Two days ago, anti-vaccination activist – and successful PhD candidate from the University of Wollongong, under the supervision of anti-vaccination enabler, and friend of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Professor Brian Martin – Judy Wilyman, sent this blog threats that she would take action against me if I did not remove evidence from my blog that is unfavourable to Wilyman, Martin, and the UoW. Wilyman accuses me of “defaming people”, “fabricating” evidence, and of “misinforming the public about academic research and the vaccination issue in general”:
Removal of false, misleading and defamatory material from your blog about my academic research
To Peter Tierney (aka Reasonablehank)
I note that you are using a deceptive title for your blog titled “ReasonableHank”. You have called yourself “Reasonable..” yet you are constantly misrepresenting, fabricating and defaming people who attempt to debate issues that go against your own beliefs or desired outcomes. In particular you have defamed me with your fabricated comments and stories about my research, and quotes taken out of context.
I am asking you to remove any references to me or my academic research from your blog/website. Your comments have misquoted me or are fabricated untruthful stories about my comments. This is defamatory material that is suppressing proper debate of important scientific topics. In particular, I am asking you to remove the information provided in the attached screenshots and any other references to me or my research on your blog that misrepresents my comments or arguments.
If the University of Wollongong wishes to make a statement about its support of student researchers and the promotion of their views then please ensure that you obtain a generalised statement about UOW’s policy and remove the statement by UOW that specifically mentions my name (attachment 2 “RH uni name misuse”) [edit: Wilyman Attachment 4]. This statement misrepresents academic research to the public.
At no time have I ever “attacked grieving parents” or used abuse or ridicule to present my arguments. I am also asking you to remove all comments criticising and defaming my supervisor, Professor Brian Martin and also derogatory comments about the University of Wollongong. These comments are unsupported and suppressing academic debate on vaccination. I am also asking you to remove comments by others that you are associating with me to tarnish my research.
If you do not remove all comments about me and my research from your blog further action will be taken to make you accountable for fabricating and misinforming the public about academic research and the vaccination issue in general.
Yours Sincerely,
Judy Wilyman PhD
In the six attachments sent by Wilyman, she takes umbrage to two blog posts, in particular [edit: for readability, I have placed the attachments in order, in this post, and I have renamed them in the correct order; Wilyman sent them out of order].
Firstly, Wilyman orders the removal of a captioned-as-fake, mock newspaper image (Wilyman Attachment 1) from this blog post, University of Wollongong antivax PhD student champions neonatal haemorrhaging, in which it is proven that Wilyman promoted a video interview of an anti-vaccination activist – on conspiracy-theory-central, Infowars – in which the activist tells lies about the safety of the provision of Vitamin K to newborn infants. It is shown, in my blog post, that the withholding of Vitamin K has caused – and will cause again – the death of an infant, from vitamin K deficiency bleeding:
Wilyman Attachment 1:
Secondly, Wilyman includes five more attachments, taken from this blog post, Judy Wilyman has no clothes, and demands the removal of the evidence contained in them; evidence which is supported by the linked articles and posts. I’ll include the substantial text here, for the readers to follow at their leisure. From Wilyman’s second attachment:
The University of Wollongong’s perennial anti-vaccine PhD student, Judy Wilyman, is the great, big hope of Australian anti-vaccinationism.
Does she say “the science” a lot? Tick.
Does she say “the research” a lot? Tick.
Does she vilify bereaved parents with slurs of kickbacks? Tick.
Does she refer to these bereaved parents’ deceased babies as “anecdotes”? Tick.
Does she and her cabal of thugs organise anti-vaccine protests under the disingenuous facade of “pro-choice”; the same thugs having followed her example of vilifying bereaved parents; some of the thugs even claiming that the bereaved parents’ baby did not even exist, as some kind of Big Pharma agenda, a thinly masked sales pitch? Tick.
Does she resent the tag “anti-vaccine”; whilst only providing information which is against vaccination, a lot? Tick.
