Andrew Wakefield, thank you for joining me in the trenches. Did the COVID era change you? You know, paradoxically it gave me hope because so many people woke up and when I started in this 30 years ago, 30 plus years ago, there were literally 5 people around the world who were prepared to engage in a discussion about the vexed issue of vaccine safety. It was the end of your career. It was forbidden.
We just don't go near that. And I did and you know, I touched the third rail and so did a few handful of other people. COVID changed everything. I mean, certain things changed everything. Film I found changed everything. In the clinic you can help one child at a time and with a film you can educate thousands at a time. So that was one thing.
And then COVID came and when people woke up to the realisation that their lives and in their, their jobs and their, their, their businesses had been destroyed and their health had been destroyed and it was all based upon effectively a lie. Then half the adult population of the world started debating this and have come in many cases to the right side of this, this
argument. So COVID changed a great deal for me in there is a silver lining to the COVID cloud and it is the awakening of many people to the reality of vaccine issues. I'll give you one example. Peter McCullough, world's leading paediatric, sorry, world's leading cardiologist, the most published cardiologist in the history of this planet. When he got engaged in this and lost his job, he, it was COVID vaccine. This is a problem and we should not be using it, not been
properly researched, et cetera. But the childhood vaccines are safe. But then like every good scientist, he went down that rabbit hole and read and read and read and came to the conclusion that no, actually none of them are safe. They've not been through adequate safety testing. So suddenly you had eminent people like that joining in the debate in a very sophisticated way and testifying before the American Congress, and it made a huge difference. So you wouldn't want to go back
to 2019? No, no, I I tend to look forward in life rather than backwards. I mean, history is crucial if we're to understand why we got to where we are and and how to approach the future. But no let's I look forward. I was saying to you before we started recording that your work and, and the, the, the, the podcast episode that we recorded a number of years ago had a profound impact on, on me personally and of course my wife and of course our child.
And for the right reasons, because we are a lot more sceptical now of, of vaccines, particularly the MMR vaccine. And that's kind of the Segway. Your background is around that. And of course, we'll we'll chat about that now in a moment. But for my UK column audience that might not know much about you, Andy what? What is your general bio? General bio Graduated in medicine 1981. Mainstream gastroenterologist. GI Surgeon. I don't know what mainstream means anymore, but there I was.
I had a big research team at the Royal Free Hospital in London looking at the origins of inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, epidemic diseases in Western societies, and I started looking at viruses as the possible 'cause. And that led to looking at measles and measles vaccines. We were interested in unusual patterns of viral exposure and I'll explain that in a minute.
But 1995 I started getting calls from mothers, highly intelligent, not not anti vax, had taken their children to be vaccinated according to the doctor's recommendations. And they said my child was fine. And then they crashed. They they had speech, language, interaction with their siblings, they were sleeping at night, they were growing. And then suddenly that all went to hell and they lost their speech and language, no longer socialised, didn't sleep.
They're in pain. I know they're in pain. I'm their mother. I know they've lost the ability to communicate, but I know they're in pain. And they had all the signs and symptoms of an underlying inflammatory bowel disease. But the doctors and nurses they'd seen said, oh, that's just part of autism, Put them in a home, forget about it, move on, have another child. That was the sort of, it was a terrible situation. So we investigated them as we should have done.
And of course the parents were right. The children had an inflammatory bowel disease and when we treated that, there was improvement in not only the bowel symptoms but the cognitive symptoms. The children started using words they hadn't used for five years. It was fascinating. It was like that.
Lorenzo's oil. I don't know whether you remember the film based upon a true story, but so when they say this happened after a vaccine in close proximity to the MMR, we have an obligation, professional and moral that to to take that very, very seriously. People didn't want to. My colleagues said as paediatricians, we can't be seen to question the safety of MMR vaccine. I didn't know what that meant. That just made me angry. What I mean, you can't be seen to do it.
