My research has been done at the University of Wollongong. Here are the articles that I have had published and/or presented at academic conferences since 2007. I also provide this information to the community in a Newsletter that can be accessed in the publications sub-menu. In addition, I have sent many letters to health authorities requesting the science that supports the Australian government’s vaccination policy. These letters and responses are recorded in the letters sub-menu and you will note that the authorities do not answer the questions the community is asking. They simply claim that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ and have been ‘thoroughly tested’. This is not supported by my university research and the university would be breaching its charter if there was evidence that I had not presented to support this claim.
Instead the University of Wollongong has remained silent as industry lobby group activists have been permitted to present false and misleading information about my university research in the mainstream corporate media. A university that does not correct the academic record for the public is in breach of its charter to maintain integrity in academic knowledge and it is allowing the industry lobby groups to confuse the public about the credility of vaccine research which ensures that the public has to ‘trust’ that the government authorities are providing accurate information in policy design.
The Sydney 2018 Conference ‘The Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia’
Whilst completing my degree I have experienced many strategies that are being used by industry/medical lobby groups to suppress academic debate on vaccinaton. On 30 June 2018 a conference was held in Sydney titled ‘The Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia‘. This conference presented information from seven speakers plus a doctor (suspended for discussing the risks of vaccines with his patients (described as ‘anti-vaccination material’) – who have all presented evidence of the pharmaceutically funded research that is being used to design government vaccination policy. The government is presenting this science as ‘objective’ science when there is an institutional bias in the political system due to conflicts of interest in funding arrangements that is preventing objective science from being debated. Here are the presentations from this conference that provide the evidence that industry lobby groups and COI on government advisory boards are promoting coercive and mandatory vaccination policies and government policy is not being designed by professional bodies using objective science.
Judy Wilyman PhD, Independent Researcher and Educator, Presentation at the Sydney 2018 Conference, ‘Is this a Protective Public Health Policy’
Kathy – Mother of VAccine-Injured Child, Presentation at the Sydney 2018 Conference
Jamie McIntyre, Founder of the Independent Newspaper, Australian Nationa Review, Presentation at the Sydney 2018 Conference
Elizabeth Hart, Independent Vaccine Investigator, Presentation at the Sydney 2018 Conference, ‘Big-Pharma Hijacking of Over-Vaccination Policy‘
Marelle Burnum Burnum, Registered Naturopath and Former Teacher, Presentation at the Sydney 2018 Conference
Emeritus Professor Brian Martin, University of Wollongong, ‘Freedom of Speech in Australia’
Meryl Dorey, Founder of the Australian Vaccination Network in 2014, ‘Covert Censorship in Australia’
[accordion align=”” numbers=”false” first_one_open=”false”]
[pane title=”Whooping Cough Vaccine”]
Here is an article published by the ABC (27 November 2014) ‘Whooping cough cases rise among infants, raise concerns vaccine maybe losing effectiveness‘ that describes the ineffectiveness of whooping cough vaccine in controlling the incidence of the disease in the population. My 2007 thesis examining the government’s policy on the whooping cough vaccine shows that the vaccine, even in the nineties, was ineffective in controlling the incidence of whooping cough disease in the population. Here is a summary article of my whooping cough research that was published in the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) Newsletter (April, 2009). Titled: An Analysis of Whooping Cough Incidence .
EuroSciCon Controlling Cancer Summit: HPV vaccines have not been proven to be safe or effective in the prevention of cervical cancer.
In May 2014 I presented a paper at the Controlling Cancer Summit in London organised by EuroScicon (12 May 2014). My paper was titled ‘HPV vaccines have not been proven to be safe or effective in the prevention of cervical cancer’. Abstract This paper was been published in the journal Infectious Agents and Cancer (June 2013) and it provided evidence that all HPV infections are harmless and asymptomatic unless environmental co-factors are present that are necessary for carcinogenic changes to occur. The FDA states on its website “Infections caused by HPV actually cause no danger in healthy women and are usually short lived”. Therefore, mass HPV vaccination programs in developed countries where the co-factors for cervical cancer development are not prevalent, and where cervical cancer is a low risk for women, result in the majority of women (99%) using a vaccine (a drug) for a disease they are not at risk of getting.
This article has also been presented in a summarised format on the Hormones Matter Website. and in the EuroSciCon Newsletter.
