Some thoughts on vaccine conspiracy theorist Judy Wilyman’s misleading “TV interview” which was published on YouTube on August 16th, 2018.
Viewers are being mislead by Ms. Wilyman’s constant and repetitive referral to “university research” and the allusion to an existing “scientific debate” on vaccination. The science on vaccination is settled and there is certainly no genuine debate. Only anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists constantly seeking to create the impression there is a debate and that the truth is being suppressed.
One wonders. What is the “objective and evidence based university research (approved by the University of Wollongong)” of which Ms. Wilyman speaks? What was the study design? What was the sample size? By what methodology were vaccine ingredients causally linked to chronic disease? Which ingredients were shown to cause chronic disease or pathological changes? By what mechanism do which ingredients cause pathology? How did the study control for other variables? What methods of analysis and statistical verification were used?
Where was this research, “approved by the University of Wollongong [UOW]”, published? Has it been reproduced? How many unsuccessful attempts to falsify the research have there been? Certainly Ms. Wilyman has not published any original research or data. Indeed apart from startlingly unverified claims gleaned frequently from dubious sources, Ms. Wilyman is yet to produce the basic outline of any study design. Rather Ms. Wilyman has joined the ranks of those who misrepresent the purpose of package inserts, and why certain information is included for legal purposes. Not as an indication of what vaccine recipients should expect.
Some Australians are aware that Ms. Wilyman was awarded a PhD from UOW Humanities Department on the basis of a literature review that sought to criticise the Australian Immunisation Schedule and the safety of vaccines in general. Ms. Wilyman has no qualification in health, medicine, public health, epidemiology, vaccine science or any qualifications relating to immunisation at all. During this interview Ms. Wilyman contends, whilst failing to cite any supporting research that vaccine ingredients are causing chronic disease in Australian children.
All Wilyman cites appears to be her own literature review, in which she mistakes correlation for causation. More so, the references cited by Ms. Wilyman in her thesis are firmly biased toward her anti-vaccine theory, and blatantly so. Because of this fact Wilyman has reinforced the fact there is no scientifically reputable debate on the safety and efficacy of mass vaccination at all. In cases where a debate on any topic could be mounted the author of a literature review would present bipartisan sources, review and critique the value of each then finally argue a conclusion based upon the material reviewed.
However the scientific consensus from peer reviewed material addressing vaccine safety and vaccination schedules is one that demonstrates absolutely the safety and success of vaccines. Ms. Wilyman is unable to demonstrate a scientific consensus in peer reviewed literature that suggests widespread chronic disease as a result of mass vaccination because such a consensus does not exist. Ms. Wilyman underscores the intellectual paucity of her stance by insisting that “it has not been proven that autism is not linked to the vaccines”. It has indeed been demonstrated over and over again that autism is not linked to MMR or any vaccine.
One finds it more than disturbing that someone awarded a PhD from an Australian university is incapable of understanding the vast body of work dismissing any link between autism and immunisation. More so, Wilyman goes on to falsely claim there have been deaths and widespread harm causally linked to vaccines. There have been no deaths linked to vaccination in Australia for close to 45 years. On November 21st, 2015 The Social Services Legislative Amendment Bill (No Jab, No Pay) in Brisbane was informed serious reactions to vaccines occur from zero to five times per year in Australia.
These figures reveal Ms. Wilyman’s claims of frequent death and disability from vaccination as bogus. Her abuse of the right to freedom of speech is significantly disturbing as she consciously presents demonstrably false information with the ability to cause community harm, harm to infants and children and the sabotage of public health. For over 17 minutes Judy Wilyman pushes the standard anti-vaccine conspiracy theory, and at one alarming point suggests the Australian Vaccination Schedule with the added incentive of No Jab, No Pay is a breach of The Nuremberg Code.
Let’s clear up what the purpose of the Nuremberg Code is. Following the Nuremberg trials and the conviction of Nazi doctors for human experiments on concentration camp prisoners, the Code was introduced in August 1947. It seeks to give clear instructions and rules as to what is legal when conducting human experiments. There are ten points to the Nuremberg Code.
