In 2015 a long standing Australian anti-vaccination activist and lobbyist, Judith Wilyman, was awarded a PhD by the University of Wollongong. Titled A Critical Analysis of The Australian Government’s Rationale for its Vaccination Policy, the work attracted exceptional criticism. I’d like to consider the veracity of certain arguments raised in defence of Wilyman’s work, noting they have arisen from one source and are themselves extensive. [Jump to Conspiracy Theory Attribution].

Antithesis

From across the globe and from multiple sources, criticism flowed readily for Wilyman’s publication. For this author, there was one thing other than the content that also rankled. The fact that it was a collection of biased references arranged to attack the integrity of one of Australia’s most effective public health initiatives. Quite striking, for a work that emerged from an academic institution, is the absence of any original research conducted by the author. As the author uses the term “thesis” we had best examine this. The Oxford dictionary offers two distinctions, with the following describing “a doctoral thesis”:

a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a university degree

This may of course seem petty unless you’ve taken time to examine this work. Nonetheless for the sake of clarity I too shall yield and refer to this diversion from genuine analysis of Australian vaccination policy, as a thesis. It is clear however, that there is no research, methodology, study, data collection or justified hypothesis. There is only a literature review and a biased one at that. Australian emergency physician Kristin Boyle describes the work as, “the inevitable product of someone with an ideology based agenda”. Genuine literature reviews that seek to examine varying or different arguments, are valuable items of research. They collate and examine related works, and in judging the strengths or weaknesses of each, offer a contention, or indeed a novel conclusion. This didn’t happen in the Wilyman literature review. Still, Judith Wilyman falsely poses herself as “an expert witness” in a family court case, a “specialist in government vaccination policies” (federal politics), and has significantly elevated her importance to the fields of vaccinology and public health.

The reality is Wilyman barely scraped in. One of her two examiners suggested the thesis was unworthy of PhD status and better suited to a Master’s degree. They observed concerns about a lack of engagement with existing literature and “the lack of an appropriate theoretical framework”. Wilyman they argued, had conducted no original research nor contributed to the knowledge of the subject. This conflict was resolved by the rare event of appointing a third examiner. Australian Skeptics Inc. report (archived):

That third examiner, also unnamed, judged that, while the thesis as assessed showed Wilyman conducted original research, it did not make a significant contribution to knowledge of the subject, had no indication of a broad understanding of the discipline within which the work was conducted, and that it was not suitable for publication. 

They recommended that the thesis be resubmitted, and gave “extensive and detailed comments on areas that need to be improved”, sharing the same concerns as the earlier critical examiner.

This revised version was consulted by only one examiner; the third individual who had requested the significant changes. The original “earlier critical examiner” was not asked for an opinion. The examiner who had accepted the original, doubly-rejected thesis, was considered a certainty for the improved version. Thus, a year later than she planned, Wilyman had her PhD.

In the excellent article, PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences (Vaccine 37; p. 1542), Wiley et al postulate as to how this oversight possibly came to be:

The quality of the writing and presentation of the thesis is such that many of its arguments could seem plausible to an examiner without specific content knowledge, despite sound academic credentials. Our combined expertise (vaccinology, epidemiology, the history and practise of immunisation policy development globally and in Australia, social science) and as PhD examiners, both gives us detailed knowledge of the sources cited by the thesis, and allows us to identify key deficiencies […] A critical analysis should consider the merits and faults of an issue and be conducted in a way that is not designed to find only evidence for the writer’s pre-determined conclusions. […] This thesis does not include methods for assessing the literature, does not discuss aspects of identified studies which may contradict one another, or attempt to establish the quality of relevant studies. Rather, the references used are highly selective, only citing a small number of the available epidemiological studies and clinical trial reports, all of which are interpreted to support conclusions which appear pre-determined.

The Supervisor

A News GP summary of the above paper in Vaccine is available here. Let’s examine the first sentence in the above quote. Firstly, does it help us understand how such a deliberate failure to include material supporting Australia’s vaccination policy was not addressed by Wilyman’s supervisor? Secondly, is it likely such a biased collection of arguments was missed because examiners, and particularly the supervisor, lacked “specific content knowledge”? Sure, Wilyman studied within the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. Her supervisor, Professor Brian Martin completed his PhD in Theoretical Physics and later became a Professor of Social Sciences, at the University of Wollongong. But not being qualified in vaccinology, related fields or policy development does not render senior academics incapable of accessing evidence or seeking consultation. More so, Wilyman’s published acknowledgement of her supervisor is unambiguous;

I would also like to thank Professor Brian Martin, my primary supervisor at the University of Wollongong, for his unwavering support and encouragement. His weekly phone calls kept me focused and there were many robust discussions that helped me to overcome the significant opposition to this project. I thank him for his patience and dedication to my research.