Why? Because your colleagues might not think well of you. I that was astonishing. Your responsibility is to the to the patient and their parents, not to your, you know, you're standing in the Royal College. So I, I, we, we parted company on that particular issue. And yeah, when we started to look at the vaccine issue, that's when my career in particular completely unravelled. I came to America because America, even though the argument is equally polarised
here. Or was there is the opportunity to do to set up a private clinic where you can do research and continue the work and help these children? That's what I did. They came after me there. They accused me of, well, you know, of, of fraud and the mainstream media got their teeth into it. I was accused of all kinds of things. And there was me, there was me, and then there was them.
And they, them, you know, they were the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, the drug companies, the governments of the world, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I mean, I was just went on and on. So I was never going to prevail in that particular situation. They eventually, you know, the, the clinic, they came after that. And that was difficult. So I thought, you know what, I've got some extraordinary stories to tell. I'm going to become a film
maker. And so in 2004 I started screen writing and I've now made 6-7 movies. The last one, Protocol 7, has won 34 Film Awards. Not that that means too much, It's certainly not why we went into it. And it's almost dangerously respectable. It's not not not a place I'm familiar with. But film is a wonderful way of communicating with people. And I had these stories from whistleblowers and I decided to tell them.
Yeah. But let's go back to that, that incident because it it, it's mind blowing. It's very obvious to me, Andy, that you were over the target because I mean, if it is just a normal science paper that got retracted, there wouldn't have been such a a huge sort of artillery coming after you. That paper, if I'm correct, it was in 1998 and it was peer reviewed and published by The Lancet and you had done a study, you and your team. By the way, you had Co authors. I mean let's not forget that.
Also, you studied 12 kids, is that correct? Yes, by the time when we we decided to write a paper after the first 12 children here. OK, so just take me through that just briefly. Sure. So The Lancet paper was a case series. It's very important to stress what a case series is. A case series. This is the way in which human disease syndromes are almost invariably described in the literature when they're found for the first time.
You have a group of individuals, in this case children, who present with a consistent and unusual pattern of injury. In this case, it was regressive autism and bowel symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, following in many cases the MMR vaccine. And So what you do is you report
those. And what you report in that in The Lancet paper is what the parents told you, what the medical records show, what you found on clinical examination of the child and what you found on investigation, for example, colonoscopy or laboratory analysis. And you can make no conclusions about causation, can't say MMR causes. Ultimately you can't do that. It's just an observation that leads to hypothesis testing studies down the line. Does do these children have a
unique bowel disease? Is it different from other bowel diseases? So you can do control studies to answer those specific questions. And we made the point in the paper at the end, we said this study does not confirm an association between the MMR vaccine and the syndrome described. More work needs to be done. That was it. That's that's as far as it can go. It's a very sober interpretation, but it was taken by the media to be MMR vaccine
causes autism. And and that's when it really, you know, kind of went into meltdown. There was a journalist called Brian Deer, I think I if I got his name right, and he seemed to have had a chip on your shoulder and he really decided to come after you. But it does appear that he, from what I can tell, that he, he looks like a pharmaceutical hack basically. But what was your interaction with him like? Very little, Very very little. As little as possible.
Very, very strange individual. And as you say, he was bought in by pharmaceutical companies when they encountered a problem like this. He did it. He did this with the pertussis vaccine and a Doctor Who from Great Ormond St Hospital who reported the association between neurological injury and pertussis vaccine. And then he did it with me and he was kind of hit man. I think James Murdoch, who Rupert Murdoch's son and they have a big interest in vaccinations.
He was put onto the board of Glaxo Smith Kline, the U KS biggest manufacturer of MMR, in fact Europe's biggest manufacturer. And his aim was to protect the reputation of that, that company in the media. And my I was his target and he came after me and he recruited or Brian Deer was recruited as a consequence of his involvement.
And, and what an interesting story is that we ultimately sued Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal for defamation because what they'd said was so wrong, so outrageous. And my question to your audience, why would you do that? When you sue someone, all the facts, every single word gets laid out in the public domain for anyone to scrutinise. If you would committed fraud, unless you were totally insane, which I don't think I am quite yet, why would you do that?
