Australische vrouw promoveert op het ontmaskeren van de vaccinatie-industrie
Donderdag 21 januari 2016, 09:50 uur
Een Australische doctorandus heeft voor controverse in de medische wereld gezorgd door haar proefschrift te schrijven over allerlei zaken die volgens haar niet kloppen aan het vaccinatieprogramma en de farmaceutische industrie.
Zeer tot ongenoegen van het establishment heeft de universiteit haar scriptie nog goedgekeurd ook.
Zo is Judy Wilyman, een prominent antivaccinatie-activiste, sinds kort de trotse bezitster van een PhD (de Angelsaksische evenknie van een doctorstitel).
Stellingen “verdedigbaar” bevonden
Voorstanders van het vaccinatieprogramma voor kinderen reageren als door een adder gebeten en hebben de Universiteit van Wollongong verzocht om haar geval opnieuw te beoordelen. De universiteit geeft echter geen krimp, omdat ze haar stellingen zeer goed verdedigbaar vinden. Ze bekijken andere PhD-toekenningen wel opnieuw, maar niet die van haar.
In haar proefscrift toont Judy Wilyman, drijvende kracht achter de organisatie “Vaccination Decisions and Vaccination Choice” (“Vaccinatiebesluiten en Vaccinatiekeuze”), aan dat wereldwijde instanties zoals de Wereld Gezondheids Organisatie (WHO) op grote schaal met de farmaceutische industrie samenspant om immunisaties te bevorderen.
Ze diende haar proefschrift eind vorig jaar in, met als conclusie dat de vaccinatiepolitiek van Australië niet het resultaat was van onafhankelijke beoordelingen, maar eerder het gevolg van de druk van de farmaceutische industrie op de WHO.
Verschillende medische onderzoekers en mensen die zeggen de volksgezondheid te verdedigen, hebben het PhD-proefschrift – dat door het School of Humanities-instituut van de universiteit wordt toegekend – verworpen. Hierbij roepen sommigen op om het geschrift opnieuw te laten beoordelen door de Academische Raad van de universiteit.
De universiteit weigert tot dusverre om aan enige eis tegemoet te komen.
Stellingen uit het proefschrift
Wilyman’s ongebruikelijke proefschrift bevat onder meer de volgende stellingnames:
- Er is geen sprake van streng toezicht op tegenstrijdigheden in, of evaluatie van, de effectiviteit van vaccinaties voor de bevolking die belangrijke gegevens zouden verschaffen voor wat betreft de effecten op de bevolking.
- De WHO lijkt geen enkele binding te hebben met mondiale samenlevingen en wordt gecontroleerd door de belangen van corporaties en de Wereldbank.
- Het is niet gebleken dat de ziekten waarvoor vaccinaties geadviseerd worden, een serieus risico vormen voor de meerderheid van de Australische kinderen.
- In de promotiecampagne voor het baarmoederhalskanker-vaccin werd een verkeerd risico op HPV-infecties en baarmoederhalskanker bij vrouwen in verschillende landen weergegeven. Dit werd met opzet gedaan om zo een markt voor de baarmoederhalskanker-vaccinaties te creëren.
- De “varkensgriep”-pandemie in 2009 werd afgekondigd door een geheim WHO-comité dat banden heeft met farmaceutische bedrijven die zich inspanden om enorme winsten te behalen uit de pandemie.
In de storm van kritiek die Judy Wilyman en de Universiteit van Wollongong nu ten deel valt, valt op dat vrijwel geen enkele criticaster ingaat op de door Wilyman aangedragen stellingen.
In plaats hiervan concentreert men zich voornamelijk op het besmeuren van de reputatie van de universiteit en het zwartmaken van Wilyman, die een “anti-vaccinatie gekkie” genoemd wordt.
Bron: Truth Kings, Nederlandse vertaling: Marja.
