Interview with Judy Wilyman PhD
On Vaccination, Government Policy, Covid Tyranny, Chronic Illness, Doctors and much more.
I’ve had Judy Wilyman’s PhD staring at me from the bookshelf for over 2 years. I will get around to reading it.
Judy became a thorn in the side of Australia’s Public-Private vaccination partnership when she was awarded her PhD on Government vaccination policy in 2015.
She was also one of the very few vocal public figures that stood up to Australian Covid Tyranny.
She is a historically important figure in this battle against The Poisoning, and I’m honored at the opportunity to interview her.
With appreciation and gratitude to Judy Wilyman PhD.
Vaccination Decisions Substack | Judy Wilyman PhD | Substack
1. Judy, can you please tell us about your educational background and how it led you to research vaccination policies?
I completed a Bachelor of Science degree and a Diploma of Education to become a science teacher in the early 1980’s. As a science teacher in schools from 1986 - 2000 I was exposed to the increase in chronic illnesses in children that exploded from the 1990’s onwards. When I had my first child in 1993, I was also exposed to the expanded vaccination program that included many vaccines that our generation did not have. In addition, they were voluntary for our generation, without coercion for any vaccine, so why was the government promoting more vaccines with coercion (financial incentives) in the 1990’s, when there was less risk from infectious diseases in countries with public health reforms, than at any time in history?
2. What motivated you to pursue a PhD investigating Australia's vaccination policies? Was there a specific turning point that sparked your interest?
The use of medications is always a risk-benefit equation, and the risk becomes much higher if the drug is being used in healthy people. I became curious to understand the risk-benefit of using each vaccine on the expanded childhood program. My interest in this topic was also sparked by the push to vaccinate all teachers in 1990 with the Hepatitis B vaccine. This occurred without any evidence of an increased risk from Hepatitis B in the community. I questioned the necessity for this knowing that vaccines are a class of drugs that have serious side-effects for many people.
To assess the risk-benefit of vaccines it was necessary to understand the role they played in controlling the risk from infectious diseases in the 1900’s. This became the focus of my Master of Science Research from 2004-2006 and my PhD from 2011-2015.
3. Your PhD thesis argues that deaths from infectious diseases significantly declined before most vaccines were introduced. What evidence supports this claim?
The evidence for the significant decline in deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases before most vaccines were introduced, is clearly stated by the public health officials in the historical literature. In Australia and other developed nations, it was stated that due to public health reforms (hygiene, sanitation, nutrition and lifestyle) the risk of infectious diseases was removed by 1950.
After this time in Australia, it was no longer necessary for doctors to notify the government of measles, whooping cough or influenza because most cases were mild or sub-clinical (asymptomatic) and did not lead to death or serious illness. This fact was supported by Sir Frank MacFarlane Burnet, Australia’s Nobel Prize Laureate 1960 in Immunology.
In 1950 the only vaccine being used in a mass vaccination campaign was the smallpox vaccine, but this disease did not decline any more quickly than other infectious diseases. The risk of smallpox was not removed until public health reforms were implemented by 1950.
Scientist, Alfred Russell Wallace, exposed the Smallpox medical statistics and how they were being manipulated in 1889 in his chapter “Vaccination a Delusion: It’s Penal Enforcement a Crime”
Professor Fiona Stanley, the Australian of the Year in 2003 (Public Health), stated in her research on Children’s Health since Federation (2001) ‘Deaths to infectious diseases fell before mass vaccination was implemented’.
4. Your controversial views on vaccination have made you a target of criticism and even censorship at times. Can you share how taking such a strong stance on this issue has impacted you personally and professionally over the years? What keeps you motivated to advocate despite the challenges?
My PhD supervisor, Emeritus Professor Brian Martin (University of Wollongong (UOW)) quote:
“I have studied issues of intellectual freedom for many years; never have I heard of a campaign against a research student more relentless and abusive than the one against Judy”.
Firstly, I’ll address the label of controversial that is used to describe my research. When the authorities need to control the narrative because the historical evidence doesn’t support their agenda, then they use labels to denigrate and discredit the research. I did my research through a university to give me credibility in public debates on this topic, but the opposite happened in both the official and unofficial channels for debate. This is because of the power of the industry lobby groups in the Australian media, universities, research institutions and in politics.
