Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hello everybody. Welcome to another episode of youf're the cure. I'm Dr. Ben Edwards. We have a amazing guest today, a repeat guest and very timely to have Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the show today. I'll bring him on in just one second. First, I just want to make a comment on vitamin A and cod liver oil. I've heard that some of the legacy media and local media is trying to talk about a vitamin A toxicity. I don't, I don't have time to talk about that today, but we will in the future. I just want to encourage you. You can go to Weston price.org that's the Weston A. Price Foundation's website and you can search on their website for a few articles. There's three in particular that I would refer you to. One is called Vitamin Amazing with a hyphen between A and mazing. But Vitamin Amazing read that article, the vitamin A Saga. And then did cod liver oil contribute to the historical decline in measles mortality? Those are three amazing articles with three different PhD authors. Very well referenced articles. If you want to get the truth about vitamin A and cod liver oil and potential toxicity, go read those articles. We'll talk about that more in the future. Okay, so I want to frame today's show. You know we have vaccine hesitancy is a phrase that's being used a lot right now, vaccine misinformation. And I, I'll have my, my comment at the end of the show on what I think would be the solution to vaccine hesitancy. So we'll, we'll get to that at the end. Dr. Andrew Wakefield's name comes up every time. It seems like that this topic comes up as one of the leading reasons we have vaccine hesitancy. But before we bring Dr. Wakefield on, I want to frame this conversation with a reminder that the practice of medicine really is educated guessing. Theories, hypotheses, you, we, there's the art of medicine, but here's some theories.
The serotonin theory of depression. So Molecular Psychiatry journal, July of 2022, they did a review study. They looked at 17 studies. 12 of those were systemic reviews and meta analysis. So these are, this is a large review study and here's what the Molecular Psychiatry Journal concluded. July of 2022. Quote, Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there's no convincing evidence that depression is associated with or caused by lower serotonin concentrations or activity. This review suggests that the huge research effort based on serotonin hypothesis was not, has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. The point of me quoting this is to say there was a theory, a theory of serotonin and depression. And this review article from 22 says we need to rethink that theory. Here's another article June of 24 nature and it's this is regarding Alzheimer's. So there was a theory that Alzheimer's is caused by beta amyloid plaque and tau proteins. Quote Landmark study published in the Journal of Nature has been cited over 2,500 times and has led to millions if not billions of research dollars into the beta amyloid plaque theory of Alzheimer's has been retracted for frau A study in August of 24 Nature Neuroscience Tau protein is required for glial lipid droplet formation and resistance to neuronal oxidative stress.
Here's an article From March of 23 Alzheimer's disease Amyloid beta plaque accumulation is a protective mechanism.
So the point of this is we had a theory that beta amyloid plaque and tau proteins caused Alzheimer's and the drugs to try to rip those out of the brain ended up not working well. It turns out the plaque and the tau protein are responses to oxidative stress. So we guessed wrong. Our theory was wrong. It's great to have theories and it's great to do research and dig deep and then come to some clues, some conclusions. And when we guessed wrong, then we confess that and we say oops, we got it wrong and let's shift and go a different direction. We haven't done a great job of shifting yet from heart attacks. This is Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2020 August 2020 the The it was a review study on saturated fats and health A reassessment and proposal for food based recommendations. The conclusion Quote Several foods relatively rich in saturated fatty acids such as whole fat, dairy, dark chocolate and unprocessed meat are not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or diabetes. That was the conclusion of that study. We had a theory and a guess. Saturated fat causes heart attacks. That theory turns out according to the Journal of American College of Cardiology review study was wrong to support the wrong of that conclusion. March of 22 JAMA this was a value the name of the study evaluating the association between low density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and relative and absolute effects of statin treatment. If cholesterol causes heart attacks, we should see a huge drop in heart attacks and all cause mortality if you give a statin to lower cholesterol. This is a review study 21 randomized clinical trials were examined. The absolute risk reduction of all cause mortality using statins for heart disease is 0.8%, 1.3% absolute reduction for heart attacks and 0.4% reduction in stroke. The point of this is the theory that saturated fat cause heart attack turns out not to be right. We could go into the gene theory of cancer. We could go into lots of other theories. And I don't want to waste too much time. I'm not going to go into all those. But I do want to mention Mayo clinical procedure Proceedings. This is an article from 2013. The name of the article, A Decade of Reversal, an analysis of 146 contraindicated medical practices. So this study from Mayo looked at 363 articles testing the standard of care and found that 40.2% reversed the practice, meaning doctors are practicing a standard of care where the literature was clear. They shouldn't be doing that. I could go on and on and on, but I won't.
Former editors of the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine have come out publicly and this was pre Covid to say, this is Marcia Angel, New England Journal Medicine. It's simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. And here's a quote From Richard Horton, Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in chief of the Lancet, the world's most respected medical journal. Quote, Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analysis, and flagrant conflicts of interest. Together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.
Okay, guys, the reason I'm prepping this show with these, all these quotes and all these studies and these very prestigious researchers, editors and doctors is because we need to eat some humble pie. Is is my opinion in the medical world, we need to take double, double dose of humble pie. We used to be more humble. This is 1944. Dr. Burwell Dean, Harvard Medical School. And he told the entering students, quote, half of what we're going to teach you is wrong and half of it is right. Our problem is we don't know which half is which.
