TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  


We are Allaxys
We moved our news front to

The Forum 1 on is only a backup archive!

Twin Update 8.5.2023

Warning to Amazon Data Services Singapore
Warning to Amazon Data Services Japan
Do stop your sabotage or you will be shot!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings  (Read 12055 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 303
Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings
« on: June 10, 2012, 02:58:57 PM »

Judy Wilyman, die Schande des australischen Kontinents, schikaniert Eltern von Dana McCaffery, einem kleinen Mädchen, das an Keuchhusten gestorben ist. Kein Wunder, war Judy Wilyman doch Schülerin des oberschlauen Vollesoterikers Peter Dingle, der seine Frau Penelope Dingle (Penelope Brown) an Krebs krepieren ließ, indem er sie der "Behandlung" der  "Homöopathin" Francine Scrayen überließ. 
(Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown) )

Das ist Dana McCaffery:

Das Bild stammt aus einem Video, das Danas Eltern aufgenommen haben. Es wurde im australischen Fernsehen gezeigt und ist online zu sehen.

Dana wurde nur vier Wochen alt. Sie starb an Keuchhusten. Sie war voll geimpft, doch nicht gegen Keuchhuchtsen. Die gegen Keuchhusten schützende Impfung hätte sie laut  Impfplan erst  mit sechs Wochen bekommen.

Das ist der neueste Bericht über Judy Wilyman:

Illawarra Mercury

Vaccine row: grieving parents slam researcher

11 Jun, 2012 12:00 AM

Grieving parents who lost a baby to whooping cough have lashed out at a University of Wollongong researcher who questioned their motives for going public with their story.

Judy Wilyman, a PhD student and former Illawarra high school teacher, questioned whether Toni and David McCaffery had been paid to promote the whooping cough vaccine.

Ms Wilyman said the State Government was using four-week-old Dana's death and "the mantra of seeing sick babies gasping for air" to push the vaccine.

MORE: Uni distances itself from student's anti-vax views

MORE: Woonona mum's choice not to vaccinate

Dana died of whooping cough, or pertussis, in March 2009. Her parents have since worked with health authorities to raise awareness about the infection and gave permission for their story to be used on a NSW Health Department campaign.

On the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) website, Ms Wilyman said she was "concerned to know if the McCafferys have received any money either directly or indirectly for promoting this cause".

"Can you assure me that the McCafferys have not received any money from the skeptic groups or any other lobby group for vaccines?" she asked.

MORE: An open letter from grieving parents

"It is the Government and the media who have been using the McCafferys to promote a vaccine that should be accountable for this case being discussed by the public. Please forward this comment to the McCafferys so they can ask the Government if it is ethical for them to be promoting a vaccine to the public."

Toni McCaffery hit back on the Facebook wall Stop the Australian Vaccination Network.

"Dana is not an anecdote. We do not receive money for warning people about whooping cough. That is the most disgusting allegation.

"The money we received [from] the Australian Skeptics we donated to research to save babies from pertussis. Government has not 'used us' to promote vaccines in recent media stories. We agree to such interviews in our own time without any agenda other than to give people the warning we did not receive."

Mrs McCaffery said Dana's story appeared in a government brochure because "parents have a right to be warned about whooping cough and given accurate information".

"We did not get that warning. It is up to parents if they want to vaccinate. It is also up to any parent to go public and speak to media. Do not use us against other families."

The Mercury contacted Ms Wilyman who has so far declined to comment.

In May, the AVN posted on its website a letter from Ms Wilyman to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. It said recent government programs "have been promoting the whooping cough vaccine on anecdotal evidence (in particular Dana McCaffery's death) and the mantra of 'seeing sick babies gasping for air'."

She said while such cases were tragic, "the promotion of vaccines on anecdotal evidence is inappropriate".

AVN president Meryl Dorey said the McCafferys had chosen to go public and had to expect comments from both sides of the debate. "If one side has the right to say something and the other doesn't, then we are not a democratic society," she said.


11 Jun 12:  Uni responds to anti-vaccine views

11 Jun 12:  Mum's crystal clear on no vaccinations


"Finally, a media outlet has done a useful expose of one of the most dangerous organisations in Australia."

Australian Vaccination Network accused of harassing parents (ABC Lateline)

Transkrit der Sendung:



  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 303
Re: Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2012, 03:15:01 PM »

Über den schweinischen Feldzug, den Impfgegner wie Meryl Dorey und Judy Wilyman gegen Danas Eltern führen, gibt es TV-Berichte. Hier ist einer davon.

Das Video:

Australian Vaccination Network accused of harassing parents (ABC Lateline)

Für den Fall, daß wie in Deutschland Material von Servern der Fernsehsender verschwindet, eine Sicherung des Transkripts der Sendung:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 12/07/2010

Anti-vaccination group accused of harassing parents
Reporter: Steve Cannane

he NSW Health Care Complains Commission has compiled a damning report into the Australian Vaccination Network.


LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission has compiled a damning report after examining Australia's most prominent anti-vaccination group, the Australian Vaccination Network.

The commission accuses the AVN of providing inaccurate and misleading information and selectively quoting research out of context to argue against vaccination.

It's also noted accusations that the AVN harassed the parents of a child who died of whooping cough last year, after they'd advocated the importance of childhood vaccination.

The report's likely to go public within the next two weeks.

For its part, the AVN maintains it's not an anti-vaccination network, merely wanting parents to make informed choices.

Steve Cannane reports.

STEVE CANNANE, REPORTER: Meryl Dorey runs the Australian Vaccination Network from a home office on the North Coast of NSW. The AVN provides anti-vaccination information through their website, their magazine and seminars. But an investigation into the AVN by the Health Care Complaints Commission has found that the information they provide to parents is inaccurate and misleading.

MERYL DOREY, AUSTRALIAN VACCINATION NETWORK: This was not an independent investigation. This was an investigation by an organisation that set out to support Government policy, which is pro-vaccination. ... We do not agree that the HCCC has any jurisdiction over us and we have been telling this from the very beginning and we are seeking legal advice on this issue.

