All right, let's get into it.
Andy Wakefield, superstar, man of courage, welcome.
I welcome everybody to this Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics.
I'm Charles Covesse, your moderator from Australia
where it's 5 a.m. in the morning.
So it's fun to get up and not need sleep.
Now, this group, Andy, thank you for being here.
Thank you for accepting Stephen's invitation to join us.
Charles, before you get started,
could we do a quick survey from the last meeting
that said we'd check on those people
that submitted to Dr. Fleming?
Yes, we'll do that.
We will do that via the chat.
Everybody who's submitted Richard Fleming's letter,
can they please put it in the chat?
That would be an excellent way to do that.
Thank you, Glenn, for the reminder.
So Andy, we're having this group,
and welcome to particularly to,
we have a number of new visitors here today.
The professions included here,
not just doctors and retired doctors,
they're lawyers and legal strategists, journalists,
engineers, IT experts like Glenn, writers, researchers,
investors, nurses, dentists, financiers,
patent experts, Andy, troublemakers.
And I think it's fair to say
that there are not many people here that we know of
who are on the side of the government narrative.
So this is about-
Gamblers, Charles, you forgot gamblers.
Yes, we've got gamblers, very good.
So I wear my red jacket
because I'm Australia's passion provocateur,
and people here like you, Andy,
are passionate about certain things.
We're here in a true spirit of discovery and exploration
of what humanity needs.
Most of us understand we're in World War III.
We go for two and a half hours in this session,
Andy, you don't have to be here for two and a half hours,
but if you can be,
we listen to you for as long as you wanna speak.
And if we do Q&A and then we're expecting 100, 120 people.
Stephen, I had to upgrade the account just in case.
After the two and a half hours,
Tom Rodman organized the Telegram group, less structured.
We structured this pretty well, pretty tightly.
There's no censorship, but we do proper moderation.
Free speech is crucial here.
And this is all about the development of science.
So we're gonna have disagreements.
We have to come from a caring space.
If we're caring about humanity,
well, please, we've gotta care about each other.
And Kevin, have an open mind through these meetings.
Many of you are here every twice a week,
and it's wonderful to see the learning that I get
and all of us get from this group.
So Andy, that's what we're about.
Stephen started this in the middle of last year,
and it has been twice a week since.
So welcome to you, Stephen.
Do you wanna say anything before Andy gets going?
And I'm not gonna introduce you, Andy,
because we wanna know who you are.
So Andrew, we've understood that it's a war
and it's not just about science.
We already knew that it was about medicine,
but it's about finance, it's about corruption,
it's about serious crime,
it's about crimes against humanity and all the rest.
And we're willing to hear any aspect
which you can throw light on.
Right, well, thank you very much.
It's a great pleasure to be here.
I'm not quite sure what you want me to do,
but maybe I should just start and you can shut me up
if I'm not making any sense.
Andrew, if you haven't got a presentation prepared
and you run out of steam,
we're pretty good at asking questions.
No, that's fine.
Although we have got a bit more shy recently,
I don't know why.
No, I welcome your question.
Somebody pointed out that we're a bunch of introverts,
which probably we are actually on reflection,
but I hadn't thought of myself as an introvert before,
but I'm not an extrovert.
Right.
Okay, well, I welcome questions.
I have, let me start at the beginning.
I come from a medical family
that six generations of physicians trained
at the same medical schools,
St. Mary's Hospital in London,
where penicillin was discovered,
one of its, that and rugby football,
where it's sort of, well, it excelled at.
And I was very much a conventional physician.
What I mean by that is my medical training
was essentially invested in the art of medicine
as much as it was in the science.
And that is listening, the ability to listen
to the patient or the patient's parents,
the story they tell,
and to determine the merits of that story, to explore it,
investigate it to the best of my ability to rule in
or rule out their concerns.
And so that is where I came from.
It's very, very different from what is described
as mainstream medicine now,
which is a very different beast to pharmaceutical.
And in this country in particular,
an insurance company driven profit, for-profit initiative.
And it's not something that I recognize.
However, I graduated in 1981
and I went on to get my fellowship
with the Royal College of Surgeons.
And I became a gastrointestinal surgeon
with an interest principally in inflammatory bowel disease,
Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.
In 1995, in May of 1995,
I received a call from a parent,
a very articulate, intelligent woman
who was not anti-vaccine in any way.
She'd taken her child to be vaccinated on time
and he had regressed immediately.
He'd suffered a seizure and he'd gone on to regress,
having been perfectly normal, cognitively.
He had speech, language interaction with his older sibling.
All of that had gone.
And at the same time,
as he had this neurodevelopmental decline,
he had suffered terrible gastrointestinal problems.
These came out at the same time.
He was bloating, he was in pain.
His mother said, I know he's in pain.
He's lost the ability to speak,
but I know as his mother, what is wrong with him.
He was failing to thrive.
He had all of the cardinal features of a child
with an inflammatory bowel disease of some sort.
And so the medical profession to whom his mother had spoken,
principally child psychiatrists, had dismissed these.
This is just autism.
It's to be expected, put him in a home,
forget about him, move on, have another child.
That was where autism was at that time.
And I should say at that time,
the prevalence was approximately one in 10,000.
It was so rare that as a medical student,
we weren't even taught about it.
We were aware of the word,
but we've not taught about the syndrome itself.
And this mother said to me,
there is also an epidemic of this particular problem,
regressive autism with gastrointestinal problems.
And so I took this very, very seriously.
It was utterly compelling as a story.
She had no reason to indict the vaccine
other than that is what happened.
And it was the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine.
And at that time in the UK,
this vaccine was given in isolation.
It's not the same as it is in the US now
where children might receive up to 15 different vaccines
in the same doctor's visit.
What there it was an isolated event
and therefore parents could pinpoint what had happened.
And so I put together a team of experts,
including professor John Walker Smith,
who was the world's leading pediatric gastroenterology
from Sydney, Australia at that time.
He come to work at Bartholomew's hospital
and I recruited him to the Royal Free Hospital
and he bought his team.
We had this wonderful team of physicians, neurologists,
gastroenterologists, child psychiatrists.
And we decided to get to the bottom of this
because we had a flood of these referrals.
And it was fascinating because as is almost always
the case in medicine, the parent was absolutely right.
When we scope these children by opposite them
and all of this was done by professor Walker Smith's team
and they were examined by expert histopathologists.
These children had an inflammatory bowel disease.
More importantly, when we treated
that inflammatory bowel disease
with the standard medication that you would use
for Crohn's or colitis, fiber-minosolicidate
or something like this, and diet,
gluten, casein exclusion diets,
there was a dramatic improvement
not only in the gastrointestinal problems,
but also in the cognitive issues as well.
We didn't cure autism, but there was a dramatic effect.
Children started using words
that they not used for five years.
It was really quite extraordinary.
It was rather like that Lorenzo's oil story.
And it was relatively unexpected.
Although we were aware of this gut-brain axis,
I worked on a liver transplant unit
and we all know of hepatic encephalopathy
or encephalopathy, the gut-brain link.
And so this was not new to us,
but this was a, if you like,
a new expression of that old problem.
We did not know at that time
what the interaction between the gut and the brain was.
Was it inflammation or toxicity?
Was it allergy?
What we didn't know,
but it raised a number of very, very interesting
and testable hypotheses.
And therefore we had an absolute moral
and professional obligation
to investigate the vaccine association.
It is not something we could
or should have walked away from.
However, surprisingly,
my colleagues took me aside one day and said,
Andy, as pediatricians,
we cannot be seen to question the safety of MMR vaccine.
That made absolutely no sense to me at all.
It wasn't a medical position.
It wasn't a scientific standpoint.
It was, what will my colleagues at the Royal College
think of me if I express concerns about MMR?
That was unacceptable to me.
And I made me rather angry.
The Dean of the medical school took me aside and said,
if you continue this vaccine safety research,
it will not be good for your career.
And he was right in as much, it was not.
However, I decided that given my training
and my family history,
and I had no choice, I don't want to sound heroic.
This was, these were simple choices.
I came to a crossroads,
either work for public health in the pharmaceutical industry
or I worked for the child sitting across the desk from me
whose life had been destroyed.
It was a very simple choice.
And that's what I did.
And it was an interesting time.
At that time, and I need to explain this
because all of this is relevant to what's happening today.
The British government had withdrawn government funding
for science broadly.
There was still the medical research council,
but it was extraordinarily difficult to get funding.
And as an academic, I was therefore faced with going out
and raising my own funding
or simply going back into clinical medicine.
And what happened was GlaxoSmithKline,
or SmithKline as they were at the time,
came to the medical school.
And we were told as academics that we had to have,
get into what was called a strategic liaison
with the pharmaceutical industry.
That's where the money would come from
to fund future research, medical research in the UK.