That's some humbleness that we need to get back to, especially when it's in regards to our children and their health. We need to be willing and open to examine all the evidence, especially when the United States has the worst health outcomes in children. Our infants die at a higher rate than any other industrialized country.
So it's time to take a hard look in the mirror and bring all voices to the table, including this one. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, welcome to the show. Dr. Wakefield. So, so honored to have you on the show today.
[00:08:29] Speaker B: It's great to be back. Thank you.
[00:08:31] Speaker A: You're welcome. So I asked you to come because I don't read much legacy media, but the little bit that gets sent to me by various folks, it's just like it's the reading off a script.
Vaccines don't cause autism and Andrew Wakefield's been debunked as a fraud. That's almost verbatim in multiple articles now. It's so clear. So, audience, if you hear that automatically, I would submit you to consider. You need to just completely walk away from that news source and don't consume quote, unquote news because that's propaganda. I could have read another quote. And I believe this was from 2011 and the article headline was italian Court Awards Millions in damages for Autism. And it was a vaccine injury that caused autism. That was 2011 or 2013. Over 10 or 15 years ago, the question of do vaccines cause autism? Has been answered by courts already and millions have been paid out in damages. So we need to be way past that. If we can't even confess and admit that that is where we're at, we're past that. We're down to, we should be down to how do we mitigate risk and we can't even admit that it, it can cause that. So we're going to go back to kind of where I would say a lot of this started. I did not know Dr. Andy Wakefield through my training. I didn't know anything about him until I got into the integrative root cause medicine and his name started coming up. So what I did was I went and read the paper that he published. It was so controversial. And then I got his book Callous Disre. And then I looked at the documentary Vaxxed. Here they are on the screen. You can see. I'd recommend you go do that yourself. Any doctor that calls me and wants to talk about Dr. Andy Wakefield, ask him, have you spoken to Dr. Wakefield? Have you read the Lancet paper? Have you read his book? And the answer is no, no, no. So I just recommend they go do that. So, Dr. Wakefield, I'm going to be quiet now and let you tell your story. How did you get from Treating children with gastrointestinal problems and doing lots of research in that. So to where we are today. Kind of tell your story, if you don't mind.
[00:10:28] Speaker B: Absolutely. Ben, thank you very much for having me on. I. This all began really back in. I graduated in 81, 1981, in London, and I became a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists. And I. My specific interest, research interest as an academic was inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, Ulster colitis, and in working on those, I started getting calls from parents in 1995 saying, you know, my child was fine. And then they weren't. They had an MMR vaccine and they suddenly, the lights in their eyes went out, they lost their speech, language interaction, socialization, and they were diagnosed with autism or atypical autism, regressive autism, which allegedly wasn't meant to happen.
The teaching was, children with autism do not regress. They were never right from the beginning. So I said, I know nothing about autism. We were not taught about it when I was an undergraduate. How can I possibly help? And they said, well, we're calling you as a gastroenterologist because my child has terrible intractable gastrointestinal issues, pain, bloating, diarrhea, failure to thrive, all of the things that are cardinal features of an underlying intestinal pathology, a disease. But the doctors and nurses to whom I speak dismiss this. They say, this is just part of autism. Forget about it, move on, have another child and forget about the last one. I mean, it was extraordinary. That was the situation when I got into this field. But the story was so consistent, so coherent, and so clearly indicative of an underlying disease in the gut until proven otherwise, that this had to be researched. And as you know, then, you know, the fundamental rule of clinical medicine is to listen, to listen to the patient, or in this case, the patient's parent, particularly the mother. And because they know when their child's ill and well, they know what's wrong with them, they weren't anti vaccine. They took their child to be vaccine, according, vaccinated, according to the schedule, and something terrible happened to them. So there was every reason to investigate this, if only to rule out a role for the mmr, the measles lumps rubella vaccine.
And so we looked at this. I put together a team of outstanding researchers, including Professor John Walker Smith, who was at that time the world's leading pediatric gastroenterologist. He wrote the textbook that teaches today's young pediatric gastroenterologists. And lo and behold, the parents were absolutely right. The children had an inflammatory bowel disease. We went on to publish 15 papers characterizing disease, peer reviewed studies.
These were hypothesis testing studies. The initial answer paper was just a case series. It couldn't test a hypothesis, it couldn't come to any conclusions, except that further research in this needs to be done. There is the possibility of a new syndrome here which may give us some insight into this particular pattern of autism and allow for treatment. What a wonderful opportunity.
And yet it became mired in this issue of whether the MMR vaccine was causally related to the problem or not.
And it caused a uproar worldwide. And I didn't know at that time whether it was the cause or not. I simply was proposing that further studies needed to be done. And we were in the middle of doing those studies when my research was completely sabotaged and we were put out of business. I lost my license. I was accused of all kinds of things, fraud amongst them. Abuse of it was extraordinary. But it was at a time when people were unfamiliar with this cancel culture. It didn't happen. It wasn't now, after Covid, we're all familiar with some of the best doctors in the world. Peter McCullough, the most published cardiologist in the history of cardiology, has been taken. You know, he's had his license threatened, he's lost his job.