KEN MCLEOD, COMPLAINANT TO HCCC: I think they're a bunch of ratbags. I mean, reason and science just does not break through. They're not interested in the reality, they're interested in conspiracy theories and junk science.

STEVE CANNANE: Ken McLeod is the man who took the initial complaint against the AVN to the Health Care Complaints Commission.

KEN MCLEOD: I remember as a six-year-old seeing the look of horror on my father's face as the doctor told him that my sister had polio and my mother just being so shattered. And I remember going to the hospital ward in Townsville to visit my sister and it was an entire ward full of dozens of kids, little babies with polio. And it was awful, absolutely awful, and then only a year or so later, the polio vaccine came and this just disappeared. It was like magic. And it was just wonderful, and then, all these years later you now find people who are trying to set the clock back fifty years, and I thought, "Someone's got to do something."

STEVE CANNANE: More and more people rely on the internet for health care information. If you Google vaccination, the Australian Vaccination Network comes up second on the list of sites. But nowhere on their website do they declare they are an anti-vaccination organisation.

MERYL DOREY: Our position is to provide information that balances the information that parents get from their doctors and from the government. We have never said that we provide both sides of the story. We don't.

STEVE CANNANE: Nobel prize-winning immunologist Professor Peter Doherty says denying children vaccines is a crime against humanity.

PETER DOHERTY, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: The reason it is a crime against humanity is it's really a crime against children, and children are vulnerable, we're responsible for them and basically anything that will adversely affect children strikes at us as a society.

STEVE CANNANE: Dana McCaffery died of whooping cough in March last year. She was just 32 days old - too young to be vaccinated against the disease also known as pertussis.

What her parents didn't realise was that they lived in an area with one of the lowest rates of childhood vaccination in the nation and one of the highest rates of whooping cough.

The McCaffery's live just a few kilometres from the headquarters of the Australian Vaccination Network. They say they've been harassed by the AVN since their daughter died and that the AVN has made repeated claims that Dana didn't die of pertussis.

TONI MCCAFFERY, PARENT: Our daughter wasn't even buried and it began. It began the day before her funeral. It began with phone calls to the Health Department to get her medical records contending she didn't die of pertussis.

STEVE CANNANE: This email from Paul Corben, the director of public health at the North Coast Area Health Service, backs up Toni McCaffery's claims.

PAUL CORBEN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH, NORTH COAST AREA HEALTH SERVICE (male voiceover): "Ms Dorey called me on 12 March seeking details of your daughter's illness and death. Ms Dorey contended that I had misled the public in attributing your daughter's death to pertussis."

MERYL DOREY: I never said any of that. All I asked was ...

STEVE CANNANE: That's what he says in an email to Toni McCaffery.

MERYL DOREY: Well, I'm sorry, that's not true. That is not true. All I said was, "How was the diagnosis made? If it was a quick test, do you know that it's a real test and that the result is real? Was it really whooping cough?"

STEVE CANNANE: Meryl Dorey says repeatedly that Dana McCafferey "supposedly" died of pertussis.

TONI MCCAFFERY: It's the most offensive statement because I watched over five days my beautiful daughter suffer the most agonising death. She was just this innocent little girl who - it was cruel. But then to be put in a position where I have to prove that she died of pertussis, that's even crueller.

DAVE MCCAFFERY, PARENT: And she's diminishing the fact that pertussis does and can kill and it's gonna lead to someone to make a decision about vaccination that could put their baby or their family at risk, and that's not right.

STEVE CANNANE: OK, there is a post that you made in reference to the sceptics which said, "Isn't it incredible how they have made Dana into a martyr because she supposedly died from whooping cough?" Now could ...

MERYL DOREY: Did I say that?


MERYL DOREY: I don't believe I did.


MERYL DOREY: Let me see.

(Steve Cannane hands over statement.)

MERYL DOREY (reading from statement): "... but ignore all of the children and adults who have died after vaccination."

STEVE CANNANE: Yeah, but you still said that.

MERYL DOREY: I did say that and I still think that a death is a death.

STEVE CANNANE: Could you imagine reading that if your daughter had died of whooping cough? How would that make you feel?

MERYL DOREY: Can you imagine reading the Stop the AVN site or the Dana site ... ?

STEVE CANNANE: I'm asking you about comments you've made; I'm not asking you about comments they've made.

MERYL DOREY: OK. That's fine. That's fine.

STEVE CANNANE: Can you imagine reading those comments?

MERYL DOREY: I can imagine and it would probably be hurtful and I would be sorry if she felt hurt from what I had said. But, from my point of view, all children are important, all deaths are important.

STEVE CANNANE: The McCaffrey's have made their own complaint to the HCCC about the AVN. They have continued to advocate publicly for vaccination and say the AVN continues to publish false and hurtful comments about them - like this Facebook post by an AVN representative.

AVN REPRESENTATIVE (Facebook post, female voiceover): "One day I hope the parents of this baby tell the whole story and are able to see how they've been used by a group of ruthless scumbags with alterior (sic) motives. Then maybe they will be able to honour their child's life with the truth."

DAVE MCCAFFERY: To suggest that we're being used by a group of people, that we're not honouring our daughter's life with the truth, is just reprehensible. They're terrible people.

STEVE CANNANE: The AVN has been given 14 days to comply with the HCCC's findings and place a statement on their website telling consumers they provide anti-vaccination information and that this information should not be read as medical advice.

Steve Cannane, Lateline.

Do you have a comment or a story idea? Get in touch with the Lateline team by clicking here.
Search Lateline

Sort by: relevance date
Anti-vaccination group accused of harassing parents
Anti-vaccination group accused of harassing parents

© 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy

AVN ist das "Australian Vaccination Network", eine Gruppe des übelsten und niederträchtigsten Impfgegnergesindels weltweit. Da wird den ELTERN der kleinen Dana unterstellt, sie würden lügen:

AVN REPRESENTATIVE (Facebook post, female voiceover): "One day I hope the parents of this baby tell the whole story and are able to see how they've been used by a group of ruthless scumbags with alterior (sic) motives. Then maybe they will be able to honour their child's life with the truth."

Die "Ehre" ("honour") durch dieses Pack!? Meryl Dory und Judy Wilyman sind die Schande des australischen Kontinents.