In April 2014 Japan stopped recommending HPV vaccines in government vaccination programs until further safety studies have been completed. This was a result of the high number of adverse events and deaths associated with this vaccine. India and Utah have also stopped the recommendation of this vaccine and France is considering similar action. Here is a link to the suspension of HPV vaccination programs in Japan. A public hearing into the danger of aluminium adjuvant in vaccines (there is 3 times as much aluminium adjuvant in HPV vaccines as other vaccines) has been debated in a public hearing in France on 22 May 2014. The report from this hearing stated that many people have a pre-disposition (genetic condition) to serious reactions from aluminium adjuvants and this needs to be considered in the recommendation of vaccines in universal vaccination programs. Here is a link to the findings.
Here is the letter I sent to the Minister of Health (5 December 2014) asking why the Australian government is subsidising the HPV vaccine?
The marketing campaign for HPV vaccines has been designed and funded by the manufacturers of the vaccines and promoted to consumers through the medical associations. The pharmaceutical companies used ready made slides and lecture kits to educate doctors about this vaccine. Here is a link to my article published on the Hormones Matter website titled – The Pharma Funded Promotion of HPV Vaccines. This article describes the way in which HPV vaccines have been promoted to consumers by doctors with campaigns that were designed and funded by the pharmaceutical companies.
Here is an article regarding the impending trial of the Bill Gates Foundation (BGF) in the Indian Supreme Court for illegally trialling the HPV vaccine on thousands of Indian children. This article has been published in many countries but it has not been published in the mainstream Australian or US media. This court case is investigating the claim that the BGF, WHO and the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH – funded by Bill Gates) “were criminally negligent trialling the (HPV) vaccines on an vulnerable uneducated and under-informed population school administrators, students and parents who were not provided informed consent or advised of potential adverse effects or required to be monitored post-vaccination”. This information can be accessed in these articles Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Vaccine Empire on Trial in India and Bill Gates Faces Trial in India for Illegally Testing Tribal Children with Vaccines.
A Question for the AMA President:
Why is the Australian government aggressively marketing the HPV vaccine ($Au450 per person) which only covers 2 of 15+ strains of HPV that are associated with causing cervical cancer, in school programs for girls and boys, when Pap screening combined with surgery is safer and more effective in the prevention of cervical cancer? All vaccinated women will still need Pap screening because at least 30% of cervical cancer is not covered by the vaccine – so why do Australians need this vaccine? [/pane]
In February 2013 I presented a paper at the University of Melbourne, History and Philosophy of Science Postgraduate Association Conference. My paper was titled: Vaccinations and the Medical Model of Health; how ethical is this policy? Abstract. This session was chaired by Dr. James Bradley, School of Population and Global Health. My paper concluded that Australia’s vaccination policies are not ethical because all the science has not been used to prove vaccines (and the combined schedule of vaccines) are safe and effective. The claims in the Australian government’s vaccination policy are founded on ‘undone science’ – i.e essential research that has not been done to prove the safety and efficacy of the governments vaccination schedule.
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.
A summary of this article is presented on the Hormones Matters website titled Marketing the HPV Vaccines to Prevent Cervical Cancer. This research was also presented at the 3rd world congress on Cancer Science and Therapy in San Francisco on the 21st October 2013.
Facts about HPV Infections:
HPV infections on their own (including HPV 16 and 18) are not a risk for cervical cancer when the environmental co-factors needed for carcinogenesis are not also present. Hence 80% of cervical cancer occurs in the developing countries where the risk factors are prevalent for HPV infections to progress to disease.
Risk factors for cervical cancer include (but are not limited to a
a) multiple partners for the male or female b) not wearing a condom / microbicides c) conditions conducive to STD’s such as poor hygiene and sanitation. The majority of women in developed countries such as Australia, UK and the US, are infected with HPV but they are not at high risk from any HPV infection because the co-factors for this disease are not prevalent in these countries.
The ‘HPV Vaccine’ has been promoted to women as a ‘vaccine to prevent cervical cancer’ but it has not been demonstrated to prevent cervical cancer this is why it is not called a ‘cervical cancer vaccine’. See Fact Sheet.
This vaccine has been promoted to the public on misleading statements and selective information and this has been outlined in our joint Letter to the Editor of the Infectious Agents and Cancer Journal (1st February 2013). In this letter we have asked 8 questions about the information that was used to promote HPV vaccines to the public. Dr. Silvia de Sanjose has answered these 8 questions with selective information and I have provided a critique of these 8 answers here.
