This site has been set up to assist the public to make informed decisions about vaccination. Governments globally are recommending the use of multiple vaccines in infants to prevent infectious diseases yet the long-term health effects of the combined schedule of vaccines has never been tested for safety using an inert placebo.
The proof that vaccines have not been adequately tested for safety and efficacy is provided in my PhD thesis published by the University of Wollongong. My thesis concludes that the Australian government has not proved that the National Immunisation Program (NIP), that recommends vaccines against16 diseases, is not causing the significant increase in chronic illness (including autism) that has occurred simultaneously in children as the vaccination program has expanded.
My PhD thesis is titled “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy‘ and it provides scientific arguments that show the government’s schedule of vaccines is the most likely cause of the illnesses and many deaths that are being observed in todays children. To date the arguments I have provided have not been refuted with hard evidence (gold standard long-term, randomised, clinical trials using an inert placebo) and this is why the University of Wollongong is standing by this research.
Here is link to a Summary Document of my PhD Research – a compilation of the summary only of each Chapter 1 – 11
In 2016 when my research was published on the University of Wollongong website it was attacked with abuse and derogatory non-evidence based comments in the mainstream media and on social media. Powerful industry lobby groups were permitted to speak with journalists to present false amd misleading information about my PhD.
The University of Wollongong would be breaching academic integrity if they allowed my research to provide unsupported claims to the public that could harm human health. My research shows that it is Australia’s mandatory and coercive vaccination polices in Social Welfare legislation and employment regulations that will harm human health.
This legislation discriminates against healthy people in employment, childcare and preschool enrolment i.e. early childhood education (0-5 years), work or for visas and travel. These policies enforce vaccination for many people because they are being bribed to use multiple vaccines in order to use the services in society that they cannot live without or that they are entitled to enjoy. This represents a breach of international human rights covenants by the Australian government.
My PhD thesis was completed in December 2015 and to date there are no academics in this field of expertise who have provided evidence from the gold standard randomised controlled placebo studies (that is, empirical evidence) to refute my scientific arguments.
However we have seen attempts to suppress my research from public debates and this is occurring by attacking the messenger with abuse and ridicule – not scientific arguments. Further, there are no Australian government public health officials or medical doctors who have publicly debated this research and this is endangering public health in Australia.
In October 2015 a vaccination forum was organised at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) to discuss the public’s concerns about the government’s new mandatory and coercive vaccination legislation that was implemented on 1 January 2016. The video link below names ~ 45 government representatives and public health officials that declined to attend this forum to present the case for mandating vaccines in social welfare legislation.
The forum was titled Questions and Answers: No Jab No Pay/Play Policy. This presentation explains how this policy is a danger to human health and how it breaches fundamental human rights – including the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva Convention and the Rights of the Child. It also shows how government’s have reversed the precautionary principle to protect industry interests in government policies and not the health of the population. A policy that does not include empirical proof that vaccines DO NOT cause the chronic illness that is directly correlated to the use of vaccines cannot protect human health.
In Chapter 8 of my PhD thesis I have described the “undone science” in this policy which means that the hard evidence for the safety and efficacy of vaccines has never been collected by the government. Chapter 8 also describes how science is being promoted to the public on false and misleading information, a process that results in the social production of ignorance (Agnotology) in the population and this misinformation is also forming the basis of government legislation. Here is the summary of Chapter 8 of my thesis and here is a link to the evidence in Chapter 8.
I have also included a chapter on the Industry Influence in Research and Policy, that shows the types of scientific studies, that are being funded by industry, to claim that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. These epidemiological studies are inadequate for proving safety and efficacy because of flaws in their design. For example, inert placebos have not been used in most cases to determine the safety of vaccines.
Vaccines are described as “biologics” and are not tested in the same way as other drugs. All safety and efficacy research that is used in government vaccination policies is funded by pharmaceutical companies. Here is the evidence that there was no independent study used to approve and register the recent Shingles vaccine named Zostavax for the Australian market.
The Australian government is using selective literature to justify the removal of informed consent without coercion for some Australians. Here are the flaws in the Maurice-Blackburn lawyers arguments for the government’s claim that vaccination is a social responsibility. These flawed arguments are being used to remove a parent’s right to fully informed consent to vaccination in Australia for their children.
Here is my radio interview with Sarah Westall from Business Game Changers that explains the lack of scientific evidence underpinning the Australian government’s vaccination policies and the influence of private corporations and the World Bank on government vaccination programs. It is titled The Vaccination debate: Let’s get Serious with Judy Wilyman PhD. Here is another radio interview titled ‘The Infectious Myth – Judy Wilyman on Vaccines and Censorship in Australia’.
