Dr. Judy Wilyman is interviewed here in regards to her PhD thesis exposing the corruption, fraud, conflicts of interest and obfuscation in Australian vaccine policy.
In 2015 Dr. Judy completed her PhD entitled ‘A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy’. After she left off her 15 year career as a mainstream science teacher where she developed a concern, sparked by observing an abnormal rise in allergies and learning disorders in the children she was teaching, she entered the University of Wollongong and completed both a Master’s degree followed by a PhD.
Download her PhD thesis. At the time of write this post it has been downloaded 27,384 times. That is almost unheard of. Most PhD thesis are only downloaded a handful of time. Get a copy of this now before the University of Wollongong removes the accessibility.
On June 15th, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interviewed the founder and president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, Dr Theresa Deisher, on the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute is a non profit research organisation devoted to find ethical moral alternatives to the human fetal tissues used in vaccine and medicine production.
Human fetal cell line products
On her website Dr. Deisher discusses the presence of human fetal products in our food and vaccines and her mission to create affordable alternatives.
To date, 24 vaccines (10 of these are used in the US) contain components that are produced using human fetal cell lines (the cell lines MRC-5 and WI-38). There are currently 3 FDA approved recombinant drugs with up to 85 coming soon, and specialty cosmetic anti-aging creams also produced using human fetal cell lines or human fetal cell proteins.
In the interview Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Deisher covered a wide range of topics including which vaccines contain human fetal DNA, what the existing research tells us in terms of health risks with vaccines, and what alternatives might be used in place of human DNA in vaccines.
I am not a biologist but a physicist. I am used to quite high confidence in the data I have obtained in my laboratory experiments. But from reading some biology papers on vaccines and comparisons with adverse health outcomes I note a whole lot of controversy.
At first that controversy might seem to be about population sizes in the studies, or how the demographics were selected, or how the controls were handled. But from my reading it seems that it is more the conclusions that the authors come to that are the hot button topics.
As a result I have read of several high profile retractions by leading journals. That is after the papers passed peer-review and were published did the problems arise. People objected and, in some cases, a total debacle ensued.
I just finished reading this book co-authored Kent Heckenlively and Dr Judy Mikovits, a research biologist. I had previously heard interviews with Dr Mikovits on YouTube, which usually only survived a day or two and they were censored/taken down by the YouTube Big Brother (like were are living Orwell’s 1984).
Of what I could understand from those interviews, and I found it was difficult to understand the sequence of events she was describing, my interest was piqued. So I ordered the book from Amazon but then later cancelled the order when I heard others contradicting her claims. But not wanting to answer a matter before I heard the whole story (Proverbs 18:13), I decided to give Dr Mikovits the benefit of the doubt and buy the book. Now that I have read it, I am glad I made that decision.
The book is very well written and very clear in what happened. She outlines the corruption she found in the medical research establishment. It is a tell all naming names of those who covered up and stifled her ability to prosecute the truth of what she discovered in her laboratory research.
Here I link to a very long article that is worth your time reading. It is well researched with many supporting published scientific papers supporting the claims. The following was written by K. Paul Stoller, MD, FACHM, Fellow American College of Hyperbaric Medicine.
“Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information…The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
2005 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights1
Vaccines are public health measures that are not evidence-based as portrayed by authorities such as the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). For example, despite political propaganda to the contrary, the scientific reality is vaccines are not subjected to the same kind of clinical trials as other drugs are. They are classified not as drugs but as biologics, which allows them to be routinely approved and mandated with little to no evidence of efficacy or safety while at the same time actual evidence of vaccine harm is systematically ignored by vaccine manufacturers and authorities who work together under multiple unethical conflicts of interest. Consequently, vaccines are a grave threat to public health and medical ethics. Furthermore, informed consent in vaccination is deeply endangered today both in medical practice and as an ethical principle in society. Natural immunity is similarly endangered today due to modern vaccination policy. Promoting categorically unsafe vaccines and discouraging the responsible development of natural immunity has become state-sponsored policy where the policy itself is what gets protected – not the public.
In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated their policy on this issue clearly, “any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives.” This was recorded in the Federal Register (vol 49, No. 107) and made specifically about the polio vaccine.
The heart of informed consent involves comparingrelative risks, based on actual data.
This shocking documentary produced by Polly Toomey was forbidden to be shown by the movie industry. Watch and you’ll understand why!
Toomey interviews parents of many vaccine damaged children. They all have very similar stories to tell. This is a very sad and moving part of the documentary, seeing interviews with parents of extremely damaged children which resulted from such vaccines as the HPV vaccines. It is heart wrenching.