Since I graduated my research has been labelled, ‘controversial’, ‘antivaccination’ and a ‘conspiracy theory’, all of which are designed to discredit my research. This strategy works because the public are told to only get their information from medical doctors. These so-called ‘experts’ are influenced by their education that is funded by the pharmaceutical companies.
For many decades, most people including doctors, have been told what to think about vaccines because they do not have the time or ability to assess the risk-benefit evidence of vaccines for themselves. In addition, large financial bonuses keep people in this business model.
The scientific and political processes globally have been corrupted by powerful industry-lobby groups. When you experience this corruption firsthand it destroys the foundation of values that you were taught to believe existed in society. Life becomes meaningless in a valueless society, so this was the motivation to continue speaking up despite the personal and professional attacks.
5. You state that the Australian government's claims about vaccine safety and efficacy are "unsupported by scientific evidence." Can you elaborate on the gaps you've identified in the research?
Claims about the safety and efficacy of a drug should be founded on empirical (observed) evidence and not surrogate endpoints that are unproven and non-saline placebos in the control group. Yet this is the type of evidence that is being used by governments to make claims of safety and efficacy for vaccines; a drug that is given to healthy people. This situation has arisen by classifying drugs called vaccines as ‘Biologics’ and allowing them to be marketed without the gold standard clinical trials required for other types of drugs.
When the necessary scientific studies are not done to prove with empirical (observed) evidence that a drug is safe and effective, then government claims of safety and efficacy are based on gaps in the scientific knowledge, i.e. a lack of evidence, not actual scientific evidence. These gaps in knowledge are referred to as undone science and it allows the government to make claims without any scientific evidence. It also allows them to ignore any evidence provided by consumers that contradicts these claims.
In this situation, adverse health effects after vaccination can be dismissed simply as a ‘coincidence’ and the onus is put on consumers to prove that harm is caused by the vaccine and not from other factors. This situation is the opposite to how you would protect human health in government policy if this was the intention. It is the reverse of the Precautionary Principle that should protect health in government policy. ‘Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety’:
Governments are not using the precautionary principle to design public policy in a format that will protect human health. Health can only by protected if a drug/vaccine is proven safe to the majority before it is implemented. This requires it to be tested for a minimum of 10 years before marketing because many reactions come out months and years after the injection is given. Vaccines have always been marketed without this evidence even though governments have claimed to parents for decades that ‘vaccines are trialed for 10 years’ before they are promoted in government policy.
Vaccines are fast-tracked (‘warp speed’ in the case of the COVID-19 injections) and there is no proof that the benefits ‘far outweigh the risks’, as governments claim, for any vaccine in genetically diverse populations. Governments also use the surrogate of antibody titre to make claims of efficacy without trialing the vaccine to see if it prevents the disease in controlled clinical trials (PhD Ch 7).
Scientists have never tested traditional vaccines to see if they prevent the disease in formal controlled clinical trials. The Swedish Medicines Product Agency (MPA) states “Many conventional vaccines that have a long history of use have never been tested in formal controlled clinical trials to demonstrate their efficacy in preventing disease” (Public Assessment Report, Aflura Influenza Vaccine, 2007, p.5).
Dr. Stanley Plotkin, regarded as the ‘godfather of vaccinology’ finally admitted in 2024 that claims of vaccine safety and efficacy are unsupported by empirical scientific evidence. ‘Stunning reversal’: World renowned Vaccinologist Publishes Paper Admitting Lack of Vaccine Safety Studies.”
6. You've argued that financial conflicts of interest and industry ties, particularly between pharmaceutical companies and members of Australia's vaccine advisory boards, are problematic. In your view, how do these conflicts of interest impact vaccine research and policy decisions.
Financial conflicts of interest (COI) are controlling every aspect of the scientific method of developing and researching vaccines, as well as their promotion to the public in government policy. The public’s voice on this issue in both politics and the media has been removed due to financial conflicts of interest and institutional barriers.