It’s important to acknowledge that the role of Professor Brian Martin (left) in Wilyman’s thesis was not just one of “unwavering support” for her many unsupported claims, but one in which his own later accounts afford academic freedom more importance than academic integrity. I shall endeavour to be as fair as possible in referencing claims Brian Martin has made in defence of the Wilyman thesis. I will seriously consider the notion of Conspiracy Theory Attribution (CTA) and the suggested failure of critics to analyse the thesis and citations presented.

This is not a review of Professor Martin himself, though by necessity peculiarities of his academic persuasion(s) will be mentioned. Brian Martin has a strong interest in dissent and has written extensively on the subject. Where justified whistleblowers need support, or suppressed minorities need a voice and equal rights, the value of dissent is clear. Yet when groups of anti-vaccine activists with a documented history of deception, pseudoscience, fear mongering, media sabotage and even abuse of grieving parents, labour to undermine successful public health initiatives, they cause harm, not express dissent. False elevation of anti-science ideology as genuine dissent may well have tragic consequences.

To be in a position where one can guide a student toward critical thinking and witness use of that skill for selfless acknowledgement of evidence, as opposed to ideology, is a genuine privilege. More so, I’d argue that where dissent and academic freedom harm the innocent, or promote misinformation, the pursuit of either is a malignant endeavour. Spreading misinformation about vaccination leads to vaccine hesitancy, increased disease and death with a corresponding rise in public health costs. Few human beings will ever experience the honour of defending truth, or suppressing the chaos that thrives in its absence. Most however, can clearly see the difference.

Professor Brian Martin, has argued indifference in defending the anti-vaccination lobby, yet also contended that criticism of Wilyman by the volunteer group Stop The Australian (anti) Vaccination Network (SAVN) as “more relentless and abusive” than any other “attack on academic freedom” he has witnessed. Regrettably, the anti-vaccine identities Martin has defended have a long history of cunning deception. In the case of Wilyman this history only grew under his supervision. The proposed analysis of vaccine policy rationale emerged as familiar, albeit convoluted, anti-vaccine rhetoric. Conversely, Australia’s vaccination policy is both life saving and innovative, relying upon published data and peer reviewed evidence.

As revealed by Ken McLeod for Australian Skeptics Inc. (2020), Wilyman lied and exaggerated in her thesis, making several bizarre if not senseless claims. Fallacious allusions between unrelated subjects, bogus connotations, “egregious” misrepresentations of history, attacks on vaccines, science and health policy, dangerous misinformation and convenient fabrication aiming to elevate her status, likely all impact the reader.

Conspiracy Theory Attribution

Martin alleges journalist Kylar Loussikian, who wrote critically of Wilyman’s thesis in January 2016, attributed a conspiracy theory to her argument. He did so in part, Martin contends, because it avoided criticising SAVN, not because refuting antivaccinationism is an evidence-based pursuit, or because he chose to criticise Wilyman of his own free will. Rather, “adopting SAVN’s framing of the thesis”, secured Loussikian from “an attack by SAVNers”. Martin also misrepresented the reason SAVN formed, which I shall aim to address in context, in a future post. His Conspiracy Theory Attribution (CTA) is used liberally to defend Wilyman, and as such it is helpful to examine Martin’s full postulation of CTA to appreciate his reliance upon it. The article, “Uptake of a Conspiracy Theory Attribution.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 8 (6): 16-30, by Brian Martin 2019, encompasses his full argument [Source].

Professor Martin identifies CTA uptake, reception and acceptance. CTA is a “claim or allegation that someone has espoused a conspiracy theory” [p.17]. Martin ponders if science-related CTAs are accepted uncritically or tested for validity. He argues in this case poor scrutiny of the CTA can be due to “information cascades, confirmation bias, Google-knowing and polarisation of the vaccination controversy” [p. 26]. I find these suggestions far too favourable to the overall argument Martin is making. Combined with the insistence critics must have failed to read the entire thesis, the combination makes for an unrealistic hurdle to clear to be accepted as a worthy critic. Over 2016 Loussikian wrote six more articles which according to Martin, “repeated the same angle on the CTA”. Loussikian referred to the Wilyman thesis (and the CTA) in 2017 (Daily Telegraph) and 2018 (Sun-Herald).

