Wikipedia’s False Information on Judy Wilyman PhD Part 3-10

Here are the Corrections to the False Information in Parts 3, 4 and 5 on Wikipedia:

1. In 2007 the UOW would only provide supervisors for my PhD in the Faculty of Arts, School of Social Sciences. Despite the fact that I was enrolled and had completed my Master of Science degree (Population Health) (Distinction) in the UOW Faculty of Health Sciences.
2. In 2008 we moved to Western Australia with our 3 children and I continued my PhD research part-time at Murdoch University. This was done in the Faculty of Environmental Science. I also co-ordinated and taught two units in environmental health from 2008-2010 in this faculty.
3. In 2011 I re-started the PhD at the UOW with Professor Brian Martin as my principle supervisor in the Faculty of Arts, School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication. The PhD was awarded at UOW in December 2015 but the faculty had been re-named in 2014 as the Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry.
4. In May 2016 the medical-industry lobby groups used the Freedom of Information Act to get the reports that were provided by the examiners before the PhD was finished. These pre-examination reports were then published in the Australian newspaper and misrepresented to the public as being made after examination. The comments in the reports were addressed prior to the PhD being awarded which is the normal process of PhD examination.
5. The claim that an examiner did not recommend that the PhD be awarded is false.
6. The criticism of the PhD came from the powerful medical-industry doctors and lobby groups and there was no formal debate or critique of my PhD at this time. In fact the criticism in the media started before any person had time to read and assimilate the arguments/evidence in the PhD. It started immediately the PhD was published on the website on 10 January 2016.
7. The thesis provides evidence that the corporate-government partnership called the GAVI alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Initiatives) that is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is responsible for designing the International Health Regulations promoted by the WHO in global health policies for all countries. These are the regulations that must be enacted in all WHO member countries when a “global pandemic” is declared and the federation of pharmaceutical companies has input into these regulations.
8. This is not a conspiracy theory because there is evidence for the statement. It is the media that has falsely presented this to the public as a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a fact.
9. It was the powerful medical-industry lobby groups that denigrated my PhD research in the media by suggesting that the examiners/supervisors “did not have sufficient knowledge to oversee the research”. I was not given a voice to respond to the derogatory media comments.
10. The PhD thesis has not been criticised by any UOW academic who has read the thesis. The powerful industry lobby groups, with the assistance of Peter McIntyre (NCIRS director/deputy for 23 years), set up a petition with the lobby groups to have the thesis reviewed and disapproved. They have a serious conflict of interest in doing this because children’s health has declined as more vaccines were added to the national program.
11. UOW reviewed their doctoral process after this petition was presented and found that UOW students are examined under high standards. As my PhD was approved under these high standards there was no need to review my specific case. The UOW Vice-Chancellor, Paul Wellings replied in the Australian newspaper that “UOW stands by this (Judy Wilyman’s) PhD research.”

Part 4 Doctoral Claims:

1. The 4 main claims in my PhD are provided in this pamphlet – Summary of the Main Themes in my PhD.
2. Peter McIntyre, director of the government NCIRS for 17 years (plus 6 years as deputy) and advisor to the WHO, did not “offer to advise me on my research” and then withdrew the offer “as she was not willing to entertain other viewpoints”. This is a lie.
3. In 2009 when my whooping cough research was published in the PHAA newsletter Peter McIntyre was contacted for his response to my article. He provided has response article that was unreferenced and the PHAA published our articles side-by-side in the April 2009 Newsletter. My article was fully referenced but McIntyre’s was not. When I requested the references from him they were not provided.
4. Peter McIntyre then invited me to present my whooping cough research at the NCIRS and I agreed to do this but he never provided me with a date to attend this invitation. This situation was observed by other academics at Murdoch University and at Wollongong University.
5. Peter McIntyre has refused to allow his 1994 PhD on the HIB vaccine in the Sydney population from being published in Open Repository on the University of Sydney website – as mine is published on the UOW website. This has prevented full scrutiny of his findings by the scientific and general community. Unlike my own thesis that has been open for public scrutiny and spin/ridicule by powerful lobby groups who have a dominant voice in the mainstream media.
6. It is false to claim that my PhD “avoided serious scientific scrutiny”. The PhD was given to several scientists for comment prior to examination in the social sciences. Further the PhD is open to scrutiny from scientists now on the UOW website and not a single scientist has done a formal critique or debated the science in my thesis.
7. The only formal critique of my PhD was done by the founders of the Australian government NCIRS (Margaret Burgess and Peter McIntyre (1997)) and the NCIRS researchers Wiley and Leask. These four authors have a serious conflict of interest in critiquing my PhD and they published their critique in the Vaccine journal three years after my PhD thesis was published (2016). This government critique used false and misleading information to denigrate my research and the authors admitted that they did not read the full thesis. Here is my response to the Vaccine article.