What is very striking is the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The unvaccinated report much better health than the vaccinated. Many have never had an sicknesses or infections in their entire lives.
24 May 2020 Robert F. Kennedy won his lawsuit against the US government CDC on behalf of those depicted in this VAXXED II film!!
Vaxxed! From cover up to catastrophe. First screened in June 2016.
YouTube deleted this video claiming it is false information but it is absolutely not that. It exposes a cover up at the US government CDC of a study in 2002 that confirmed a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A whistleblower, William W. Thompson, who worked for the CDC, was one a group of scientists who worked on the study. He resisted orders to destroy documentation and eventually exposed the fraud in the final published paper where the data was carefully selected to show no link between the vaccine and autism.
It is a gripping story that might sound like the plot of a good fictional thriller, but like is often said, truth is stranger than fiction.
I must admit I only recently watched this movie for the first time. The reason is that when it came out I was somewhat ambivalent towards vaccines as I had come from believing that doctors and modern medicine could really help our health. But through my own experiences I found that was hardly the case.
I recommend that you give this movie a chance. Don’t listen to so-called arguments that call it all a ‘conspiracy theory’. It isn’t. It is based on real operational science. The movie exposes the efforts of sinful men to cover up what was actually discovered through scientific investigation.
Robert F Kennedy, Jr. is an environmental lawyer and has made it his life’s mission to save children from the damage that unsafe vaccines are doing to our children. I recommend that you educate yourself on this issue. A place to start is by listen to this series of interviews he gave to Polly Tommey.
Episode 1: Polly Tommey and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. kicked off the new CHD (Childrens Health Defense) Channel on Peeps TV with a lively discussion on a wide range of relevant topics in the health freedom movement. RFK, Jr. shed light on conflict of interest in the development of vaccines, early red flags in the Moderna coronavirus vaccine trials, the new “Vaccine Czar”, pathogenic priming and much more.
In Episode 2 of TRUTH, RFK, Jr. spoke with Polly Tommey about the health epidemics of children, delving even deeper into the specific injuries caused by vaccinations, including those listed on the product inserts. Discussion surrounded the fact that there is essentially no safety testing for vaccines; and, once citizens know this information and do their research, they become steadfast advocates who can’t turn away. The episode closed with a discussion of rights to refuse vaccinations and that parents shouldn’t be bullied!
In Episode 4 of “TRUTH” series, RFK, Jr. spoke with Polly Tommey about the suffering of children and families in Africa and India caused by unsafe vaccines backed, distributed and promoted by Bill Gates. They also discuss the power Dr. Anthony Fauci has in steering the direction of research funded by taxpayers.
In Episode 5 of “TRUTH” series, RFK, Jr. spoke with Polly Tommey about the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccines, Rachel Carson’s struggle to inform the public about the health risks from exposure to pesticides, and Mr. Kennedy’s long history of holding Monsanto accountable for its dangerous chemicals.
The cells from aborted healthy babies have been used in the development of vaccines and medicines for about 80 years. The argument has been made that since the cell lines are significantly unrelated to the act of the abortion of the baby it is morally justifiable for a Christian to receive vaccines that used such cells in their development and manufacture.
However it is argued that it would be morally wrong if the babies were aborted for the express purpose of using their parts to develop the vaccines and other medicines. I agree. But even if these babies weren’t aborted for the purpose of using their body parts, it would still be morally wrong to use them to develop vaccines and other medicines. But as it stands, the aforementioned argument relies on the notion that the cell lines used are so old, coming from aborted babies back in the 1960s, that there is now little connection to them.
Jonathan Sarfati of CMI wrote in an online letter defending their use:1
“No new embryos are being generated for the purpose of culturing vaccines (this is immoral). The vaccine makers had nothing to do with the abortions.”
Using aborted babies 50 days or 50 years after being killed does not make it morally right. Additional time cannot make something morally right. And whether the researchers had anything to do with the abortions is irrelevant to the argument whether it is morally right to use aborted baby parts. Furthermore is that premise really true in vaccine and other medical research today?
Everyone loves a controversy. There is a new one brewing, and some astrophysicists are very unhappy because their pet paradigm is in trouble again.
Dark matter, the stuff that allegedly comprises up to 85% of the matter content of galaxies in the universe, has just hit another road block:
“…three physicists claim their observations of empty patches of sky rule out one possible explanation of the strange substance—that it is made out of unusual particles called sterile neutrinos. But others argue the data show no such thing.”