Judy Wilyman
Roslyn Judith "Judy" Wilyman is an Australian anti-vaccination activist who came to prominence following the controversial award of a humanities PhD titled "A critical analysis of the Australian government's rationale for its vaccination policy" by University of Wollongong. The thesis came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory whereby the World Health Organization and the pharmaceutical industry supposedly conspire to promote vaccinations in the absence of evidence of safety and efficacy. The awarding of the degree created questions about the standards being applied and whether or not the thesis supervisors and examiners had sufficient knowledge to oversee the research, and led to calls for the university to review the doctorate. A number of individuals and medical organisations – including academics and researchers from other parts of the University of Wollongong – spoke out against the findings of the thesis, emphasising the need for vaccinations in order to prevent serious disease; and the University of Wollongong was criticised for a perceived lack of transparency in their doctoral process and an alleged failure to uphold standards of scholarship.
The thesis was conducted from within the university's School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, under the primary supervision of cultural studies professor Brian Martin and the co-supervision of sociologist Andrew Whelan. Although describing himself as "hardly a neutral observer", Martin argued that the questions raised about the work equate to biased attacks on Wilyman and himself. The university responded to the criticism by asserting that the research was conducted and examined under high standards, and spoke in defence of academic freedom. The University of Wollongong also agreed to conduct a review into their overall doctoral process, but the scope did not include specific PhD recipients, and therefore did not address Wilyman's work.
Prior to the PhD, Wilyman had already received some attention for her assertion that the parents of Dana McCaffery, a child who died of pertussis, has "cashed in" on their daughter's death following the award of a prize to the McCafferys by Australian Skeptics – they had donated the money to charity.
More recently, she has been criticised for speaking at anti-vaccination events and for charging large sums for "expert reports" in court cases, despite having no medical qualifications.
Background
Judith Wilyman was awarded a Masters by University of Wollongong in 2007 in the Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts; her thesis topic was the Australian government's pertussis vaccine policy. Her thesis alleges a connection between vaccinations and autism, a claim that was already convincingly refuted, and false claims that vaccines do not control whooping cough.By 2009, Wilyman was a member of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network, an anti-vaccination group, and coordinates two anti-vaccination groups; Vaccination Decisions and Vaccination Choice.
In 2011 Wilyman opposed the cancer-preventing HPV vaccination saying evidence about the vaccine's benefits were not clear, and it was reported that she claimed that vaccinations are linked to autism. HPV vaccination has significantly reduced rates of cervical cancer, and is thought to have the potential to eliminate it altogether.
In 2012 she caused controversy after the death of a child from whooping cough, questioning "whether the family had been paid to use their daughter's death to promote vaccine", causing the family of the deceased to request that Wilyman not use their daughter's death in furthering her agenda.
In 2013, the Australian Medical Association criticised the university's decision to fund Wilyman to attend a conference in the US. Wilyman was provided with $3,000 by the university to present a paper opposing human papillomavirus vaccinations. The conference was organised by predatory open access publishing company OMICS Publishing Group, which has also been criticised for running predatory meetings with no effective standards for speaker selection. In response to the criticism of Wilyman's trip, the university's Dean of Research, Tim Marchant, stated that the university upheld the principles of academic freedom and, accordingly, it was important to support Wilyman and the presentation of differing viewpoints, even when they were controversial. Brian Martin, who was supervising Wilyman's research, also supported the decision, arguing that attending the conference was a valuable experience for Wilyman.
Questions of misconduct concerning Wilyman's Masters thesis were raised in 2014, and were investigated and cleared in 2015.
The Australian reported that "Wilyman shielded from critics" by the university in 2014 when their media office refused a request to promote the 44th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australasian Society for Immunology, to be held at a Novotel Hotel in Wollongong. The reason given was that, if the conference "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of... Judy Wilyman." According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed... towards a then student"
PhD award
Wilyman entered a PhD a program in 2007 in the same UOW Faculty as awarded her Masters, but with her research focus expanded to cover Australian vaccination policy more generally. In 2008, the supervision of her studies was transferred to Peter Dingle at Murdoch University, and returned to UOW in 2011 under Brian Martin. The thesis was accepted by UOW in 2016. Although details of the examiners have not been released, in May 2016 The Australian reported that one of two original examiners did not recommend that a PhD be granted. It was passed after a third academic evaluated the thesis and recommended changes.The thesis came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory that the World Health Organization and the pharmaceutical industry supposedly conspire to promote vaccinations in the absence of evidence of safety and efficacy. The awarding of the thesis lead to criticism and questions about the standards being applied and whether or not the thesis supervisors and examiners had sufficient knowledge to oversee the research and led to calls for the university to review the doctorate. A number of individuals and medical organisations – including academics and researchers from other parts of the University of Wollongong – criticised the findings of the thesis, emphasising the need for vaccinations in order to prevent serious disease; and the University of Wollongong was criticised for a perceived lack of transparency in their doctoral process and an alleged failure to uphold standards of scholarship.
The university responded to the criticism by asserting that the research was conducted and examined under high standards, and spoke in defence of academic freedom. The University also agreed to conduct a review into their overall doctoral process, but the scope did not include specific PhD recipients, and therefore did not encompass Wilyman's work.
Doctoral claims
Biological scientist Helen Petousis-Harris writes that the thesis abstract contains conclusion, and quotes Wilyman's aim of her thesis as an attempt to "assess the rigour of the claims supporting the efficacy, safety and necessity for the use of an expanding number of vaccines in the Australian Government's National Immunisation Program". Brull reports that according to supervisor Martin, Wilyman's thesis makes four major points:- Wilyman claims that the death rates from diseases in Australia had declined before most vaccines were introduced, leading to a suggestion that other factors may have had a role in the reduced infection rate.
- It is alleged in the thesis that Australia's vaccination policy follows international models, rather than being based on local conditions.
- In her thesis, Wilyman claims that there is a conflict of interest when research on vaccination is conducted by pharmaceutical companies.
- She alleges that some areas of research which relate to vaccination policy have not been examined, even though there may be value in doing so.
At one stage during Wilyman's candidature, Australian immunisation expert and advisor to the WHO Peter McIntyre offered to advise her on her research, but withdrew his offer as she was "not willing to entertain" alternative points of view that contradicted her beliefs. Wilyman's PhD thesis falsely claims that "diseases for which vaccines are recommended have not been demonstrated to be a serious risk to the majority of children".
Medical academics and the Australian Medical Association have questioned whether Martin had sufficient knowledge to supervise the thesis, with McIntyre observing "No doubt the examiners selected have credentials within that area of study but they are likely to lack necessary credentials in health sciences that would enable them to be aware of the full picture here". Similarly, an editorial in The Australian was harshly critical of both Wilyman and the University. It dismissed the central idea of the thesis as "rather like a sociologist who insists that jet aircraft remain aloft only because of a conspiracy between aeronautical engineers and greedy airlines" and noted the problem of academic overreach, with the faculty presuming to judge the quality of work well outside its area of expertise. It characterised the University of Wollongong as putting itself on the wrong side in a "battle of life and death", and questioned whether the granting of the PhD "could 'reasonably be expected' to lead to lower levels of vaccination?"