Comments (below) in response to the video are predictably from the conspiracy theory handbook. The first observes that the government wants to hide what is in a vaccine. You may have noticed above that I linked to vaccine ingredients on this Australian Government Dept. of Health Fact Sheet. The second comment notes “government or doctors” don’t read package inserts. Deaths and serious sickness is covered up.
The harm caused by this misinformation – which is being constantly pushed (and certainly not corrected) by Judy Wilyman is not something one can take lightly.
YouTube comments;
- “It’s very very suspicious when a government and the AMA want to hide the truth from the public about what is in a vaccine. The whole idea of vaccines is to sterilise the population and polysorbate 80 is in all of them. Obviously that idea has come from the minds of psychopaths”.
- “All those who promote the lies of the safety of vaccines are equally responsible as BigPharma for the poisoning and maiming of their own people, (sic) They should recall the Nuremberg Trials and the consequences of those who experimented on the innocent people. The risks of vaccines are listed on the Data sheets of the vaccines and also the Package inserts, which are not studied by government or doctors, and the deaths and serious sicknesses are covered up.”
Ms Wilyman would be wise to stick to humanities it would seem.
Update: Note; Reference to “scientific debate” on vaccination above refers to the contention of the anti-vaccination lobby that the risk/benefit ratio of vaccines is something that is still being debated or a topic that warrants debate. The benefit of vaccines far outweighs the extremely small risk of harm.
Losing In The Lucky Country 
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
Reblogged this on reasonablehank and commented:
Cracking post from Losing in the Lucky Country, on the inept and dishonest anti-vaccination activist, Judy Wilyman.
There have indeed been debates among medical professionals about certain vaccines. Those centered over the risk of some less safe vaccines vs the disease brings of morbidity and mortality.
Where heady topics were, “When should we cease vaccinating against smallpox, two years after no cases? Five years?” and the risks involving oral polio vaccine and resortment of the virus into the wild state and causing the very disease one is wishing to protect against. From those debates and discussions, public policy was created, balancing risk vs reward in protecting the public.
Only certain public health care workers now receive the smallpox vaccine and members of the military (depending upon the nation, the US most certainly does, other nations vary) receive it. Which is a good thing, as that was the riskiest vaccine ever used.
That said, one ran around a 35% fatality rate from smallpox itself, so a 0.001% chance of death from progressive vaccinia or a few of the other horrific infections that rarely struck was a risk worth taking while the disease was still about. Fortunately, the only way one could contract smallpox today is to work in one of the few labs in the world to have a sample and violate enough protocols to expose oneself and likely, one would be stopped by a coworker long before exposure was possible and quickly decontaminated and escorted from the building forever.
Although, to hear some antivaxers speak, smallpox is still around and called chickenpox (yes, I’ve actually heard that nonsense said! I quickly explained that the two were entirely different species, were differently shaped, attached to different receptors and their genetic coding was in no way similar. Using very small words, so as to not confuse the dimwit.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, valid debates on areas of immunisation will occur. It’s the constant antivaxxer contention that the risk/benefit ratio of immunisation programmes has not been demonstrated as safe that I find dangerous.
Thanks for putting this together Paul. You make some important points. The real issue here is that having succeeded in getting a PhD in the arts stream, she misrepresents her work as having a basis in science and medicine. It is very clear from her writing she is completely unable to critically appraise the scientific literature, and balance evidence to reach a conclusion. Very sad that she is now in her important post-doctoral period and appears unwilling or without the skills to properly engage is scientific assessment. Her supervisor has a lot to answer for.
Yes I agree with your point about her supervisor Steve. All university students have the right to gain a range of intellectual tools specific to understanding the scientific method and the importance of consensus.
Hi……..Anonymous..?
I feel i must share my thoughts with you
Unlike many other blogs i have come across lately, I found yours very informative and the comment sections on your articles totally organic and legitimate. Not a hint of censorship. Thank you for setting an example for journalism and ethics in general.
Again, Thank You.
With Admiration
Steven M Smith