Further, evidence has surfaced that shows the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the body that is responsible for protecting public health, was involved in covering up data that showed a causal link between vaccines and autism.
This cover-up by CDC researchers has been revealed in the movie “VaxXed: from Cover-up to Catastrophe” that is now showing in Australia. For information about public viewings of VaxXed please click here and for a review of the documentary by Real News Australia click here – VaxXed Screenings Unchallenged Around Australia. I have also provided a review of the film by a general practitioner, VaxXed Stories: Patricia Ryan in Nebraska.
Many doctors and professionals are also presenting evidence showing that the vaccination schedule (and some specific vaccines e.g. HPV vaccines) have not been proven to be safe or effective. Chronic illness in children has significantly increased as the number of vaccines on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) has increased. It is now more important than ever to ask what is in a vaccine and what evidence do we have that using multiple vaccines in children is good for population health.
The Australian government is using a lack of evidence and industry funded surveillance of vaccine adverse events to claim that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. This situation is now the basis for mandatory vaccination in Australian Social Welfare policies. Yet there was no public health legislation or regulation in any health act in Australia to support this measure in 2015 when this policy was discussed and adopted. The mandatory vaccination in social welfare policies was implemented in January 2016.
Vaccination in Australia has always been voluntary. In these new social welfare policies conscientious and religious objection to vaccines has also been removed for families who depend upon social welfare benefits but this was not reported in the Australian media when the policy was introduced.
The concerns of doctors and other professionals about the safety and efficacy of vaccines are being presented by the Physicians for Informed Consent and the World Association for Vaccine Education (WAVE). This website, Vaccination Decisions, is also presenting the scientific information about the lack of safety and efficacy of vaccines (and combination of vaccines used in infants) that is not being presented by governments and mainstream media globally.
The Australian government makes policy decisions on behalf of the community and it is important that all the available evidence is used in decisions regarding preventative health. Vaccination is a medical procedure for healthy individuals, not sick individuals yet vaccines are classified as “biological products” not medicines, and this allows them to be approved without the rigorous safety testing that applies to other drugs.
A public health policy that uses a medical product to prevent disease should be demonstrated to result in more good than harm before it is implemented in the population. Yet this has not been done with government vaccination policies. As a major stakeholder in vaccination (immunisation) policy, the public has the right to be fully informed about vaccines and to participate in the decision-making process. The government must also obtain the consent of the community before implementing policies that affect their health and wellbeing.
A policy that is not open for debate by the public is indoctrination and not a policy that is based on evidence-based medicine that has been properly scrutinised.
The False and Misleading information about HPV Vaccines provided by Industry Activists to the Media and Politicians
My article titled ‘HPV vaccines have not been shown to be cost-effective in countries with comprehensive Pap screening and surgery’ was published in the journal Infectious Agents and Cancer (June 12 2013 Vol 8: 21). This article provides evidence that the benefits of this vaccine are only speculative and that inadequate safety data has been collected. Therefore the risks and benefits of this vaccine are still unknown yet it has been promoted to all Australian children – boys and girls in school programs.
The media has not reported accurately on this vaccine because SAVN industry activists (who have influence in the Australian media and with politicians, in particular Richard Di Natale – leader of the Greens) – David Hawkes, Candice Lea and Matthew Berryman – one or more whom have no background or qualifications in health or vaccination policies, provided false and misleading information in another article that was published at the same time in the Infectious Agents and Cancer Journal . Here are the non-evidence based claims that were published by these activists in 2013 that I have provided in Appendix 5 of my PhD thesis – Comment on the Hawke, Lea, and Berryman Paper.
In 2014 Dr. John Cunningham a spinal practitioner and SAVN industry lobby group activist, also presented false and misleading information about my research on the HPV vaccine in unsolicited emails to the public, journalists and University of Wollongong (UOW) academics who were involved in my research. These UOW academics were not required by UOW policies to correct the false information for the public or journalists. Consequently journalists denigrated my HPV research in the mainstream media based on false claims about this vaccine from SAVN industry activists who have a powerful voice in the Australian media and with politicians.
Here is a summary document of the information that government’s are not providing to the public about vaccines in their promotional campaigns to the public ‘Vaccines and “Vaccine Preventable” Disease research. Infectious diseases are an environmental health problem and as such there are many environmental, genetic and lifestyle factors which need to be considered in the reduction of risk from these diseases. The information provided here should not be taken as advice but used to assist in discussions with qualified health professionals. Disclaimer