And the problems with that are tangibly obvious
that what happened was the Royal Free Hospital
where I was working at the time
were entered into a strategic relationship
where they took some money from GlaxoSmithKline.
It was pocket change to this company,
but to academics, it was a great deal of money.
And that gave GlaxoSmithKline the first option
on anything that was produced by researchers at the Royal Free
irrespective of whether the researchers wanted that or not.
What that gave GlaxoSmithKline is control
over not only what research was done
at the Royal Free Hospital, but what research was not done.
And they did not want vaccine safety research done
because they were the principal manufacturer
of the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine
for Europe and the United Kingdom.
And that made it very difficult.
It also became the new Dean of,
sorry, the new professor of medicine,
Mark Peppers came to the Royal Free.
On the proviso that they dismissed me.
I knew nothing about this at the time.
He, I did not know, but he had a very close tie with Glaxo
developing a drug called pentraxin
for the treatment of dementia.
And so all of this was going on in the background
and it was highly commercial
and it was clearly a challenge to their,
a conflict of interest for the medical school
to allow me to pursue this research.
Now, again, something I state as a matter
of historical record, not just because it is a matter
of fact, we now live in a council culture.
We recognize it.
You gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen,
I'm sure have experienced as medical professionals
and scientists some pushback against what you've been doing.
At the time, this did not happen.
At the time, there was me on one side
and on the other side, there was the World Health Organization,
UNICEF, the British government, the pharmaceutical industry,
the CDC, the NIH, the FDA,
the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the Royal College of Pediatricians.
I could go on and on and on.
I mean, it was not an even fight.
And I, again, this is simply a matter of historical record.
It's not a question of poor Andy Wakefield.
And so there was no, and what happened then
is that Glaxo took onto their board.
We published the Lancet paper.
The Lancet paper I'll come to in a moment,
but it became somewhat infamous.
At that time, they then appointed the son
of James Murdoch to the board of GlaxoSmithKline
as a non-executive director with the role
of protecting that company's reputation in the media.
And I was his target and he came after me in a big way
and that had a profound impact on my career.
So all of this was going on,
largely unknown to me until it literally hit,
sort of within 24 hours of publication.
Lancet paper itself was a case report.
And those amongst you who have published,
will know that the way in which medical syndromes
are first described is the finding of a remarkably
consistent pattern of signs and symptoms,
unexpected in a group of patients,
can be as small as three or four patients.
It can be, I mean, autism was 11, Crohn's disease was 14,
no controls, you don't know what you're controlling
against, you are merely reporting the clinical observations
and the story told to you by your parents
and what are the parents or the patient
and your clinical findings.
They cannot be hypothesis testing studies.
What they can do is generate hypothesis.
And what we did was to report in the Lancet paper
entirely accurately what we had been told by the parents,
what the general practitioners had reported to us
and what the clinical findings were on investigation
at the Royal Free Hospital.
And then at the end say, this does not prove
an association between autism and sorry,
the vaccine and the syndrome described.
Further work is required.
That was the conclusion.
That has been misinterpreted in the media ad infinitum
to say that we made the claim that the vaccine,
MMR vaccine causes autism, quite the opposite.
Didn't matter.
What was published and what the media wrote
was entirely different.
We're now familiar with this.
This is old hat to people now living in 2022.
At the time though, it was very sinister
because the trust in the media,
the trust in the medical profession,
the trust in public health service
was so much greater than it is now.
So they put a journalist onto me
who then came after me.
And really that was, I realized that there was no chance
of continuing this work in England.
And so I then came, I suppose, in professional
and political exile to the United States
to continue the work.
One of the interesting things that had happened
over the years is that because of the position I'd taken,
people came to me from the pharmaceutical industry
and from federal agencies like the CDC, like the NIH,
FDA and said, we have done a terrible thing
and here is the evidence.
And so I became a repository for whistleblowers.
And so ultimately when I no longer worked in medicine
or medical science, I decided with a long standing interest,
I decided to become a filmmaker
and turn these stories into movies
to actually become the worst enemy
of those who had perpetrated this situation.
And all of this was, let me go back briefly.
When I first questioned MMR vaccine safety,
I thought I owe it to myself and to them
and to the authorities to do a thorough analysis
of every pre-licensing and post-licensing safety study
of all measles containing vaccines,
measles, measles rubella, measles mumps rubella,
measles mumps rubella, chickenpox
was not available at that time.
I wrote a 250 page report analyzing these studies
and I was astonished.
I thought I must be doing them at a service.
I must be missing something.
There must be a proper randomized control,
deceiver control, clinical trial
lasting longer than a few weeks.
There must be, there was, there was nothing at all.
And this was astonishing to me for a virus like measles
that was known to produce persistent infection
and fatal delayed disease.
The idea that they had limited the safety studies
to three weeks was unthinkable.
The fact that they had conducted those studies
in children in homes for like the,
like the Carson Fountain Hospital
for children with severe physical and mental injuries
like Willowbrook Hospital in Willowbrook State School
in Staten Island, New York,
the home for 5,000 children with severe physical
and mental disabilities.
This is where the clinical trials were conducted.
Why?
Because these children were expendable.
It didn't matter whether they lived or died.
They could be used at the will
of the pharmaceutical industry.
And I'll give you one example.
They, one experiment involved giving children
oral unprocessed human feces from people with hepatitis B
to see effectively whether they lived or died
and if they died, how they died
because they were expendable.
And that was in the 1960s.
So this is not so very long ago
that this was allowed to happen.
The last person to conduct research
in Willowbrook State School before it was shut down
was Tony Fauci in respect of AIDS treatment.
Though it's just an interesting historical note
that can be found in Bobby Kennedy's book,
The Real Anthony Fauci.
So as a humanitarian, as much as a physician,
the more I got into this, the more appalled I became
at the assumptions that have been made,
the ethical violations that they seem
to have permitted themselves for this,
in this utilitarian quest for some grand scientific payoff.
It was absolutely astonishing to me.
And so that was really the background of my story.
I was accused of scientific fraud.
I was accused of all kinds of things.
If anyone has any interest whatsoever
in examining the facts of that matter,
then a lawyer by the name of Clifford Miller
has been pursuing this case like a dog with a bone
for as long as it's been going on
and has done an extremely detailed analysis
of what the British Medical Journal and Brian Deer alleged
and what actually happened.
And if there was fraud, undoubtedly,
and it was entirely on the part of Fiona Godley, Brian Deer
and the British Medical Journal.
And I have no hesitation in saying that whatsoever.
In fact, I tried to sue Brian Deer
and the British Medical Journal in Travis County, Texas.
And the reason for doing that
is not necessary personal exoneration,
but parents asked me to do so on the basis
that not to do so, to allow their narrative to stand
would be to dismiss the parent's story,
would be to ignore the plight and suffering
of their children.
So this is no mean undertaking.
It's a sort of $3 million venture and hundreds of man hours.
But the story was utterly compelling.
Sadly, ultimately, we were denied jurisdiction.
The case never got to be heard on its merits,
even though legal precedent was entirely on our side.
It seems that someone very high up
did not want this case to see the light of day.
They didn't want it to see the light of day
because it emerged in deposition.
And this is something that happens in America, not in the UK,
that you get to question your adversaries in advance
in a meeting of both legal teams.
Both sides get the opportunity to do that.
And it became absolutely clear there,
let me characterize the BMJ's claims.
They said they had taken the 6 million word transcript
of the general medical proceedings to fact check
every one of Brian Deer's allegations of fraud.
When it came to the deposition,
what in fact, when we questioned,
we deposed the deputy editor of the BMJ,
whose job it was to actually fact check Brian Deer's claims,
she had gone where he had taken him.
She wasn't even aware that I had testified.
My lawyer said to her,
you are aware that these adversarial proceedings,
each case, each party gets to present their claim.
And Andy Wakefield did so.
He presented his case in what was the longest deposition,
so the longest testimony in the history
of the general medical council at that time.
She said, no, I was not aware of that.
In other words, she had not read a single word
of my defense.
And when that happened, when it became clear
that the BMJ had actually lied,
lied not only in public in the British Medical Journal,
but lied to their own lawyers,
their lawyer from Texas got up and walked out of the room.
It was an extremely interesting and dramatic moment.
And so it became clear.
And what happened after that is that their lawyers
went to them and said,
you either present a new case altogether
that does not rely on the British,
on the general medical council transcripts
and all the facts, or we're out of this.
You have lied to us.
And that is exactly what happened.
They had to then go and almost overnight
come up with an entirely different affidavit,
an entirely different story with barely a mention,
one mention of the general medical council proceedings.
So they knew that if they went to court,
they were going to be raked over the coals.
And so the case was never allowed to go to court.
And people would say, well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
Let me ask you one question.