Part 5 Academic Health Science Responses:

1. These responses are not provided from objective scientists and they are unsupported claims without allowing proper scientific debate of these issues. They are telling you what to think of the thesis without any transparency of their agenda or context to their comments.
2. The claim that the references are “out of date” is misleading the public. In the introduction of the thesis I explain that it is important to use the literature and references that were available to policy-makers at the time decisions were made because more recent epidemiological studies can be designed to support a particular outcome. It is important to analyse the study design to know whether a more recent reference is making true conclusions or whether the study has been designed with specific parameters to arrive at these conclusions. This issue has been addressed in my methodology.
3. John Dwyer, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at NSW University has forgotten to mention that he is a leader of the powerful medical-industry lobby group – Friends of Science in Medicine (FoSM) that organised the petition to remove my thesis (with Peter McIntyre) and they have a powerful voice in all media outlets in Australia with the Australian Skeptics/SAVN.
4. The Royal Australasian College of Physician’s (RACP’s) claim that the “TGA is responsive to the monitoring and investigation of any adverse events…..” is an unsubstantiated claim. There is no evidence for the claim particularly as the Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA) is 100% funded by the pharmaceutical industry and it used a passive reporting system from 1997-2017 that cannot make causal links between AE’s and the vaccines. This is not being “responsive to the monitoring and investigation of adverse events”.
5. Many adverse events are going unrecorded by the TGA and it is the pot calling the kettle black by suggesting that “I am biased”. My only bias here is my bias as a parent – children’s health – whereas the TGA has a vested interest in not properly monitoring the safety of vaccines because their other role is to approve their own products/vaccines for the market.
6. It is the TGA that is biased in its monitoring and it cannot be said to be protecting the public interest of safety because they can’t. Their profits depend upon not properly monitoring the safety of vaccines.
7. It is the powerful medical-industry lobby groups in Australia and globally that (with the assistance of funding from Bill Gates) is influencing the education and in fact, indoctrination of health professionals and the general public through the education curriculums. Bill Gates even bought the Cochrane Database in 2017 – this independent systematic review of medical interventions is no longer independent. Just like a doctors/nurses education and the school curriculums and Wikipedia – that pretends to be independent but is not. They are presenting pseudoscience provided by powerful lobby groups such as the Australian Medical Association (AMA). The appearance of a “consensus on the science” is due to the ridicule and denigration that academics experience from lobby groups when they question the practice of vaccination. This  verbal violence prevents them from speaking up because their reputations/jobs are destroyed.
8. Instead of allowing open scientific debate of the arguments presented in my PhD individuals are being given the right to criticise my PhD on Wikipedia without any substance or transparency to their claims. I am not able to respond to these criticisms or to correct the information on Wikipedia. This is resulting in indoctrination of the public with false and misleading claims (pseudoscience) and people are being told what to think about vaccines and about my PhD, instead of allowing academics to debate the science in public forums.
9. Peter McIntyre, government director of Australia’s vaccination research for 23 years, refused to attend a debate organised at the University of Technology Sydney in 2015 – prior to the mandating of childhood vaccines in social services policies. And he has refused to publish his PhD thesis for open scrutiny on the University of Sydney website.
10. Peter McIntyre’s NCIRS did not put in a submission for the government’s Senate Inquiry into the No Jab No Pay Federal Policy in 2015 and the Australian government has refused under the FOI act to release the advice that the Chief Medical Officer relied upon to approve the NJNPay policies in 2015.
11. Peter McIntyre has also been involved in leaking my confidential expert witness report to the media before it was heard in court in order to prevent himself from defending the government’s mandatory childhood vaccination policy in December 2018. This has been reported to the Australian Federal Police in January 2019 but no response was provided.

