My Andrew Wakefield interview
The NY Times wrote a hit piece on Andrew Wakefield recently. They couldn't reach him for comment. But I could. He had a lot to say. Turns out we are repeating history.
Andrew Wakefield was right.
I had the honor to interview him for 90 minutes to get clarity on all the misinformation I’ve heard.
He challenged the status quo and paid the price for telling the truth. He exposed the fact that all childhood vaccines are dangerous. Kids who are not vaccinated at all are uniformly better off than kids who are.
The childhood vaccines are so dangerous that the CDC refuses to collect the data to show how safe they are. No joke. They know the vaccines are dangerous, collecting data wouldn’t change that.
No qualified medical professional has ever agreed to debate RFK Jr. on vaccine safety. The same is true for Andrew Wakefield.
That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the childhood vaccines in a nutshell. They aren’t collecting the needed safety data for the COVID vaccines either. Nobody has a risk-benefit study of these vaccines.
In other words, all your doctors telling you to vaccinate your kids: they are doing that with NO DATA to justify their recommendations. If you don’t believe me, ask your doctor for the risk benefit study tracking all-cause morbidity and mortality in two groups (at least 100,000 people). If you find one, let me know in the comments.
One reader nicely summed it up:
Thank you Steve and God bless Dr. Wakefield. If there's any justice his name will eventually be cleared as more and more people wake-up to Pharma's misdeeds.
He's been a hero to many of us going back a decade and a half. Unlike so many of his peers, he refused to back down when threatened by the pharma cartel. It cost him nearly everything but he has stood firm, an amazingly principled and fearless man.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Here is another comment from one of my readers:
Our first child was born at the hospital where Dr Wakefield worked. We watched on as his reputation was destroyed by the UK Government. BUT because of his stand, we totally changed our view on vaccination and have 3 unvaxxed, healthy kids. Now, since the Covid vax mandates we have also paid a high price for holding our ground. Dr Wakefield led the way as a forerunner who lost so much. We have a lot to thank him for and I'm so glad he is finding kindred people like you Steve who are speaking up in support of him. Bless you both for your incredible work. We are extremely grateful.
And another story, this one tragic:
2001 My son went into convulsions hours after his 4 month old DTap shot. He lived til 13, but the seizures won in the end. I completely agree with Dr. Wakefield. I sued the vaccine compensation program and won in 2010. My lawsuit took 7 years. Since my sons reaction our family has not had any vaccines, including this new gene therapy.
The interview on Rumble
Andrew Wakefield interview by Steve Kirsch
My questions
Topics covered (followed by his answers) include:
Are there any safe vaccines? No.
What do they think your motivation is? They know his motivation is to save lives.
What’s the real story behind this quote from CNN: “An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.” It was a setup. All the authors support the study.
Why didn’t your other collaborators stand up for the truth? Do you still talk to them? Some caved to the pressure to admit something that the paper never said.
Will anyone debate you face-to-face, on-camera, for a live discussion? Never happened.
Why is there no risk-benefit data for any childhood vaccine? How can they justify this with a straight face? No. They are never challenged on it.
How old were you when you turned “anti-vaxxer”? About 30 years old.
What was your “red pill” moment when you realized that what you had been told was all a lie? When mothers told him their stories connecting the vaccine with autism. Too many cases where kids were perfectly fine before the vax and changed suddenly after the vax. This sounded just like the COVID vaccines.
What is the best way to convince people that you got it right? He’s made movies.
Do you have any friends in mainstream media? I know the feeling! Not that he knows about.
Are there any doctors who tell you privately they support you, but admit they can’t say so publicly? Plenty. He can’t reveal who they are.
Key takeaways from my interview
You'll be WAY healthier if you AVOID *ALL* vaccines
Vaccines do cause autism
The CDC, FDA, NIH and drug companies are adept at silencing critics, especially if you lack the funds to properly defend yourself
It's a rigged system and you pay the price.
There are no risk-benefit analyses for any vaccine
It’s not clear at all that vaccination did anything to eradicate diseases
Wakefield wasn’t born an “anti-vaxxer.” He became one when mothers showed him the direct connection between vaccines and autism.
Vaccines can be quite problematic since unlike recovered immunity, the immunity doesn’t last. You’d have been much better off getting the virus when you were young.
