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.
As US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has overseen financial and staffing cuts to infectious disease, mental health and addiction services. However, he appears to be unaware of this and the extent of the harm he has caused.
In trying to ascertain exactly where his head is at, consider his visit to the unvaccinated Mennonite community in Seminole, Texas, where a measles epidemic rages, killing children and nearly killing others. Kennedy posted on X about his visit with a couple whose 2 year old daughter was discharged after 3 weeks in Intensive Care. He also offered:
I also visited with these two extraordinary healers, Dr. Richard Bartlett and Dr. Ben Edwards who have treated and healed some 300 measles-stricken Mennonite children using aerosolised budesonide and clarithromycin.
Healed? Really?
Well, no. Nothing “heals” measles. There is no cure. Richard Bartlett has previously claimed budesonide was a miracle cure for COVID-19. His extensive research involved being asleep during which time “an answer to a prayer” came to him. With patent laws on divine intervention being sketchy at best, it’s no surprise that this is now a cure for measles. So, what is aerosolized budesonide when it’s at home? A bronchodilator, often simply called an asthma inhaler, after its most common use. As noted in the video below, Dr. Paul Offit warns of the immune inhibiting qualities of steroids like budesonide and the obvious danger this poses during measles infection.
The other “extraordinary healer”, Ben Edwards, has recently volunteered that mass infection is “God’s version of measles immunisation”. This guy is peddling prayer and unproven treatments whilst wandering about his so-called clinic, himself infected with measles. When devotees from the Kennedy-founded anti-vaccine lobbyist group, Children’s Health Defense praise him for his negligence he offers, “I’m only doing what any good doctor should be doing”.
So here we are, now getting an idea of how US public health initiatives unfold under Kennedy. I wonder if this is what Trump had in mind when he said “Go wild Bobby”. To make the whole thing even more bizarre is the fact other anti-vaccine identities are criticising Kennedy for observing, tucked at the bottom of another post on X, that the MMR vaccine is “the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles”. They may be happier with the falsehoods he has since announced about “treating” measles (you can’t) that cases are inevitable because the vaccine “wanes very quickly” (it doesn’t), and 14 studies not linking autism to vaccines are “invalid” (no evidence provided) .
With her apt tone, Rachel Maddow runs through a few of Kennedy’s recent failures, in the MSNBC video below…
“Turbo cancer” does not exist. Oncologists reject the notion entirely. Aside from the ridiculous name, there is no evidence to support it. Bold claims promoting it as fact, are not merely invalid, but scientifically incompetent. Proponents offer no clear definition, other than insist DNA can be damaged by COVID-19 vaccines, leading to aggressive cancers. As the “died suddenly” trend begins to die out, “turbo cancer” is in top gear.
We’re told residual DNA in vaccines is responsible. Or, the vaccines enter the cell nucleus. Or, it’s not a vaccine – it’s gene therapy. Or, simian virus 40 (SV40) is the cancer-causing agent in mRNA vaccines. This last claim has origins reaching back to the 1950s and 1960s when discovery of SV40 present in oral polio vaccine was responsible for safety concerns and later cancer fear-mongering. Mechanisms of infection were verified as possible but rare, and allegations of a surge in cancers decades later, are unverified. SV40 was one of the first oncogenic viruses discovered. These viruses cause cancers in experimental animals and in some cases humans. However, not in this case. When it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, some mRNA preparations may contain SV40 fragments, which aren’t the same as the virus and are not carcinogenic. In fact there is no evidence of this ever having occurred. The fragments occur because part of SV40’s DNA sequence is used in the beginning of mRNA vaccine development.
As for so-called “turbo cancer” [Wikipedia] the term has its origins at least as far back as November 2020, according to the indefatigable Orac, who identified it in a smarmy comment to a forum post about Moderna’s request for clearance of its mRNA vaccine. By November 2022, use of the term had spiked online. It was being promoted and amplified by a number of anti-vaccine activists on social media. One such group was RFK Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD) which had emerged as a major distributer of COVID disinformation during the pandemic. In January 2023 AFP fact-checked a November 2022 Rumble video produced by CHD, featuring disgraced Canadian doctors Charles Hoffe and Stephen Malthouse. AFP reported that oncologists had informed them the claims were baseless, and added:
“There is no evidence in Canada or globally that vaccination leads to any forms of cancer or that Covid vaccines lead to rapid advancement in cancers,” British Columbia’s Ministry of Health said in a statement emailed January 11. “There is also no evidence to support Covid vaccines leading to harm to the immune system; on the contrary evidence strongly supports that Covid vaccines produce strong, effective immune responses that protect from serious illness from SARS CoV-2.”
