming groups, including pharmacy, i2P will step up its investigation processes over 2016 and ensure that the results are widely disseminated, not just in i2P.
And I would finish with a famous quote made by Edmund Burke (the famous 18th century Irish statesman): “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”