Why would anyone in their right mind
want to spend $3 million and all of those,
everything it took to get this case to where it was going,
to lay everything out in public,
all of the facts for people to scrutinize at will
if they were guilty of fraud?
You wouldn't do it.
There'd be no merit whatsoever.
And that was the case for me.
But nevermind, this is not about me.
And that was an extraordinary insight that I gained.
I suddenly realized that actually this isn't about me at all.
And I need to get over that.
I need to forget about that.
I need to move on.
There's this about something far, far more important.
The universe doesn't care what happens to Andy Wakefield,
but the universe does care what happens
to the future of this planet and the children of this world.
And so I went having realized that it was not about me.
It was about a much bigger issue,
really about the future of mankind, I think,
and what medicine is and what it should be.
And so I felt a great deal better for that
and was able to approach my work, certainly the filmmaking,
from an entirely different perspective
with a much lighter heart and a huge burden
taken off my shoulders because it's not about me at all.
It's made, it's dressed up to look like it's about me.
It's made very personal, but it's not.
That's just dressing, window dressing.
So I've now, this brings us, I suppose,
to one of the films I made.
And I want to emphasize this because I don't know
whether people appreciate the significance
of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
This is highly relevant to where we are today
in the world with COVID.
And this act was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, 1986,
and it was intended to do three things.
It came about because the pharmaceutical company
that at that time, Wyeth and Lederle,
that made the diphtheria tetanus pertussis,
the old wholesale vaccine, were aware, quite clearly aware,
in documents that subsequently made it
into the public domain through our film,
that their vaccine was causing brain damage and death
in a very large and unacceptable number of children.
And they were in the firing line to get sued.
And so they went to the government and they said,
presenting false statement, they said,
we are going to pull out of the vaccine industry
unless you give us liability protection
from death and injury caused by our vaccines.
And if we pull out of the market,
no one else will make these vaccines.
Pertussis will come back, Kupinkov will come back,
children will die, and it'll be your fault.
How do you feel about that?
And politicians, as they do, and as we've seen in COVID panic,
they're not biologists, they're not bacteriologists,
they know nothing of this.
And so they are entirely reliant on those,
giving them the information they receive.
And they tend to opt for that strategy
that protects them as much as anyone else.
And so they passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
and it had three intentions.
One was to make vaccines safer.
Two was to provide compensation to children
who had been injured.
And three was to give a large measure of liability protection
to the pharmaceutical companies,
the only exemption being fraud.
What happened after that act was passed
is that the vaccine companies
had the perfect business model.
In America, children were required to have their vaccines,
vaccines on the recommended CDC schedule to go to school,
to go to public school.
So they had a mandatory market and they had no liability.
They had the perfect business model.
All they could do was to make a massive, massive profit.
And that's what they did.
And the vaccine program expanded
and all kinds of new vaccines came onto the market
for increasingly specious allegations
or allegations of severity, death, disease.
People pulled these numbers out of the air
in order to justify the introduction of these vaccines.
And they made more and more and more and more money.
As these vaccines got onto the recommended schedule,
they had no liability.
They were therefore disincentivized to do safety studies.
Why would you undertake safety studies
if it threatened your product,
if it threatened you getting a license,
if you were going to identify an adverse reaction
that might stop your product getting to market?
And so there was no incentive for them to do safety studies.
In fact, there was a disincentive.
And so they made an enormous amount of money
and they became very, very powerful.
And that allowed certain things to happen.
And this is why it's relevant to today.
They bought medical schools effectively.
They started to buy medical training,
medical student training.
They bought medical journals.
They owned the editorial.
They bought the media in effect,
particularly in this country
where there is direct to consumer advertising.
That gave them enormous power over the media.
And again, over the editorial,
what was said and what wasn't said,
what was published, what wasn't published.
They became essential to politicians getting reelected.
And so they could control the political narrative
and indeed themselves write policy.
They really became extraordinarily powerful
through these devices to the point where,
and this was a global agenda,
not simply confined to the United States,
so powerful that it allowed them to do in effect
what they have been able to do with COVID vaccine,
exploiting the same strategies of fear, of promises,
of expectations, of a lot of money,
a great deal of money in the right hand.
And of course, supported by people like Fauci
who are wholehearted advocates of vaccinology.
So that film, 1986, The Act,
really provides an insight into how this came about,
how the pharmaceutical industry became just so powerful.
And but, and here's the interesting thing.
And I think perhaps on this note,
I'll conclude and answer questions to the extent that I can.
And that is that when I started out 30 years ago
in this field of vaccine safety,
there were perhaps a handful of people worldwide
who were prepared to talk about this openly in public.
And that number is now more than half
the world's adult population.
And so for those of you who feel that we are losing
no, the vaccine industry and public health
have been the architects of their own destruction.
Their overreach, their greed, their indifference,
all of these things have added up to where we are now.
But don't be glum, don't be too despondent
because we are now the majority.
And I was reading the other day that 70% of American adults
have either not received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine
or the COVID shot, the second dose or not had the booster.
In other words, they're not compliant
with the CDC's recommended schedule.
So they are in effect anti-vaxxers by the,
in the words of the mainstream media.
So people are waking up.
It has taken an extraordinary series of events
for that to happen.
Things were very different when there were just a handful
of us 30 years ago, but people will come to recognize.
I speak to people like Peter McCullough and others.
And Peter says when he gets up and talks or did at least,
I have concerns about this vaccine, the shot,
the childhood vaccine is fine and I'm happy with that.
But they've come to, they do not understand the history.
And part of my job is to teach them the history
that we all came from the same position.
I came from having concerns about MMR.
Bobby Kennedy came from having concerns
about the mercury preservative thimerosol.
Chris Exley came from concerns about aluminum.
What we all came to understand is that we have no idea
what's going on.
And as we add these things in, are there quadratic,
synergistic interactions that we don't understand?
We have made it, it has been made so complicated
that it is now impossible to conduct any kind
of safety study that gives you the relative safety
of a particular vaccine since they're all thrown in together.
So we do not understand, but what we do know
is that it is incredibly complex
and that we have violated the integrity
of the body's ability to defend itself, to protect itself
and done enormous harm.
And when you alter the ecosystem, you do so
at a very, very high price.
Nature will find a way, life will find a way.
There's a wonderful line at the beginning of Jurassic Park,
the original Jurassic Park, you may remember
when they are in the laboratory and Sam Mendes
is looking at an egg hatching and he said,
Oh my God, you've bred a velociraptor.
And the Asian scientists in the white coat,
the man in the white coat, says, Oh, don't worry.
They can't reproduce, they're all female.
And Sam Goldblum, sorry, Jeff Goldblum steps in
as that chaos theory mathematician says,
you don't understand, life will find a way
and life will find a way.
And I do believe that we have an extraordinary capacity
to recover, to restore the integrity of mankind,
but there is no time to be lost.
The damage done, I think this will turn out
to be the greatest mistake they ever made
on many, many counts.
And there's an abundance of evidence that's emerging
to suggest that that is the case.
But we need to, what you're doing,
a group like yours is extremely important,
extremely important and it's a growing number.
It's a growing number.
There are 17,000 similar doctors and scientists
as part of just one group in the United States
or worldwide who are fighting
and that number is growing every day.
Sadly, so is the number of people who are killed
or injured by these injections.
So on that note, which I hope ultimately is not
too despondent, I will happily answer questions.
Andy, well done, well done, not despondent at all.
I've written it down, you know, at the 38 minute mark.
We are winning and this group, I assure you,
agrees that we'll win.
The only question is how many casualties they will be.
Traditionally, Andy here, Stephen asked the first questions.
We've got 10 hands up, there's no rush.
We'd love to have you here as long as you can be here.
But Stephen goes first and unpacks the thinking.
That's because he started this group
and it works well.
I'm on the committee of the Australian
Vaccination Risk Network and the Vaxxed Bus.
Everybody, you all know the movie is called Vaxxed.
Well, we've got a bus in Australia
with a big Vaxxed, V-A-X-X-E-D across the thing.
And what's salutary is Andy was going through that history
as Stephen's organizing his questions, Andy,
was how you reminded me,
and I'm sure all of us, of our learning journey.
10 years ago, what I was thinking about vaccines
and what many of us were versus now.
So it was wonderful to hear that development.
I can remember clearly the day when I first heard
about the 1986 US Act giving indemnity to big pharma.
I thought, wow, who let that through?
So anyway, there are lots of questions
and lovely to see the hands up.
So Stephen Frost, over to you first.
Yeah, so Andrew, where are you?
He's there.
Nice to see you.
I'm here, somewhere.
Oh, there you are, yes.
I'm here.
