My response to Judy’s latest communication:
I would like to correct the misinformation that has been placed on the internet by the Illawarra Mercury about the research presented by PhD research student Judy Wilyman. On the 11th June Dr. Mathew Berryman, a Senior Research Fellow in the SMART Infrastructure Faculty at Wollongong University misrepresented my comments about the promotion of vaccines to the public and took these comments to the media. The actual comments that I made can be found on my website: Vaccination Decisions.
And your comments below have all been made before, in one shape or another. You talk (below), of “open debate”, Judy, yet repetition of claims that have been already addressed isn’t debate.
Dr. Berryman, a specialist in infrastructure technology
I am not a specialist in infrastructure technology (ignoring cloud computing infrastructure), rather my current research is in modelling and analysis of large-scale systems. If anything, my speciality is in modelling and analysis large systems in general.
(and not health policy or vaccination)
Right, but as I pointed out here, I am certainly qualified in matters scientific (including a background and training in statistics thereof), and from a general scientific background, I can see that your research cherry-picks and misrepresents evidence to support your argument, ignoring evidence that doesn’t support your argument. As Popper pointed out, one should actively look for evidence that contradicts your hypothesis. Thus I can safely say with my background your research is not scientific. It would be remiss of me not to look at the advice of people who have doctorates in the science (such Dr David Hawkes) behind viruses and/or vaccination, as opposed to arts PhD candidates in public health and their non-public-health non-medical research supervisor, who also find your research unscientific.
made 3 comments that I would like to correct:
He stated ‘the arguments I am presenting are unscientific’. This is untrue. The research I am presenting on whooping cough was completed as part of a research project for my Master of Science degree (Population Health) and has been published by the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) and other peer-reviewed organisations. This research can be found on my website.
This “research” (flawed, as pointed out above) on whooping cough was published in 2011, during your PhD, post your MSc.
The Intouch Newsletter, unlike their journal (The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health), is not peer reviewed.
The comments I made with reference to the promotion of vaccines to the public stated the government has been promoting the whooping cough vaccine on ‘anecdotal evidence’ and I gave an example. Anecdotal evidence is the evidence from one individual – it is their experience and it is not representative of the community. This is not the type of evidence that is used in a public health policy and the public is entitled to see what evidence is being used to suggest a particular vaccine is for the ‘good of the community’. There are other children that have died from vaccines therefore we cannot use individual cases to promote the need for a vaccine to the public.
The McCaffery family, as do I, publicly rely on and and support research by actual vaccination experts, such as Prof. Booy: http://www.chainofprotection.org/, who use scientific evidence.
To suggest that “I had misused the case of 4-week-old Dana McCaffery’s death from whooping cough against the wishes of her family” is a complete fabrication.
Oh, then why did they post this, amongst other complaints about your unethical conduct?
I resent your accusation that I am lying.
The McCafferys agreed to promote the vaccine to the Australian public and received an award ($1000) from the Skeptics organisation in 2009 for doing this.
Which they donated to medical research. Lying by omission to falsely implicate they were doing it for the money, again, Judy?
The public must be able to openly debate this topic and be consulted on the policies that are implemented. It is important that researchers in universities who are bringing you a different perspective should not be criticised for presenting their scientific arguments.
Judy, if you dislike having your “scientific” arguments criticised, particularly when they misinform the public, (and let’s be clear again, it’s your arguments, not you I am criticising here), you should not be at a University, you will find it a terrible place.
Some other comments on other vaccination-related issues:
I find it disappointing that the University of Wollongong avoids, in public, e.g. http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/uni-responds-to-antivaccine-views/2585887.aspx, supporting a pro-vaccination stance, apparently in order to be seen to be supporting “academic” freedom. The University can be supportive of Judy’s research* and academic freedom (through allowing unrestricted rights, barring intellectual property delays, to publish to peer-reviewed journals, as they do), but at the same time respectfully having their own pro-vaccination (and thus pro-science) stance. This would help communicate important health messages to the Wollongong and wider community, to which the University usually stresses its responsibility for.
*I hope they have now looked at her poor supervision in matters of vaccination.
No response yet to my complaint (in writing, via registered mail) to Vox FM.