Pharmaceutical lobbyists control Australian health policies in our parliament through the donations and lobbying system. This system allows thousands of dollars to be donated to all major parties without them being revealed to the public in real time.
An example of the most significant COI that exists in Australia is the government’s regulatory board for drugs, the Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA). This government board is 98% funded by the pharmaceutical industry whose drugs it both approves for the market and monitors for safety in the population. What incentive is there for implementing effective monitoring systems for vaccine safety when you profit from the vaccines you are monitoring?
The industry-funded TGA has the discretion to accept or reject reported adverse events to vaccines, without independent assessment.
From 2005-2014, Professor Terry Nolan, who set up Australia’s largest vaccine research and development program at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI) in 1990, was appointed Chair of the government’s, Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). This position enabled him to directly recommend vaccines to the Health Minister for their inclusion on the Australian Immunisation Program (AIP) for all children.
This ATAGI board is also directed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that was being influenced by the corporate partners in the GAVI alliance to design global vaccination policies from 2000 onwards. This included the Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers.
In Australia approximately 80% of our mainstream media is owned by Murdoch’s News Corp Limited. This enables corporate interests to promote selective information about vaccines and to frame the information to the public that would best support the financial interests of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute’s vaccine program and the Australian government’s national vaccination program for children.
7. Data shows an increase in chronic illness among Australian children over the past few decades. Do you believe the expanded vaccination schedule has played a role?
Yes, I have concluded from the scientific evidence that vaccines are a large risk factor for the significant increase in chronic illnesses in the population that we have observed. This is the sickest generation of children ever and the government has been increasing the use of vaccines by ignoring the decline in children’s health that is occurring.
Vaccination programs are not promoted to the public based on improved health outcomes after vaccination. The strongest evidence for this probable causal link is the direct dose-response relationship between the decline in children’s health due to chronic illnesses from 1990 onwards with the increased use of vaccines in all developed countries. Evidence for this link is provided in this paper ‘Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety’
All substances added into the body interfere with our natural body systems and this often has a latent effect of months and years after the injection is given. This is why 10 years is needed to prove that a drug is safe in most people. Many chronic illnesses are linked to our genes, and they do not get expressed unless an environmental factor switches the gene on (Epigenetics).
This means that you can have a gene for a disease, but you may never get the disease if the environmental factor in drugs is not present.
8. Australia's "No Jab No Pay" policy removed medical and non-medical exemptions to vaccination. Why do you oppose this measure?
Medical exemptions refer to the contraindications to drugs/vaccines that are dependent upon family history, our genetics. Doctors have always assessed the use of vaccines according to an individual’s own genetic make-up and in the past many people were advised not to have a vaccine based on their pre-disposition to disease due to their genetics.
Most medical exemptions were removed by the Australian government when it introduced the No Jab No Pay/Play policies in 2016. To arbitrarily remove medical exemptions is criminal because the decision can result in life-or-death consequences, and quality of life can also be destroyed. Governments started removing contraindications to vaccines from the 1990’s onwards when more vaccines were permitted to be given at school. This by-passed the doctor’s assessment for individuals to consent to vaccines.
Removing non-medical exemptions, religious and conscientious objection, removes the fundamental right of bodily autonomy. There is no freedom without bodily autonomy, i.e. the right to choose what we put in our own bodies. This affects our quality of life. Disabilities have skyrocketed since mandatory vaccination policies have been implemented.
9. You've characterized mandatory vaccination as a human rights violation. However, public health advocates argue that high immunization rates are necessary to protect the community. How do you tackle this question of individual rights versus the concerns about public safety?
The corporate medical regulator, AHPRA (the Australian Health Practitioner’s Regulatory Authority), has gradually been changing the focus of vaccination policies from an individual perspective to the community good for many decades. This has been done through the collaboration of corporate-public partnerships in the WHO, governments, and the mainstream media.
The false claims of safety and efficacy of vaccines have been promoted in the media for three decades now. This has made it possible for the corporate medical regulators to claim, ‘vaccines are for the community good’ and to claim that adverse events to vaccines are rare (one in a million). If they are ‘rarely’ reported, then the public believes they are rare when in fact the evidence is simply being ignored.