So, well, I think all of us on this group
would like to say that we're very sorry
about what happened to you,
but also very nice that you eventually realized,
I know that feeling from my own experience
with the Ministry of Defense,
nice that you realized in the end
that it was not about you,
it was about the narrative,
their narrative, which they were trying to protect,
and you were the threat to it.
And so it wasn't personal.
I know the feeling though,
because that's exactly how I felt with the MOT.
And you said about the, you sued them,
you were right to sue them, in my opinion,
and to allow their narrative to continue
was important, as it turns out, for all humanity.
But I've written down,
but there were so many things that you said today,
I wanted to, but there's just too much.
But many of us on this call now,
who now understand the importance
of what you've just transmitted to us,
did not understand them.
And I think that I speak for all the doctors in this group,
who were trying their best for the patients,
but they didn't understand what was going on.
So this was the backdrop to my training
and to many others' training.
And the fact that they didn't help you, Andrew,
was not because they didn't like you,
it was because they didn't know,
and they didn't understand.
We only understand now,
because we've been studying this
for a whole year in these meetings,
from many sides, not just medicine and science.
And so I hope you'll forgive us.
And so there are lots of things.
I'm absolutely astonished that the BMA
continue to write to me,
asking me whether I want to rejoin,
when I told them when I left,
that I was leaving them
because they were a bunch of crooks in this situation.
And so they continue,
and then they have the audacity to lie to their lawyers,
to American lawyers representing them.
Is that what they did in America?
Yes, indeed, yes.
And not just a small lie, a massive lie.
The whole case was built on a morass of lies.
Just extraordinary.
And the relevance of your story, Andrew,
is just amazing.
So swine flu, that was what woke me up.
I remembered swine flu.
And very early in 2020,
I knew exactly what was going on.
Well, not the details, of course,
I couldn't work it out.
It's very confusing.
But I knew that there was something terribly wrong,
not just for me, but for everyone.
And it wasn't just swine flu.
It was your story.
It was HIV and AIDS.
Carey Mullis, you know, his,
and the guy he protected,
he was a Nobel Prize winner, as you know.
And he protected, his name's gone now.
Do you remember Peter?
Peter?
Duesberg.
Peter Duesberg?
Yes, that's right.
Because they went for Peter Duesberg,
rather than Carey Mullis.
I think they were frightened of Carey Mullis,
and they had to kill him in the end in 2019,
in my opinion, August 2019.
Because otherwise the PCR test could not have gone forward.
And that was absolutely essential to what they did.
But my question to you, Andrew, is this.
You said that they got rid of the liability
if there was no fraud,
but there was massive fraud in this case.
So they haven't got rid of the liability.
And how did they think that they would get away with this,
even when they'd got away with all the stuff
that they had got away with, revaccines, in the past,
and not just vaccines, we now have to suspect,
all the medications,
we have to look at all these medications
and all the vaccines to make sure
that they're safe and effective.
Because I'm, as a medical doctor, I don't believe a word.
Any of them say, anything that they say now,
and that is their biggest mistake, as you say,
in the end, they've been flawed
or they will be flawed by their own hubris.
You're absolutely right.
Firstly, let me say that there's nothing to forgive, please.
But thank you very much.
It's just part of the human,
it's part of our learning process.
And it was part of mine and it's part of everybody's.
And it's a shame that we've had to learn
in quite the way we have.
And what you have to understand, sorry.
Sorry.
What a perfect illustration, Andrew.
But you said that you had no doubt, I think,
you said that you had to sue.
And it just shows that if you don't do these things,
if you don't hold people to account at the correct time,
they just do it again, only worse next time.
You're absolutely right.
Accountability is really something that I'm out to achieve
in the films I'm making because things that...
Firstly, let me talk about the issue of fraud
and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
It will turn out, I'm absolutely certain that within this,
and it is turning out that within the context
of the COVID narrative, there has been extraordinary fraud.
But understand the mindset
of the pharmaceutical industry executive.
They don't care.
They operate on the basis that they want to make
as much money in a shorter space of time as possible.
They get their bonus and they move on.
They're not actually interested in the longevity of Merck
or of Pfizer or of any of these other companies.
They are interested in making their money and getting out.
If down the road, the company faces massive
billion dollar litigation, they don't care
because they're already out.
And so I think Moderna have already yielded
five COVID shot billionaires.
That's really what drives this whole process.
So it's not about the company's survival.
They don't care about that.
They want to make as much money as possible.
So the fraud, the emergence of the fact that there was fraud
and the company paying a huge price down the line,
that's not their concern.
And so then we come to the issue of accountability.
William Thompson from the CDC, senior scientist,
I went to the CDC when they were still talking to me
and they said, look, every child gets MMR.
Why doesn't every child develop autism?
We don't understand.
Well, we know in medicine that you can smoke
and not develop lung cancer.
That's just a given.
We don't know the precise reasons why.
Is it a dose response?
Is it genetic?
Is it a combination of many things?
Yes.
And so I said, well, one of the things
that we believe is important is the age of exposure.
The younger you get the MMR, the greater the risk
of developing autism.
We say that because we know that natural exposure
to measles under the age of one carries a much higher risk
of an adverse outcome than over the age of one.
There is an age-related phenomenon.
And now with COVID, we are fully aware
of this age-related outcome.
So they tested that hypothesis in the Atlanta metro area
and they found it to be absolutely true.
They found it was correct.
The younger you got the vaccine, the greater the risk.
They spent the next 14 years destroying the documents
and covering up the data.
William Thompson, the senior scientist
who designed the study, collected the data,
and analyzed it and wrote the paper,
came forward and said, I can't live with this any longer.
Here is all of the evidence that I kept.
And we were able to make the movie Vax on that basis, which
shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the link,
the causal association between MMR and autism.
But of course, it was completely buried because there
was no accountability.
We went to the Oversight Committee on Government Reform
at the US Congress and we said, your job
is to deal with such instances of fraud
in the federal agencies.
This is your job.
You must do it.
They wouldn't touch it.
They did not want to go anywhere near it because, well,
that's a question for them as to why.
But I suspect that their campaign funds were highly
dependent upon the income from pharmaceutical companies,
amongst other things.
Also, they were threatened with the idea that, well,
if you undermine confidence in public health authorities,
parents won't vaccinate their children and children will die
and it will be your fault.
That same argument was thrown at them again,
as was thrown at them with the liability protection issue.
So there was no accountability.
There was quite clearly fraud and there was no accountability.
And so it continued.
Not only did it continue, they were
incentivized to continue behaving in that way
by getting their pensions being paid off,
by simply keeping their jobs at the CDC
and then receiving a big pension at the end of it.
So my filmmaking now is about accountability,
whatever the risk that brings.
To me personally, it's about naming names and shaming people
because without that, there is no disincentive
to this kind of behavior.
And people need to go to prison, not least
to which some of the many of the people
have been involved in the COVID issue.
I absolutely agree.
I could go on, but there are 16 hands up.
So Charles?
Yes, thank you.
Thank you, Stephen.
And publicly, John Stone, thank you for enabling Andy
to be here today.
John, well done.
Yes, thank you, John.
So here we go.
Here we go, Andy.
And we've got 16 hands up.
I'm looking forward to this conversation.
It's up to you how long you spend answering each question.
And I'm sure there'll be more, but it's great that you can.
Mark Sexton is first and he is a retired police
officer from the UK.
Thank you very much, Charles.
And good evening to you and Stephen and Dr. Andrew
Wakefield.
It's an absolute pleasure to meet your acquaintance.
What I'm going to do is I'm not going to ask you a question.
I'm just going to spend about a minute going over
what happened to my own child as a result of the MMR vaccine.
And it was because of you and a few of the doctors,
and thank you for what you did.
And well done for bouncing back the way you have,
fully deserved.
My daughter, she was very unlucky when she had the MMR.
Within five years of that, back in the early 2000s,
she contracted a very nasty meningitis,
hospitalized for 10 days.
She had really bad bowel issues, very inflamed, ex-mat, asthma,
and she had behavioral issues.
And I started to do my own research.
I was aware of you at the time and what happened
because my ex-wife was a nurse, a pediatrician,
and I started to do my own investigations and research
and realized she hit the double whammy there,
and she got all five of the very serious side effects
as a result of the MMR.
And I started to realize that these things were dangerous
and they weren't what they were telling us.
And I approached my own GP because of my daughter's
many problems and issues and realized that these things
were so dangerous.
And I started to realize that these things were dangerous.
And I started to actually become quite vocal
amongst my own family and friends in advising them
if their partners were pregnant or their babies were young,
do not take these vaccines.
And I gave them this anecdotal evidence that I had myself
and my own experience.
And it was because of you, and this is a personal thank you
to you, I've always wanted to meet you and speak to you.
You are a hero.
And those people who did vilify you back in the late 90s
and early 2000s, they've got some serious egg on their face.