Parts 6:

1. The criticism of the thesis in January 2016 was industry-funded scientists, government representatives responsible for vaccination policy and organised industry lobby groups. These individuals have a serious conflict of interest in having my thesis denigrated and removed without public debate.
2. Michael Brull is a journalist and he is not qualified to criticise the arguments in a PhD on a public health issue.
3. The University’s review found that the standards for doctoral approval were high at UOW and that my PhD had undergone this stringent examination process. Hence there was no need for any specific review into my doctorate.
4. John Dwyer is a leader of the Friends of Science in Medicine medical-industry lobby group that promotes vaccines. He does not have any knowledge of the expertise of the examiners/reviewers that approved my PhD thesis because he doesn’t know who they were. These are unsupported claims about the expertise of people designed to negatively influence people’s opinion about the research.
5. It is not normal practice to publish the names of the examiners for any PhD and in this case doing so would have opened their reputations up for the same denigration with biased and unsupported claims as mine has received.
6. The Australian Skeptics is a non-scientific lobby group that promotes corporate interests in government policies. Their opinions are not appropriate in a biography of my PhD research and they hinder objective debate of my research. This lobby group uses industry funded scientists to promote their message to the community and to politicians who then spread the message in the mainstream media and on social media – often ridiculing and deriding professionals/academics who speak against their vested interests.

Part 7 Remonstrations:

1. The petition was organised by powerful industry lobby groups the Friends of Science in Medicine with a letter written by Peter McIntyre, director of the government NCIRS. They have a serious conflict of interest in not wanting to debate the science in my PhD thesis.
2. The ~60 UOW academics who were asked to sign this statement (and these academics 3, 4, 5, 6) supporting the government’s vaccination policies and claiming that “the evidence is clear” had never read, debated or refuted the evidence in my PhD thesis. They signed this statement based on blind faith in the government’s vaccination policies. Further, academics and health professionals who do not publicly support government vaccination policies have their reputations and jobs at stake hence they were indirectly coerced to sign this statement. Here is a link to the false information that UOW (nutrition) Professor, Heather Yeatman provided to the public when she misused the UOW logo to provide her personal opinion of vaccination – a topic that she has never investigated and she had a conflict of interest at the time because she was the president of the PHAA – an organisation that puts on the 100% industry-funded National Immunisation Conference and it partners with the SAVN medical-industry non-scientific lobby group  to present information on vaccines.
3. In my opinion this is a breach of academic integrity by the University of Wollongong because these academics were not experts in this area of public health and they are deceiving the general public by making a claim about a topic that they have never investigated. What is the purpose of students doing a PhD in a health topic if academics, without qualifications in this area of health, can promote their personal opinions of this important health issue to the public? This information affects the quality of life and death of every Australian.
4. I reported this breach of integrity by UOW academics to the NSW Ombudsman but no action was taken.
5. Heather Yeatman was the head of the UOW School of Public Health who had declined to provide supervisors for my PhD in the Health Faculty in 2007. She was made president of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) (that works closely with the Australian Skeptics/SAVN (a non-scientific organisation)) in 2011 – the same year that I re-enrolled at UOW to complete my PhD. She retired from this role in 2016 (just after my PhD was published on 10 January 2016) and she received the Sidney Sax Award for Public Health when she retired. This award deceives the public about her information on vaccines – information that will have life and death (and quality of life) consequences – because she provided her personal opinion on vaccines with the university imprimatur – and she has never researched this topic.
6. Heather Yeatman does not have any expertise in the control of infectious diseases. Her expertise is nutrition. She has never read or debated my PhD on vaccination policy so her comments are irrelevant to my PhD.
7. Science is about debating the evidence it is not about dismissing the evidence with letters from medical institutes and societies. None of these scientists, clinicians or institutes provided evidence to refute the arguments in my PhD. The comment says that they were “concerned about vaccine-preventable diseases in the community”. This is not a reason to dismiss academic literature without public debate and scrutiny. This is unscientific of these 12 medical research institutes and societies. It goes against the scientific method that promotes evidence-based medicine.
8. Gustav Nossal is a prominent pro-vaccine campaigner and his comment is a general comment about poor scholarship. He has not analysed my thesis and claimed that it is of poor scholarship and this comment is presented to influence people’s opinion in a negative way. He has not provided any evidence of poor scholarship and therefore this comment should not be included in my biography.
9. Alison Jones, UOW dean of the faulty of Science, Medicine and Health had not read my thesis when she made that comment about academic freedom in 2016. Her comments are encouraging blind faith in the medical literature. She is implying that my PhD research that is evidence based should not be publicly debated because “it could undermine confidence in immunisation …”
10. This is a medical procedure that is being discussed – vaccination – and she dismisses my PhD thesis with her opinion that “it suggests scientific doubt where doubt is not warranted on the basis of the evidence available”. How does she know this if she has never investigated the evidence or read my thesis?
11. This is a personal opinion from someone who has never studied vaccination policies or infectious diseases and as the dean of a university faculty of “science” she should be encouraging scrutiny of the evidence not suggesting that there is “no doubt in the evidence” when she has never investigated this evidence or read my PhD thesis providing the evidence. 
12. These critics are presenting unsupported claims about “poor scholarship” and “inadequate supervision” to suppress the debate of the science. Good science can stand up to scrutiny and these critics are not addressing the scientific arguments – they are suppressing the arguments from scrutiny.
13. McIntyre a “senior doctor at children’s Westfield Hospital” is also the government representative that is responsible for the scientific research underpinning the government’s vaccination policies for 23 Years. He has been director and deputy-director of the NCIRS since 1997 and it was his job to monitor the effects of multiple vaccines on the health of children. In 23 years Peter McIntyre has never investigated the correlation between the serious decline in children’s health and the increased use of vaccines in children. He has a vested interest in denigrating my PhD research that exposes this negligence in his duty of care to the public.
14. Peter McIntyre’s comments are false. My PhD thesis describes the science that has not been done to claim that the childhood vaccination program is safe. This science is referred to as undone science and it means that politicians are making value judgements that affect the quality of life of every child/adult and death, based on incomplete knowledge about the effects of vaccines on human health. This makes coercive government vaccination policies an experiment on the population.
15. These derogatory and unsupported comments about my PhD research are being made by individuals who have a vested interest in making these comments and they are smearing my reputation without foundation. This has the effect of preventing other professionals from presenting the science that does not support the safety and efficacy of vaccines and this is giving the appearance that there is a “consensus on the science” in the medical/scientific field when there is not.

Part 8 Peer-Review:

1. In March 2019 the first formal critique was done of my PhD and the authors of this critique were the ex-directors of the Australian government National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) – Peter McIntyre and Margaret Burgess. These authors have a strong conflict of interest in denigrating my research because they have been responsible for providing the science that underpins the government’s vaccination program for 23 years.
2. The other two authors of this paper were the NCIRS researchers – Julie Leask and Kerrie Wiley. This is not an unbiased critique of my thesis and it uses false and misleading claims in an attempt to discredit it. Here is my response to this Vaccine article.
3. In January 2019 when this article was published I put in a complaint to the Australian Federal Police about Peter McIntyre’s involvement in leaking my expert witness report to the mainstream media before it was heard in the Federal Circuit Court in December 2018.