Some people excite me. And some people really excite me! And then there is the case of Judy Wilyman, an Australian anti-vaccination proponent who wrote a thesis calling out the vaccination and pharmaceutical industries, and ended up getting her PhD based on it. She’s a whole new level of awesome in my eyes. The University of Wollongong issued her a PhD and has also refused to review the case (they are reviewing other PhD cases, but not hers). People are in a total uproar over the matter, calling for the University to rethink its position and strip Wilyman of her PhD.
The University of Wollongong has accepted a PhD thesis from a prominent anti-vaccination activist that warns that global agencies such as the World Health Organisation are colluding with the pharmaceutical industry in a massive conspiracy to spruik immunisation.
Judy Wilyman, the convener of Vaccination Decisions and Vaccination Choice, submitted the thesis late last year, concluding Australia’s vaccination policy was not a result of independent assessment but the work of pharmaceutical industry pressure on the WHO.
Several medical researchers and public health advocates have slammed the PhD thesis — to be awarded through the university’s School of Humanities — with some calling for it to be sent to the university’s academic board for review. (source)ADVERTISEMENT
The University is refusing, so far, to meet any of these demands. Her thesis was pretty incredible and right on the money. Here are some excerpts:
There is not stringent monitoring of adverse or evaluation of the effectiveness of vaccines in the population that would provide meaningful data on their effects in the population.
WHO is perceived to be out of touch with global communities and it is controlled by the interests of corporations and the World Bank.
The diseases for which vaccines are recommended have not been demonstrated to be a serious risk to the majority of children in Australia.
The promotional campaigns for HPV vaccine misrepresented the risk of HPV infections and cervical cancer in women in different countries. This was done in order to create a market for the vaccine.
The “swine flu” pandemic in 2009 was declared by a secret WHO committee that had ties to the pharmaceutical companies that stood to make excessive profits from the pandemic.
The people who are attempting to have her stripped of her PhD just go to show exactly how baseless their own arguments are. If you are confident in your own beliefs, you wouldn’t fear other beliefs being equally shared. Trying to subjugate opposing perspectives is intellectually shoddy and weak and a tyrannical slippery slope.
A thesis is really an assertation and must be something which can be defended. It was reviewed by scholars as all thesis arguments are and those scholars decided that what she asserted was defensible. That’s how it works. Her paper was subjected to the same similar criticisms that other papers are subjected to. How can anyone support burying other perspectives? It has been proven time and time again that attempting to create societies that don’t allow for free thought only leads us into atrocious circumstances.
A writer from Science Blogs apparently shares such Nazi sentiments, as well as basic confusion over how things work.
I bring all this up mainly because I’ve just learned of a PhD candidate who really, really needed to have some very uncomfortable questions asked by her thesis committee and at her thesis seminar and defense, questions that apparently were not asked. [Note added: I’m informed in the comments that Australian universities don’t do the traditional public thesis defense done in the US and Europe, but rather the thesis has to be read by two experts external to the University and the supervisor gets to make the call. Ugh.] Most supervisors take that responsibility carefully. Some, however, apparently do not. I’m referring to the case of Judy Wilyman, a prominent antivaccine loon from Down Under, whose PhD thesis has apparently been accepted by University of Wollongong:
In his scathing piece, he has to add an addendum after the fact because clearly, he didn’t understand the subject matter of which he was writing. And the source? A random comment. Meaning commenters on his article had to educate him on how the process of reviewing a thesis for a PhD works. He didn’t know, but that didn’t stop his scathing attack. He accuses Wilyman of being uninformed, the irony is not lost on me. His second point is a fallacy: “some, however, apparently do not (take the responsibility in reading a thesis serious).” Where is his evidence in this? His evidence is merely that he, the writer, doesn’t agree with the perspective, so it must be wrong. That’s a fallacy. If that were in a thesis, it would be indefensible and it would thereby fail to pass the logic test.
The real issue at hand here is that some people aren’t comfortable living in a world where everyone doesn’t agree with them. And that’s not the kind of world I am comfortable living in.
