Anti-vax activist charges parents $4000 for ‘expert report’

She was awarded a doctorate from Wollongong University under a barrage of criticism, now Dr Judy Wilyman is cashing in on her PhD by charging $4000 for “expert reports” in court.

• NSW vaccination rates hit record high
• Byron Bay an anti-vaxxer paradise

An anti-vaccination activist with no medical training is charging $4000 for an “expert report” to present in court cases to help parents who do not want to have their children vaccinated.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal Dr Judy Wilyman has been involved in four separate court cases of estranged parents, where one parent does not wish to vaccinate the children but the other parent does.

Dr Wilyman also charges $150 an hour as an expert witness.

Prominent anti-vaccination campaigner Judy Wilyman. Picture: Pinterest

However her doctorate was in humanities and was controversially awarded by the University of Wollongong in 2016 amid harsh criticism from the scientific and medical community. Her thesis argued vaccination was a conspiracy.

Australian Medical Association president Dr Tony Bartone blasted Dr Wilyman’s claims as irresponsible.

“It’s disgusting. Her claims are ridiculous and lack any basis in science or medicine,” Dr Bartone said

Immunologist and president of Friends of Science in Medicine Professor John Dwyer said if courts ­allowed Dr Wilyman to be an expert witness there was something wrong with the legal system, while federal Health Minister Greg Hunt said parents needed to listen to “undisputed medical advice” and Dr Wilyman’s research was not credible.

MORE FROM JANE HANSEN

NSW BIRTH RATES GO BUST AS HOUSE PRICES BOOM

CANCER YOUTHS FREEZE EGGS FOR FUTURE BABIES

Dr Wilyman was contacted but declined to answer our specific questions, instead defending herself in a series of emails.

She claimed the purpose of this article was to “denigrate my work with false and simplistic allegations about my academic arguments”.

“The report you have been given is only one part of a very detailed report that was presented in a court case and it is a fully referenced document. The scientific and political ­arguments that I have pre­sented in court are in support of the public’s right to choice in vaccination,” she wrote. “This information needs open and public debate.”

She then went on to threaten legal action if The Sunday Telegraph published a story that included “simplistic and misleading statements about my report” and accused the paper of “incompetance” (sic).