Hence, the authorities can claim ‘vaccines are for the community good’ and those that are harmed are considered necessary for the benefit of the herd, i.e. collateral damage. This illusion is possible even as the health of the population seriously declines because the government can blame other viruses and toxins for this increase in ill health – no proof required because they have reversed the precautionary principle in public policy.
People’s beliefs are being controlled by the media and the actual health outcomes from vaccination programs are not being revealed by media or governments. The government has been ignoring the harm and chronic illnesses caused by vaccines for decades and at the same time suppressing the historical evidence of how we removed the risk of infectious diseases that I presented in my PhD. This is why complete censorship and denigration of researchers is required to continue the current agenda of mandatory vaccination.
Vaccines are neither proven safe, effective or necessary to remove the risk from infectious diseases and their use was always voluntary when they were introduced after 1950.
10. Doctors play a key role in promoting and administering vaccines as part of their clinical practice. Do you feel most doctors are adequately informed about the potential risks you've identified, or are they simply following public health directives without sufficient scrutiny?
Doctors are simply following public health directives and are concerned about losing their medical registration if they provide any material that can be considered ‘anti-vaccination material’. This means that even if they are aware of the serious adverse events to vaccines, they cannot present these risks to their patients because it will be considered ‘anti-vaccination’ material, and they will lose their jobs.
This is a breach of the medical ethical guidelines for doctors as they are required to present all the risks and benefits of a medical procedure to their patients. This is particularly significant when a medical procedure is for healthy people.
Doctors are being educated with selective information about vaccines and infectious diseases because their education is funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Yet, doctors are considered the ‘experts’ by the public and hence most people are complying with the program without questioning. It is time for doctors to bring ethics and integrity back into the medical profession by joining together to fight this medical tyranny. Doctors must hold their corporate medical regulator to account for the false information they are providing about drugs called vaccines.
11. Some of your recent writing has alleged fraud and deception by pharmaceutical companies and regulators in relation to COVID vaccines. Can you summarize the evidence you believe supports these claims?
The evidence for the medical fraud that has led to government tyranny and totalitarianism is described in my article, ‘Creating a Global Pandemic’, published in The Master of Health Magazine in 2020.
And
‘The Final Pandemic: An Antidote to Medical Tyranny’ by Dr. Mark and Sam Bailey
12. Where can readers connect with you?
My website is called Vaccination Decisions:
https://www.vaccinationdecisions.net
and I have links to my PhD, my book ‘Vaccination: Australia’s Loss of Health Freedom’ and my newsletter on my website. Please sign up to my newsletter on my website to stay connected and to keep in touch with current vaccination issues.
Vaccination Decisions Substack | Judy Wilyman PhD | Substack
Here is a link to my PhD for references to the above information:
I am also on Telegram https://t.me/vaccinationdecisionsDrJudy
Thank You for Being Part of Our Community
Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.
Discover Our Free Libraries:
Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.
Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.
Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:
I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.
Resources for the Community:
For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.
Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.
Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.
A powerful interview thank you so very much. Dr Judy Wilyman you deserve the highest honours yet two totalitarian PMs were rewarded for their cruel, inhumane, unnecessary, dictatorial governance. We can only shake our heads in disbelief. Such is the shock that Australians are still coming to terms with. As an over -60s woman with a great interest in health and healing, I have watched for decades the strange methods of our medical system. Especially in the treatment of cancer, I see drastic and unecessary treatment. While people such as Ian Gawler, (trained as a vet) were ignored by the medical profession, despite the successful methods he taught.
The blatant drug company bias that doctors have been educated with, and the neglect of nutrition, exercise, meditation and other lifestyle factors as a consequence, has saddened and surprized me. The rigidity of mind, seen in many medical people, is hard to understand, except when I think of the imbalance that being so intellectually focussed creates. The heart, the emotion, the intuition, has gone from so many, replaced by cold pseudo science.
Thank you for awakening people to truth,
Thanks for standing up against this madness Judy - so appreciate how you’re going about this. All power to you.