Why would you spend, for example, raise $3,000,000 to fight this kind of litigation merely to have what Brian Dear said confirmed worldwide? You wouldn't do it. I mean, you'd have to be literally off your rocker. And so we didn't, we, we lost that case not because we, it never went to court, we were denied jurisdiction. So it never got tested on the merits of whether they'd been
defamatory or not. It just someone very high up, despite all legal precedent said you don't have jurisdiction and so we never got to take Brian Dear to court. But he knows, and the rest of them know, that they would have lost if we had done that. But there's something obviously weird about that whole thing. I mean, firstly, The Lancet did publish the paper and then they're attracted it, which means that they they were pressured by the Pharmaceutical
industry. You know, it it, it was a threat to the vaccine market. It opened up the possibility of huge liability and for injuries already incurred, children damaged. It was a mass and it was the future of the Pharmaceutical industry was vaccines. It was vaccines. There were vaccines for everything. They were throwing new vaccines into the market all the time. And that's where the future was for them. And so they had to grow, they had to satisfy their stockholders.
And so it it was unthinkable that vaccines could be causing this and therefore it wasn't allowed to be. But I mean, if you look up this particular story, every website comes up saying that this led to a decrease worldwide in vaccinations and an increase in measles. Yes, I mean people have analysed this back and forth, I said at the time. And I make this very clear. I would suggest that parents have the option of the single vaccines because we didn't see this to anything like the same
extent with the single vaccine. Parents reported an association with MMR. Was there some effect of the combination that was idiosyncratic and we we didn't know, but it was a reasonable hypothesis. And at the time, in the UK and in the US, the single vaccines were available so a parent could opt to take one or the other. They were protecting their child, but they were just choosing how to do it. And the British government then in that year took away the importation licence for the
single vaccines. Merck in America withdrew, unilaterally withdrew the availability of single vaccine. And I said to them, I said to the British, the girl from the Public Health Laboratory Service in the UK is responsible for this. I said, why would you do that? Why would you? If your concern is protecting children from measles principally, why would you take away a parent's options for how they do that? And she said because if we allowed parents the choice, it
would destroy our MMR programme. That's astonishing. Her aim, her wish, her desire was to protect the programme and not children. That was what they were trying to protect and it was a real revelation. Elizabeth Miller was her name. Vaccines are one of the largest pharmaceutical products in the world, something like $85 billion annually, I think. I think the only other thing that's bigger than that is I think oncology or something.
But I mean the vaccine market effectively is almost the size of Hollywood. I mean, that is huge money and it's growing, which which is a, which is a big red flag. Yeah, it's growing massively and they they want to introduce more and more and more vaccines, different strain vaccines. I mean, it's, and the problem is this, the problem is that in this country, in the US, there is no liability for death or injury caused by vaccines that are on the childhood schedule.
And there are many, there are now 74 plus vaccines before you graduate from high school. And the problem with that is that so you have a mandatory market, the children have to have these vaccines in many states to go to school. And so it's there's a mandatory market and no liability. You can't be sued. So they've got the perfect business model. They got a mandatory capture population and no liability for death or injury caused by the
vaccine. All they can do is make a profit because in 1986 they introduced the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which protected the industry from liability. They said the industry held the feet of the government of the fire and said if you want us to go on producing these vaccines, then you're going to have to indemnify us because it's not a big profit margin for us and we're going to pull out of the market and children will die of pertussis.
How do you feel about that? That's the kind of blackmail that was exercised on the government. And so a huge mistake in my opinion. The government introduced a no fault compensation system where there's a tax on every vaccine. So the individual, the people, the public pay for it, not the the industry, not the government pay for it. And they and then if children are injured, they're compensated from that fund. And it just gave the industry a get out of gaol card.
They had, you know, like I say, mandatory market. All they could do is profit. What a great business model. But I'm not following Andy, because if vaccines are safe and effective, why do you need protection? Why do you need liability protection? Absolutely. Because they're not. And they know they're not. And that's the truth. And when we say vaccines, we are referring to all vaccines, not
just MMR. Yeah, all vaccines because the safety studies for all vaccines have been wholly inadequate. They have not tested the safety of the vaccine in populations of completely unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated children. So called vax on vac study, they've not done that. That's done for every drug that goes on the market, but not for vaccines. No vaccine. No vaccines. Now, isn't that what RFK is trying to do? Absolutely.