Perfect! Wilyman is perfect. And the added bonus with Wilyman is that she appears to have the ongoing imprimatur of the University of Wollongong; who in turn would appear to have had the word “disrepute” erased from all of its libraries’ dictionaries. I’m wondering if they have a sort of Safe Eyes software installed on the main servers – Safe Disrepute – which seeks out and destroys all versions of the word, lest anyone get any uppity ideas about what integrity means to past, present, and future alumni and academics, and other staff. They all carry Wilyman’s stink, now. And they’re not happy.
Wilyman’s official Facebook page is called Vaccination Choice. It is the official Facebook page for her website, Vaccination Decisions: Know Your Vaccines. Her website – to which we shall return – features this conspiracy theory click-bait de rigueur:
The truth behind vaccinations. What the government doesn’t tell you.
Wilyman Attachment 2:
The third attachment speaks for itself, really:
This is the newsletter with three stills from that YouTube video, which Wilyman linked from her official newsletter. Does she think no one else will watch it? Does Wilyman think no one will check her claims, ever? Something is not right, and it never has been:
[image]
Wilyman Attachment 3:
The fourth attachment contains a public tweet, of a public statement, which was published by the University of Wollongong on one of its official Twitter streams. Bizarrely, Wilyman demands that this be removed from my blog:
And these issues aren’t new for the University of Wollongong. In 2013 it was forced to issue a statement about her, on Twitter:
[image]
Questions have rightly been raised in public about the level of appropriate supervision given to Wilyman by Professor Brian Martin – himself a friend of the anti-vaccination movement, guiding the execrable Australian Vaccination skeptics Network and its cruel ideologue, and long-term Wilyman friend, Meryl Dorey, away from appropriate regulatory scrutiny – and the University of Wollongong believes that Martin is performing his supervisory role of Ms Wilyman in a satisfactory manner and that he is an appropriate supervisor for her study. Indeed the follow-up question is, then, why is someone who is being supervised appropriately, on vaccination policies, on “the science”, routinely citing conspiracy cranks? Is the department infected? I’m Just Asking Questions.
Wilyman Attachment 4:
In the fifth and sixth attachments, Wilyman conveniently leaves out the evidence which was the very reason for the contextual existence of the fifth and sixth attachments. I’ll expand below.
Here are Wilyman’s final two attachments, and the text contained in them:
Wilyman Attachment 5:
movement, guiding the execrable Australian Vaccination skeptics Network and its cruel ideologue, and long-term Wilyman friend, Meryl Dorey, away from appropriate regulatory scrutiny – and the University of Wollongong believes that Martin is performing his supervisory role of Ms Wilyman in a satisfactory manner and that he is an appropriate supervisor for her study. Indeed the follow-up question is, then, why is someone who is being supervised appropriately, on vaccination policies, on “the science”, routinely citing conspiracy cranks? Is the department infected? I’m Just Asking Questions.
Getting back to Wilyman’s recent Facebook shenanigans, it is not difficult to watch the real Wilyman in the natural pastures of anti-vaccinationism. For yet another example, Wilyman is a member of this closed group, Anti-Vaccination Australia:
Wilyman Attachment 6:
I mean, does Wilyman ever stop to consider anything she does or says – anywhere, anytime – preferring only to vilify critics who rightfully and appropriately point out her demonstrable and exasperatingly ubiquitous failings of logic and comprehension; Wilyman citing only her tired drone of “you are derogatory…this is derogatory…they are being derogatory about the science presented to the community from the university which is the science the gubment doesn’t want you to see…the science…derogatory…”?
Has the University of Wollongong even re-read her masters thesis? I know people who have. Does it still stand up to academic rigour, University of Wollongong? I’m Just Asking Questions.
When is enough going to be enough for the University of Wollongong and it long-suffering fans?
When is academic freedom just plain old disrepute?