No one is immune from the sort of wrath of the system once you go against. And there was me at that time. There was no one else. There was me. And then on the other side, there was the World Health Organization and UNICEF and the drug companies and the governments of the countries of the world and the American Academy of pdi. It was an overwhelming battle, plus the media. And of course they own the media. And it was through Rupert Murdoch and News International that they came after me and destroyed my career. And of course they could say what they wanted and they did. You know, Wakefield's a fraud. Well, that's never been tested in a court of law. Not once. We tried to take it to a court of law here in Texas on the basis of defamation, but we were denied jurisdiction over the British Medical Journal and the journalist Brian Deer, who had been working for News International to tell the story. But it really, I came to the conclusion that there absolutely was a link with the vaccine. When I went to the CDC in around 2000 after testifying before the oversight committee in Congress, and I said, they said to me, Dr. Wakefield, look, every child gets MMR, effectively only some get autism. How do you account for that? Well, that's the way medicine works. As you know, many people smoke, only some people develop lung cancer. Why? What are the CO factors associated with that disorder that makes some people prone to develop cancer and others not? We don't know. But that's the way medicine works. But I said, look, we're interested in pattern of exposure. For example, age. Is the age at which you get the vaccine a risk factor if you get it younger, when intuitively your immune system may not be fully developed, that you're at greater risk of an adverse reaction like autism compared with getting it later?
We knew this, or we at least put this hypothesis forward because measles under the age of one, natural wild measles under the age of one, is associated with a greater risk of an adverse outcome than when you get it later in life when it's trivial.
So did this pertain to the MMR vaccine? So they went away and they tested that hypothesis and they found it to be absolutely true. They found it particularly to be true for the children with regressive autism, what they called isolated autism with no problems before 12 months of age. That's the specific group that we were interested in. And that was across the board. And then, and this was confirmed by Brian Hooker in his analysis that this was particularly the case for black boys. Black boys were at very high risk for developing autism following MMR vaccine early in life.
What did they do with that information?
What they should have done is made it public and said, we are going to do a bigger, better study to see if this holds up. We are going to delay the MMR vaccine until it may be safer, until this issue is resolved. They did none of that. They did none of that. They buried the documents, they covered it up. They published a paper exonerating MMR vaccine and that was it for 14 years. They put millions of children at risk of permanent serious neurological injury in order to protect how the public perceives them and the credibility of, of vaccine policymakers and the vaccines that they espouse. That's what happened. And eventually Dr. William Thompson came forward, the senior scientist who designed that study, collected the data, collated the data and published, wrote the paper, came forward and said, I can no longer live with this. We've done a terrible thing. Here is the information, gave it to Brian Hooker and that was the basis of the film Vaxed. And at that point I became absolutely convinced that MMR vaccine is a causal factor in autism.
There was not only the finding that they were. It was right. Younger age of exposure was a risk, but the need the perceived need by the CDC scientists to cover it up. And that really brought home to me the sort of beyond all reasonable doubt this vaccine is causing autism. And the same went on in the context of the mercury preservative thimerosal. They pulled an equally egregious stunt with manipulation of those data showing eliminating a sevenfold increased risk of autism associated with early exposure to that preservative. It just magically went away. And this is something now that I think Bobby Kennedy as head of HHS is going to get to the bottom of, and the sooner the better. So the answer is absolutely that MMR vaccine and vaccines in general are somehow causally associated with the dramatic rise in autism that we're seeing now. And one of the things that, you know that's relevant to your experience with the media, my experience with the media is that one of the wonderful things that might well happen is if Bobby Kennedy takes away the right or the ability of the pharmaceutical companies to do direct to consumer advertising on the nightly news networks, then those networks, the legacy media, are going to have to start reporting the truth. Their lifestyle is going to change dramatically. The massive drop in income from the pharmaceutical industry at the moment. Who write the headlines, they write the editorial. Nothing gets published that goes against their interests. Well, if that comes to an end, if they are disenfranchised, if they have that power taken away from them to influence the media, then the media, to survive in a competitive environment, have got to start reporting the truth. And that's the time you go back to doing interviews with them.
[00:20:41] Speaker A: Yeah. What Dr. Wakefield's referring to, before I pressed record, told him I'd been asked by. It seemed like every one of these legacy media groups from New York Times, Washington Post, cnn, abc, NBC, Vanity Fair and Politico and a bunch of others. And after about three of those interviews where I naively thought maybe they would tell the whole story and they didn't, I quit giving interviews on the record. Now, I did off the record. And I, I can tell you, especially a CNN producer knows the truth. Brought her almost to tears. And what Dr. Wakefield's saying, guys, is this, this night, if you are watching, you know what he's talking about. The nightly news and just the TV programming in general, the advertisers, all these advertisements for the drugs, that's not really to sell you a drug. That's to buy that, that news station, that media company, it's to buy them because that's going to muzzle them from bringing the other side of the story to the table to have an open, honest dialogue about this. It's just going to squelch the whole story. And the as I would say would be the truth.
Dr. Wakefield, real quick, that evidence that came out, William Thompson WHISTLEBLOWER and guys, you can go back and listen to the Brian Hooker interview I did recently. He goes deep into that whole story. But was that ever brought to a government body in entity, Congress, any where, where is that whistleblower evidence sitting today? And could it maybe come to light again now with Bobby Kennedy at hhs?
[00:22:16] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely. I went to the then chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz. He was, we, we lobbied him, we said that you've got to investigate this. This is fraud within a federal agency that comes under your jurisdiction. I actually prepared the deposit deposition document, some 50, 60 pages for William Thompson. They didn't have to do any work other than to research what was behind those questions. And they did not do it.