That's what he's trying to say. He's trying to say for any new vaccine there should be a long term random oldest clinical trial, control trial and you know, people getting the vaccine and not getting the vaccine, not getting an alternative vaccine as a control. That's not a control. That's not a placebo, not getting the excipients in vaccines as a control. Again, that's not an inert control, but getting no vaccine. And, and so that's what he's
doing at the moment. It should apply to all vaccines, old and new. But of course they consider that unethical and it would I've no doubt, expose problems they do not want exposed. What I don't understand though is it's become almost like a cult. It's very interesting. I mean, people are far more willing in my experience, to talk about this now than they were. COVID has really bought it into the public time. Like people know that there are
problems. Everyone's got a relative or a family member or whatever who has suffered some kind of injuries, you know, sudden death, cardiac death after the vaccine, 3rd or 4th dose. It's invariable. It's, it's the truth will come out. The truth is coming out, but as you say, it's it's been a very
painful process. And there are people who've had all the shots and don't want to even begin to acknowledge that they might have been duped, that they did the wrong thing, that they would have done something differently. And people were very reluctant. There's a sort of dissonance that guides people's thinking and but it's been very destructive because as you say, family units are falling out because some didn't, some didn't get vaccinated and same in my
own family. But. Post your Lancet moment in history. You went into forms and then you did vaxxed. Vax after In early 2000, I think I went to testify before the US Congress on this issue. And afterwards I met with the CDC at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention scientists in, in Cold Spring Harbour laboratories and they said to me, Doctor Wakefield, every child gets MMR, only a few get autism. How do you explain that? And I said, well, you know what, that's medicine.
A lot of people smoke, some people get lung cancer. Who does? Who doesn't? We don't know why cofactors, genetics, we don't know, but we believe that one of the cofactors in vaccination and autism is the age of exposure to MMR. The younger you get the vaccine, the greater the risk.
Why? Because the younger you get measles, if you get measles, natural measles under one, then the chances of a serious outcome are much worse than if they're you're over 1, intuitively, because the immune system's more developed or whatever it may be. So we think, I think that age of exposure is very important. And they went away, and they tested that hypothesis, and they found it to be exactly true.
Children who got the MMR vaccine younger were at much greater risk of autism than those getting it after 24 and 36 months. And what did they do? They spent the next 14 years covering up the data, putting alternative data in its place, destroying the documents and publishing a paper that said MMR vaccine was safe. It was a absolutely appalling scientific fraud that had enormous and far reaching consequences for American children and by proxy, children of the world.
This is what the CDC says it's safe to go back in the water. No, it's not. And then in the end, the senior scientists on that study, Doctor William Thompson, who was really the key figure in in Vax, the documentary Vax, William Thompson, who had designed that study at the CDC, collected the data, analysed the data, written the paper, came forward and said, I can't live with this anymore. We've done a terrible thing. Here is all the data. I kept it. My colleagues destroyed it,
threw it into a dumpster. I kept it because I knew that was illegal. And so we discovered the greatest fraud ever in the history of childhood vaccine, and we decided to make a documentary about it. And of course, the critics said, oh, that's true, you've just made that up. That's just typical of you, Wakefield. Well, let me tell you this. If we'd made it up, if there'd been one word of a lie, one mistake in that movie, we would have been sued to the moon and
back. It was not a whisper, not a single whisper. Why? Because they knew every word was true. And it went right to the top of the CDC hierarchy. So that movie really had a dramatic impact worldwide, not least of which is it got into Tribeca Film Festival, one of the great film festivals in North America. And it was then censored. It was pulled up the first time ever in Tribeca history. The movie was censored. A few days later, Robert De Niro went on television saying we
shouldn't have done that. Everybody should see this film and it exploded worldwide. We could how do you couldn't even pay for that kind of publicity. It was amazing. It was extraordinary with a censorship backfired on the in the biggest way that this movie exploded globally and played everywhere and people woke up. Many, many people woke up to what was really going on. I remember that, that incident with Robert De Niro, did he ever make contact with you? We were in touch.
