---
title: "Judy Wilyman"
chunk: 3/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:37:17.425529+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

Wilyman's "references to support these outrageous comments are from the bottom dwelling literature that includes 50-year-old discussions along with well-established, thoroughly debunked pseudoscience. At no point does she mention any of the vast scientific literature that includes large clinical and epidemiological studies - or attempt a critique of it."
"It is [a] litany of deceitful reveries. How it could possibly pass as a piece of Doctoral level work is inexplicable and it has made no contribution to knowledge. Shame on you University of Wollongong."
Saxon Smith, president of the NSW branch of the AMA, characterised it as "a thesis that's talking about the science of medicine without any support of its argument from credible scientific literature", adding "the evidence is clear about the safety of vaccines."
Alison Campbell, an associate dean and biological sciences lecturer at the University of Waikato, produced a blistering analysis criticising the use of out-of-date references as well as pointing out numerous scientific errors in Wilyman's master's work, including calling the unexplained exclusion of two of four types of vaccine components "an alarming omission for a paper on immunisation".
The Medical Journal of Australia criticised the university in awarding a PhD to a student "demonstrating a glaring lack of understanding of immunology and vaccine science," suggesting that unless legislation keeps the anti-vaccination movement in check "we are ushering in a dangerous time."
John Dwyer AO, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales, wrote: "[Ms Wilyman] has endorsed a conspiracy theory where all sorts of organisations with claimed vested interests are putting pressure on WHO to hoodwink the world into believing that vaccines provide more benefits than they cause harm. Many well-established concepts in science are being challenged in this thesis with no data to support the conclusions provides [sic]." He pointed out that numerous leading scientists and at least five major scientific organisations are criticising the university for rewarding poor scholarship and asking that the thesis be re-examined by experts in immunology and epidemiology, which is what the thesis addresses.
In a February 2016 media-release the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) directly questioned suggestions of bias from Wilyman. In challenging central arguments of her thesis, the RACP highlighted that the TGA is the regulatory body responsive to the monitoring and investigation of any adverse events and any significant concerns around vaccination safety.

=== University response ===
Responding to the criticism of the thesis from several medical researchers and public health advocates who called for a review by the university's academic board, the university reiterated that research is conducted under strict standards, and that they do not "restrict the subjects into which research may be undertaken just because they involve public controversy or because individuals or groups oppose the topic or the findings".
In January 2016, the Vice Chancellor of the university, Paul Wellings, announced a review into the doctoral process. However, the review did not examine specific doctorates, and therefore did not look at the awarding of Wilyman's PhD. Upon completion, the university's report found that their higher degree research policies and procedures were consistent with those at other comparable Australian universities. Immunology academic John Dwyer noted that even though the university's review made some "excellent recommendations for improving the postgraduate research students' experience", it "failed to address the vital question of matching the scientific question to be examined to the expertise of the supervisor and the ultimate reviewers".
According to the university, all theses are examined by two people with "unchallengeable knowledge in the field of study", but the university does not reveal the identities of the examiners or their respective academic fields. In March 2016, the university's compliance officer turned down a request to identify the examiners, arguing that "the examiners would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct of the media and the public once their names are released", concerned for "their physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing" and noting that current privacy laws forbid the release of the information.
John Dwyer AO responded that the names of examiners would not have been required if the university had agreed to re-examine the thesis, adding "as we know they are social scientists not clinical scientists". In a rebuttal the Australian Skeptics considers UOW's statement of a possible "detrimental effect on the [examiner's] physical ... wellbeing" to be verging on a libellous depiction, as it "suggest[s] that the community critical of the PhD may physically attack the examiners".