Congress did not want to touch the issue. And I'm afraid that many of these congressmen, many senators are dependent upon the largesse of the pharmaceutical companies for funding their campaigns. And so we were never going to get the truth. I was absolutely astonished. You know, we wanted all of this to be out in public. Everything that had happened to me, get it out in public. Let the people be the judge of whether this was right or wrong, whether someone lied, whether I committed fraud or not, all of these things.
And whether the CDC committed fraud, get William Thompson before Congress to testify.
That was not, they did not want to touch it. So the American public have been betrayed by the, not only by the pharmaceutical companies but by their own government.
[00:23:41] Speaker A: Well, hopefully that we'll see some movement on this very topic in the coming months with Dr. J. Bhattachary in his Senate confirmation hearing talking about I think more the COVID vaccine injured. But he said the vaccine injured will have their day and I hope and pray it'll be the entire vaccine schedule again. There's a way to risk mitigate, guys. And what Dr. Wakefield's saying is that study showed if you stayed on schedules as an African American boy, you greatly increased your risk of autism. And I was at a conference that a couple months ago speaking and one of the other speakers was an African American mom from Atlanta, Georgia with a 14 year old boy, African American boy who was autistic. 14 years old, right about that time, if the truth would have come out, if she would have seen that she very well, she's highly educated mother, PhD level, she very well could have delayed and Very well could have potentially saved that son from regression into autism.
Dr. Wakefield, let's move on because now you're a producer of documentaries. The, the Vax documentary that I showed earlier and then 1986, I believe another documentary. We can touch on that. But I really want to get to Protocol 7, the movie Protocol 7 and really dive into that but share a little bit more about what you're in your career now post physician work.
[00:25:10] Speaker B: Sure, Ben, I've always loved film number one. But number two is that everything was taken away from me. The ability to practice medicine, to conduct science. And so there I was. How did I continue to move this cause forward? How did I continue to help these children? I, you know, I didn't have a problem. I, even though all of those things have happened to me, these children had a far greater problem. Their lives have been destroyed, their families lives have been destroyed by something that I believed was completely avoidable. So what had happened over the years, and this comes back to whistleblowers, is that people had come to me from federal agencies and from the pharmaceutical industry because of the position I'd taken and said, we've done a terrible thing, we can't live with it. Here is the evidence. And so I became a repository for whistleblowers, either directly or indirectly.
And so I would usually pass those on to special interest lawyers, public interest lawyers, who would then judge them on the merits of their, you know, is this a False Claims act case or not? And I thought, you know, these would make amazing films. And I started screenwriting what some two and a half decades ago and just loved it. And so that's what I did. I put them into to film and nothing happened to them for a while. And then I said to myself, right now's the time to become a filmmaker. What an outrageous sort of thing to think. I, how could it. But that's what I did. And so we started with documentaries. And as you say, Vax was a documentary and the act was a documentary. The act was really the comprehensive story of the 1986 Act. The liability protection to the pharmaceutical companies for damage and death caused by their vaccines on the childhood schedule. And that was introduced so many elements of fraud and deception on the heart of the department, Department of Justice and the pharmaceutical companies. And then I thought, you know, I want to, I want to make a movie, an actual full length narrative feature film.
And someone, a whistleblower had come to me from Merck where he'd been told to commit fraud in respect of the mumps vaccine, which was Neither safe nor effective.
And it was again, a great story. It was going forward in the courts, but I had by that time become aware that there was going to be very little accountability. None of the people who commit these frauds, whether they're in private industry or in, in federal agencies, never. They're never held accountable. They just walk away at the end of it. And people are left, you know, in their wake. The victims of their crimes are left in their wake. And I, so I thought, you know what? I'm going to hold their feet to the fire. I'm going to name names and they are going to be part of these films. And, and so Protocol 7 was made. And Protocol 7 is about a fraud committed by Merck in respect of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine. They've never denied committing the fraud effectively. And in the end, and here is the rob, and this is why the film is so important, is that in the end, the judge in this case, it went for years, for decades in litigation.
The judge sided with Merck. Why not? Because they didn't commit fraud, which they did. He said, it doesn't matter that they committed fraud because the cdc, the government in the form of the cdc, went on purchasing the vaccine and therefore whatever fraud there was can't have mattered. This is extraordinary.
This is absolutely extraordinary. What you have is the federal agencies collaborating with the pharmaceutical industry and now with the judiciary as well, against the interests of injured American individuals. It was absolutely astonishing. But given my experience of the last two and a half decades, it wasn't that surprising. It didn't matter that they committed fraud if that was the case, it didn't matter. Now the CDC came back and said, look, you, Merck put it into mmr, measles, mumps, rubella. We had an obligation to continue protecting children against measles and rubella. So we had no choice but to purchase your MMR vaccine. The judge didn't buy that either. And so that's it. The case died. And had the film not been made, none of this would come to public attention. The major, major fraud that has now come to public attention. Well, it's been many years since, you know that since that film was made. Since then, all of the court documents have been released, thousands and thousands of documents. The testimony of Dr. Robert Malone, the testimony of the expert report of Malone and Dr. Tesla, the ex head of the FDA, showing that Merck's fraud was far worse than we'd actually characterized in the film. The film was based upon the information that the whistleblower had provided to me many years ago. But as the court case moved forward and these documents came out, one realized that the fraud was even worse.