He has a vaccine injured child himself and and so he was very sympathetic, but he was led by his colleagues at Tribeca Film Festival and told that in fact, they were told this is a really interesting story. They were told that other directors of other films that had got into Tribeca were so furious that our film was in that they'd offered, they didn't, they'd threaten to pull their own film from the
festival. Let me tell you this, if you're a film maker and you get into Tribeca, you are never, under any circumstances going to pull your film from that. Those people do not exist. And so it was just a complete lie. And De Niro knew it was a lie. And, and so, you know, so it unfolds. But it did have this paradoxical effect of of exploding the film worldwide and getting a lot of people to watch it.
It's not common for a list celebrities to speak out against vaccines like De Niro. I'm I'm trying to think now they but they are a handful. I think there was somebody that you knew back in the day. I think the the model what's named Elle Macpherson. I think Jim Carrey also or or he's ex. Jim Carrey was very good. He, he, Jim Carrey was actually the first person to call me when I came back from England having lost my medical licence, which
was very touching, yeah. So I mean, and he he had a thing Once Upon a time with his ex girlfriend or wife. I don't even remember the story anymore. And they, I think they spoke to Oprah about it back in the day when you could still speak on TV about it, but. When when they were together. Jenny McCarthy. Yes, yes. Are there any other big names who who take a sympathetic position? There are not, not so many, but it's a growing #1 because it's
become self evident. And two, because so many children are now injured that their relatives, their grandchildren are being harmed. And so people are bored, particularly in the wake of of COVID. So it's a very, very much larger group now than it ever was before. Why does the MMR vaccine matter so much? I mean, there are, there are loads of vaccines, Andrew. Why does it matter so much? It matters because it's an interesting story.
It matters to Merck, who developed the MMR Maurice Hiliman from Merck, the late Maurice Silliman Merck had There was no unique licence on the measles vaccine. There were a number of manufacturers. It was open season in the marketplace. Maurice Silliman developed a vaccine for mumps and Merck had a monopoly in the United States on that vaccine.
So Maurice Silliman decided corporately a very smart decision to combine 3 live viruses, measles, mumps, rubella, owning the patent on the mumps vaccine and get that to be the preferred vaccine of choice, one shot rather than three. And that's what happened. So in the, in the, in the American market, it became MMR became the preferred vaccine and that put all of the other measles manufacturers out of business.
And Merck cleaned up and they cleaned up because they owned the patent on the mumps vaccine as part of the MMR. Very smart move, but that really closed the marketplace down. And then in the UK we introduced the MMR and we used a strain of mumps which was very dangerous, caused meningitis. It had been withdrawn in Canada, withdrawn in Japan. The British were warned don't do this, this is a dangerous vaccine. They went ahead and did it
anywhere they didn't care. And of course, four years later, it had to be rapidly withdrawn because it was causing meningitis. And so they went to Merck and said, Merck, can we make up our stocks with your vaccine? And Merck cleaned up in, in Europe as well. So it, it, it's it there are commercial forces at play here that determined why MMR is so important to the pharmaceutical company. It's not important to, to families any more than the single vaccines would be.
I mean, it's just it was mainly a commercial reason. How did humanity survive for thousands of years up until what, the 1700s? It's a, it's, it's a very interesting sort of evolutionary argument.
We if you look and they never show you this graph, but if you look at what happened to measles, measles mortality, it's a measure of how severe measles is mortality, death rate from measles before the vaccine was introduced, so in up until 16. 20 that was 1968 or something when it was introduced. Wasn't. Yeah. So up until 1920, measles was a major killer of children in Western societies. During epidemics, 1200 per million were dying of measles. After 1920 there was a dramatic
fall in the case fatality rate. In a very short period of time, 50 years, it had fallen by 99.6% and it was continuing to fall. And we introduced A vaccine. All of that decline in mortality, the decreasing severity of measles, that was nothing to do with the vaccine. It was due to a whole host of factors, like a change in the virus, change in host immunity, better nutrition, better sanitation, all kinds of things.