  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 536
Queensland fights anti-vaxxers!
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2015, 09:47:25 PM »

Queensland Government
Queensland Health

Queensland Health's response to anti-vaccination discussions
Wednesday 7 January 2015

Timely vaccinations can prevent serious and sometimes life-threatening diseases

by Dr Sonya Bennett

Queensland Health is not  involved in any capacity with the ‘Healthy Lifestyles Naturally’ seminars soon to be conducted in Queensland and does not in any way support anti-vaccination sentiments.

It is ironic that the seminars are called ‘Healthy Lifestyles Naturally’ as anti-vaccination discussions threaten the health of the community.

Vaccine preventable diseases such as whooping cough, measles, meningococcal disease and rotavirus are serious and sometimes life-threatening infections. Homeopathic products do not provide protection against these diseases.

We seek to minimise misinformation preventing a person from making an informed  decision about immunisation.

In the interests of a healthy community, Queensland Health is conducting a  campaign to debunk these common myths about immunisation and remind people of the value and importance of vaccination.

Modern vaccination programs have been established after rigorous scientific studies to ensure the best possible health outcomes for individuals and the population as a whole.

Many anti-vaccination claims are based on poorly conducted studies that have been discredited or disproven, such as claims that vaccinations cause SIDS or autism. These claims are entirely baseless.

Governments and numerous expert bodies worldwide support immunisation because it prevents serious and life-threatening infectious diseases.

Questions on this topic are best directed to the experts, such as an immunisation provider or your family doctor, with whom you would discuss other health questions.

The fact is that if vaccination stopped, vaccine preventable diseases would inevitably return causing devastation for many families.

There is a range of information available online at

Concerns about the seminars should be directed to the event organiser.

Last updated: 7 January 2015

© The State of Queensland (Queensland Health) 1996-2014

Queensland Government

Responsible for more than 83 dead: Taylor Winterstein, Edwin Tamasese


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2020, 10:45:30 AM »

Man sollte nachgucken, wo die Verbrecherin Wilyman sich jetzt herumtreibt.
.         Im Angesicht von Gewalt ist Höflichkeit gegenstandslos.
.         At face with violence politeness is pointless.

.         (User TNT in the former CDU forum)
--------------------------------------- * --------------------------------------- * ---------------------------------------


  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2214
Re: Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2020, 08:53:32 PM »

The so-called "university" "University of Wollongong" is a pigsty.

I take this piece from . Read the comment by Brian Martin... You will vomit.

By the way:

6000 dead in DR Congo. Killed by measles. And by swine like Judy Wilyman.
83 dead in Samoa. Killed by measles. And by swine like Judy Wilyman.

The so-called "university" "University of Wollongong" has its hands deep in blood. It is a crime to let them go on unpunished.

Do stop the criminals and their enablers!

I do not copy the embedded urls. So, do read the original. This here only is an anchor.

Life in the Fast Lane • LITFL • Medical Blog

Emergency medicine and critical care medical education blog

Home | LITFL | SMILE2 | The Wilyman PhD
The Wilyman PhD

by Dr Kristin Boyle, last update June 10, 2019

    Our first child took a cruel week in dyin’
    I’ve pulled three through, and buried two
    Since then- and I’m past carin’
    Henry Lawson 1899

I would like to make an a priori apology: I am about to make a good number of you feel very old. I am currently one rotation away from becoming an emergency physician, yet in all my years of training I have never shepherded a drooling, toxic child, nestled in a parent’s arms, for a gaseous induction in theatre. My lack of airway experience in the setting of paediatric bacterial epiglottitis is an unanticipated but quite delightful side effect of the introduction of the HiB vaccine to the Australian National Immunisation Schedule in 1993.

Immunisation is one of the great triumphs of the 20th century. If you are ever feeling a little despondent about the human condition, you could always remind yourself that you belong to a species that eliminated smallpox. For this reason I am deeply troubled by a farcical situation currently imploding within academia.

Dr Judy Wilyman is a tireless and determined anti-vaccination campaigner. She is also the proud holder of a brand spanking new PhD from the University of Wollongong School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, for her thesis entitled, “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy.” It is currently available for download from the University of Wollongong Research Online Thesis Collection, replete with the University of Wollongong official logo. It was supervised by Brian Martin, a Professor of Social Sciences.

I have spent the better part of two days neglecting my fully vaccinated children while scouring her thesis, which rounds out at a whopping 390 pages, including appendix, bibliography and a tribute to a who’s who of the global anti-vaccination junk science community. (The only thing missing was a dedication to Andrew Wakefield) Please note this is intended as an opinion piece rather than a true academic critique. (Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, amongst others, is far more qualified than I for that task, and has already done so quite brilliantly). Rest assured I will not be submitting my ‘opinion’ for academic publication.

Her PhD opens with the statement, “Vaccination policies in Australia need to be scrutinised because the use of a medical intervention in the prevention of infectious disease has serious health and social implications.” I agree with Helen Petousis-Harris that this sounds very much like an a priori conclusion. After making a few other quite absurd and incorrect claims regarding international vaccine policy, she concludes her abstract with, “This investigation demonstrates that not all vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe, effective or necessary. It also concludes that the government’s claim that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks cannot be sustained due to gaps in the scientific knowledge resulting from unfunded research and inadequate monitoring of adverse events after vaccination.” Those are big statements that one would think would require some scrutiny of a scientific nature before being accepted for doctorate level publication. Apparently not though.

The kindest way I can describe her thesis is as a wordy opinion piece. A poorly written one. That’s not a crime though, as much as I’d like it to be. The real travesty, however, is that she wades heavily into the scientific fields of immunology, epidemiology and public health, seemingly without any expert scientific review or guidance.

Brian Martin, in his written defence of his student, describes her thesis as “long and detailed.” I cannot argue with him on this point, though I would not consider either of those words as virtues, unless accompanied by another descriptor along the lines of “factually correct.” He also had the following to say, “Some…apparently believe that the only people qualified to comment on vaccination policy are “experts” who have degrees and refereed publications in scientific journals, for example is immunology or epidemiology….Being an expert in immunology or epidemiology gives no special insight into vaccine policy. If anyone can lay claim to having special knowledge about policy, it is those who have researched policy itself, including critics of the Australian government’s policy such as Judy.”