So from me to you, thank you.
God bless you and well done for what you've done
and well done for bouncing back the way you have.
I've watched all of your films, they're outstanding.
Keep going and thank you.
Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart.
Just to let you know, my daughter is now mid-20s,
a very successful businesswoman.
Her symptoms are limited because we managed to help her
with diet, exercise and the likes.
And she is a wonderful, beautiful human being
doing very well in life.
Thank you very much.
So God bless you.
I'm absolutely delighted.
Thank you so much.
Beautifully said, Mark.
Thank you.
Cordelia.
Hi, yeah.
I've just got two little questions about the BMJ because-
Cordelia, can you tell Dr. Wakefield
that you're a doctor and a pathologist actually?
Yeah, I'm a histopathologist
and I followed your story in the BMJ with great interest
because at the time, the BMJ claimed that you were looking
at colon biopsies yourself,
not having a histopathologist involved
and claiming that there is colitis
when in fact the inflammatory cells
in the large bowel mucosa
as part of the lymphoid system.
So they said you overreported this,
but at the beginning of your talk,
you said you did have a histopathologist involved.
So was that just one of many lies from the BMJ?
Just wondering what your view on that is.
Thank you very much for raising that.
Yeah, see, all of the biopsies were reviewed
by an expert histopathologist, Dr. Paul Dillon.
You may know him and he was on the paper.
I had nothing whatsoever to do with reporting
any of the findings of histopathology
in that paper at all or indeed in any child.
I was not qualified to do that.
I was a surgeon and I took no part in that
other than to join in the pathology meetings
that we would hold every Friday
to review the biopsies from all children
who had been investigated.
So the one thing that I did do was to make sure
that Paul Dillon had available to him
in a blinded fashion biopsies from 10 normal colonic biopsies
from age-matched children
to give a blinded comparison of the two.
And that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt
that there was inflammation.
We went beyond that and we then went into great detail
to using immunohistochemistry,
immunosidochemistry, immunofluorescence flow cytometry
to characterize, actually quantify the numbers
of inflammatory cells in the bowel,
various types, CD4, CD8, gamma delta T cells, et cetera,
and to look at cytokine profiles.
And doing that, and we published, I think,
about 15, 16 papers on this,
showing beyond a shadow of a doubt
that there was not only histological evidence
of inflammation, but there was immunohistochemical evidence
of increased T cell subsets, for example,
gamma delta T cells, and there was a marked increase,
elevation of tumor necrosis factor alpha
being produced by these cells.
So, yeah, so that's a long way of answering your question,
but I'm sure you'll appreciate the detail,
but no, that was a frank lie.
I had no role whatsoever.
So, but at the time, the BMJ was quite critical
of the pharmaceutical industry.
So why would they do, what was their motivation
to do this to you, to portray you as a fraud?
Well, I think that is probably a question for them.
I've asked myself that many times, and I don't know.
I mean-
Cordelia, that's what's known as a limited hangout.
And the other thing is, when I started in pathology,
Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis was quite rare.
And now we've got an explosion of biopsies
for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
It's not quadrupled, it's 10 times the biopsies we get
for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
And nobody's questioning it.
And they're treating these patients
with really expensive antibodies to tumor necrosis factor
that costs a thousand pounds a month.
And nobody's ever talking about this
or nutrition or anything else.
And it's just astounding that the whole system
is just based on treatment and not on looking at the causes.
Well, it's a very good point you raise.
I got into this and the parents started calling me
about their autistic children,
because we'd done a lot of research showing
that I became interested in the possible role
of measles virus, natural measles,
in causing inflammatory bowel disease.
And our interest, the interest of my group
was atypical patterns of exposure.
Let me give you an example.
We did a study with Uppsala University in Sweden
showing that mothers who'd experienced measles infection,
overt measles infection during pregnancy
gave birth to children who later in life
had severe Crohn's disease.
And it was something like the odds were about 6 million to one
that this was a chance finding.
It was so unusual to have measles during pregnancy
because invariably most people had had it as a child.
And there were four cases in central Sweden
during the 10 year part-time period we looked at.
Four of those children developed severe Crohn's disease.
So this was an extraordinary finding.
And so we went on to ask the question,
well, is single measles vaccine an atypical pattern
of exposure that increases the risk?
We published a paper in the Lancet,
a cohort study using the British childhood,
the BCS 70, British childhood study 1970,
following all children born in one week of one year,
we showed a six fold increase risk of Crohn's
if you had measles vaccine compared with natural measles.
And so this was already, you know,
the idea that this was something environmental,
that it was infectious and that it may be
an atypical pattern of exposure
to a common pathogen like measles was already on the cards.
And I think this is why people don't want to look at it now
in terms of what is causing this,
because it takes the lid off that very, very, very
uncomfortable and precarious possibility
that this may be causing it.
The Mayo Clinic did a follow-up study and confirmed
that it was the same association, younger age of exposure.
So there was something there,
but the whole research program was killed, dead.
And nobody ever wanted to go back and look at it again
because of the implications for their careers.
Hmm. Thank you.
Thank you, Cordelia.
Lovely to have listened to experts
talking about expert stuff.
Gary Finkelstein, before we get to you,
Ryan has got an issue.
He's got to be quick and he has to go.
Ryan Penn from Take Action Canada.
Go, Ryan.
Hello, Dr. Wakefield.
I just wanted to thank you.
Fortunately, in the 1980s,
I was fortunate to hear a lecture by G. Edward Griffin
about the politics of cancer therapy,
which I put in the chat, which outlines the why
that Cordelia asked and the why that many people will ask
because it's a business and because they have no conscious.
So no conscience.
So it's very easy.
There's also a book put out by a French Canadian doctor,
which I put in the chat called the Medical Mafia.
And that outlines exactly how the system works
and how the tentacles of the system,
whether it's the British Medical Journal
or the World Health Organization or the UN
or whatever it is that the tentacles work together.
So I wanted to thank you because of your work, Dr. Wakefield,
that I decided not to vaccinate my children for anything.
And they are 20 and 22 years old
with have had no health issues at all.
So I wanted to thank you.
And it's partially because of that
that I helped found Take Action Canada
a couple of years ago to deal with the COVID scam
or scandemic as we like to call it.
And I just want to let you know that we've launched
a campaign to the rest of the group called
Justice for the Vaccinated,
which is what we call activism, a keto,
where we actually turn it around
because we've all been talking about what about my rights?
What about my needs?
What about my family?
What about my community?
And we talk about all the people
that have taken this vaccine
through coercion, misinformation or other means
and the justice for the vaccinated,
which I'll put in there,
is a means for people to understand what has happened
and the degree of fraud that's happened.
So I want to thank you for your work.
The sacrifice has been greater
than most people can understand
in terms of the personal attacks.
And I've been following you for a number of years.
And I really want to appreciate you
and your commitment to what you've done.
So thank you very much.
Thank you very much indeed.
I should say just out of interest,
great deal of affection for Canada.
This work started when I was actually studying
small intestinal transplantation
as a transplant surgeon at Toronto General Hospital
and the University of Toronto.
So great affection for Canada
and deeply troubled by what you're going through there.
Thank you.
Yeah, we're all so deeply troubled.
And so we're on the front lines
as you saw the truckers revolt.
It's now turned into the farmers revolt in the Netherlands
and will soon turn into a worldwide revolt
where the 99% of us that, or 99.9% of us
that aren't pulling the strings and defrauding people
will take back control and you're 100% part of that solution.
So thanks again.
Put the links on the chat.
Please remember to save all the links
and save the chat after the call.
Thanks Charles for organizing.
Ryan, can I ask you to email me?
Yes, Stephen, if you wanna put,
I'll put my email in the chat and you can send me an email
and I'll answer for sure.
Okay, thank you.
Yep, we're all gonna, just put your email, Ryan.
Thank you, thank you for that.
Thank you for being efficient, Gary.
So Ryan, well done on your work.
And Andy, this is a beautiful example to all of us,
what the impact that each one of you are having
and can have and you never know.
And Andy, you didn't realize this impact
that you had on Ryan Penn, did you?
22 years down the track, but Mark Sexton,
and all of this stuff.
So welcome to your life.
We should make a movie of this.
Andy, this is your life.
Gary Finkelstein, who is from the UK and a,
guys, I'm not, a actuary, correct?
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, that's right, I'm an actuary and a statistician.
So I'm sitting in a dark balcony in Portugal
at the moment, so sorry if you can't see me.
So Andy, yeah, I look like everybody else before me.
Well done.
You know, you're right when you say,
it's not about ourselves, there is a bigger picture,
but it is also about you.
And some of us do care.
And let me just say upfront, you know,
I found it hard to follow what was going on at the time,
always a bit skeptical.
I am an actuary and a statistician.