Nothing to do with the vaccine. Now the question is, if we'd never introduced the vaccine, what would have happened to that mortality curve? It would have continued down, very likely. We can't say that for sure because we intervened with the vaccine. But the point is that man and microbe man and measles were coming to terms with each other. A successful parasite doesn't kill people, it keeps them alive so it can spread from one to
another. And measles was becoming a more successful parasite because it wasn't killing people. But we introduced A vaccine and that confused the entire situation. And you could argue and, and experts at the time did argue, there is no need for this vaccine. Don't interfere. Ask yourself what is different about that one in a million child that makes them susceptible rather than universal vaccination. Approach it from that individual
child's perspective. But no, they saw profit at the end of it. They wanted to emulate what they perceived to be the successive polio vaccine, and so public health took over and made the decisions. But they never talked to you about that mortality curve because it really undermines their entire argument. That curve you're talking about, I think, is in Roman Bistjanic and Suzanne Humphrey's book Dissolving Illusions.
You'll see the US data there, but if you look, if you look at Thomas Mccown's modern rise of population, you'll see exactly the same for the the United Kingdom. So basically in a nutshell, and you what you're saying is that plumbers were a lot more successful at eradicating measles than the vaccine they. Were they cost more? The plumbers always cost more, but yeah, they were. They did a fine job. Yeah.
Measles isn't eradicated, and you can't eradicate a disease where the vaccine itself causes measles. So in way back when there was a Disney outbreak in the States, there were, I think, 100 and, gosh, 180 cases. I can't remember the precise number in this country. And it turned out that 43% of those were caused by the vaccine. They didn't tell you that at the time. They didn't want you to know that. They wanted you to think it was
all unvaccinated people getting measles. 43% were caused by the vaccine. When you have a situation where the vaccine is causing the disease, you will never eradicate the disease. The same thing happened with polio. The The polio vaccine caused polio. Yes it did. Absolutely the biggest it killed. People. The biggest cause of paralytic polio worldwide now is the IS escape.
Escape mutants from the vaccine. And then after a few movies, you ended up doing a movie, not a documentary, called Protocol 7. And as I was telling you before we started recording it, it was it came up in conversation when I applied for my my US visa. That was based on a true story. It was because of the position I'd taken over the years. People came to me from the Pharmaceutical industry and from regulatory agencies like the CDC and said, you know, we've done a terrible thing.
Here's the evidence. And so I became a kind of repository for whistleblowers and I used to hand them off to special interest lawyers, you know, Public Interest Lawyers to sue or not sue according to their merits. But I just thought, you know, these would make wonderful films like Erin Brockovich and The Insider and so on and so forth. So I started screen writing in 2004 and wrote this story.
Gosh, in 2012, I think Protocol 7, I wanted to let it play out in court because it was going to court that took decades and decades. So in the end, I just said the public need to know. And we got on and made the movie and it, it was a lot of fun. It was such fun making a a movie rather than a documentary. I just, it was just great. I love working with actors and, and it did really well.
It did really well. It, as I say, it won 34 Film Awards so far and and it's playing to audiences worldwide. It's available streaming and yeah, you can have it written down here. Is it Wakefield mediagroup.com. You can see it there at wakefieldmediagroup.com. So now it's done very well, and it could have done better if there hadn't been suppression, censorship. But that's the way of the world, I'm afraid.
Just keep making those movies. When you look back, Andy, do you have any regrets or or was the attack by the Pharmaceutical industry a blessing? You know, it, it, it was very difficult. I won't pretend it hadn't been very, very difficult, particularly for my family and for my children who have all been very, very supportive and loyal. But I spent far too much time away from my children. And so if I have one regret,
it's that. But it, I do hope that ultimately they will look at their children and their children's children and say they're safer and they're healthier because people ask questions about something that was assumed to be safe and turned out not to be. I, I, I really, and I hope they can forgive me for the time
spent away from them. That's my one misgiving about it. But I did realise halfway through when things were really, really bad, I realised, you know, I had a sort of reflective moment and I thought, you know what? This isn't about you. Forget about your you. This is not about you. This is about something. Far more important than that is the health of children who have no voice. They've lost their voice and someone needs to be able to speak for them. So shut up and get on with it.