I take his point. But it’s very obvious at even a cursory read that Wilyman strays well beyond the field of policy.

My conclusion: This thesis is the inevitable product of someone with an ideology based agenda, described by director of the National Centre of Immunisation Research and Surveillance for Vaccine Preventable Diseases Peter McIntyre as “not willing to entertain evidence” which contradicted her beliefs, spending the better part of a decade dwelling within an echo-chamber of misinformation. It is an admirably complete assembly of the arguments the global anti-vaccination lobby have been using for years, the majority of them irrelevant, deliberate or unintentional misunderstandings, or just plain wrong. Helen Petousis-Harris referred to it as “a PhD by stealth.” I see it, quite simply, as a junk thesis and a stain upon the university who accepted it.

Up to this point the whole situation is so bad it’s almost funny. Almost. I wasn’t laughing, however, at the official statement from the university in question, laden with platitudes towards academic freedom of thought and lacking any acknowledgement of the genuine concerns of the scientific community. My unease was not soothed with their reassurances of strict ethical and quality standards and I almost fell of my seat when they invoked the “unchallengeable knowledge in the field of study” of the two external examiners. Unchallengeable?? ” Who did they ask? God and Vladimir Putin?

There are two potential scenarios regarding the external review process. One is that neither reviewer had any expertise in epidemiology or immunology. Another is that at least one of them did but still considered her thesis to be of an acceptable standard. I am not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Let’s call it a draw and leave it at that.

I will not pre-empt the findings of a hopefully inevitable investigation into potential academic misconduct, but I will offer a plausible explanation for how such a situation could occur:

    A grossly unsuitable candidate for doctorate level study.
    A slightly rogue supervisor with a passion for dissent and a keen sympathy for the anti-vaccination movement.
    Handpicked external reviewers, perhaps experiencing a touch of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    An institutional focus on academic freedom resulting in a lackadaisical attitude to academic rigour.

And there you have it. The classic Swiss cheese effect.

Judy Wilyman has every right to hold and express these views (And believe me she does. Frequently.). What she doesn’t have the right to do is express them as a competing narrative to
modern science by ignoring any evidence which doesn’t suit her argument, nor be sanctioned to do so by a major Australian university.

Acceptance of such junk, belief-based pseudo-science into mainstream academic literature (albeit via the back door) cheapens all that responsible scientific research stands for, and has very real potential to do harm to the patients we provide clinical care for every day.

They say you pick your bmattles. This is one I’m prepared to fight.

The above post is solely the personal view of the author.

    Judy Wilyman’s full thesis
    Brian Martin’s commentary
    University of Wollongong’s official response
    Helen Petousis-Harris blog post
    Judy Wilyman’s personal website
    The Australian Editorial (unfortunately behind a paywall)
    The Thinking Moms Revolution
    Unsound vaccine thesis or how to review a PhD

MIME 700 2

…more SMILE2
Share this:


Malaria vaccine
Malaria vaccine
Jellybean 106 Vaccine hesitancy with Margie Danchin
Jellybean 106 Vaccine hesitancy with Margie Danchin
Flu Season
Flu Season
About Dr Kristin Boyle

Emergency physician and keen #FOAM follower. | @KristinJBoyle | LinkedIn
Reader Interactions

    Grant Jacobs says

    June 10, 2019 at 22:35


    Thanks for linking to my and Helen’s posts on this. There’s quite a bit more at Sciblogs too, including from Alison Campbell who writes bioBlog. Like you she has read Wilyman’s thesis. I started on the thesis, but didn’t get very far…! I admire both of you for reading it right through…

    There’s also a review of the thesis published in an academic journal (which, naturally enough, we reviewed). Let’s say they also found it wanting.

    The university did set up a review of thesis examinations, but if I recall correctly they set it up in a way that avoided including the Wilyman thesis… I’ve a post on this somewhere. There’s also that in the initial review of Wilyman’s thesis, apparently one reviewer strongly rejected it & they had to find a new reviewer. You’d have wished that were a strong hint to kick the thesis upstairs, and check it’s sound.

    The whole affair is odd, to say the least.

    Brian Martin says

    June 12, 2019 at 18:42

    Dear Kristin,
    You can read about the processes that I and university officials used
    to ensure the quality of Judy Wilyman’s thesis in “Defending academic
    For a wider perspective, see Vaccination Panic in Australia,
    The 2019 critique of the thesis, “PhD thesis opposing immunisation:
    Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences” is available
    Judy’s reply, “PhD thesis on vaccination policy: scholarly and
    socially relevant”:
    Brian Martin 


Leave a Reply

#FOAMed Medical Education Resources by LITFL is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Based on a work at
StarCruiser http://WWW.ALLAXYS.COM
-----  Travelling beyond c   -----


  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 536
Judy Wilyman and the mass murderers of Samoa
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2020, 10:37:03 PM »

In the forum board

"Lethal danger patient tourism / Tödliche Gefahr Patiententourismus"
The murderers and parasites in their white cloaks wait four you / Die Mörder und Blutsauger in ihren weißen Kitteln warten schon auf Euch...

the role of Taylor Winterstein is mentioned:

Dank der Blödheit der Samoaner: 83 Menschen an Masern gestorben!

Now we see her team up with Judy Wilyman:

# Type at least 1 character to search # Hit enter to search or ESC to close
Tays Way Movement   

    About Liberate Her Raise Your Voice Hour of Power Events More Shop Contact


Tays Way Movement   
Liberate Her

8 WEEK ONLINE PROGRAM that will break mainstream consciousness!!!


This online program is here to shake up the “wellness world”, blaze a trail and light souls up AROUND THE GLOBE.


Teaming up for the first time together in this program will be 6 x special GUEST EXPERTS to help you along the 8 weeks of transformation.


We are going where most have not dared to go before, all in 1 ONLINE PROGRAM covering a diverse range of topics such as vaccines to glyphosate, 5G to fluoride, home birth to microbiome-seeding.