If you need an actuary or statistician to,
if I can help in any way to make,
help make a case that things are clear, you know,
and sometimes it is about statistics.
It's not that having a vaccine will guarantee
that somebody will get ill.
It's really about the risks and the odds being greater
than if you didn't.
I'm there to help if ever you need help for that skill set.
Like you, I come from a family of doctors and physicians
and cardiologists and you name it, all sorts of specialists.
I'm curious if your own children have continued
your family tradition.
That's just a matter of curiosity.
That's all there is to it.
I was gonna ask a few other questions,
but you know, some of those questions have been answered,
especially your comment.
I was gonna ask you when you said your paper at the time,
you know, argued for further work,
but I think you answered it later when,
the point being it's really about privacy and risk signals.
And yeah, the cancel culture has become, you know,
I was very suspicious back then.
It's become very obvious now.
So I guess there's a lot of people coming out
of the woodwork who are willing to be friendly,
but you know, good for you,
good on you as they say in Australia.
Thank you very much.
Let me not ramble, I know there's a lot of people.
My own children have not gone into medicine.
After looking at what happened to me,
they didn't think that was a wise career choice.
Many of my brothers and my cousins, nephews,
they're all in the medical profession,
but my children have been remarkably supportive
and remain healthy and not having been vaccinated,
at least since their very first shots
when we didn't have this information,
but they remain well and my grandchildren are well as well.
That's great.
Look, and please, if you want a statistician
or an actuary ever, you know, Stephen will help you find me.
There's a group of doctors-
Yes, Gary, could you email me and I'll-
I'll put you in contact.
Yeah, there's a group of doctors in Recife, Brazil
that I helped them put together a dossier
when hydroxychloroquine was gonna get outlawed
and that I'm told was very helpful
and that decision got reversed within two weeks.
Wonderful, wonderful.
Well done, thank you.
Gary, great work, great work.
And you know, that offer, Andy, please note,
and all of us note, if we need a statistician, analyst,
Gary could be a wonderful resource for us.
Thank you, Gary.
Next is Peter Huger from Wales,
a lawyer, ex-police officer,
and general troublemaker here, Andy.
No, he's not a troublemaker.
I think you're right in the first instance.
Yeah, just one point, Andrew, before anything.
First of all, like everybody else here,
I found your bravery admirable, your words inspirational,
and also emotional.
When you began speaking, it just hit me,
what you gave up and your strength of character
to carry on the fight that it seems
we're all embroiled in now.
Agreed.
Yeah, we are not alone.
So thank you, Andrew.
Now, understanding now how the co-opting of Murdoch
onto the board of GSK and the subsequent effect
on medical research via MSM truth terrorism,
it's easy to see how government have developed this further
as you know, as a form of control via MSM
and indeed on social media in the UK
via the military 77th Brigade and 13 signals.
So we have the military trolling people on social media.
When you challenge them, they just disappear.
So the UK government behavioral insight team,
we probably all know here
that they were using COVID fear tactics
to get people to take the job, et cetera.
So I have three points to my question here
or just comments from you.
To your mind, is there any way of beating
this totalitarian media system at present?
You've been embroiled in this over the years.
Secondly, having had a cast iron case myself refused
in similar circumstances to you against the judiciary,
can you see any hope for the judiciary here
or worldwide somebody standing up?
Because if Reiner can't get it through,
it's really hard for smaller lawyers to get anywhere.
And thirdly, how do we win this war in your opinion?
Is it just getting the 99% on board?
And as a corollary to all of that,
when I took on and whistle blew against the police
as a Sergeant against targets that wrecked the police
in Britain and also the judiciary,
two friends separately said to me,
Peter, there's no point in winning the battle
and losing the war.
I listened to them for a while,
but then I realized keeping my integrity was the war
and losing my job in two instances was just the battle.
And that's what you've done, my friend, and thank you.
Thank you very much.
Brilliant.
No, very well put.
Yes, we can win.
It may sound bizarre, but we can.
And we are a majority now.
In this country, we have a podcast, Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan has 8 million followers every show.
He has gone from being on the side of pro-vaccine
to being completely now.
He's realized what's going on.
He was a sort of professional fighter
and he's an extraordinary guy.
But the important things about Joe Rogan
is that he has a viewership that is vastly bigger than CNN.
Mainstream media is becoming less and less relevant
by the day.
And the alternative media,
which they're finding increasingly difficult to control,
is becoming bigger.
So we have a rapidly growing majority.
We have a majority that is growing,
one, because people are realizing what's happening,
and two, because they're getting,
sadly, they're getting injured
and their family members are getting injured.
And they now know that this vaccine doesn't do
all the things that they were told it would do.
The only thing it has done is make
the pharmaceutical industry a lot of money.
So yes, we can win,
but we really, really have to apply ourselves.
Certain laws have to be overcome.
In this country, what we need to do,
as just as an example,
is to stop this direct-to-consumer advertising
in the media of the pharmaceuticals.
This is only in New Zealand and the United States of America.
By doing that, you see what has happened.
I don't believe that these drug companies
go on those, advertise on television,
principally to sell drugs.
When you listen to the side effects, it's laughable.
But they do it because what it allows them to do
is to control the media.
The media, CNN, MSNBC,
all of these people become dependent for their lifestyle,
for their existence on the income
that they get from the pharmaceutical companies,
which is, in a non-election year,
75 to 80% of their income comes from the drug companies.
If you take that away,
suddenly the media have got to go back
to being a media company, presenting the news,
not a biased view of the world
from the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry.
So it would change things dramatically.
That kind of thing, it's just one example
of what could happen.
You need to give liability back
to the pharmaceutical companies and dismantle
what was the 1986 act and reconstruct it
to do what it was meant to do,
apart from taking away this liability protection.
They need to be responsible.
And you would see a dramatic shift
in the way things were done.
So there are things that can be done.
And that's really just from one perspective,
from the sort of media perspective, the legal perspective.
There are many, many things that can be done
and things that are being done.
In the end, it comes down to the majority,
and it's gonna be a big majority,
and we will control things, and they are terrified.
They are absolutely terrified right now.
And just to give you an example,
vaccination should be a public health policy
that is based in the public confidence,
the consumer's confidence,
in the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
That is long gone, that confidence is gone.
And when that confidence is gone,
all you have left is force.
And that force means destroying the lives of doctors
and scientists, taking away their careers,
taking children away from their parents,
passing laws to force children in public and private school
to get the vaccines.
Any number of coercive policies, that is a road to nowhere.
That is absolutely an example of their failure,
not of their success.
So yes, we are winning and they are desperate.
We need to appreciate that.
And we need to strike now while we have the opportunity,
because if we lose it,
then we've lost it for a very, very long time.
And it is close to being lost.
So the thanks to people like you,
we're growing in number by the day.
And I gather you've got new people signing up just today,
then it is going to change.
But courage, we will provide.
Andrew, are you guessing that they're terrified?
Or I can't remember which word you used.
Are you guessing that they're terrified?
Or do you know from contacts that they're terrified?
I know from having dealt with public health
for a very long time,
having initially tried years ago to deal with the likes
of the Public Health Laboratory Service and David Salisbury,
there is a thin veneer of confidence,
but there is underlying that absolute,
they're terrified that they're losing.
And it's quite clear,
and if there was a proceeding
of the World Health Organization,
where the girl from the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine who is in charge of their sort
of think tank of how to persuade the unwilling,
how to get them to vaccinate,
then she really said,
we've become a vaccine dependent world.
We've lost the confidence of the public.
They don't believe us anymore.
What are we going to do about it?
And I think that that really is a public reflection
of something that is far worse below the surface.
So, yes, I think it's based upon my,
I don't sit in meetings with these people,
but otherwise I'm fairly confident.
I'm very confident knowing them as I do,
having dealt with them a lot in the past,
they know they've lost the COVID war.
They know that people don't trust them anymore.
They know that it's one of the biggest mistakes they've made.
All they can do is double down
and keep pushing people to get it,
but it's another failure.
And every time another person joins your ranks
or another someone like Peter McCullough stands up
and says, actually,
I'm one of the most published scientists in the world
and this is garbage.
Then they fall a little further apart.
So, yeah, I think you can take it that they are struggling.
That is well expressed.
Great question, Stephen.
Now, Andy, we have not Gerard Waters,
but Gerry Waters from Ireland.
Gerry, give us a quick, quick snapshot.
Don't go too much into your story,
but Gerry's in trouble with the authorities,
aren't you, Gerry? Tell Andy.
I, yes, you could consider I'm in trouble
with the authorities.
I was struck off the medical council,
struck off the medical register in March of 21
for my refusal to go along with the COVID hoax
and my refusal to give the vaccine.
I wasn't quite demonised the way you were, Andy.
And incidentally, Andy, again, I'd like to congratulate you.