I think that sentiment, though, shared by a lot of people now, Andy, and I mean, you know, my, my mom was just saying to me a few days ago, you know, if she knew what she knew now, thanks to people like you and and others, she wouldn't have vaccinated me when I was a baby with the MMR. And I think we now have the opportunity to, to apply that to our, our next generation and, and hopefully their, you know,
their generation after that. And we keep hearing though that, well, we're going to see an increase in all these diseases again because of people who are going against the vaccine thing. And I, I don't think that at all. I mean, I think that that's just propaganda from the pharmacy, from the, from the Pharmaceutical industry. But I mean, I think there is hope, isn't there? I do. I think the first thing to say is that whatever happens it they've only got themselves to
blame. They can blame you and me for having this discussion, but that's not where the root of the problem lies. They are to blame. They have created this situation to do with COVID. We've seen this. They have created a permanent, unforgivable mistrust in public health because they've been, they've lied, they've used propaganda, bullying, whatever they've and they've lied. And they will never regain that
trust. Never. I think Bobby Kennedy and the states will go a long way to restoring the integrity of public health. But I'm afraid that the people who've perpetrated this, who've allowed this to happen. Will not be forgiven and have only themselves for to blame for you and I having this conversation right now, it's because it's a very necessary conversation to have. So we live in interesting times. I do I do have hope for the future.
I think that with the right people in the right places, we're going to make a lot of progress. We're going to get some information, I think in the last quarter of this year from Bobby Kennedy studies as to what the precise role of vaccines and autism is. I think it'll take a while to unravel a very, very complex scenario given the fact there are so many vaccines being given to children now, but I remain optimistic. But the the battle is also a little bit more complex.
It's not just about which vaccines are safe and effective in, in my view, I don't think any are, but it's also the fact that the Pharmaceutical industry is in bed with governments everywhere. And so, you know, you have mandatory vaccines, you know, and so like, schools won't let kids in unless they have certain vaccines. And so now it becomes a a very big challenge just to live. Yes, and they make it as difficult as possible.
I think Tony fact she said something to the effect in in the COVID era, He said when you make things difficult for people in their lives, then they lose their ideological bullshit and get vaccinated. What an appalling situation. If you make things difficult for people in their lives, you've lost your job, you've lost your income, your family are going to
starve. We're going to force you, we're going to coerce you with any weapon available to us to make sure you comply with our diccat that you're going to get the vaccine. This is the kind of person that has destroyed public confidence in public health And and it's a fact. And and I there's nothing nothing good about that man is science. Broken. Yes, I think the world science itself knows. The true science is not the ability to freely ask questions and answer them in a proper
scientific setting is not. But that's not science. Vaccine science isn't science. Pharmaceutical industry science isn't science. That is not the appropriate application of of the scientific method. So science itself, pure science with a capital S remains as ever as it ever was a, you know, a, a laudable goal to seek to attain the corruption of science delivered in a small with a
small S is, is, yeah. And even you look at the journals now Bobby Kennedy has said anyone with the National Institutes of Health grant is cannot publish in the following journals because they're corrupt. The BMJ, The Lancet, the whatever the American. I don't know whether the BMJ was in there, but the the New England Journal of Medicine, these kind of things. So yeah, there's the system is broken.
I mean even multiple editors of multiple journals themselves have said the whole peer review process of journals that everything is just all corrupt and broken. Yeah, they've become a mouthpiece for the Pharmaceutical industry. Were you on your own in this? Were you a Lone Ranger? Or did you have scientists, perhaps even in secret, supporting you and and and being on your side? In secret, yes, very few were prepared to stand up and be counted.
There were some, I mean they've a few come to mind, outstanding people like Marcel Kinsborne, late Marcel Kinsborne from Tufts University, who would represent children, brain injured children in vaccine court in America, people like that. But they were a small handful. The Pharmaceutical industry now knows that more and more people this this, it's almost like a critical mass now. I think that's right. I think it's become unstoppable. It's become a major force and it
is a testament to perseverance. I think that people have kept pushing and pushing and parents have kept insisting, insisting. And, and in the end you can move mountains and occasionally it takes something like COVID to really mobilise a very large number of people, a number of very good scientists. Yes, they've lost their jobs. Yes, they've suffered the same fate as I have in many ways. But they've been resolute in their commitment to answering this question, testifying before
Congress and writing papers. And they've they've survived, they've thrived, they've continued their work. And that's very, very encouraging. What's the moral of the story? What is of the story? I guess the story has to be has to be written. The moral of the story for me goes back to the clinic, it goes back to the clinical arena, goes back to the parents story, principally the mother's story. And the golden rule of medicine is to listen, in particular to listen to mothers.