Photo by edbrambley by Taboola Sponsored Links You May Like TOP 10 avant / après: les stars et la chirurgie esthétique! C’est funny9 Common Cancer Symptoms You Should Never Ever IgnoreRemedistAged 35 he speaks 11 languages – his 11 tricks to learn any languageBabbelUnbelievable transformation! Cute Child Star to Ugly Adult SportFluff15 Times Shaq Made The World Look SmallTheBleacherSeats.com
You’d Be Surprised What These 15 Child Actors Grew Up To Look LikeStarFluff
http://truthkings.com/2016/01/18/this-womans-anti-vaccination-thesis-is-epic-awesome/#
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection
A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy
Judy Wilyman, University of Wollongong
Year
2015
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy
Department
School of Humanities and Social Inquiry
Recommended Citation
Wilyman, Judy, A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong, 2015. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4541
Abstract
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. 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. Mass vaccination campaigns were adopted after this time as the central management strategy for preventing infectious diseases, with many new vaccines being recommended in the National Immunisation Program (NIP). The implementation of mass vaccination programs occurred simultaneously with the development of partnerships between academic institutions and industry. The Australian government’s NIP, like all member countries of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is recommended by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). This is a partnership with the WHO and UNICEF that includes the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations Development Fund (UNDF) and other private research institutions. All members of this public-private partnership influence the development of WHO global health policies.
It is important that independent research is carried out to assess whether all the vaccines being recommended today are safe, effective and necessary for the protection of the community. It is also important to have comprehensive evidence that it is safe to combine multiple vaccines in the developing bodies of infants. The framework for undone science is used to analyse the Australian government’s claim that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Whilst the government claims serious adverse events to vaccines are rare this is not supported by adequate scientific evidence due to the shortcomings in clinical trials and longterm surveillance of health outcomes of recipients. A close examination of the ‘Swine Flu’ 2009 vaccine and the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), intended to prevent cervical cancer, shows shortcomings in the evidence base and rationale for the vaccines. 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 the gaps in the scientific knowledge resulting from unfunded research and the inadequate monitoring of adverse events after vaccination.Download
4,318 Downloads
Since January 10, 2016
Share
http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4541/
Judy Wilyman – Holy Spirit College
I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work at Holy Spirit College in a job share situation for the last 4 years. As a working mother of three young children I can highly recommend the benefits of job share. Prior to the job share I worked as a permanent part time science teacher for six years trying to juggle childcare for different hours across a five-day week. Most childcare centres don’t operate on a flexible basis and therefore become an expensive option, defeating the purpose of part-time work. Some people have a good support network, which can relieve this, however for many, this doesn’t exist.
Job share enabled me to balance my work commitments with those of my family with time left over for myself. This is important in relieving the tensions and guilt experienced when the load is too high. Children benefit from a relaxed family environment where they are not being rushed from one venue to the next. This can be stressful to young children. I feel the benefits to my family life have been tremendous but also to the school as well. The benefit to the school is that it gets twice the amount of energy and creativity for the price of one teacher. We are able to arrive for our classes fresher and more enthusiastic for our two or three days than if we were coming in five days of the week. Each of us has different talents that can be utilised by the school for extra curriculum activities.
Students experience different teaching styles and with good communication and support for each other the job share can be very effective. We have aimed to give the students continuity in the topics we teach and consistency with the running of the classroom and discipline. The best partnerships require goodwill and respect for each other’s interests when decisions are being made. Guidelines for the job share should be based on individual situations and should be discussed fully before the arrangement is agreed to. I have gained job satisfaction from this arrangement while still maintaining a mostly sane and happy household. It also means that when unexpected family events happen such as sickness we are still able to cope. By entering into job shares the schools will retain more experienced qualified staff members and hence provide a better service.
http://www.dow.catholic.edu.au/eow/Wilyman.html
(formerly
Bijlage 119 Judy Wilyman, PhD on anti vaccination )
Scentses 
4 thoughts on “Dr Judy Wilyman, PhD on exposing vaccine industry”