You really have been,
you've been a shining star to so many people.
There are a number of points that you make
and it's interesting that you become a film maker.
When you were going through,
I'm a couple of years ahead of you,
I qualified a couple of years ahead of you
and I watched your case.
You, I remember thinking at the time,
it was a bit like the witch scene from Monty Python.
Oh, but she had the witch's nose.
Yes, you stuck it on.
She's got a wart.
Yeah, you stuck it on.
Does she float or what floats, ducks?
It's very much like that.
They, in your case, they made up,
they turned you into a witch.
They stuck the witch's hat on you.
And I'm sure you're familiar with that witch scene
in Monty Python.
It is indeed, yeah.
Yeah.
And the wise knight comes along
who's just as about as ridiculous,
which I would compare to the medical council.
Now you say that they're terrified.
I know they're terrified.
I was temporarily struck off
or temporarily suspended 18 months ago.
And they haven't brought me before a full hearing.
I was fortunate.
I was fortunate a week ago to spend some time.
I spent a day and a half with such luminaries
as Ryan Cole and Robert Malone.
And I got a reassurance from these men
that these guys will come as witnesses in my case,
when I go before the medical council.
If anybody's met Ryan Cole or Robert Malone personally,
they are formidable people.
Jerry, don't forget to spend some time with me too, right?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
And that, you know, you, I think you'd agree
that was a fabulous time we had.
It was a fun couple of days or day and a half,
just having breakfast with these guys and singing.
I think some of them sang until four o'clock at night.
I bailed out at one o'clock.
But these are great guys, but very, very formidable
and women of course, gay.
But so what I'm saying is these people
are really, really frightened.
I have these, what they call call over meetings with them
and they don't like dealing with me
because I don't, I'm not legally represented
and I want to keep it that way
because I can go to the call over meetings myself
and I'm not being hamstrung by the solicitors,
who as it turns out,
were on the side of the establishment anyway.
But there's, pardon that,
there's one or two actual questions I'd like to ask.
Did the vaccines, those MMRs that I was instrumental
on my nurse, I gave them,
my nurse gave over the 40 year period,
did they actually do any good or did they all do harm?
Like, am I as culpable now for giving those MMR vaccines
as the people who are complicit in the COVID-19 crime?
No, you're not, not at all.
Again, let me answer that.
It's an extremely important question,
but let me answer this from a broader perspective
that does not find you in any way
culpable and I qualify that by saying my children,
my own children, first two, I've got four,
had MMR vaccine, I did not know.
But I should have, I should have known,
I should have investigated before, but I didn't.
And that's so, if you're culpable, so am I.
But measles vaccine has,
measles up until 1920 was a major killer of children
during epidemics in Western countries,
1200 per million children would die during epidemics.
Beyond that point, there was a precipitous fall
in case fatality rate, such that by the time the vaccine,
the single measles vaccine was first introduced
in the 1960s, there had been a 99.96% reduction
in case fatality.
In other words, in a very short space of time,
measles was becoming a milder and milder disease.
If we'd done nothing, that curve would have decayed to zero.
It would have been nothing more than a mild cold.
That was the consequence of herd immunity.
That was because one, exposure protects for life
and protects people who are older getting measles
in whom the mortality is greater.
And because pregnant mothers who have had natural measles
give very good passive immunity to their babies
through breast milk and transpositively,
that protected babies under the age of one.
So at those two extremes of life,
where mortality was greater, much greater,
people were protected by natural herd immunity.
Vaccination has destroyed that.
We were promised one shot, leads to lifelong immunity.
It doesn't.
It wanes really rather quickly,
and we're now up to two, three, four doses,
and it's still falling off.
So now we are susceptible to measles again as adults
where it's more dangerous.
Mothers who've had measles, who had measles vaccine,
do not give good immunity to their babies.
So their babies are not protected
during the first year of life.
So measles has become a more dangerous disease
precisely because of vaccination.
So globally, yes, our giving the measles vaccine
has caused an ecological catastrophe in effect
because we have destroyed natural herd immunity.
But at an individual level, no,
you cannot be held any more culpable than I was
for not investigating it before giving it to my children.
Another thing, you say that, you know,
this isn't about you, this isn't about me.
But the fact of the matter is, it is about me.
The medical council came after me.
They wanted my head on a spike.
As an example, which they took,
as an example to other GPs, it ended up,
I was the only GP who was disciplined like that.
I don't know exactly how the other disciplines went,
but I know that I was the only one that actually ended up
with my career taken off me and totally demonized.
It is, it's not about me.
This is much, much bigger than me.
It's much, much bigger than you.
It's much, much bigger than the 124 people that are here.
But at the end of the day,
somebody has to be the point of the shaft.
Or has to be the point of the spear.
I don't mind being the point of the spear,
but I need a shaft behind me.
A spear is absolutely useless unless it's got a shaft.
Otherwise it's only a blade, a little blade.
So I keep saying this to people.
I don't mind.
I don't mind going in and facing the medical council.
I don't mind going giving talks.
But at the end of the day, it needs a really, the solution.
And the winning of this battle and this film
that you will eventually make about COVID-19
will be won on the basis of the masses,
the people coming in behind us.
But at the end of the day,
there has to be a point on the spear.
I didn't choose to be the point on the spear.
They chose me as the point on the spear.
So another thing that I want to ask you,
every time I hear,
when I hear of a pediatric gastrointestinal surgeon,
it brings me back to the ideas of intussusception.
You remember intussusception?
Oh yes, I do. Absolutely, yes.
It seems to be what I remember of pediatric surgery.
I started training in surgery.
But was there a viral association with intussusception?
Yes, there was.
And in fact, there's been a vaccine association.
As people, for the people who don't know,
intussusception is where the lymph glands,
particularly in the terminal ilium,
the end of the small bowel becomes so enlarged,
just like tonsils when you get an infection,
that the intestine treats them like a bolus of food
and drags them along and the bowel telescopes on itself
and the child obstructs and it becomes a surgical emergency.
And yes, a rotavirus infection and rotavirus vaccine
can cause intussusception.
In fact, one of the vaccines was withdrawn
because precisely because it caused intussusception.
So yes, that's the answer.
A final point.
This was the bridge too far.
This really was.
They in the rush to introduce this genocidal cause,
as I now reluctantly begin to believe,
that this is about killing off 15% of the population,
has been quoted on a number of occasions.
And I think in this rush, they went too far
because I don't think that they realized
that there was going to be the very close temporal association
between the vaccine and the deaths.
I think that's where they made the mistake.
And I think they thought that the deaths would come
five to three to five years afterwards,
whereas they're coming days afterwards, if not weeks.
And that's what I feel.
I think it's that bridge too far.
And as you say, I'm convinced that we're winning.
Yes, good.
I'm delighted to hear that.
Thank you for sharing your story.
Thank you.
Thank you, Gerard.
Gerard, could you email me?
Because maybe I can supply you with documents
which you can use to hit the Irish Medical Council with.
I've got a, I have emailed you before
and you don't read your emails.
You don't seem to read your emails.
Well, I do actually.
Yeah, I don't have time to reply sometimes.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, I will, I'll email you and I need any documents I can
and I need any statistics I can.
Well, as you say, you're the point of the spear
and you can do great damage.
So, with our help, obviously.
Yeah, you know, you guys have to be the shaft.
But at the end of the day, I don't mind.
I'm old enough now that I don't really care.
I've done what I need to do in life.
And I will die on this hill.
Beautifully put, Gerry.
Now, everybody on Sunday, and Andy,
this is also relevant to you.
I mentioned the 107 page report
by Dr. Philip Altman in Australia.
That's now circulating globally.
I'll put it in the chat.
I'll get it sent to you, Andy, as well,
as well as a letter to all the medical colleges in Australia
with a well-articulated letter
from the newly formed Australia Medical Practitioners Society.
And we're wanting that Philip Altman
beautifully updated state of the art report
to be sent to all medical colleges around the world.
And all of you can play a part in that.
And Gerry, this paper is designed to be used as evidence
in court case, in proceedings,
in proceedings against all medical regulators.
So I'll put that in the chat.
And if anyone needs an email,
then please put your email in the chat and I'll send it.
Gerry, thank you for that.
That's the Philip Altman report, 107 pages,
plus the covering letter to the medical colleges
that all of us can use.
Anna Mihalcia from America Doctor.
Anna, over to you.
Anna Mihalcia.
Sorry, I didn't pronounce that correctly.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Yeah, we can now.
Can you hear me all right?
No, it's fine.
I can hear you.
I can hear something.
Try it, Anna.
Try it now, Anna.
So, come on, Doctor, wait for the next...
It's breaking up a bit.
I'm a medicine physician by training.
I was a geriatrician.
I left the medical system because of vaccines.