    Pre-Conception Care
    Empowered Pregnancy
    Birthing Rights
    Holistic Nutrition
    Low-Tox Everything
    Medical Freedom
    The Power of Intuition
    Choosing YOU first


We are diving deep into EVERYTHING you need to know in order to make truly informed choices from pre-conception, pregnancy, birth and beyond!

The definition of LIBERATE is to set someone FREE…

If you are ready to say goodbye to a fear-mongering, disempowering system and hello to freedom, to liberation – then JOIN US for the next intake opening soon!




    You are HUNGRY to get stuck in and ready to take your power back!
    You want to understand how to nurture a healthy, thriving baby from before they’re even conceived
    You want a deeply empowered pregnancy and birth experience
    You feel called to do things differently to mainstream and want to understand all of your options
    You are are planning on starting a family soon and raise healthy children outside of ‘the system’
    You want to feel unapologetic and strong in your convictions AS A WOMAN and Mother!
    You have a beginners mind-set and are a student of life
    You want to empower yourself with information now so that you can transition into Motherhood, fiercely confident and unwavering in your choices
    You want to understand what it takes to raise healthy children naturally without being crippled by fear
    You put everyone else (kids, partner, family) first before yourself, which is no longer serving your SOUL, but you don’t know how to choose you without the guilt
    You are already a young Mother but want to move into a more healing, empowered, holistic space of parenting with the practical tools you need to leave behind ineffective patterns for good
    You want to feel grounded in your truth and unashamed of the LIFE you consciously choose to LIVE!




    You have already done years of ‘the work’ to feel informed and confident in your parenting choices
    You thoroughly understand the importance of gut health, low-tox living and how to utilise natural therapies when it comes to overall health
    You can’t commit to 8 weeks of showing up online and being true to your word
    You have a sound knowledge on how to raise children naturally




    4 x group coaching calls per topic (via Zoom)
    6 x guest expert coaching calls per topic (via Zoom)
    2 x support sisters
    4 x worksheets including challenges and resources
    Unlimited support in the exclusive ‘LIBERATE HER’ Facebook group throughout the full 8 weeks.
    Lifetime access to the coaching call video recordings and Facebook group page
    Ongoing accountability support from your assigned support sister throughout the full 8 weeks.
    A new tribe full of epic, game-changing, fierce and powerful SOUL SISTERS
    A total LIFE TRANSFORMATION that will help create a ripple effect around the world, to shape a HEALTHIER FUTURE and SAVE the next generation of children to come!!!

If you know me you’ll know I over deliver and over give with every ounce of my heart and soul because #ICARE so there will be EVEN MORE in the program than what is listed here!



    “Trust your heart and seek your own answers as no one will go to the lengths you will for your child.”

    – Dr Jennifer Barham-Floreani



Maternal instincts are what has gotten us here since the beginning of time. A Mother’s love that knows no bounds. Nurturing, protecting and safeguarding the children of the world.

A groundbreaking parenting program is here to facilitate a learning environment that will give you access to tools, resources and leading experts you need to stand fiercely strong and confident in your choices.

A safe container to help you raise children outside of  disempowering system that manipulates us into making choices out of fear.

This program has been intentionally packaged to leave you feeling empowered, embodying your truth, knowing how to make informed decisions – from pre-conception, pregnancy, birth and beyond.


It’s time to take your power back.


Around the world a movement of informed Mothers is growing stronger.


We will not cave to the pressure of conforming to the status quo.


Join me as we walk away from a mainstream mindset, march together and pave our way to true freedom.





Strictly no refunds.


For Informational Purposes Only. 

The information provided in or throughout this online program is for informational purposes only, and is made available to you as self-help tools for your own use.


Not Medical Advice. 

The information provided in or throughout this online program is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment that can be provided by your own Medical Provider (including doctor/physician, nurse, physician’s assistant, or allied health professional). I am not providing health care, medical or nutritional therapy services or attempting to diagnose, treat, prevent or cure in any manner whatsoever any physical ailment, or any mental or emotional issue, disease or condition.

Tay’s Way Movement does not accept any liability for any injury, loss or damage incurred by use of or reliance on the information provided in or throughout this online program.



Doctor Jennifer Barham-Floreani is a best-selling, and award-winning, author and chiropractor. Over half a million parents, practitioners and students have read Jennifer’s thought- provoking book, “Well Adjusted Babies 2nd Edition”.  As a mother of four boys Jennifer has become an authentic guide for couples and families and she speaks around the world on common sense approaches to health, pregnancy and parenting. Through her travel, work and research Jennifer has spent time with, and learnt from, some of the greatest minds of our time.

Jennifer’s career has been dedicated to encouraging the “health literacy” of parents and amongst other awards she recently received further international awards for Outstanding Service to Chiropractic and the Being of Light Humanitarian Award.


Janine O’Brien is a registered Midwife.

Janine originally sought out working with a Homebirth Midwife though as a single mother at the time it was not the right time and Janine began a decade of moving through different options of Maternity Care from Private Hospitals, Midwifery Group Practice Settings in Public Funded and even commenced a Public Funded Homebirth Program at Randwick Women’s Hospital.

It was through a slow thought sure evolvement that Janine is now working with women for women as an Independent Midwife, whether they choose to birth at Home or in a Birth Centre or Hospital as Janine believes that Continuum of Care and building relationships with women and their families leads to better outcomes for mother, baby and family.


Cyndi O’Meara is a Nutritionist, creator of ‘What’s With Wheat?’ documentary, best-selling author, educator, international speaker & founder of ‘Changing Habits’ and ‘The Functional Nutrition Academy’.

Cyndi has been included in the Australian Financial Review and Westpac 100 Women of Influence Awards for 2016, 2016 Australian Organic Retailer of the Year Finalist and within Queensland, Australia received the Sunshine Coast Sustainable Business Woman of the Year 2016 and Finalist for the Sunshine Coast Business Awards.


Marelle BurnumBurnum is a qualified Naturopath with over 35 years of clinical experience, and a registered member of the Australian Traditional Medicine Society.

Marelle has experienced 27 years alongside the indigenous culture of Australia, and aims to include some of the oldest healing traditions and wisdoms as part of the Australian Naturopathic Curriculums. Marelle has a special interest in the way our body builds immunity, fights chronic fatigue, balances thyroid and hormone production and assists parasite control.