Déjà vu… hearing him relate his story didn’t sound a lot different from the situation we have today with COVID and the vaccines.
From the NY Times
2001 My son went into convulsions hours after his 4 month old DTap shot. He lived til 13, but the seizures won in the end. I completely agree with Dr. Wakefield. I sued the vaccine compensation program and won in 2010. My lawsuit took 7 years. Since my sons reaction our family has not had any vaccines, including this new gene therapy.
I personally know a few people who have developed brain injuries and autism through vaccination. More commonly, I see individuals who have less overt forms of autism following vaccination, and in many cases, if you are watchful, you can see these changes occurring immediately following vaccination. In contrast, on an almost daily basis I am deluged with colleagues who cite the idea that vaccination causes autism as one of the most harmful forms of medical misinformation and ridiculous unfounded beliefs that has ever been perpetuated on the public.
What a lot of people do not appreciate is how hard it is to produce research that goes against the status quo or questions taboo subjects. As far as I was able to tell from reviewing Andrew Wakefield story, he did everything right (which is why his original study was published). The thing very few people realize, is that it is almost impossible to 100% follow every single rule and regulation, so you run into a situation where law enforcement tends to be extremely selective and typically targeted towards individuals who question the status quo or commit political offenses, thereby making an example out of them so others do not attempt to do the same thing (this is a common tactic used by those attempting to have power, because it allows them to exponentially magnify the force exerted by making a single example out of someone and whoever creates the most power typically ends up being in power).
The specific things Wakefield was accused of doing were very minor and I regularly see much worse things conducted in research that nobody bats an eye towards. However without knowing that context, it makes the allegations against him (many of which were false) look atrocious, and he is thus in the unfortunate situation where he has been made a pariah, not allowed to defend himself against unfair accusations (which is why it is so vital you are giving a platform to him here), and is forced to shoulder a large burden to help these vaccine injured children because almost no one else will. I have tried to debate Wakefield situation with colleagues, and in most cases I found it's a lost cause because of how much their brains glaze over on the topic.
One of the major issues with the vaccination program is that everyone adamantly refuse to ever conduct a controlled study comparing giving the childhood immunization schedule to not giving the child an immunization schedule under the rationalization that "immunization are so beneficial, it is unethical to ever conduct a study where subjects are prevented from being immunized.” Given that as it is extremely unlikely children will suffer significant harm from any of the childhood illnesses vaccinations are provided for (this is analogous to children having an almost 0% risk of dying from Covid), it is highly questionable to argue they are exposed to a significant risk through not vaccinating. Additionally, there are a large number of studies that suggest a childhood immunization schedule is harmful, and the large number of studies showing improved health outcomes for children who are not vaccinated. Hence, if you dissect this argument, it's essentially saying we can never permit a double blind study of the childhood immunization schedule to be conducted because it would be abundantly clear that it is harmful.
When you look through all the research, a pattern then emerges where studies cited that question the benefits of the childhood immunization schedule are dismissed because they are "not randomized control studies” and therefore subject to a variety of biases that make them invalid (ignoring of course the fact that these types of studies are explicitly prohibited from ever being conducted). At the same time, research in favor of the vaccination schedule never is held to that same standard (and these cases correlation DOES prove causation). In a few cases, such as that of the CDC whistleblower, it has also been shown that the CDC worked diligently to conceal and hide a clear link between autism and vaccination that was present within their data set (the FDA has likewise done this with many other harmful drugs; I’m presently writing about how hard they worked to cover up the issues with SSRIs).
In addition to Wakefield, another physician who attempted to produce a study showing the benefits of not immunizing, Paul Thomas, had his medical license revoked after he published his study, for conducting unethical research (plus a few other things). I've read through this case in detail, and I believe a few of Thomas's actions merited disciplinary sanctions (but not as severe as revoking his license), however it was abundantly clear he was targeted for his study because the medical board repeatedly tried to force him to provide the raw data he collected that was supposed to remain anonymous. Thomas had to practice where many of his patients were not vaccinated, and it was hence possible for him to review the charts and compare the health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. I know of other medical practices with the exact same circumstances, who have likewise found the same results Thomas did, but they did not publish their results because they did not want to be exposed to the same scrutiny and treatment Thomas was.