This pamphlet summarises the four main themes in my PhD Thesis that investigated the historical control of infectious diseases in Australia and the government’s reasons for expanding the use of vaccines in 1990 – A Summary of the Main Arguments in Judy Wilyman’s PhD Thesis that Investigated the Control of Infectious Diseases in Australia
My PhD thesis demonstrated that infectious diseases were controlled by public health reforms before most vaccines were developed and it also demonstrates that the claims about the safety and efficacy of vaccines are based on undone science. That is, the correct clinical studies have not been done to prove the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
This 5 minute video (Your Children Your Choice) quotes doctors/scientists who describe the clinical studies that HAVE NOT been done to prove that vaccines are safe and effective. This undone science was the focus of my PhD thesis at the University of Wollongong (UOW) published in January 2016.
After I completed my Master of Science (Population Health) degree in 2007 in the UOW Faculty of Health, School of Public Health, I requested that I continue this research with a PhD. However, the University of Wollongong School of Public Health would not provide supervisors to continue my research in this Faculty.
The School of Public Health transferred my research to the School of Social Sciences in the Faculty of Arts when I requested this in 2007. This situation has been used by the Australian government and the mainstream media to remove credibility from the scientific arguments by claiming that it is a ‘Humanities’ degree and not a ‘Health‘ degree.
In 2014 UOW officially moved the School of Public Health into a new faculty called the Faculty of Social Sciences. This is because the historical control of infectious diseases is a result of political and economic decisions that changed the environment and lifestyle factors in the community – it is not fundamentally a medical issue.
In January 2016, one week after my PhD thesis was published on the University of Wollongong (UOW) website, UOW requested that ~60 academics from the Faculty of Science, Health and Medicine, sign their names to a statement promoting the safety and efficacy of the government’s vaccination program.
This was written by Professor Heather Yeatman – a specialist in nutrition not vaccination science. This was permitted by the university even though these academics have never researched the science in the government’s vaccination policies or debated my in-depth PhD research on this topic. This is deceiving the public about the validity of the government’s claims about vaccine safety and efficacy but the NSW ombudsman would not take action on this breach of academic integrity.
In 2016 Peter McIntyre, who was publicly criticising my research with false information in the mainstream media, declined to permit his PhD thesis on the HIB vaccine completed in 1994 to be published in Open Repository on the University of Sydney website – as mine has been on the University of Wollongong for the last three years. This limits the ability of the scientific community to scrutinise the academic rigour of his PhD.
In contrast mine has received global scrutiny since it was published and the UOW and national and international academics are standing by this research. Peter McIntyre, ex-government advisor for 20+ years to Australia’s vaccination program, has used many inappropriate strategies to suppress the scientific debate of my PhD thesis.
Recently (January 2019) he was the lead author of a paper in the journal Vaccine that used derogative and false information to attack the academic rigour of my PhD thesis – not the scientific arguments. These scientific arguments have never been debated in public discussions of vaccination policies. The University of Wollongong is standing by the rigour of my academic research because national and international academics support it.
Here is my response to the false and misleading information that Peter McIntyre used to critique my PhD thesis. Peter McIntyre has a significant conflict of interest in attacking my thesis because he has been advising the Australian government on its vaccination policies since the 1990’s when this program was exanded. He is defending his own recommendations in this policy and and this is why he does not want the science in my PhD given credibility in this debate.