So Merck are not going to sue us. They're not going to sue us because they just spent millions keeping that out of the public domain to have discovery in a case against me. I doubt that's going to happen, but let's see. I welcome it. Let's take it a call. Let's make it as public as possible.
But yeah, filmmaking is a very powerful way of dealing with this. As, you know, doing social media. Several things have changed the sort of dynamic completely and put Bobby Kennedy where he is now. And that is, one is film. Film has the ability to educate millions of people in a very short space of time. The other is blogs like yours, you know, podcasts like yours, where they have become effectively the main source of information, of news for so, so many people. Joe Rogan as an example, eclipsing the mainstream media, the legacy media, in terms of his reach and popularity.
And then the other is Covid.
Covid. The experience, the dark, the silver lining of the dark cloud of COVID has really been that so many people have now woken up to the appalling behavior of the, our leaders in science and the federal agencies, the drug companies. And so many people have been damaged as a consequence. So the world is now awake. When I got involved in this, Ben, you know, 25 years ago, 30 years ago, there were a handful of people worldwide prepared to even discuss behind closed doors, the thorny issue of vaccine safety.
Now it's more than half the adult population of the world are saying, no, we don't trust you anymore. We don't believe you, and we're not going to have any more of this. So they've only got themselves to blame. And I think this is the key point. They can blame you, they can attack you, they can deny your stories after interviewing you, they can call you a quack, they can take my license away.
But they've only got themselves to blame for the parlor situation in which they now find themselves. Because people no longer trust public health. They don't trust their doctors, they don't trust the cdc. They've been lied to, their children have been injured, and they want something different, unfortunately, in the form of Bobby Kennedy, they've now got something different.
[00:33:10] Speaker A: Yes, 100%. I was going to read.
I just got a text the other day.
I'm going to read directly from this text. This is a random question for you guys. I have a friend who has a friend In Amarillo whose three year old granddaughter became non verbal following her last round of vaccines.
I've seen lots of posts about detoxing for kids that have experienced the same reaction. I thought I was about following this clinic in Lubbock that I heard might have be able to help us.
That's what now a, you know, conventional physician is going to look at that and say anecdotal. That that's just completely anecdotal. You can't listen to that at all.
Well, I've had. This was 10 years ago. I had three separate moms come to me with basically almost verbatim, went to get my routine, well, child checkup in my, in the vaccines and within days or a week, lost eye contact, lost verbal skill, just checked out. It took for me, it took three in a row moms telling me this same story for me to finally get beyond this. No, that can't be. That's anecdotal. The American Academy of Pediatrics says no way. CDC and all the organizations say no. And it took three of those stories for me to start digging.
When I was in Seminole or Gaines county treating the measles, I started asking the, the parents, were you vaccinated for measles as a youth? And almost across the board the answer was yes, I was. Are your kids? No, they're not. Why not? Because of the 14 vaccine injured children in our community alone in Gaines county, in the Mennonite community.
And then when the CDC asked me to ask, ask the Mennonite leaders, how could they help? What could they do? The only answer I got from the Mennonite community back to, for me to relay back to the CDC was this.
Could you please ask them to come to Gaines county and meet with us privately in a room? And we're going to bring our injured children and we'd like them to see our children and talk to us about this. That's the reason there's vaccine hesitancy and we'd like to talk about it. So what I'm. What I'd like to say to the public is these Mennonite parents, at least the ones I talk to, are highly educated.
They went and did the research, read the package in search and, and did independent analysis and research on this topic. And that's the conclusion that they came to. They're not dumb, they're not backwoods, they're not whatever. Fill in the blank that the media has tried to portray them as part of this informed consent.
Dr. Wakefield, could you go through a little more of the detail of what Merck did, because that's directly impact mmr. Measles, mumps, rubella. Tell us a little more from the angle of we want more informed consent about what exactly did Merck do that could potentially make that vaccine more dangerous?
Could you give us some of that backstory?
[00:36:23] Speaker B: Well, the first thing was, and we can come to protocol seven and the mumps story as part of this, but the first thing was that measles, mumps, and rubella were combined into one vaccine.
Now, what was the consequence of that? By the time I left the Royal free, we'd seen 183 children with regressive autism and bowel disease, and only two of those had received the single vaccine. We didn't see this problem before the introduction of mmr. Those two who received the single vaccine did so under unusual circumstances, certainly for one of them was out in the Middle east and received his first dose of single measles at six months of age. Then he got a booster at one year of age. That's unheard of. That's simply not done in this country. A very unusual pattern of exposure. And he was severely autistic, but the rest were mmr. So is there something specific about MMR that's a problem? Well, when you go back into the history and look at this, the question is, is there any interference between these component viruses, measles, mumps, and rubella, when you put them together in the same vial? Bear in mind that nature, in nature, we have never in the whole history of human evolution seen these viruses in this way. Not only injected rather than inhaled, but in a combination of three viruses in one vial. It's not happened. So this is a very, very unusual. We come back to patterns of exposure, a very unusual pattern of exposure. So was there any evidence at the time that there was a problem? Well, yes, there was. There was found to be interference between the component viruses in terms of the antibody response they produced. The immune response they produced was altered by the combination of vaccines. They didn't look at safety specifically. They should have done. And when I confronted the person in charge of vaccination in the United Kingdom, Dr. David Salisbury, @ that time, I said, you know what? Safety studies were done in respect of combining these three viruses into one vial. And he said, we had no reason to assume that it would alter the safety profile.