Dr Judy Wilyman has a Bachelor of Science degree and has practised as a science teacher for 20 years. In 2004 Judy began researching this public health issue at the University of Wollongong (UOW). She completed a Master of Science degree (Population Health) in the Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences in 2007.This included a research project analysing the Australian Government’s Policy on Whooping Cough. In 2007 Judy continued her research with a PhD. The University of Wollongong would not provide supervisors in the Faculty of Health for this project. It was recommended that the PhD be completed in the area of Science and Technology Studies in the Humanities because of the politics involved in vaccination policies.c

In 2008 – 2010 Judy transferred to the Environmental Science Department at Murdoch University to research and lecture in environmental health issues. Judy transferred back to Wollongong University in 2011 to complete her PhD investigating the Australian government’s reasons for its current National Immunisation Program (NIP). Dr Judy Wilyman’s PhD includes an examination of the science in the government’s vaccination policy and a critique of the influences in the decision to use an increasing number of vaccines in children.


Stevie Nupier is a speaker, workshop facilitator and the co-founder of ‘Stevie and Tay’. Pioneering the ‘Let’s Eat’ and ‘Wellness Out West’ community events, Stevie is also the creator of the soul-shaking, life-transforming online program ‘Break Up With Your Bullsh*t’. In her unique online program Stevie holds a safe container for women who are coached by a curated collaboration of life and business coaches to show up, be vulnerable, get messy, break down to break through and leave their BS behind for good! Stevie has guided mothers all over the world which has created a ripple effect of badass, unapologetic, fierce women who know what they bring to the table and aren’t afraid to eat alone.
Copyright © 2018 Tays Way Movement. Powered by WYSPR. All Rights Reserved.
Back to top

Australian legal enforcement is a shambles. Australian academic education is a shambles. How can anynone on earth expect such a rotten species like mankind to ever save this planet? Mankind is the worst failure of evolution ever possible.

Responsible for more than 83 dead: Taylor Winterstein, Edwin Tamasese


  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 536
More lies and bullshit by bio-terrorist Judy Wilyman
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2020, 10:50:23 PM »

Judy Wilyman with her shit-PhD talks shit. See for yourself:

Vaccination Decisions

with Judy Wilyman PhD

    Immunisation Policy
    Removal of Human Rights
    Lobby Groups

Corrections to Dr. Kristin Boyle’s False and Misleading Opinions on a PhD

July 11, 2016 By Judy Wilyman 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. Here is my response to Kristin Boyle’s blog in which she discusses my PhD without providing any supportive evidence. My thesis stands on its merits and scholastic achievement. Stating that a thesis has errors does not make it true. This personal opinion is not supported by the experts in science and politics that assessed the thesis. The important issues that need discussing are not the PhD but the types of studies that are being used to recommend vaccines to the public, as ‘safe and effective’, and the way in which vaccines are being promoted to the community. It is of serious concern that lobby groups are focusing on denigrating a PhD, supported by many academics, and not addressing the important arguments being presented in the thesis. 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 by both medical practitioners and journalists in articles in the mainstream media. The public should be asking why the supporters of pro-vaccine lobby groups, including many medical practitioners, are accepting the claims about vaccines without scrutinising all the academic literature?

The concerned public wants a proper debate of the academic literature and falsely asserting that a thesis contains errors is ignoring the fundamental health issues that need to be addressed. Here is my presentation at the  Questions and Answers public forum at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) that the government and medical practitioners would not attend to answer the public’s questions.

My Response to Kristin Boyle’s False and Misleading Opinions:

Kristin Boyle, the senior emergency medicine registrar at the University Hospital Geelong, 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. Helen Petousis-Harris 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 presented in my thesis was about the conclusions drawn on safety by researchers in 2009 so it is not appropriate to be using data from 2015.

Scientific arguments should not be based on personal opinions yet this is how the Australian media is promoting vaccines. 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 pro-vaccine lobby groups are claiming that “all vaccines are safe and effective” and they are not addressing the overwhelming academic literature 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 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 governments vaccination policy and these individuals are misinforming the public with unsubstantiated comments. The factual basis of the literature in my PhD thesis is not being debated in the media.

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? The director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, 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. This is most likely because he knows that the NCIRS has never investigated the link between vaccines and the increasing chronic illness in children. Here is Peter McIntyre telling the public that they have not proved that vaccines are not causing the increase in autism and other chronic illness in children. This means that the combined schedule of vaccines is being used on our children without providing evidence that the recommended schedule of vaccines is safe.

Why does Kristin Boyle 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. Whilst correlation is not causation, there can be no claim to using “evidence-based medicine” if this correlation has not been investigated for 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 in 2016, and they disparage with personal opinions the in-depth academic research assessed and defended by academics at an Australian university?

Filed Under: Immunisation Policy Tagged With: immunisation policy, pro-vaccine lobby groups

Newsletter Sign Up
Receive Vaccination Decisions Newsletter
* indicates required
Email Address *
Your Name *
Recent Posts

    Scott Morrison was Social Services Minister in 2015 when No Jab No Pay was Approved
    16 Month-Old Arianna Dies in Childcare in Sydney and Parents Search for Answers.
    New Publication Date of My Book: February 2020
    Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, Public Health Research Scientist Interviews Dr. Judy Wilyman
    Peter McIntyre’s Lack of Accountability as Ex-Director of Australia’s Vaccination Research Unit (NCIRS)

Copyright © 2020 · Vaccination Decisions on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in
AddThis Sharing Sidebar
Share to Google Bookmark
Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
More AddThis Share options


This is what happens when a university is fouled up. Australian academia is gone to the dogs.

Responsible for more than 83 dead: Taylor Winterstein, Edwin Tamasese


  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 536
Re: Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2020, 11:02:10 PM »

Australasian Science is no longer published. So, for the sake of science, responsibility and truth, before the Australasian Science will vanish completely, I archive the text by Peter Bowditch and the comments.

Australasian Science: Australia's authority on science since 1938
Australasian Science Magazine

    Home Past Issues Contact About Login

What Is a PhD Worth?