Mothers understand their children far better than anyone else on the planet. Most certainly more than paediatricians who may never have seen them before. Mothers have an intuitive insight into the well being of their children, What ails them, what makes them better? Are they suffering? Are they in pain? Whatever it may be, mothers have to trust that instinct. Doctors, the men in white coats, the men and women in white coats have tried to usurp that extraordinary power, the power
of maternal insight. Don't let them do it because mothers know best. That is what's really kept us alive for thought since the beginning of life on this planet. And so mothers need to trust in their own innate instincts and fathers need to trust in that gift in in in their wives or the mothers of their children. So that is for me, it's a very, very simple message. It's not a complex overarching. It is just what is at the core of all of this. And I've met so many mothers who
said I just knew. I just knew. In that clinic. I had this feeling in my gut. It wasn't intellectual, it was visceral. I had this feeling that this was wrong. I knew it was wrong. I wanted to say no and I didn't. When you hear that voice, trust it because it's there for a very, very good reason. It's a good point that you're making there because you're talking about trust, and more
specifically, trusting mothers. The last few years all we've heard is trust the science, trust the doctors, trust the experts. God save us from experts. Remember when Fauci was on TV and he said if you question me, you question science? The arrogance of that statement, it's exquisite. It says everything you need to know about Tony Fauci. I think, you know, he's a kind of almost a villain on the run in this country. Now, the way to push back is to arm yourself with knowledge.
And the way to do that is to I, I don't give advice about whether to vaccinate or not. I, I, that's not my job. My job is to now to make them films that do the heavy lifting, that take all of the information and condense it into an entertaining, coherent whole, that do the heavy lifting for parents. So I say watch facts.
Watch 1986, the act. And you and I know that once you start that process, once you go down that rabbit hole, you go down and down and down and down, and you keep digging and you keep reading and you educate yourself. And then and only then are you in a position just like you did. Only then are you in a position to go to your doctor and say, actually, doctor, I have the following 350 questions.
I'd like you to answer these starting from #1 and do the research because the information is there. Read the CDC website. Watch facts. Look at the conflicting arguments and then come to an informed decision because that's what it all is about at the end of the day, an informed decision about whether to vaccinate or not. If you go to your paediatrician, they'll say Oh yeah, they're safe and effective. That's not good enough. That's not an informed decision.
So that's what I say, please get educated. The information is there. A lot of people have worked very hard to provide that information to you, including, for example, the wonderful book by Suzanne Humphreys, Dissolving Illusions. The information is there. Read it and then challenge your doctor and you will find actually that he knows very little because he's not read those books or watched those
movies. And when you expose his lack of information, you will be appalled and you will leave the clinic until he's informed himself. But Speaking of being appalled, I'm constantly appalled at friends who do more research on the next car that they're going to buy than on what is going to get injected into their child. Yeah, it is an astonishing situation. And largely it's come about because we've been reassured by the men in the white coats. We've been LED down, We've
allowed ourselves. Let's be honest, we're consenting adults. We can make decisions. We've been, we've allowed ourselves to be LED down this path in the, in the sort of in the, the trust that we hold inappropriately in this case for men in white coats. Doctors don't do always know best. Doctors often often make mistakes and we need to recognise that and challenge it and do our own research. OK, Andy, how can I follow your films? Well, the films are like I say, available are Wakefield
mediagroup.com. Wakefield Media is quite a mouthful, but there it is Wakefield mediagroup.com and if you want to get in touch with us at all, [email protected]. The other one is to go to Yao TV, send people to Yao TV. That's our TV channel, streaming channel for independent films, and the films are available there as well. Yao is a hybrid Eastern word for freedom. So freedom, TVY, ow.tv, there you are. And on that note, Andrew Wakefield, thank you for joining me in the trenches.