Well, hang on, buddy. You just made a decision on behalf of millions and millions of children on an assumption, really.
I mean, that is the. The kindergarten thinking of these individuals. You're dealing with live biological agents that are Highly versatile and potentially very, very dangerous. And you're going to put them together in combination and not study the safety profile.
I, I was astonished. I mean, nothing astonishes me anymore, but back then I was still a naive young doctor and I thought, this is incredible.
[00:39:26] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:39:27] Speaker B: Anyway, then we get to the specifics of, for example, Merck's fraud in respect of the mumps vaccine. At the time, what we were told, this guy came forward and said, I was told to alter the data. The mumps vaccine wasn't working. It was out. Of. It was, was out of specification, which meant it should have been withdrawn from the market immediately. The public should have been told, this mumps vaccine isn't working. Despite the fact that we've, we've quadrupled the dose of the virus in there, we are going to take it back off the market because it's not producing a protective effect. Now, why is that important with mumps? It wasn't producing protection.
And the problem is that mumps is trivial in children, but it's not trivial in post pubertal adults. It causes testicular inflammation and infertility, ovarian inflammation. It's a more dangerous disease the later you get it in life.
So if you have a vaccine that doesn't work, or only works temporarily and then stops working when you are older, post puberty and at greater risk of a serious adverse event, then you've got a major problem. And this is exactly what we saw. All of this work was provoked by the agencies saying, look, we're seeing outbreaks of mumps in highly vaccinated populations around the globe. Why is this? Does your vaccine work properly? The answer is no.
Now, this was a huge problem for Merv because they had a monopoly on the mumps vaccine and they'd combined the measles, mumps, rubella into one vaccine to give them a monopoly on measles and rubella as well. Because MMR was the vaccine of choice, one shot instead of three.
And so that if they then had to separate the vaccines out and give measles and mumps, it would be open season. There is no lightning, no exclusive license on measles vaccine, so anyone could have made it and Merck would have lost their monopoly. So they really didn't want to face worldwide competition for measles vaccine. And so they told this guy and his colleagues in the lab to alter the data, to give them the results they wanted, and he refused. And he went to his boss and his boss's boss, and right up the chain of command, he was the Perfect whistleblower. Because not only did he document all of these things at the time, he took strenuous efforts to warn his superiors that this was fraud, that their claim that this was just a business matter was unacceptable and that he was going to report them to the fda.
And so he, he was a boy scout. He did everything he could to try and change the practice in Merck and failed and eventually had to leave. So in terms of a whistleblower case, you couldn't have found a more, a more effective and more comprehensive whistleblower. Steve Cralin and his colleague Joe Mulkowski. Anyway, he did call the fda, and the FDA came and wrote a four line report saying raw data being changed without justification. I mean this was fraud. It was frank, outright utter fraud. And yet they were allowed to get away with it. And they committed fraud on so many levels. But that's what they do. And now they've got away with it. They've got away with it completely. So if they're going to behave in this way for this vaccine, God help us with other vaccines.
So it, this is, I mean, this is why I'm a filmmaker and I will go on making films until, you know, I can no longer stand. But there is, unfortunately, you know, the, the federal agencies and the drug companies give us a lot of things to make films about and we've got to keep doing it.
We need some rational thinking. We've got to stop blaming people like you and me. We've got to do the work, do the research that's necessary to answer parents questions and stop putting it off. I remember when Bobby Kennedy went to the White House to talk to Fauci and his boss and said, where is the vax on vax study? Where are the safety studies that you purport have been done that make you able to say these vaccines are safe and effective? And they said, oh, you know, we'll send them to you. Well, they eventually had to admit that no such studies existed. Long term randomized control clinical trials using inert placebo had not been done. Never been done, not in respect of any vaccine, let alone the entire schedule. So we're in a very, very precarious position. And they know it. They absolutely know it. And they are terrified.
[00:44:28] Speaker A: Yeah, well, maybe touch on the vax versus unvaxed a little bit. But because I'm trying to play devil's advocate, colleagues on the on and I would say uninformed side are limitedly, limitedly informed. They would say, well these injuries are just so rare. It's Just, you know, the, the price we have to pay for the protection of all, for herd immunity. It's just so rare. What they're talking about might be true, but the actual damage is so one in the. One in a gazillion. What would you say to that?
[00:45:01] Speaker B: Well, I think this is, as. You're right, this is going to be their fallback position. Let's say the study is done and it shows that unvaccinated are at much lower risk of adverse reactions, these long term injuries like autism, than the vaccinated. They will say, oh, well, look, yeah, okay, but it's so few. It's so few that these are the soldiers who we've had to sacrifice on the battlefield of infectious disease in order to protect the majority. Well, let's just look at that. When I was at medical school, autism, 1 in 10,000 never even thought about it. It was so rare. Now in Northern Ireland, In Scotland, in 8 year olds, in New Jersey, 1 in 25 children. I mean, this is not rare at all. It's absolutely not there. Don't, please insult the intelligence of the world by telling me you're just better at making the diagnosis. Best diagnosticians in medicine are not of this century or even the last century. There are people like Jean Martin Charcot in Paris in the late 1800s, people who worked for him, like Babinski and Tourette. I mean, these were wonderful clinicians. Had this condition existed, they would have described it perfectly. He wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. But these were the best clinicians. So don't tell me you're a better clinician than our forefathers because you're not. You've substituted clinical medicine for scans and blood tests and telemedicine and that kind of thing. But please, you know. Yeah, don't, don't flatter yourself that you're just better at making the diagnosis or that there's been some diagnostic change. I mean, if you look at the New Jersey data, they've been using the same diagnostic criteria over a very long period of time. There is a genuine increase.