Professor Martin also felt Loussikian “stigmatised and denigrated” Wilyman’s thesis by not having pursued central arguments and by also using “quotes from the thesis taken out of context, thereby giving the impression that Wilyman was making unsupported assertions”. Again noting the excellent deconstruction of Wilyman’s copious unsupported assertions by Ken McLeod and Australian Skeptics Inc., I found the latter comment striking. Martin levelled the same criticism at Loussikian for not espousing that journal sources had found the same analysis as hers. Not only has Wilyman’s selection of bibliography been deemed biased, but the article in Vaccine that so adequately explained this, was labelled by Martin as “the first (scholarly article) to subject the thesis to careful systematic scrutiny…” [p. 25].

Conversely, Wilyman described it as “an attack on my research in an attempt to discredit my PhD”. Her general tone in responding is shrill, as she alleges further anti-vaccine points. Without actually conducting studies Wilyman contends she knows vaccine ingredients are a plausible cause of chronic illness, disability and death in children. Responding to News GP, she alleges the entire article is based on “false information”, whilst Professors McIntyre and Burgess are simply “defending their policy decisions” and “suppressing academic research and valid scientific arguments regarding vaccination”. Some vaccines are unnecessary and others have never led to herd immunity, Wilyman alleges. Her full response to the Vaccine article is here.

It is likely Brian Martin had been misled by certain anti-vaccine lobbyists and is also sympathetic to their cause. I hope he failed to appreciate the length and scale of harm, harassment and deception left in their wake. Judy Wilyman had participated eagerly, having joined The Australian Vaccination-risks Network in 2009, and Martin had witnessed her reaping what she had sown. Indeed, in 2016 Martin so anticipated immediate criticism of Wilyman’s thesis, that he attempted to groom journalist Kylar Loussikian by sending him a link to a short summary of Wilyman’s work. Similar to alleging Loussikian adopted SAVN framing in his criticism, Martin was no doubt concerned that reception would be negative.

Professor Martin’s subsequent published commentary indicates he believed Loussikian should have published the proffered summary, rather than choosing to focus on a staple of anti-vaccine activists; the conspiracy theory. Indeed, Martin critiques Loussikian’s article Uni accepts thesis on vaccine ‘conspiracy’ published in The Australian at length [Source]. He highlights the opening line:

The University of Wollongong has accepted a PhD thesis from a prominent anti-vaccination activist that warns that global agencies such as the World Health Organisation are colluding with the pharmaceutical industry in a massive conspiracy to spruik immunisation.

From this point Professor Martin began an extensive defence of Judy Wilyman’s thesis. He has vigorously used CTA to defend Wilyman and her fellow antivax activist, Meryl Dorey. The most prominent aspect of CTA as argued by Martin, is that the attribution of a conspiracy theory is made without evidence, is unjust and is orchestrated as a means to denigrate the individual accused of alluding to, or believing in, a conspiracy theory (CT). Following criticism of Wilyman’s thesis, Martin cited CTA to dismiss arguments from Kylar Loussikian, Professor John Dwyer, Jane Hansen, David Gorski, Rick Morton, Wikipedia, SBS and a petition that called upon the Australian “Department of Education and Training to take immediate disciplinary action against the University of Wollongong” and for the “Department of Health to issue unequivocal condemnation of this travesty.” He lists each petition comment that negatively mentions the CTA (p. 24).

Martin argues, correctly, that Wilyman did not use the term “conspiracy theory” in her thesis. He reasons that it follows that she cannot be accused of advancing a conspiracy theory. More so, her critics, particularly Loussikian, encouraged CTA largely due to ignorance of her thesis, whilst attempting to denigrate her work and status as an author via the CTA itself. This dynamic is entirely feasible and is a factual representation of what may evolve due to a power imbalance between say, “authoritative regimes and immigrants or dissidents” (Nera et al, 2022). Closer study of Martin’s argument and cited references combined with Wilyman’s reputation, does not support that such a power imbalance exists.

