Wikipedia’s False Information on Judy Wilyman PhD Part 7-10

Part 7 Remonstrations: Re Institutions/Governments Breaching Academic Integrity

1. The petition to remove my PhD thesis in 2016 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. In 2016 the ~60 UOW academics who were asked to sign this statement written by Heather Yeatman (the academics included 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 with the UOW logo in 2016. She provided 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 Public Health Association of Australia (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 – using the UOW website (imprimatur)? The information they are presenting 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 on health outcomes 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.