So don't tell me it's just milder cases being picked up because you're, you know, better at doing it. Because it's the more serious cases where we see the greatest rise. Okay, so let's just put that away and stop. Let's just deal with the fact that we're dealing with a true pandemic because this is global regressive autism.
So, no, that argument that this is the acceptable sort of collateral Damage that we can incur at the expense of herd immunity. No, that doesn't wash. And it's not just autism, clearly. It's a whole host of chronic inflammatory conditions. And now with COVID it's cardiomyopathy, it's. With the COVID shot, it's cardiomyopathy, pericarditis, myocarditis, death.
[00:47:49] Speaker A: Yeah.
And even if you look at vaers, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is woefully underreported, I think everyone agrees with that. In fact, there was a study commissioned by HHS in 2010, I believe it was. Lazarus was the lead author and he concluded only 1% of adverse reactions are even reported to VAERS.
And if you look on VAERS, 4 to 5 deaths per year attributed to the MMR vaccine in the United States. If you apply the 1%, we're talking 400 to 500 deaths per year from MMR alone. If you take away the vaccine. And so go back to pre vaccine data and death rate from measles in America, based off today's population, depending on what data you read from the 1950s, somewhere around 100 to 400 deaths per year from just measles. So let's go on the high end. 400. So basically we're, we're even, according to Vaers and Lazarus, four to 500 deaths a year from MMR, 400 deaths a year of measles prior to the vaccine rolling onto the market in the 1950s. And I would say of the 400 who died of measles in the 1950s, probably today, with what we have, treatment, wise supportive care and treatment, I'm sure we could drop that number substantially.
[00:49:10] Speaker B: Yeah.
An important issue here is the trend. Okay, so if we look at the pre measles vaccine days from 1920s onwards, if you go to Thomas McCann's, Modern Rise of Population is an excellent source. And you look at the UK data and the US data, you see this. Measles was a killer of children up until the 1920s. 1200 per million dying during epidemics until 1920. And then there was this extraordinary fall in case fatality rate over a very short period of time. Measles was becoming a milder and milder disease. So absolute numbers are one thing, but if you look at that trend, where would it be now if we'd never introduced the vaccine? It would be zero. That curve would have hit zero. There would be no deaths at all. Maybe the occasional one in a child with leukemia or some concurrent condition, but we didn't do that. Now when they held this meeting at the NIH in the early 60s about universal measles vaccination.
Then they invited Sir Graham Wilson from the United Kingdom to come. He was the world's leading infectious disease expert at that time.
And he said, don't do it. Effectively, he said, don't do it.
So few children, one in 100,000 children in Sweden, and I dare say the United States, die from measles during an epidemic. The question we should ask is what is different about that child?
Not entertain the idea of giving an unknown element to every child in the country on the basis that, you know, we can eliminate that one death. Of course we can't. You made the point that we're going to incur deaths from the vaccine itself, so we're not going to eliminate that death. He said, don't do it. You don't know what you're doing. You're basically interfering with nature. And if you change the age of susceptibility to measles by universal vaccination, pushing it up or down, then you are going to incur new risks that you don't understand yet. So he was a great, he was a very, very sober, conservative, intelligent man who said, do not do this. And they went ahead and did it anyway. And the CDC said, this isn't about deaths or disability, this is because we can.
It's because we can. So the argument now has completely changed. Oh, it's all about measles preventing deaths and disability. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. The CDC said themselves, this is, we need to do it because we can do it. And there was this perception that they needed to emulate the apparent success of polio vaccine with other infectious diseases. And measles was their target or one of their first targets. So one needs to study the history of this and the trend over time of what was happening to measles to understand that we should have left alone, we should have done nothing, because if we had, that curve would have decayed to zero or very, very few. And then we could deal with those one that Sir Graham Wilson said, study that child. Why did that child die? And I'm quite sure that with the appropriate interventions, nutrition, immune support, antibiotics for secondary pneumonias, then we might even eliminate that death.
[00:52:37] Speaker A: Yeah, I agree 100%.
We're coming to the last few minutes here. I want to read a couple of headlines. And this is from just this past week.
Baby dies after receiving six shots for 12 vaccines because she had to catch up. This is a one year old child in Rochester, New York. This headlines from March 31st, 2025.
Next headline. This is from March 20th, 2025. After three children died within 24 hours of routine vaccines, Japanese researchers sound the alarm.
That was just a quick look over the past week for some headlines. How many more babies didn't make the headlines? I know there was one vaccine injured mennonite who died the same week that the six year old died from lack of standard of care antibiotics. There was a second death not reported on and this child died because of her vaccine injuries that she had 20 years prior neurological and cardiac devastation from her vaccine injury that they managed that that injury for 20 years and she passed away.
That's the question. What are we doing with these children? That we had a theory that we could bypass the barrier, level one of immune system barrier. The skin, the skin on the inside the mouth and the, the airway has skin on the inside. We bypass that barrier, we bypass the first responders and we go straight to these memory cells through a muscle as Dr. Wakefield already alluded to. We don't know what we're doing.