Nonetheless, Wilyman did her best to create such an illusion. A significant part of her thesis refers to the myth of “undone science” suppressed by authoritative groups. In her thesis Wilyman claims, “If necessary research to improve knowledge about health outcomes has been discussed but not funded, it is termed ‘undone science’”. In a 2019 newsletter Wilyman wrongly claims “government vaccination policies are based on undone science”. She further confuses her readers by alleging undone science is “the term given to clinical studies that are required to be done by governments before they claim to the public that a drug/vaccine is safe and effective.” In fact this is a Phase 3 Clinical Trial: Safety and Efficacy.

Her conclusion to the thesis chapter on undone science (8:11) contends it is research not carried out “because the likely results would be unwelcome to powerful groups”. She argues this leads to unfunded areas of science and policy design that contribute to unpredictable health outcomes. This is made worse by the inability of the public to influence the decision-making process that oversees relevant research, and thus, undone science persists. Responsible for “medical tyranny” governments and a “select (elite) group of medical practitioners” use pharma-funded studies to promote vaccines. Autonomy for GPs has been removed and speaking about independent studies that reveal the dangers of vaccines can lead to de-registration, Wilyman alleged in 2019. Despite the inaccuracy of this notion, belief in such faux “powerful groups” helps us appreciate the promotion of vaccine policy dissent.

Finally, and also correctly, Martin notes that work of other authors raise the same criticisms Wilyman did with respect to the WHO declaration of the 2009 “swine flu” pandemic. I will examine this final defence in more detail later, with particular focus on context. For now, let’s first understand what was proposed by Wilyman that led to accusations of conspiracy theory thinking?

Pandemic 2009

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is delegated to manage international health emergencies via the International Health Regulations (IHR). Before May 2009 WHO described an influenza pandemic as simultaneous worldwide epidemics that caused enormous numbers of illnesses and deaths. After May 2009 the reference to “enormous numbers” was removed. A statement referring to severity, and adequately explaining the change in wording was added; “Pandemics can be either mild or severe in the illness and death they cause and the severity of a pandemic can change over the course of the pandemic.” For myself, and presumably many others, this made absolute sense. Epidemics are outbreaks effecting those within a particular region or population. Pandemics are global outbreaks. That these terms describe the reach of a virus, rather than its virulence or pathogenicity, is not only axiomatic. It is essential, indeed critical, that global health authorities have descriptions at hand that serve to mobilise local responses and when necessary, prepare or mobilise global responses.

Judy Wilyman (left) referred to the change in definition on page 287 of her thesis. She then raised concerns about conflicts of interest, particularly involving advisory board members linked to pharmaceutical companies. A primary concern Wilyman raises is the declaration of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the triggering of large sales of vaccines, which fortunately were not needed. Wilyman sees nefarious intent at play here, partly justified by a period of only weeks between the change in definition and the pandemic declaration. In chapter 3, page 63 she refers to “the 2009 ‘fake’ pandemic”. Later, Wilyman likens it to the outcome “of the ‘swine’ flu pandemic of 1976 which also did not eventuate”. I would suggest these statements are a clear expression of Judy Wilyman’s thinking about the 2009 N1H1 pandemic. Her conclusion to chapter 10 opens as follows:

The ‘Swine Flu’ pandemic of 2009 was declared by a secret WHO committee that had ties to pharmaceutical companies that stood to make excessive profits from the pandemic. This situation was facilitated by the lack of effective regulations and transparency regarding COI, within the WHO and national governments, to prevent pharmaceutical companies from exploiting global health policies to their advantage.

The first sentence above was quoted by Kylar Loussikian in the article Uni accepts thesis on vaccine ‘conspiracy’, and this, combined with reference to a conspiracy theory in Wilyman’s work, drew intellectual ire from Martin. In seven articles defending Wilyman’s thesis and six specific responses to other authors, Martin addressed individuals citing the “conspiracy theory” attributed to Wilyman and sought to highlight each CTA [Source]. Readers are informed of an “hysterical reaction” to academic freedom, “mobbing” of a PhD student, “persistent bias” on Wikipedia, necessary “defending” of university integrity and the “orchestrated attack” on a PhD thesis.

As noted above Martin contends that Wilyman’s allegations have been unjustly dismissed, and supporting citations ignored. In referencing these citations, Martin quotes from a 2010 article in the BMJ [p. 20]:

Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as “conspiracy theories” (Cohen and Carter 2010).

