Judy Wilyman | Vaccination Update
Is this email not displaying correctly?
View this email in your browser

Newsletter 118 Corrections to Dr. Kristin Boyle's Opinions of my PhD

The supporters of the lobby group, Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), a lobby group that promotes vaccines and hence the interests of the vaccine industry as well as public health, have posted Kristin Boyle’s personal opinion of my PhD on social media. This was done in response to my critique of the false and misleading information provided by John Cunningham in the vaccination debate. John Cunningham is a medical practitioner and a leader of the SAVN lobby group that also promotes vaccines. Here is my response to Kristin Boyle’s personal opinions on The Wilyman PhD (note that she provides her opinion and not evidence to support her discussion):

My Response to Kristin Boyle’s False and Misleading Opinions:
It is well recognised that when individuals cannot address the evidence in a scientific argument they attack and disparage the messenger. This has been observed in the opinions presented by both John Cunningham and Kristin Boyle – both medical practitioners – as well as many journalists who have presented their opinions without addressing any of the arguments in my in-depth and detailed PhD thesis. The public should be asking why the supporters of pro-vaccine lobby groups, including many medical practitioners, are accepting the claims of the vaccine industry (most of the research is funded by the industry) without any scrutiny of the academic literature? 

Kristin Boyle, the medical registrar at Geelong Hospital's Emergency Department, admits that she only attempted to read my 390 page thesis for “..the better part of two days…” before posting her comments on her blog. After this brief examination she concludes it is “…irrelevant, deliberate or unintended misinformation..” and “a junk thesis”, without providing any supportive evidence and despite the University of Wollongong stating publicly that it “stands by this thesis” because the assessment process was rigorously followed. She simply states that the evidence for her opinions is provided by Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris. But Helen Petousis-Harris also makes her arguments by attacking the messenger and using her own interpretations of my research to influence the reader with disparaging comments. She even attempts to discuss the global postlicensure safety surveillance data for the HPV vaccine that I was discussing from 2009, by using an article written in 2015. The discussion I was presenting was about the conclusions being drawn by researchers in 2009 so her use of the data from 2015 is a deliberate or unintended misunderstanding of the arguments being presented.

Both Helen Petousis-Harris and Kristin Boyle are presenting their opinions of a PhD thesis on blogs that are not published in peer-reviewed journals or on university websites. Why are these individuals, and pro-vaccine lobby groups and journalists, allowed to promote their arguments using personal opinions? The Australian journalists who have stated they will not present the published academic literature that I am presenting that describes the lack of safety and efficacy of many vaccines include Jane Hansen (News Ltd), Janet Albrechtsen (News Ltd), Caroline Marcus (News Ltd), Sarrah Le Maurquand, (News Ltd), Jonathon Holmes (ABC) and Virginia Trioli (ABC, who made false claims that the link between vaccines and autism has been “debunked” and “..expunged from the medical literature.”). Other journalists such as Rick Morton (News Ltd), Kylar Loussikian (News Ltd) and Emily Laurence (ABC) have written biased stories without interviewing me and these stories based on their personal opinions are then quoted on the blogs of lobby group activists and vice versa: journalists and individuals such as Kristin Boyle are quoting comments taken from pro-vaccine lobby group blogs such as FSM and SAVN.

The lobby groups and many medical practitioners are coming from the a priori position that is being stated by vaccine manufacturers and the Australian government. This position is that “all vaccines are safe and effective” and they are not addressing the overwhelming academic literature, some of which is presented in my detailed PhD thesis, that demonstrates many vaccines are not safe and effective. For example the HPV vaccine. Why are pro-vaccine lobby groups not allowing proper scrutiny of the science? Kristin Boyle, like John Cunningham, incorrectly states that my PhD was not assessed by experts in the scientific fields of immunology and epidemiology. This is false. My thesis was scrutinised by experts in these fields before it was submitted to the examiners in the UOW School of Humanities. My thesis covers the politics and science of the government's vaccination policy and John Cunningham, Kristin Boyle and Helen Pertousis-Harris, are misinforming the public with unsubstantiated comments. The factual basis of the literature I have presented in my PhD thesis has not been addressed by these individuals or journalists in their opinion pieces.

I have demonstrated my willingness to attend a public debate on vaccination by agreeing to be on a panel for a public forum discussing the Australian government’s ‘No Jab No Pay/Play’ policy in October 2015 – before this legislation was passed. Yet Peter McIntyre and Robert Booy plus 45 other government representatives and public health authorities would not attend this forum to debate this science at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). Why not? Further, Kristin Boyle states that the director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Peter McIntyre, describes me as “‘not willing to entertain evidence’ which contradicted her beliefs.” This statement is false and unsubstantiated. Peter McIntyre is not demonstrating his willingness to entertain evidence that contradicts his beliefs by declining to debate vaccination in a public forum organised at a university and he has not given his consent for his recently digitised PhD (June 2016) on the Childhood Haemophilus Influenza B vaccine (HiB) to be made publicly and freely accessible on the NCIRS website or the University of Sydney website? Why not? This request was made in May 2016 and the thesis has been digitised since 1 June 2016.

Whilst Kristin Boyle credits the Haemophilus Influenza B vaccine (HiB) with the unintended side-effect of reducing the cases of bacterial epiglottis in children, she does not question why medical practitioners in 2016 are seeing an escalating increase in autism and chronic illness in children, including significant neurological damage and autoimmune diseases, that make parents life-time carers for their children. Why is Kristin Boyle not prepared to question or scrutinise in-depth all the causes of this new chronic illness? Instead health practitioners of 2016 are happy to suggest that this is the “new normal” and “just a coincidence” when it occurs after vaccination. And in the same breath they will claim they are supporting “evidence-based medicine“. Yet the correlations of these illnesses with vaccines are not being investigated to prove or disprove a causal link.

It is time for the belief system of medical practitioners in 2016 to be questioned and properly debated with academic literature as opposed to the personal opinions of individuals and lobby group supporters promoting the use of more and more vaccines. Whose interests are these pro-vaccine lobby groups promoting when they do not question or investigate the serious illnesses in children today, and they disparage with personal opinions the in-depth academic research assessed and defended by academics at an Australian university?

Judy Wilyman PhD
Science and Politics of Australia's Vaccination Policies 
Email Judy Wilyman |

Copyright © 2016 Judy Wilyman, All rights reserved.