It's a completely different immune response when you introduce something that way when you combine three MMR together, but you combine even more than that. This poor little one year old got 12 in one day.
This theory that we had needs to be. Not only needs to be re examined, I would say needs to be halted completely. And to end vaccine hesitancy, I would submit and I have submitted this to the highest authorities over the past month. There's one way that I would see forward to try to reduce vaccine hesitancy and that is confession. We need some truth telling. We need to bring the voices to the table like Dr. Wakefield and lay it all out there for one purpose, the health of our children. Let's put our egos aside. What's become clear to me, Dr. Wakefield, and then I'll give you the last word. But through this last month of treating measles, it's been made clear to me there's a standard of love your neighbor more than you. Love yourself versus love yourself, love being right, love your paycheck, love your initials behind your name. Love your career and your license. Love what your peers think about you more than you. Love your neighbor. That's what it seems like to me. There is something on the scales on the eyes and the ears and the heart, it seems to me of these people in places of authority in the medical realm in the United States where we are so far off course. And I pray that Bobby Kennedy can continue to press forward in this and bring the voices to this, the table where we can have honest confession and where we can finally hopefully get to the root of why are our kids so sick? I have six kids. I love kids.
I'm doing this. I went to Gaines county when I got the phone call because I love kids. There were kids suffering. Babies suffering. They needed help. You go help them. You have compassion. And yet there's pediatricians today in this town, all over the state and all over the country that are won't even see their own patient. I've had patients come to my clinic who aren't my patients and they come because they can't. They were. They're refused to be their doctor, won't see them. I have patients come and they got fired by their pediatrician. We are so far off base of what our profession used to be founded on.
Love your patient, listen to your patient and do what's best for that patient in front of you. Fine, look at the protocols. But ultimately, what's the best risk benefit analysis and give wise counsel as best you can and let the parent make the decision.
That's my soapbox, Dr. Wakefield. But I'd like to give you the last word. Thank you for being on the show. Thank you for all you've done. Career.
[00:57:11] Speaker B: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. You know the situation, that tragic situation with the child who received 12 shots on one day.
I wonder if they were ever told. I wonder if the mother was ever told before that those procedures, that this had never ever in the entire history of medicine been subjected to any safety study whatsoever. There was no knowledge of whether giving these vaccines 12 doses at once incurred a great greater risk of death or injury than giving one at a time. It's never been done. I mean, it's manslaughter if not murder.
And it's. They weren't told. There's absolutely no way they were told. The parents were not given informed consent. So as you say, we violated some of the fundamental rules that guide our profession. It's a disgrace. And so there's going to be a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, I'm afraid. And if we don't do something, if they block Bobby Kennedy from doing something, then it will. The truth will come out. But it'll only come out after it becomes so self evident by virtue of the burden of injury across everyone in the population that, that it becomes undeniable. And then it's too late. It's too late. If you just let Me just finish on this. That we see the worst end of the spectrum. We see the non verbal children, those. Those present first. They kind of define our thinking.
But that's not the way in which nature works. It's not you get it or you don't get it. It's a spectrum. Some get it mildly, some get it more severely.
What happens if you are just shaving nine points off the IQ of every child in the country by giving them these vaccines? What happens then?
You actually change the entire profile of the population in terms of its cognitive abilities for the country to survive.
And that, I'm afraid, is what has been happening.
And so we have a great deal of work still to be done. I really hope that Bobby stays in place not just for four years, but for eight years and more to actually right the wrong that's been done. There's so much that needs to be achieved. We mustn't be too ambitious in terms of the speed by which those things are achieved or at which those that are achieved. But they will happen. And we need to give him our support.
In the meantime, Dr. Ben, keep doing the good work you're doing out there in West Texas.
[00:59:53] Speaker A: Thank you, Dr. Wakefield, very much. Thank you for all you've done through your career.
I think I've experienced a tenth of 1%.
Not even that probably what you've had to go through and experience. And the fact that you're still standing and pressing forward for the benefit of the children is incredible because you could have just thrown in the towel and rode off into the sunset and said I'm done with this. I don't need the misery. I don't need the sleepless nights. I don't need the. All of it. I mean, but you didn't. You continued to stand and stand even taller, I would say. And have even more of an impact for the benefit of these kids than you ever would have staying in your prior profession. So thank you. What's the best way for people to follow you? To watch the movie, to just follow your work? Give out your.
[01:00:41] Speaker B: We've set up a new platform, streaming platform for independent films. Yao TV. Yow TV. Please go there. You can also watch Protocol 7 on Apple TV.
I think you can see it on Amazon. So please go and watch the film. But Yao TV is a. Is a great place to do it. Download the app and go to. We'll send you my social media. We'll get all of that to you so that you can post it in the. In the interview notes. That would be very helpful. Thank you.
[01:01:14] Speaker A: Awesome. We sure will. Thank you. Thank you, everybody for joining us today. And please share this episode far and wide. We're trying to educate and everyone, including physicians. And there are a lot of physicians. I have a lot call me all the time. And Dr. Wakefield's work is part of what I send them to re educate them or further their education, their continuing medical education. So thank you for sharing the podcast far and wide. It's on all the platforms. It'll be on our website, veritas wellness member.com and we'll be back next week with another show. Y'all have a great day. Bye.