By Peter Bowditch

The University of Wollongong has tarnished its reputation by accepting a PhD thesis that presents anti-vaccination dogma in place of primary evidence.

In late 2015 the University of Wollongong accepted a PhD thesis by Judy Wilyman entitled: “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy”. She will now be awarded a doctorate.

There are three players in the drama: Dr Wilyman, Prof Brian Martin (who supervised the process) and the University of Wollongong (which awarded the degree).

I should start off by countering one of the criticisms that have been made of the thesis – that the research was conducted in a humanities department. This is irrelevant. It’s perfectly legitimate to investigate science from outside the world of science, and in fact most of the most famous and well-known philosophers of science were not themselves scientists.

The real criticism is that the thesis is not of the academic quality expected for the granting of a doctorate from a legitimate university.

Let’s look at the three players individually.

Dr Wilyman spent a decade working on this. I have read the thesis (well, most of it anyway: at 390 pages it is only slightly shorter than my paperback copy of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species), but the standard of “research” can probably be summed up by the fact that the second sentence in the abstract repeats one of the standard diversions used by anti-vaccination campaigners worldwide: “Deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases were significantly reduced due to environmental and lifestyle reforms prior to the widespread use of most vaccines in the mid-20th century”.

Dr Wilyman is and always has been an opponent of vaccines, and the thesis is merely a regurgitation of the nonsense we have been hearing forever, including conspiracy theories such as that the Australian government’s vaccination policy is informed by a conspiracy between the World Health Organisation and Big Pharma. We knew what she was going to say even before we had a chance to read it.

The “Publications in support of this thesis” include a link to a television show that quoted Ms Wilyman, with authorship attributed to Ms Wilyman (the actual author was journalist Anna Salleh), a paper in the journal Medical Veritas (a publication that is vehemently opposed to vaccination), a presentation at a conference run by an organisation that has run another conference specifically devoted to the dangers of radiation from mobile phones, and a couple of papers published in a journal produced by an Australian college of alternative medicine. (I couldn’t find out too much about the college because its website was blocked by my antivirus program for trying to install malware on my computer.)

As I said, I didn’t have to read far into the thesis before encountering red flags.

Prof Martin reacted to criticism of the thesis not by addressing the substance of the criticism but by accusing all critics of being bullies and crying “freedom of speech”. These seem to be special interests of his lately, and a previous paper he wrote about people bullying the Australian Vaccination Network was submitted as evidence in at least two court hearings. (In both cases the magistrate ruled that it was inadmissible.)

On the day that acceptance of the PhD thesis was announced, Prof Martin pre-emptively published a paper accusing anybody who might have something bad to say about the thesis of doing so with an ulterior motive. It is usually the job of the candidate to defend a doctoral thesis, not the supervising academic, and in any case any defence should be based on the quality of the work.

By rebutting all criticism as simply being examples of bullying, Prof Martin is diverting the conversation away from where it should be going. As supervisor, he should have made a major contribution to the quality of the work but it seems that even he can’t defend it.

Yes, academic freedom requires that unpopular or disruptive views must be freely expressed, but that doesn’t mean that anything goes and that opinions and prejudices can be presented as fact without supporting evidence or, when any evidence is presented, it is selected by the firm and consistent application of confirmation bias. Freedom of speech might be the fundamental freedom, but it doesn’t mean you can just make stuff up and call it research.

The University of Wollongong is included here too. By allowing this thesis to be accepted it has tarnished the qualifications of everyone who has received a higher degree from the institution in the past and those who will do so in the future. The value of any qualification is inextricably linked to the standards set by and the reputation of the issuing institution, and the publicity surrounding this case could lead to employers to reasonably question whether a degree from the University of Wollongong has any value at all.

Peter Bowditch is a former President of Australian Skeptics Inc. (

    Facebook logo
    Twitter logo
    Google logo
    Digg logo
    StumbleUpon logo
    LinkedIn logo

back to top

    March 2016
    Naked Skeptic
    science communication

Submitted by Admin on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 18:07
A worthy PhD

Peter Bowditch says the graduation of Judy Wilyman from the University of Wollongong has tarnished the university's reputation. Actually, his claims are deficient in evidence and logic.

In December 2015, Judy Wilyman received her PhD from the University of Wollongong. I was her principal supervisor. Her thesis ( is a critical examination of Australian vaccination policy. In Australia, it has been risky to be a public critic of vaccination ever since the formation of Stop the Australian (Anti-)Vaccination Network (SAVN) in 2009. SAVN’s methods have included derogatory comments on blogs and its Facebook page, numerous complaints to organisations, and attempts to block public talks. I have written a series of articles (, including several in refereed journals, about what I see as SAVN’s attack on free speech.

Judy, while working on her PhD, was also an outspoken critic of the Australian government’s vaccination policy, and came under attack by SAVNers. This included abusive comments on social media, complaints to the university, and freedom-of-information requests to the university used as a basis for one-sided mass media stories.

Knowing the likelihood of attacks, those involved with Judy’s candidature took extra care to ensure that her thesis was of satisfactory quality and that all university procedures were followed. Before submission, I sent her draft thesis to three vaccination researchers, and Judy took into account their comments. Her thesis was then sent to examiners who are highly experienced in the study of scientific controversies and the politics of health. This does not guarantee that her thesis is free from error, but does indicate that considerable efforts were taken to ensure quality.

Within the field of science and technology studies, there are many PhD theses examining disputes over scientific knowledge, policy-making and other facets of technoscience. Within the context of the field, Judy’s thesis is not unusual, either at Wollongong or other universities. The one difference is the existence of SAVN and its campaign to censor and denigrate public criticism of vaccination.

Therefore I anticipated that on the announcement of Judy’s graduation there would be a campaign to denigrate her and her thesis. That is exactly what happened ( There were negative articles in The Australian newspaper, hostile blogs and tweets, a petition, and new complaints and requests to the university.