HPV Vaccine Fact Sheet: The information in this fact sheet has been published in the Infectious Agents and Cancer Journal, the conference proceedings for the British Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM 2011) and reported by the ABC in the on-line Health Report in October 2011. It has also been presented at 2 international conferences.
Here are the declared conflicts of interest that have been documented in the development and approval of HPV vaccines.
Here are some of the serious safety concerns that have been documented with HPV vaccines globally .
In April 2012 I presented a paper on the HPV vaccine at the University of NSW, Sydney. The paper was presented at the Silence and Articulation Conference (12-13 April) organised by the National Centre in HIV Social Research (NCHSR). My paper was titled: Human papillomavirus: Are HPV vaccines a safe and effective management strategy for cervical cancer disease in Australia? Abstract
In June 2012 I presented a paper at the University of Wollongong (UOW), Higher Degree Research Students Conference. This was organised by the Faculty of Arts. My paper was titled: Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation: how ethical is this policy? Abstract
This presentation was based on the poster I presented at the National Health Promotion Conference in Perth, May 2009: Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation; our ethical is this policy? Poster
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012
In December 2012 I became aware that the Australian Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill was being consolidated and that a Senate Inquiry was being held regarding current human rights and anti-discrimination conduct. My submission to the Senate Inquiry provided evidence of the influence of industry on government and medical research and it was published on the government website: The Australian Government’s Vaccination Policies and the Discrimination against Healthy Individuals in Schools and the Workplace This bill was not consolidated in 2013.
Government vaccination policies are a human rights issue because this policy recommends a medical procedure, requiring the injection of unknown substances into the healthy human body; without regard for individual genetics. The government does not require doctors to inform the public of the ingredients of vaccines and their known side-effects or to assess the patients family history to see if there is a contraindication to vaccination. Currently there are institutions in Australia that are discriminating against unvaccinated individuals even though vaccination in Australia is NOT compulsory.
[pane title=”2007- 2011″]
In June 2011 I presented a poster at the University of Wollongong (UOW) Postgraduate Conference. The poster was titled: The Pathogenesis of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in the Development of Cervical Cancer: are HPV vaccines a safe and effective management strategy? HPV Poster
In September 2011 The British Society of Ecological Medicine (BSEM) published my article on the HPV vaccine in the on-line conference proceedings for the BSEM Scientific Conference The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention (March 2011). My article was titled: The Pathogenesis of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in the Development of Cervical Cancer: are HPV vaccines a safe and effective management strategy?
The ABC on-line Health Report did an interview regarding this publication on 13 October 2011. Titled: Questioning the Evidence for HPV Vaccine.
My article on the adverse reactions to the childhood influenza vaccine that occurred during the West Australian trial of this vaccine in 2010 was published on the VacTruth.com website. This article was titled: Adverse Reactions to Flu Vaccine in Children 2010
Presentation at the Australian National Health Promotion Conference in Perth in May 2009, The Ethics of Childhood Influenza Immunisation
Presentation at the Murdoch University Postgraduate Conference. This paper was titled: Should Australian Children be Vaccinated? (See article above)
The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) Intouch Newsletter, April 2009, Is the Whooping Cough Vaccine Effective? (referenced copy). Please note that this article was fully referenced and reviewed by Professor Peter McIntyre, Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS). Professor McIntrye wrote a reply article that was published in the same newsletter in 2009 but neither the PHAA nor Professor Peter McIntyre provided me with the references to his article when I requested them. The references are essential to assess the validity of the arguments presented.
National Health Promotion Association Conference (18 – 19 May Perth 2009)
I. Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation: how ethical is this policy? (Poster)
II. Childhood Influenza Immunisation: how is this program promoted and evaluated? (Oral presentation). See article above.
Australasian College of Environmental and Nutritional Medicine (ACNEM), A new strain of influenza or a change in surveillance? Vol 28, No 4, Dec 2009
Poster Presentation 2009
The USA National Vaccine Information Centre (NVIC) Show Us the Science Give us the Choice The 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
Natural Health and Vegetarian Life, 2009, Questioning the Evidence for Childhood Immunisation. Plus a brochure on Childhood Vaccination: Investigate the Risks, Autumn edition
Australasian College of Environmental and Nutritional Medicine (ACNEM), Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation vol 27, No.2, October 2008, p.6 – 9
2007 A thesis submitted in (partial) fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science (University of Wollongong), Population Health, School of Health Sciences (High Distinction) An Analysis of the Federal Government’s Whooping Cough Policy