Part 9 After Graduation:

1. The claim I made was that “not all vaccines are safe and effective for everyone….” This is due to individual genetics and it is a medical fact.
2. In June 2016 many parents were frustrated that their questions were not being answered by the government or the Telethon Kids Research Institute. At every public forum parents are only allowed to ask one question and we are not given an opportunity to respond to the answers that are provided. Public health authorities are not answering our questions and after 10 years of this behaviour parents were heckling the speakers due to the inadequate and false answers that were being provided without any response or discussion allowed.
3. The fact that universities do not correct the academic record for students who present research that is in the public interest leaves them open to being ridiculed and denigrated by well funded and organised lobby groups who have a vested interest in the science that is presented for government policies.
4. My research into this important area of children’s health did not receive government funding and there was no funding from industry for this independent investigation.
5. Paul Welling’s response that universities “do not endorse the views of students or staff or curate Wikipedia..” allows industry lobby groups to spread abuse and ridicule about academics without any constraints. In addition this is a contradiction to the UOW allowing academics who have never investigated vaccination science to promote the claims (myths) in government vaccination policies on the UOW website. This is contradicting his position and it is allowing industry-lobby groups to misuse the imprimatur of the university to promote non peer-reviewed information to the public. This is a serious risk to public health.
6. Public interest science that does not create profit is not funded and it is not promoted to the public. Only industry-funded science is promoted to the public and academics who study science in the public interest can be side-lined from employment in their chosen fields if the science is not profitable. Industry-science is also given the prestigious awards to enhance credibility. Money is influential in the process of allocating awards.
7. Wikipedia is not an independent source of scientific information. This institution is influenced by well funded and organised lobby groups that are permitted to denigrate academics with unsubstantiated claims – as in this entry on my research. This is for the purposes of influencing politicians and lawyers when I make submissions of my academic research in these areas. This biased and false entry of my research in Wikipedia is suppressing the public debate of vaccination in the political and legal arena in Australia – as well as preventing me from working.
8. The Australian Skeptics is a non-scientific organisation that uses industry-funded scientists to promote its corporate message such as the promotion of vaccines to its subscribers – the general public. Why is a non-scientific organisation being given a right to comment on academic research to influence public opinion on this health issue in the media? This lobby group – the Australian Skeptics and SAVN was set up by Dick Smith in 1979 (and SAVN in 2009) for the purposes of promoting industry-interests in government policies.
9. Their stated purpose is to influence all media outlets in Australia to promote “science” in government policies. This non-scientific organisation has many individuals who do not have qualifications in science or health but are given a voice in the mainstream media and they are denigrating professionals who speak against vaccines in all social media in Australia – with impunity. They are providing false and misleading scientific information on infectious disease control and vaccines in Australia and they are being permitted to present this pseudoscience at PHAA conferences and it was presented by Dr. Richard Di Natale (leader of the Greens) in the federal parliament in 2013.

Part 10 Master’s Thesis Investigation:

1. John Cunningham a medical practitioner and leader of the Australian Skeptics group, called Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (SAVN) fabricated allegations of misconduct and he submitted an anonymous complaint to UOW about my Master’s research – 8 years after the research was completed and awarded a High Distinction by university academics.
2. John Cunningham has no expertise in this field of public health and he misused the complaint procedures to smear my reputation. The UOW allowed this complaint to be investigated even though it was made 8 years after my Masters was awarded and they breached their own complaint procedures to investigate it. It was proven to be an unwarranted investigation and that Dr. John Cunningham had fabricated the allegations that he labelled “academic misconduct” to smear my reputation. This investigation was leaked anonymously by “two medical experts” to the ABC and publicised to the community in every news bulletin for that day. The Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) supports this behaviour from medical practitioners.

2. The references in this Wikipedia article include journalist’s comments. Journalists have been providing false and misleading information about my research in the Australian newspapers since 2008 when I began debating my research in public forums. In the 5 years since the completion of my PhD thesis no journalist has given me a voice in the mainstream media to respond to the false claims about my research.