So, what pertinent, contextual sections did Judy Wilyman’s intellectual dishonesty assist her in failing to include in her attachments? What exactly was Judy Wilyman at pains to omit? What did Judy Wilyman omit from right in between those fifth and sixth attachments?
This. Wilyman liked the following derogatory attempt at fat-shaming, posted in the Facebook group, Anti-Vaccination Australia, by the now infamous liar, Belgin Colak. Here is my full text, from my blog post, followed by the screenshots Wilyman didn’t include:
Getting back to Wilyman’s recent Facebook shenanigans, it is not difficult to watch the real Wilyman in the natural pastures of anti-vaccinationism. For yet another example, Wilyman is a member of this closed group, Anti-Vaccination Australia:
[image]
And Wilyman even liked this attempt at fat-shaming myself, posted by the group’s adolescent creator, Belgin Sila Colak:
[image]
Here’s another version, in case the University of Wollongong can’t see the previous one:
[image]
I mean, does Wilyman ever stop to consider anything she does or says – anywhere, anytime – preferring only to vilify critics who rightfully and appropriately point out her demonstrable and exasperatingly ubiquitous failings of logic and comprehension; Wilyman citing only her tired drone of “you are derogatory…this is derogatory…they are being derogatory about the science presented to the community from the university which is the science the gubment doesn’t want you to see…the science…derogatory…”?
Has the University of Wollongong even re-read her masters thesis? I know people who have. Does it still stand up to academic rigour, University of Wollongong? I’m Just Asking Questions.
When is enough going to be enough for the University of Wollongong and it long-suffering fans?
When is academic freedom just plain old disrepute?
Just breathtaking.
This intellectual dishonesty comes from the same anti-vaccination activist who has been sending – nay, spamming – ultimatums, orders, and directions – citing the Nuremberg Code and/or charges of crimes against humanity – to a list of University of Wollongong public health academics and administrators, media personnel, and other public health advocates. Wilyman has spammed this list with approximately 17 bewildering emails in just 3 months. Some of these emails even landed on consecutive days. Here is an example, from September 2016:
Subject: Film Censorship and Financial Incentives for Medical Interventions for Healthy People in Australia
Importance: HighOpen Letter
University of Wollongong,
Executive Dean,
Faculty of Medicine, Science and Health
26 September 2016Dear Professor Jones and UOW Academics,
RE: Financial Incentives for Medical Interventions in Healthy People
Thankyou for getting involved in the vaccination debate by signing your names to Heather Yeatman’s, (UOW Head of Public Health) comments on the UOW website. The Australian public expects that if UOW academics are supporting and promoting government immunisation policies then you are able to provide the supportive evidence for the claims that you are signing your name to. Particularly as these comments are being used to enforce social services policies that breach the Nuremberg Code (as stated in my letter dated 23 September 2016) and are not supported by any legislation or regulation in any health act in Australia. Hence they are not for a legitimate public health purpose.
Here is the link to my open letter to Alison Jones (toxicologist) (http:// vaccinationdecisions.net /newsletter-129-open-letter-3-university-of-wollongong-correcting-uow-academics-on-immunisation/) requesting the evidence for the claims that UOW academics have supported regarding immunisation policies. If you would like to be removed from this email debate, without this evidence being provided by Alison Jones or Heather Yeatman, please could you remove your name from the UOW website where you are providing your ‘beliefs’ about vaccination policies and not your personal opinion based on ‘evidence-based medicine’.
As Australian public health authorities will not attend public forums to debate this issue, and as the media will only present this issue as an ‘anti-vaccination’ debate and not an ‘over-vaccination’ debate, then this is the only avenue Australians have for a debate on this very important health topic. Please also note (in the email below) the censorship in Australia of the fraudulent studies that have been used by the US CDC to discredit the link between vaccines and autism. This censorship is occurring in the Australian media and in Australian cinemas.