January has ushered in some interesting developments for skeptics in Australia as dodgy practices seemingly jostle for attention. Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has published welcome updates and warnings, a QLD influencer sank to a new low, our most insistent anti-vaccine fantasist copped yet another fact-check from the Australian Associated Press (AAP) and 14 members of a faith healing cult have been found guilty of manslaughter.
Black Salve
Black Salve has been a long term problem for the TGA as it remains a dangerously reckless alternative cancer treatment, linked to the unwarranted belief it offers a cure. A company and its director were convicted in 2022 for advertising alternatives to medicine not on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. A significant seizure of black salve also took place in late 2023. On 6 January this year, the therapeutic watchdog published information that following an investigation in conjunction with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, an individual faced 12 charges for alleged criminal offences under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
The alleged offences relate to the advertising and supply of black salve, bloodroot capsules and other unapproved therapeutic goods. It is alleged that the individual made claims about the products’ ability to treat serious health conditions, including anxiety and cancer.
The defendant faces a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $222,000 for each charge.
Sanguinarine, a primary corrosive agent in black salve, is listed as a Schedule 10 substance in the Poisons Standard. These are described as substances “so dangerous to health that they are prohibited from sale, supply and use in Australia”. Whilst the TGA has not named the individual, a certain Belinda Gae Harris (pictured) who operates Tickety Boo Herbal, had prior to Christmas, revealed via video on Rumble that she had been charged in the exact manner later outlined by the TGA.
Harris remains adamant she is being charged for “helping people” and wrote, “I have been persecuted for being a healer for many lifetimes”. In her video Harris announced she has spent her life finding solutions for the damage [the TGA] have done with mRNA vaccines and “allopathic treatments”. On the topic of mRNA vaccination, Harris wrote last month on social media she used black salve and, “sucked the jab out of people straight after that poison injection”. She continued on her Rumble channel:
I’m just going to keep doing it, because I’m helping people and I’m saving lives. My angels managed to keep this at bay until 2025… I need to have a stack of evidence saying these are all the people whose lives I have saved… Oh my God, Oh my God. It just never ends with this world. This matrix is bullshit. Bullshit lies. They’re allowed to administer carcinogenic chemotherapy to people and fry the fuck out of them with their radiation. But I’m not allowed to do a simple herbal remedy that I have tested over and over again… I’ll see you in court government – who always seem to be loving watching me. I bet you’ve got the hots for me. You probably do, just like the trolls… You can’t shut me up. If you put me in jail I’ll just be educating everybody around me. Okay. Namaste. Loving you. Ben Abou.
Harris was scheduled to appear before Deniliquin local court on 4 January for Commonwealth and Police criminal mentions. One awaits updates on the matter, which aren’t presently coming from the Tickety Boo Facebook page.
Melanotan tanning products
On 24 January the TGA published a warning about the risks of using tanning products containing melanotan. Illegally sold and advertised online they consist of nasal sprays and injectable and indigestible tanning products. Unapproved for sale in Australia, they may contain toxic or counterfeit ingredients. Melanotans are synthetic peptides that increase melanin production in the skin. The risk of serious side effects mean melanotans should only be used under medical supervision. However they are being illegally promoted as safe, including by social media influencers. Vulnerable young Australians struggling with body image issues are at significant risk. The TGA write:
While the most common side effects include headache, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, and facial redness, the most concerning one is the risk of serious skin cancers. With melanotan-II, there have been reports of increased moles and freckles, kidney dysfunction and swelling of the brain.
Melanotan is not approved for sale or use as a tanning agent in Australia. These tanning agents haven’t been assessed for their quality or safety. Since these tanning products are not approved for sale or use in Australia, you also have no way of knowing what’s in them, no matter what’s written on the label. They could be made with toxic, poor quality or counterfeit ingredients.
The TGA also warn about advertising such products and leave little to the imagination by reminding readers that “all media types visible to the public” are included and liable as breaches under the TGA Advertising Code. More so, they have “a dedicated workforce to investigate the inappropriate and unlawful manufacturing, distribution, sale, import and advertising of therapeutic goods”. Let’s hope the warning is heeded.
Meryl Dorey
Regularly warned, reminded, debunked, corrected and revealed to have a striking aversion to the truth is one Meryl Dorey, founder of The Australian Vaccination-risks Network and owner of a Very Big Tag (VBT) on this website. Meryl has been fact checked by AAP in the past for cultivating notions about child suicides, and claiming later the same year that vaccinated people are more likely to die from COVID. The latest very, very old chestnut wheeled out by Meryl during an interview on YouTube [relevant section here] with Australian Liberal MP and vaccine cynic, Russell Broadbent, is the baseless claim that medical students spend a mere few hours discussing vaccines during their entire time at medical school. This is a decades old lie and serves to support the preposterous assertion that anti-vaccine activists know more than medical professionals. Dorey told a gullible Broadbent:
When doctors study vaccination, and we had the curriculum for the New South Wales school of medicine at UNSW – University of New South Wales – and it was out of four years of medical school there was one morning where vaccinations were discussed. […]
I think that any parent who’s done a modicum of research will be able to know more about this issue than the average doctor.
