On the 23 September 2018 the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by Kylar Loussikian that provided derogatory and untruthful information about my academic research and my work as an expert witness in court cases. The journalist made no effort to research this article and he has quoted from an affidavit that is still due to be heard in the Federal Circuit Court in December 2018.
Loussikian has provided a description of my PhD as an ‘immunisation conspiracy’. These are his words not mine. My thesis provides extensive evidence of the influence of the pharmaceutical companies in every aspect of vaccine development – from the clinical trials and safety surveillance in the population to the marketing and education of doctors, politicians and the public.
This evidence depicts an industry-bias in the underpinning science that governments are using to develop mandatory and coercive vaccination policies. This is not in the public’s interest but Loussikian has chosen not to provide you with the evidence for this statement but rather to dismiss it as an ‘immunisation conspiracy’.
Loussikian has also incorrectly described me as a ‘prominent (militant) anti-vaccination activist’. This statement is incorrect. I present my academic research that supports the right for parents to choose how many vaccines they use in their own and their children’s bodies. This makes me someone who has investigated the medical literature and is arguing for choice in vaccination like all other medical procedures based on the scientific-evidence.
Kylar Loussikian has falsely stated that the court case was ‘heard before the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane earlier this year’. This case is not due to be heard until December 2018 yet the journalist has been given a copy of my affidavit and he has quoted from it in the mainstream media. This is a breach of Section 121 of the Family Law Act.
He also states that Professor Peter McIntyre, the former deputy/co-director of the government Immunisation Research and Surveillance Centre (NCIRS) for 20 years, has been drafted to comment on my affidavit in the court proceedings. What Loussikian did not tell his readers was that Peter McIntyre has been drafted into the proceedings out of time. This is also a breach of court proceedings.
Loussikian has provided false information about my qualifications to speak on the topic of vaccination. Firstly, my PhD specialises in social medicine (an area of public health) and I enrolled for this degree at UOW in the Faculty of Health Sciences in the School of Public Health. My Master of Science in Population Health was completed in this faculty. However, when I asked for supervisors for a PhD I was informed that this was a political area of health and it needs to be supervised in the School of Social Sciences. In 2011 when I started my degree this school was located in the Faculty of Law, Humanities (Social Sciences) and the Arts. The UOW moved public health to the new Faculty of Social Sciences in 2014.
Secondly, Peter McIntyre’s claim that I have ‘no academic qualifications in medicine’ is deceptive. My degree specialises in public health (social medicine) which is the field of health that includes the epidemiology of infectious diseases.This discipline was put under the umbrella of ‘medicine’ in the 1990’s so that it became a ‘medical issue’ and not a ‘public health issue’ – public health uses political and ecomomic decisions to improve health. The public has been informed by the media ever since that ‘vaccines controlled infectious diseaes’ and this is why it should be considered a medical issue and a ‘community responsibility’. This claim is a myth that is not supported by evidence. This is described in my PhD thesis.
Loussikian also misleads by claiming that my thesis ‘has been criticised …..by the dean of Wollongong University’s science, medicine and health faculty, Alison Jones.’ But this is incorrect. When Alison Jones wrote her article in March 2016 that referred to my research she admitted that she had not read my thesis.
Her article was about the right for freedom of speech on public health topics and she mentioned my research to provide an example of this but her criticisms were about freedom of speech on vaccination – not criticisms of my PhD. She mentioned my research in this context without reading or investigating my thesis or publicly debating the issues on vaccination.
I have since challenged her as a toxicologist to refute the scientific arguments that I have presented on the ingredients of vaccines being injected into infants but she has declined to comment.
In addition, Alison Jones does not have any qualifications in social medicine (control of infectious diseases) she is a toxicologist. Loussikian’s article also does not inform readers that there are many scientists and academics supporting my PhD research on vaccines. He quotes Health Minister, Greg Hunt who is not qualified to criticise my university research on vaccines and he has never read my PhD thesis.
Loussikian falsely claims that I was contacted ‘multiple times for this article’. I was away on a WA long weekend (21 September) and the article was published on Sunday 23 September. The first I was aware of the one and only email was on Monday 24 September – after the article was published.
Professor Peter McIntyre has also made three false statements about my university research in this article:
- He describes the supervision of my PhD as ‘manifestly inadequate supervision’. This is untruthful and it is an unsupported smear on the integrity and dedication of UOW Emeritus Professor Brian Martin. If it was true UOW would not be standing by my thesis. My thesis was addressed by vaccine scientists and public health specialists before it was examined in Social Sciences.
- He incorrectly claims that my thesis is based on a ‘highly selective and poorly informed review of the literature…’ If Peter McIntyre had read my thesis he would know that it is about the undone science in government vaccination policies and not a selective review of the literature and this is what Peter McIntyre and the government do not want the public to know. See Chapter 8 for the undone science that Professof McIntyre is hiding with his false and misleading comments about my university research and my supervisor.
- Peter McIntyre falsely claims that UOW is standing by this research ‘despite strong contrary opinions from its own staff….’ Again this is deceptive. The promotion of the government’s claims about vaccination on the UOW website are being supported by ~60 UOW academics who are not specialists in the control of infectious diseases (social medicine) and they have never researched the govenrment’s claims or debated the scientific arguments in my PhD thesis. This promotion is a misuse of the University’s logo because it was put up one week after my PhD was approved and published on the university website (10 January 2016). The academics support for government policies were then promoted in the mainstream media by the powerful industry associated (and deceptively named) lobby groups – Friends of Science in Medicine, The Australian Skeptics/SAVN and the PHAA.
- McIntyre also neglects to mention the many immunologists, neurologists, medical practitioners and prominent social medicine practitioners who support these scientific arguments including Sir Frank McFarlane Burnet who won the Nobel prize in medicine in 1960 for his work in immunology and physiology.
It is of serious concern that Professor Peter McIntyre is making these false statements in the mainstream media about an expert witness report that is still to be heard in the Federal Circuit Court. It is also a breach of the Family Law Act Section 121 because the journalist, Kylar Loussikian is quoting directly from my affidavit that is still before the courts.
The public should be asking why Professor Peter McIntyre, an advisor on government vaccination boards for ~20 years, is going to such lengths to taint the evidence in an affidavit before it is heard in the court. If you wish to understand these actions I would recommend that you read Chapter 8 of my PhD thesis.
Dr. Judy Wilyman