Video Information: 'Here's an interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the structure of scientific revolutions. Here's some of what he says in this interview: 'I've grown to have a huge respect for [infectious bacteria and viruses] over the years. We are here on the Earth now because of infection. Not in spite of it, because of it. Our immune system has been fashioned, shaped, designed over millions of years, since we first emerged from the primordial soup as single-celled organisms to evolve a hugely complex immune system that is a result of its interaction, its education with infectious agents. They are the prime factor in developing our immune responsiveness. By going from a respiratory route of infection of a natural virus to an injected form of infection... from going from a different strain, a different route, a different dose of infection and a different mean population age of exposure to infection, so kids used to get mumps at 7 to 10 years of age, now they get it at 18 months -- when you change that subtle ecological balance which has evolved over such a long time, it is no wonder that you are going to have unexpected, unintended consequences. The other thing, of course, is that we've now come to learn that so many infections or so many infectious agents are actually beneficial. We require them for education of our gut immune system. The exposure of the gut, the colonization of the gut, the gut flora very early on, is a major determiner of how our immune system [develops.] I've become a great respecter of infectious agents and their ability to elude us, to cause problems that we did not expect, and if we believe in our exquisite arrogance that we can exploit them, manipulate them in a test tube, give them back to people and exploit them in a way we call attenuated, then the virus will laugh at us. It will simply laugh, because it has a collective intelligence that will not allow that to happen. You're fighting mutations that are collectively more intelligent, more adaptable, and ultimately can cause what, we don't know. But you also create a population that now becomes dependent on vaccination. Not just the first vaccine, but the second, the third, the fourth... it never ends. You create a population that is dependent on immunization. I talk to many scientists, many physicians whose children are affected by autism following vaccines who say I know there is a problem, but we don't dare step out of line. We look at what happened to you, and we don't dare step out of line. ...And I do meet these people all the time, and to me that's unacceptable. Because the future of the world depends upon the wellbeing of our children. [Science] has sold out to the pharmaceutical industry, and to the pharma-government complex. Medical schools are dependent upon their funding in large part from the pharmaceutical industry, or pharmaceutical industry influences, and this is dancing with the Devil in respect to the way in which science should be conducted, and the influences placed upon it. This is what happened to me, there were constraints placed upon my valid vaccine safety research, because in the UK, the government had done a deal with the pharmaceutical industry that meant the government had picked up their liability for a knowingly dangerous Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine. They licensed a vaccine in July of 1997 which had, in that same month, been withdrawn in Canada for safety reasons. They knew it was not safe. It was cheaper. They put price before the wellbeing of children. Now we've seen time and time again the corruption, the abuse of science, and it's happening largely on one side of this equation. You are told time and time again there are 14, 17, 20, millions of papers which exonerate the vaccine, saying there's no link between mercury thimerosal preservative and vaccinations. In fact when the data are analyzed, when the studies are looked at comprehensively, 74 percent of those studies' published data support a link between mercury and autism. And yet the public are being told, through this vast public relations machine, that the science is over, it's ruled it out. And when you take the science that proposes it is ruled out and reanalyze it correctly, which Dr Desoto did from the University of Northern Iowa, it shows exactly the opposite effect, and the scientists who wrote the original papers had to change their findings and conclusions. They had not analyzed the data properly. So science in the private interest, I'm afraid, is damaging for the people. And that's what we're seeing at the moment. What happens to a population that becomes dependent for its very survival on vaccines? Who are we, and our children, and our grandchildren, then beholden to? And are the people we are beholden to, the pharmaceutical industry, are they actually capable of anticipating what that bacteria or virus is going to do next? No. Because they've never thought about it in the first place. So we are creating a marketplace; we are creating a wonderful revenue model; and we are creating a potential time bomb for the population. You cannot sterilize the world, nor should you. This whole notion of the Germ Theory needs to be radically modified in light of what we now know, so that we have scientists who acknowledge that this fundamental and very essential ecological interaction between man and microbe, or plant and microbe, is vital... but you have a commercial imperative which pays no heed to that at all. You're taking children and you're giving them ethyl mercury from day one... indeed now in pregnant women in the influenza vaccine, and you are potentially very likely biological, plausibly, poisoning the immune system of those individuals, biasing it towards an immune response that is not protective against viral infections, and then you're giving live viruses? What is the outcome of that going to be? Aluminum is known to influence the immune system in the same way. Indeed, that's why it's there [in the vaccines]. It's there to promote an antibody response, a response which does not bias the immune system towards protection from intracellular organisms like viruses. You are deliberately doing it. So when you then give a live viral vaccine, what is the compound effect of that? When you're giving them all at the same time, what is the compound effect? No one knows. Why? Because no one's looking. Why? Because no one cares enough, that's why. Do not take these infectious agents, these known toxins for granted. Do not make assumptions about them, particularly when you're using them in combination because they will produce untoward effects that you don't even expect, that you are not looking for, [that] you have not got on your list of adverse reactions that are known to be caused by this virus. You won't find them. Because you have changed the whole interaction between the infectious agent, or the neurotoxin and the immune system. That's what you've changed, something so fundamental. If you're going to get involved in this kind of debate, then you as the scientist need to study the history of medicine, the history of science as well, and understand this is the fate of many people who go out on a limb, who make extraordinary claims. That's what's going to happen. You mustn't expect to be exonerated in your lifetime... or ever. But you must stick to the scientific principle and pursue the hypothesis until its natural conclusion, and not abandon it because you're put under political, financial or other pressures, if you can. Now, there is an additional imperative for a physician to do it, who is looking at these children... As long as I don't suffer from the vainglorious belief that this is all going to be resolved in my lifetime -- I hope it is for the sake of these children -- but I'm so far beyond that notion that I need some kind of redemption from the American Academy of Pediatrics, or The Lancet, I don't. These are instruments of a state that I don't really want to be associated with. I would like to stick to the principles of medical science, and that's my job. And I won't be deterred from that.'