Ah yes, doing your own research. Busted by AAP, Dorey replied to their queries saying the curriculum was from “many years ago” and she had spoken to “probably thousands” of doctors about vaccines. Doctors apparently supporting her version of vaccine risks. Both replies should be regarded as monumentally dubious. I recommend reading the AAP piece to appreciate medical training around immunisation, population health and the use of vaccines. However, one paragraph stood out for me. A spokesperson for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners observed:
When it comes to vaccines, as with other health issues, GPs are trained to consider the patient’s history and relevant risk factors, discuss the options available to the patient and any risks associated, and enable the patient to determine the most appropriate decisions about their own health care.
This isn’t the post to dig into this point, but bear in mind that anti-vaccine activist Judy Wilyman was awarded a PhD for a meandering literature review that made much of so-called “undone science” and unverified claims that vaccination programmes pose serious risks because they do not accomodate the genetic diversity and unique health needs of individuals. The above quote should serve as yet another reminder that the decision by the University of Wollongong to award that PhD, was and is demonstrably flawed.
Influencer charged with poisoning
The ABC joined the world’s media reporting on a 34 year old QLD mother and social media influencer, who has been charged with torture and giving her baby unauthorised medications, with the aim of attracting donations. It was a simple, if repulsive tactic; inform followers of your child’s illness, then create and exacerbate symptoms filmed to elicit sympathy. Police allege up to $60,000 was raised this way. The crowdfunding platform, GoFundMe, is presently refunding donors. It was also reported that after hospital staff improved the child’s health, the woman filled additional prescriptions and recommenced the abuse. The drug, carbamazepine, had been stopped by treating doctors due to fears it was causing seizures. Last week the woman was charged with 11 offences.
5 counts of administering poison with intent to harm
3 counts of preparation to commit crimes with dangerous things
Torture
Making Child Exploitation Material
Fraud
On 28 January a Brisbane Magistrates Court heard the woman allegedly hid her then 12 month old daughter under a blanket prior to administering unprescribed substances via a nasal tube. The child, now 18 months, was born with tuberous sclerosis, a genetic disorder which caused benign tumours in organs and can lead to epileptic seizures. Doctors believe the illegal medication administration caused further seizures in this child. The woman was caught on CCTV fiddling with her daughter’s nasogastric tube and handling a syringe, which was unrelated to her daughter’s medication. In the timeframe observed, the child went from being alert and awake to unconscious – a symptom not related to her condition.
The ABC reported on 29 January that the seizures, unexplained loss of consciousness and a cardiac arrest between August to October 2024, led the baby’s medical team to carry out high risk surgeries on intra-cranial tumours caused by the child’s genetic condition, believing them to be the causal factor. However, after the surgery the woman’s conduct was discovered. Drug screening revealed “the presence of carbamazepine and other non-prescribed medications in the baby’s system”. Bail was granted on condition the woman have no contact with her daughter other than via supervised audiovisual visits.
This will prove an interesting case with respect to the woman’s defence or indeed the reasons behind her behaviour. No doubt Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA), originally Münchausen syndrome by proxy, is an explanation that provides answers. But in the age of social media speckled with complex reasons driving individuals to behave antisocially, illegally or in pursuit of their own malignancies, might this be too simple an answer? Critical thinking and rationality are frequently jettisoned by influencers. Perhaps we should be seeking to understand how social media influences certain users, as much as we seek to grasp how they use it to influence others.
Religious cult guilty of manslaughter
Fourteen members of a religious cult that believed God would heal an 8 year old insulin dependent type 1 diabetic and later raise her from the dead, have been found guilty of manslaughter in a judge only trial in the Brisbane Supreme Court, report the ABC. Elizabeth Struhs was denied her insulin, became critically unwell over several days and died in Toowoomba 3 years ago this month. As she suffered, the cult “prayed and sang” rather than contact emergency services. After Elizabeth died, they waited for more than 24 hours before contacting police. The Court heard the group rejected modern medicine “and put their full trust in the healing power of God”.
Being questioned by police the child’s mother, Kerrie Struhs, told police she hadn’t lost faith in God, who could raise her daughter up regardless of where she was. In a classic example of biblical fundamentalist literacy, she rejected a funeral for her daughter because, “the bible says let the dead bury the dead”. Elizabeth’s father Jason Struhs was originally charged with murder, and also told police that he expected his daughter to rise from death. The deceased’s brother Zachary, told police:
We saw the healing and we know that she was healed from the diabetes. The sickness of her natural death could have been anything that comes up on anyone — that’s not for me to know, I’m not God.