Thus Wilyman’s claim, as Martin reminds us, is accurate. Yet this specific observation is a small part of a thesis that is based on highly selective material and void of literature analysis. This is clear, as when we apply the context of other WHO critics, the language used by Wilyman in her above quote, and further allegations within her thesis, we can see she has taken liberties others have not. She refers to drug companies standing to make “excessive profits… facilitated by the lack of effective regulations… [that would] prevent pharmaceutical companies from exploiting global health policies to their advantage.”

Wilyman herself acknowledges that WHO accepts inconsistencies regarding conflicts of interest exist, and safeguards relating to these need to be tightened. Chapter 10.12 of her thesis is headed Summary of the Evidence for an Orchestrated Pandemic in 2009. An “orchestrated pandemic” is not a conclusion in the sources she previously cited, but rather a fabrication of her own making. H1N1 caused 284,400 deaths globally in 2009 [Mayo Clinic]. Of 899 patients effected during the first outbreak in Mexico, 6.5% fell critically ill, of whom 41% died [Source].

The article, WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies” (Cohen and Carter 2010)[PDF] was a BMJ joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which critically examined conflicts of interest that troubled WHO after the H1N1 pandemic was called. It is a well written, well researched article which takes a realistic approach in understanding bipartisan dynamics at play. It is worth noting the word conspiracies in the heading is in quotation marks. I have no trouble accepting their argument, yet I have seen nothing other than assumption, that critics of Wilyman had ignored this and other WHO critics because they did not cite the sources.

In fact criticism of WHO for COI and issues of transparency came from many quarters including Paul Flynn, Social Health and Family Affairs Committee Rapporteur, U.K. and Harvey Fineberg, president of the U.S. Institute of Medicine. 13 of the 29 members of the review panel were members of the IHR itself, leading Cohen and Carter to observe some may think internal reviews somewhat of an “incestuous approach”. Nonetheless, the headline at science.org accompanying a report of the review in March 2011, read Committee Sharply Critiques WHO’s Pandemic Response.

Professor Peter McIntyre is a co-author of PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences [Vaccine 37], that I quoted from above. In News GP, he plainly addresses Wilyman’s resurrection of the material analysed by Cohen and Carter in 2010:

All the things she’s raised are not new. They’ve been raised in the past and dealt with (Prof. Peter McIntyre).

Language employed by Cohen and Carter, whilst critical, acknowledges the reality of WHO contracts. The authors voiced concerns about conflicts of interest amongst scientists contributing to pandemic planning, and even the transparency of advisory science to governments. They rightly questioned why a pandemic guidance committee remained secret to those within WHO, writing at one point:

We are left wondering whether major public health organisations are able to effectively manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medical science.

“Inherent in medical science”. This phrase is key. The authors are not accusing WHO of nefarious intent. Rather, in the wake of the H1N1 pandemic that failed to impact the world as predicted, WHO was vulnerable to questions about transparency. Questions that made particular sense because vaccines had gone unused, and because of secrecy, it was feasible identities with links to pharmaceutical companies had pressured the WHO to declare a pandemic, which triggered the sale of vaccines. The authors postulate that the problems critics identified, had “led to the emergence of these conspiracies”, noting also the manner in which risk was communicated, “was another factor that has fuelled the conspiracies” (Cohen and Carter 2010).

Perhaps Wilyman’s critics that Professor Martin has accused of Conspiracy Theory Attribution had indeed examined the supporting citations she provided. And surely, if we are to accept this allegation by Wilyman as correct because she cited this article, as Martin opined, do we then disregard the well documented approach of Judy Wilyman and jettison the years of her posing vaccination per se is a therapeutically useless affront to the public, maintained via deceit and yes, conspiracy? Has Brian Martin really convinced his readers of Wilyman’s academic integrity solely because she has recounted the work of others, in holding WHO to account for COI, poor transparency and declaring a pandemic that fooled well meaning experts? As John Cohen wrote in 2011:

At the outset, no one could predict that the novel H1N1 virus—a recombination of human, pig, and avian influenza genes—would turn out to be more wimp than monster.

Let us remember in 2010 Margaret Chan who was WHO Director General at the time, spoke at the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Perhaps we should give the last word on pandemic 2009 criticism to her:

WHO anticipated close scrutiny of its decisions, but we did not anticipate that we would be accused, by some European politicians, of having declared a fake pandemic on the advice of experts with ties to the pharmaceutical industry and something personal to gain from increased industry profits.