I look forward to your prompt response to this request because coercive vaccination policies have already been implemented in our genetically diverse population and these are causing significant harm to an unknown percentage of the Australian population. Below is the email that was sent by a concerned member of the public to the NSW government (24 September 2016) regarding the censorship of vaccination science used in government policies.
Kind regards,
Judy Wilyman PhD
Here is another cracker from September 2016:
September 30, 2016
Subject: Chronic Illness and Vaccination Rates in the Australian Population
Importance: HighOpen Letter
To the Minister for Social Services
The Honourable Christian Porter MP,
Re Financial Incentives for Medical Interventions in Healthy People; a breach of the Nuremberg Code
Directives:
Silence or no response to these directives is an admission that your policy is invalid.
1. I direct you to provide me with a legitimate public health reason for making the full schedule of vaccines (16 plus) mandatory for social welfare benefits in 2016.
2. I direct Alison Jones, toxicologist and executive dean of the UOW Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, to provide her professional opinion that combining the listed ingredients in the schedule of 16 plus vaccines mandated in this policy, in newborn infants/children/adults, is safe and health promoting, in a genetically diverse population.Dear Minister Porter MP,
Did you know that a recent study in the Lancet (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) ranked the health of 188 countries from 1990-2015 but did not include a measure of the morbidity (chronic illness and disability) in these countries? Quality of life and health depend upon this measure. In 2004 41% of Australian children (0 -14 yrs) had a chronic illness (AIHW).
That is, autism, anaphylaxis, allergies, speech delay/neurological disorders and autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, parkinsons, diabetes etc) illness that has escalated since 1990, with the increased use of vaccines at this time: a correlation that has never been investigated.
Australia’s public health authorities including Peter McIntyre (NCIRS), Robert Booy (NCIRS), Terry Nolan (ATAGI), Alison Jones (UOW Faculty of Medicine), Heather Yeatman (PHAA) and Jonathon Carapetis (Telethon Institute), and UOW academics – have not provided a reason for making 16 plus vaccines mandatory in social welfare policies for children up to 20 years of age. And I note that you have not provided a reason for making this schedule of vaccines compulsory.
There are no public health authorities that have provided a legitimate reason for making the full schedule of vaccines compulsory in infants or adults. And there is no legislation or regulation in any health act in Australia to legitimise your policy that was introduced on 1 January 2016.
Your No Jab, No Pay policy has made it mandatory for parents to inject Aluminium hydroxide, Aluminium phosphate, Borax (sodium borate – insecticide), Thimerosal (50% Mercury Compound), Formaldehyde, Gelatin, Phenol, Monosodium Glutamate(MSG), Phenoxyethanol, Egg Protein, Yeast, Antibiotics – Neomycin, Polymxin, Gentamicin, Kanamycin and more, into their infants/children to receive a financial incentive – without a legitimate reason to do this.
I request that Alison Jones, toxicologist and executive dean of the UOW Faculty of Medicine, (copied into this email), provides her professional opinion that this combination of ingredients in vaccines in infants is safe and health promoting.
Your policy, that is not supported by the global scientific community, is being implemented in genetically diverse populations and this could be considered by many as a crime against humanity, if there is no legitimate public health purpose for its implementation.
Silence or no response is an admission that this policy is invalid and you and those who are supporting this policy will be liable for any ill health or death that arises from this policy in the population. Here is the 20 min video of the No Jab No Pay protest speech that I gave outside Parliament House in Perth in 2015. This speech explains why this policy breaches the Nuremberg Code. The protest rallies held in Australia – Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth – in 2015 were not reported in the Australian media. These protest rallies were attended by thousands of people around Australia but the public’s voice in this debate has been ignored.
I await your response to the directives I have outlined above and I will take silence or no response as an admission that there is no valid reason for this social services No Jab No Pay policy and those that are supporting it will be liable for any harm that is caused in the Australian population.
Judy Wilyman PhD
And this is the same anti-vaccination activist who demands that members of the public cease sending emails to her:
__________________________________