Peter Bowditch’s article “What is a PhD worth?” in the March issue of Australasian Science can be considered part of the attack on Judy, her thesis, me and the University of Wollongong. He makes sweeping criticisms of the thesis, for example saying it “is merely a regurgitation of the nonsense we have been hearing forever,” thereby disregarding and denigrating what is actually covered in the thesis. Bowditch says, “Freedom of speech might be the fundamental freedom, but it doesn’t mean you can just make stuff up and call it research,” but gives no evidence for his implication that Judy has made things up. He does not mention his involvement in SAVN.

On what basis does Bowditch assert the superiority of his own judgement over that of Judy’s supervisors and examiners? He provides no evidence of having published articles in refereed journals or of having supervised research students.

Bowditch writes “On the day that acceptance of the PhD thesis was announced, Prof Martin pre-emptively published a paper accusing anybody who might have something bad to say about the thesis of doing so with an ulterior motive.” Readers can read my piece “Judy Wilyman, PhD: how to understand attacks on a research student” ( and judge for themselves. I outlined four tell-tale signs that criticisms of a thesis are part of a campaign rather than being genuine concerns about quality. Bowditch’s article reveals all four of these signs: (1) attacking the person, not just their work; (2) concentrating on alleged flaws in the thesis, focusing on small details and ignoring its central points; (3) making no comparisons with other students or theses or with standard practice, but rather making criticisms according to his own assumed standards; (4) assuming that findings contrary to what he believes must be wrong.

Bowditch concludes his article by saying that acceptance of Judy’s thesis by the University of Wollongong “tarnished the qualifications of everyone who has received a higher degree from the institution in the past and those who will do so in the future.” This is a remarkable assertion. By the same logic, at every university where a researcher has been found guilty of scientific fraud — and this includes many eminent institutions — the research of every other academic at the university is tarnished. Furthermore, Bowditch’s criticism of the University of Wollongong assumes what remains to be proved, that there is any substantial shortcoming in the thesis or in university procedures.

It is reasonable to disagree with research findings. That is what goes on in scholarly work all the time. So it is reasonable to disagree with Judy’s analysis and conclusions. However, Bowditch and others seem to prefer to use non-academic forums to criticise Judy, me and the University of Wollongong. Why are they so afraid of a scholarly critique of vaccination policy? Rather than denigrating and dismissing those involved with the research, they should be welcoming the opportunity for a serious engagement with the issues.

Brian Martin is professor of social sciences at the University of Wollongong.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/05/2016 - 19:23

Shut Up Brian.

Brian, as you are the sole public academic supporter of Wilyman, all you're doing is confirming the general belief that you're promoting your own conspiracy theories through your lapdog student's PhDs.

Your narcissistic excuses are embarrassing the Uni and have presently made it a laughing stock. Wilyman should be able to stand up for herself as a doctor, if she can't then she needs to renounce her doctorate. Why are you involving yourself so intimately defending the crank beliefs of your PhD students?

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/05/2016 - 00:08

I would have no issue with a scholarly critique of vaccine policy. There are many areas of vaccine policy that are absolutely open for debate, including the role of withholding government benefits to people who choose not to vaccinate- while I believe in this policy I can certainly see the other side. If you honestly believe that Wilyman's thesis is a "scholarly critique" then you are either too deeply involved and have lost your perspective, are manufacturing a test case in "dissent suppression" or are not a suitable supervisor in this area.

Disclosure: I had no involvement with and limited knowledge of SAVN prior to 2016- I still have no involvement beyond "liking" the Facebook page, following some members on Twitter and a few correspondences related to this issue. I have no publications on vaccine science in peer reviewed journals- my expertise is in clinical emergency medicine. I also accept I am not an expert in your field. I simply read the thesis and was appalled that something so utterly unscientific could be presented without evidence and accepted for PhD level publication. I remain in disbelief.

Sure, there equally bad and probably worse PhDs out there, but the logical interpretation of this scenario is that Judy Wilyman is an expert on vaccination policy. (It is likely that you and I will disagree on this point.) This gives her "opinions" on her strongly worded blog a gravitas I feel very strongly they are not worthy of, and it is plausible that parents will feel that if a person with a PhD in vaccination tells them it is dangerous to vaccinate their children, they may decide not to, and the science is very clear on the issue that vaccination saved lives. For these reasons I will continue to express my views that Judy Wilyman should never have been awarded a PhD and the decision should be reviewed by the university.

Dr Kristin Boyle
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 11/05/2016 - 11:40

It would appear one of the examiners was indeed thorough. Thorough enough to consider the thesis a fail according to information reported in The Australian today ( Perhaps the criticisms of the content of this thesis are valid after all.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 21:52

You want to engage on the ethical responsibility that works like this promote? What is the chance that this work can produce unwarranted fear over vaccines, thus preventing parents with limited knowledge from making a life saving decision for their child? Pure academic arguments usually stay in academic arenas where they are understood. Purposely engaging on a publicly stunt using the vale of academia is at best ethically questionable. Facts are indisputable and take few words to explain. In science and psychology, the longer the explanation or justification, the less facts or truth exists.
Australasian Science July/August 2019
In store now or SUBSCRIBE HERE
User login
Username: *
Password: *

    Request new password

Australasian Science is no longer published.
© Control Publishing (ABN 52564109395). Except as permitted by the copyright law applicable to you, you may not reproduce or communicate any of the content on this website, including files downloadable from this website, without the permission of the copyright owner. Authorisation to mechanically or electronically copy the contents of this publication is granted by the publisher to users licensed by Copyright Agency Ltd. All other requests should be addressed to Control Publishing.

Website designed by Delphinus Creative
Shipping Details
Payments, Refunds & Returns
Privacy Policy

eWAY Payment Gateway

Responsible for more than 83 dead: Taylor Winterstein, Edwin Tamasese


  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2214
Re: Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2020, 11:40:52 PM »

Marke: 10.000
StarCruiser http://WWW.ALLAXYS.COM
-----  Travelling beyond c   -----


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Judy Wilyman schikaniert Eltern eines toten Säuglings
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2021, 06:20:36 PM »

Marke: 11.000
.         Im Angesicht von Gewalt ist Höflichkeit gegenstandslos.
.         At face with violence politeness is pointless.

.         (User TNT in the former CDU forum)
--------------------------------------- * --------------------------------------- * ---------------------------------------
Pages: [1]