Another member, Therese Stevens, sounded quite chuffed as she explained that Elizabeth will rise again and because of their beliefs they are not “as stressed out and freaked out and emotionally damaged as you would be if you knew you’d never see that person again”. In a ruling that should prove controversial, Justice Martin could not find the child’s father guilty of murder unless he had a full realisation his daughter would die from withdrawal of her insulin. The ABC reported:
Justice Burns said he was not satisfied of this beyond a reasonable doubt, stating there was a possibility in the “cloistered atmosphere of the church which enveloped [him] and which only intensified once he made the decision to cease the administration of insulin, he was so consumed by the particular belief in the healing power of God … that he never came to the full realisation Elizabeth would probably die”.
For a similar reason he did not find cult leader Brendan Stevens guilty of murder, but found his claim that he did not influence Jason Struhs to be “arrant nonsense”. Justice Martin also found all other members influenced Jason to withhold insulin and medical care and thus, “counselled and aided in the unlawful killing of Elizabeth”. Of the 14 members, 8 were from the Stevens family, 3 from the Struhs family, there was one couple and one individual. Elizabeth’s sister Jayde who had not been on trial spoke outside the court. Whilst happy with the outcome of the trial she said the “system failed to protect Elizabeth in the first place”. In a revealing comment Jayde added:
We are only here today because more wasn’t done sooner to protect her or remove her from an incredibly unsafe situation in her own home.
I shall confess to some procrastination on this topic, dear reader, as it was back on 10 October that the conspiratorial constitutional complaint against Justice Helen Rofe was dismissed. It appears Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, as we shall see, found the proposed bases for the complaint as bereft of legal integrity as any who struggled through the convoluted contortions composed by the discombobulations of retired barrister, Julian Gillespie, and company.
Memories may be refreshed about the original Fidge v Pfizer case here, the extensive accusations within said complaint (lodged 22 March 2024) here, and the High Court writ of mandamus courageously cobbled to force Chief Justice Mortimer to acquiesce to the complaint (filed 3 July 2024), here. I should rush to add that the complaint and writ were filed on behalf of Dr. Julian Fidge, who is the applicant in all things Fidge v Pfizer. Thus, rulings and complaint dismissals refer to Fidge’s arguments. However, the conspiratorial allegations serve to remind us that Gillespie, enabled by Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien & Associates, are the individuals shaping Fidge’s legal moves.
In her dismissal ruling (also embedded below) Chief Justice Mortimer notes that Fidge’s legal firm lodged an amended draft notice of appeal on 27 March 2024, containing 24 grounds of appeal. Mortimer highlights key allegations against J Rofe, on page 3 of her dismissal (the “First Respondent” is Pfizer):
23. There is a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge’s decision was affected by bias by reason of the factual matters and circumstances of the relationship of the learned judge to the First Respondent thereby manifesting a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge possessed a motive to decide the case in favour of the First Respondent.
24. The learned judge erred by failing to accord the appellant procedural fairness and natural justice by failing to disclose material adverse to the interests of the appellant thereby failing to grant to the appellant an opportunity to be heard adequately or at all concerning those matters, specifically the relationship of the learned judge to the First Respondent manifesting a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge possessed a motive to decide the case in favour of the First Respondent.
On 2 August Fidge withdrew the application for leave to appeal, and on 26 August the High Court proceeding was discontinued. Feel free to read more of the specifics pertaining to the relevance of both procedures over pages 4 and 5 below. A complaint to the Chief Justice may be dismissed if it relates to judicial findings subject to appeal, as Fidge was seeking. However, to his benefit it was held in abeyance. By discontinuing both leave to appeal, and the High Court proceedings (which complained about his complaint being in abeyance), Fidge was open to grounds for dismissal of the complaint as it related to “matters which could have been the subject of an appeal”. Mortimer observes:
I reject the contention in Dr Fidge’s lawyers’ correspondence that there was more to Dr Fidge’s complaint than allegations of bias (actual or apprehended; see below) against Justice Rofe. […] It was the conscious election of Dr Fidge, I infer on legal advice, not to continue pursuing this avenue. I reject the contention in the complaint that the alleged conduct could not be raised on appeal because the Court’s orders were “void ab initio” (invalid from the start). […] I consider this contention nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the appellate processes of the Court.
Mortimer continues, arguing allegations within the complaint have no basis or merit. She adds that some are scandalous, “and this provides an independent basis for their summary dismissal”. None of the allegations were presented in court to J Rofe, leading Chief Justice Mortimer to mention the “causal connection” between Fidge’s unsuccessful application and the lodging of the complaint (para 32):
In my opinion the causal connection is clear and Dr Fidge has made these complaints at least in part because his originating application was unsuccessful.
Losing In The Lucky Country 