And then I became a chelation practitioner.
So I detoxify people from heavy metals.
And what is interesting, you know,
all vaccines have been shown to have nanoparticle
contaminations with all kinds of metals,
from lead to lurium, steel.
And it doesn't matter.
We all have them.
We have graphene oxide and other metal in shots.
And one of the things that is important to understand
is that the metals cause DNA methylation,
which doesn't allow for microRNA to be transcribed,
which actually is in charge of regulating the genome.
And this can be passed on transgenerational.
For example, lead in women who were pregnant children
and impaired genetic expression,
and thereby increasing the diseases transgenerational.
So you can...
That happens with all metals that are put into the body
from a toxic perspective.
So my question is, you know,
pay for performance in the United States
is tied to vaccine administration.
My colleagues who know about the COVID vaccine
still continue to give every other shot
because their payment is dependent on it.
I, as an independent practitioner,
I don't give any vaccine.
And I've spoken out against vaccines for a long time.
How do we get colleagues to understand
that all vaccines are toxic
and they all have been used for depopulation
and to create sick customers ongoingly?
And if you just go after the metals, for example,
you already have enough toxicity for all of them
and we already have the proof.
What is your suggestion?
Because without doctors stopping to inject babies
and taking their paycheck more important
than the lives of the children, for example,
or the adults that they care for,
we're not gonna make headways
on the vaccine depopulation scheme.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
In this country, and I'll just give you as an example
for those not in America,
there was a physician, a pediatrician,
who stopped vaccinating and testified
before the state legislature on this
and said at the time that he lost
by giving up vaccination $700,000 a year in income.
That is the incentive for people
to keep doing what they're doing
and for violating their medical principle.
It's an absolute disgrace, which gives you some insight.
If that's just his bonus, what he gets,
what the income from these vaccines is.
I asked this very same question myself
and that was the reason I went into filmmaking
because filmmaking can take a complex story,
such as the history of the 1986 act,
make it entertaining first and foremost,
educational secondarily, and then people will watch it.
And you do the heavy lifting.
You tell a complex story in an entertaining way
and you can change many, many people's minds.
And so the next film that we're in production on,
pre-production at the moment, excuse me,
is a full length feature film.
And it is about a pharmaceutical industry fraud,
vaccine manufacturer fraud.
And hopefully it will bring people across the bridge
from the COVID vaccine and the horrors of that
to understand that this has been happening
with the childhood vaccine schedule forever.
And that is the purpose of this film,
one of the purposes of this film.
So the way in which I've approached this
is through filmmaking.
Other people will have their own ways
of contributing of doing it.
But that was the way in which I answered the question
for myself, what could we do?
So it's a beautiful, Ana, it's a beautiful example.
Do what you see needs to be done.
You're breaking up again.
So Ana, it's up to all of us.
I know you work hard, but it is up to all of us.
And none of us on this group can afford to just sit back
and wait for other people to do what we should be doing.
And the things that we think of,
because we stimulate each other
and we have all these ideas, twice weekly,
we have the chance to think about these things
and people trigger thoughts in our heads,
I think, certainly in mine.
And when John, sorry, when Andrew was speaking,
I don't know what you felt like,
but it was just like one thing after another.
I had a comment and a question
on everything he said just about.
But you are a very good speaker, Andrew, so.
You're very kind.
I have a production of a film called
Production Meeting coming up.
So I better get off very soon.
I could probably take one more question.
So.
All right.
So Ana, thank you for that.
Theresa from, no, you have two, Andy.
We've got Theresa from Wales and then John Stone,
because he organized for you to be.
Oh John, my dear friend.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
So Theresa from Wales.
Hi, hi, Andrew.
Thank you for presenting to us tonight.
I'm very grateful for everything that you've done.
I've worked with autistic children
and I've heard so many stories
about it being linked to the vaccine.
My question is this.
We know in this group that the COVID vaccine
is cytoneurocardiohepatogenotoxic
and many other toxicities.
And my question for you is,
is it really about money?
The vaccination, you know, the MMR
and the way these children are being injured by the vaccines.
Is it really about money or is it a form of warfare?
In that, I've seen forecasts of the number
of young children that will be autistic by 2032.
It could be as many as half of all children
by 2030.
You're breaking up Theresa.
No.
Still breaking up Theresa.
Maybe I should answer that question.
That due to an economy.
Okay, I'm sure you can.
Is it warfare?
You're quite right.
Just to give you people some perspective,
based on the CDC's numbers,
by 2032 it will be one in two children,
80% of boys since it's more common in boys.
And I just saw the other day that the numbers in New Jersey,
one in 14 children already, Belfast, one in 14 children.
So that's where on target for that horrendous number.
Is there another agenda?
Vaccination operates in my experience on various levels.
For some people, it's purely money.
It's almost religious zeal,
a belief that this is the best thing that man has ever done.
We were there with antibiotics
until the tragedy of multi-resistant,
highly pathogenic organisms evolving precisely
because of the inappropriate use of antibiotics.
And we're headed the same way with vaccines.
And for some people,
this is the basis of a film that I recently made
with Bobby Kennedy.
I didn't believe that there was a population control agenda
until I made a film about it.
And I realized that the World Health Organization
has been quite clear and has been funding Dr. Talwar
in New Delhi in India to produce, to experiment
and produce an anti-fertility vaccine for many years,
since the 70s.
He optimized it in the 90s,
and it's been used clandestinely around the world
since that time amongst in populations such as Kenya.
So please, if you want to see the facts behind that,
for free, you can go and watch
Infertility, a Diabolical Agenda,
which is a short movie, 30 minutes,
that I made recently released with Bobby.
And it tells the story,
a story that I did not know of before this,
an absolutely extraordinary story.
And you can watch that for free on
Infertility, the movie.com.
And so there are many, many agendas.
But yes, warfare against mankind is certainly one of them.
Yeah, I've run the figures myself.
This thing's going exponential.
And I can't see any way that it's not gonna be
half of kids by 2032,
which will destroy Western civilization.
Thank you.
Thank you, Theresa.
Last one, John Stone.
How appropriate that you're the last one, Ferrandi.
Hi, John.
Hi, great to see you.
Thanks for everything.
Wonderful talk and for everything you've ever done for us all.
One thing that,
a piece of history that I sort of,
I believe I reconstructed a couple of years ago,
was where, I mean, obviously,
there were various motives going on.
Obviously, you said certain things,
which were unacceptable.
Of course, as we know,
the scale of the vaccine industry
absolutely escalated in the period.
I reckon that from 2000 on,
the actual burden,
financial burden of the vaccine schedule
had risen by more than a hundred times.
And if you'd been allowed to say what you said
and not been made an example of,
then they could have,
people could have picked and chosen their vaccines
rather than saying, well, you've got to have everything.
You have all these multi-vaccines
and you've got to have everything together.
Then the whole project would have failed.
The other thing that I came across
and researched as I had a couple of years ago
was that the origins of this,
first of all, it was a great project of Tony Blair
to amalgamate Glaxo Welcome with Smithclime Beecham.
And this, he was already trying this in 98.
He was only, I think, finally achieved at the beginning of 2002
and immediately after that,
it wasn't actually doing very well.
But I believe that there were, at that time,
there was an incredibly close bond
between Blair personally and Rupert Murdoch.
James Murdoch didn't come into the picture until 2009
when he was made a GSK board member.
And immediately after that,
you've got the second wave of Brian Deer's allegations.
Rupert Murdoch was godfather
to one of Blair's children, wasn't he?
Exactly so, exactly that's the point.
In 2000, I believe he became godfather to,
Blair became godfather to one of Murdoch's children in 2002.
These men were absolutely like that.
So if Blair wanted to finish you off,
then Murdoch would do it for him.
Right, thank you John.
Thank you for that insight.
And I better go, but thank you very much for having me on.
I once said to John,
he was about to stop his wonderful writings on the subject.
I said, John, one day your writings will be used
for teaching medical students and they will.
So keep going, my friend.
And thank you very much for having me on.
Andrew, can I just ask you,
have you seen the film Dopesick?
I haven't yet, I am very keen to see it.
So I just got myself a television.
I haven't had a television for a long time.
Have you read The Empire of Pain?
No.
Which is the book that is based on,
or I wondered whether it actually was based on that
and whether they'd taken the opportunity
to describe the opioid crisis in such a way
that people would recognise the parallels
with what's been going on for the past two and a half years.
Yes.
It's very, very interesting.
And it's like nudge, nudge.
It's an eight part series, I think.
I can't remember where you can see it,
but it's absolutely brilliant.
I've seen two parts of it.
I must see the other six.
I will be watching it.
Absolutely.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much for coming.
We only have been almost two hours.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for organizing.
God bless you, Andrew.
God bless.
Bye bye.