There’s little point digging further. This post is about the 2015 University of Wollongong Wilyman thesis and the arguably fragile use of Conspiracy Theory Attribution to refute the critics in its wake. However, lacking so far is a brief reflection of Judith Wilyman, the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist. How might Conspiracy Theory Self Attribution (CTSE) have influenced the manner in which critics chose to phrase their criticism?

Judy Wilyman’s Conspiracy Theory Self Attribution

Prior to her thesis being published Judy pushed the idea vaccines are linked to autism, the HPV vaccine should be ignored [ABC], all vaccine ingredients were concerning, and added more reasons to not have the HPV vaccine. Just over 16 months ago, Scotland yielded data that resulted from ignoring the sort of messages Wilyman was pushing. Zero cases of cervical cancer have been detected in girls, or people with a cervix, who had the bivalent HPV vaccine by age 12 years [PDF]. In Australia the 4vHPV vaccine is 100% effective (95% CI: 94-100%) against vaginal and external anogenital lesions associated with HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 in women. Judy pushed the idea all vaccines are dangerous and not necessary, whilst being essentially mandated for Australians. All this included a Quack Miranda that it is Not Medical Advice.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, Judy Wilyman embraced a number of demonstrable conspiracy theories from the “plandemic” ruse, to the calculated 5G initiated genocide-by-vaccine of humanity, to “died suddenly”. Bill Gates worked to profit from humanities doom whilst the vaccine mutated human DNA and after all, COVID-19 was either benign, non-existent, a mere flu or a lethal weapon designed by invading aliens, in conjunction with human elites. In fact, Wilyman was an “expert witness” and “tribunal judge” in a self-proclaimed International Tribunal alleging “genocide and crimes against humanity created by any and all vaccines”. The tribunal stated a number of prominent human beings (p.101):

… are entrained by and in criminal co-conspiracy with PPAI, a sentient Off-planet, predatory, pathogenic, invading Inorganic AI Artificial Intelligence, and are “entrained AI proxies, AI hosts, and AI sponsors” in creating and maintaining the 5G/AI Coronavirus Genocide that is causing imminent and irreparable harm to all human beings similarly situated.

Five months ago, without citing evidence, Wilyman informed anti-COVID-19 vaccine activist, Senator Russell Broadbent that vaccine ingredients are the cause of chronic illness in children. She alleged that the media can report an “epidemic of measles” when only one case exists, and that COVID-19 was a run-of-the-mill COVID virus modified by gain of function research to induce lethal virulence. Most vaccines on The Australian schedule have no protective effect and if so, that is short-lived protection.

Doctors Wilyman alleged, once used to warn us to not get vaccinated because of individual genetics (this happens to be a Wilyman™️ trope), but now those doctors have been removed. There’s no proof polio is a virus Judy says – it’s merely toxins or chemicals. If Judy could speak to the PM and health minister about vaccines she’d inform them “they’ve been complicit in the biggest crime against humanity that’s ever been committed”. But of course a great deal of the harm is down to Stop The AVN and Australian Skeptics. Apparently some aren’t even scientists. Imagine that.

Conclusion

Conspiracy theories are self-evident without needing the theorist to label them or the observer to study them to confirm their proposal. Wilyman has created an Australia-wide identity of an anti-science, anti-vaccine fantasist who has an almost violent disregard for evidence, accusing even sympathetic interlocutors of harbouring conspiracy theories.

Martin and the examiners of her thesis are humanities scholars, not scientists, and this may help us understand why a work that made no original contribution to any area of academia was accepted as a doctoral thesis. Of genuine concern is the fact that an anti-science ideologist now wields the title of “doctor”, as if this renders her claims ipso facto correct.

We’ve seen that Conspiracy Theory Attribution as an excuse wielded in defence of Judy Wilyman by Brian Martin, has tenuous technical merit only. A key factor weakening his argument is the conduct of Judy Wilyman herself.

CTA in addition to the criteria to assess uptake are constructs Martin himself devised. They do not, and cannot, remedy the reality that the Wilyman thesis is an academic aberration, holding no place in science.

---

References
Uptake of a Conspiracy Theory Attribution
News with a negative frame: a vaccination case study
Debating Vaccination
Mobbing of a PhD student: lessons and responsibilities
Judy Wilyman, PhD: how to understand attacks on a research student
WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”
A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy
PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences
RESPONSE TO JUDY WILYMAN’S PHD THESIS ON VACCINATION POLICY – AN ASSESSMENT OF ERRORS, OMISSIONS, MISREPRESENTATIONS
Judy Wilyman – Wikipedia