The Peter Attia Drive - #158 - Brian Deer： A tale of scientific fraud—exposing Andrew Wakefield and the origin of the belief that vaccines cause autism

00:00:00.000 Hey, everyone. Welcome to the drive podcast. I'm your host, Peter Atiyah. This podcast,

00:00:15.480 my website, and my weekly newsletter all focus on the goal of translating the science of longevity

00:00:19.800 into something accessible for everyone. Our goal is to provide the best content in health

00:00:24.600 and wellness, full stop. And we've assembled a great team of analysts to make this happen.

00:00:28.880 If you enjoy this podcast, we've created a membership program that brings you far more

00:00:33.280 in-depth content. If you want to take your knowledge of the space to the next level,

00:00:36.820 at the end of this episode, I'll explain what those benefits are. Or if you want to learn more

00:00:41.320 now, head over to peteratiyahmd.com forward slash subscribe. Now, without further delay,

00:00:47.740 here's today's episode. My guest this week is Brian Deer. Brian is a multi award-winning

00:00:55.060 investigative journalist, perhaps best known for his inquiries into drug companies and the drug

00:01:00.800 industry in general. But we talk this week about work that he did initially for the Sunday Times

00:01:07.640 of London that ultimately led to a book, The Doctor Who Fooled the World, Science, Deception,

00:01:13.300 and the War on Vaccines. And as much as it sounds like this is going to be a podcast about vaccines,

00:01:19.980 while it certainly is, it's much more a discussion about fraud in science using this particular

00:01:27.360 example as a case. I read the book as soon as it came out, I believe in the fall of last year,

00:01:34.080 read it again, and then reached out to Brian requesting an interview. Brian was willing to speak,

00:01:40.360 but on the condition that we spoke very briefly, I think he was only willing to speak for maybe 40

00:01:44.760 minutes, which I said, that's short, but let's take it. And I suppose to the credit of the fact

00:01:50.160 that he enjoyed the discussion, this discussion obviously goes on much longer than 40 minutes.

00:01:53.780 So what I guess I would say here is I know this is a very polarizing topic and it's polarizing

00:01:57.940 for many reasons, but what I want to accomplish in this episode is actually get to the heart of the

00:02:05.460 story. So unfortunately I believe too many people enjoy the convenience of opinion without the

00:02:15.380 inconvenience of thought. And I know that sounds like a really harsh thing to say, but if I had a

00:02:20.500 dollar for every time I spoke with a person who had a point of view on something, but didn't fully

00:02:25.840 understand the Genesis or ideology of that, I would have a lot of dollars. And I think frankly,

00:02:32.380 I'm probably guilty of that myself in a number of areas, though I try to be mindful of this.

00:02:37.500 So in this episode, what we really do is go to the heart of the issue, which is where is it that

00:02:44.000 the belief that vaccines cause autism comes from? And to do that, you actually have to really

00:02:49.120 understand the work of one guy named Andrew Wakefield and his collaborators. And we go into

00:02:54.960 that story in great detail. I will not suggest that this podcast is a substitute for actually reading

00:03:01.200 the book and reading other books on this topic, but nevertheless, it's a very good primer on the

00:03:07.780 subject matter. And I would recommend after listening to it, if you find this subject interesting,

00:03:12.980 reading the book as it is both disturbing and riveting at the same time. So without further

00:03:18.560 delay, please enjoy my conversation with Brian Deere.

00:03:21.500 Brian, thanks so much for staying up somewhat later, I guess in the afternoon, evening,

00:03:31.360 your time. It's really an honor to be able to speak with you here today about such an important

00:03:34.900 topic. I think as I told you, when I reached out to you, this is certainly a subject matter I've paid

00:03:39.780 very close attention to for a number of years, but I was still somewhat surprised by some of the

00:03:45.920 revelations in your book. When I first read it, I actually had to read it a second time

00:03:50.200 to fully assimilate all of it, at which point I reached out to you and said, look, I'd really

00:03:55.220 love to speak with you. So I'm grateful for the time you've made. I'm sure this is a tale you tell

00:03:59.660 often. Well, thank you, Peter. Good to be here. Let's just get right to the chase. Obviously,

00:04:04.960 surveys of people around the world, certainly I can speak in the United States and the UK,

00:04:09.280 a sizable portion of the population believe that autism is likely or probably caused by

00:04:16.180 vaccines. Is that a fair statement today? It's a very well-known opinion. I don't know what the

00:04:21.600 precise polling is at the moment, but yes, there's tended to be quite a strong view about that,

00:04:27.120 particularly I think in North America, not so much in the UK at the moment. But yeah,

00:04:31.040 I think that's true. A lot of people have this idea. This is not something that you were paying

00:04:36.200 enormous attention to initially. You were, I don't want to say a latecomer to this, but

00:04:41.600 you weren't, I gather, paying close attention to this in the early 1990s or even earlier because

00:04:47.260 the idea itself that a vaccine could cause harm has certainly been around for probably more than

00:04:53.240 a hundred years, correct? Sure. Sure. Yeah. Different vaccines. Yes. But the idea that it might

00:04:58.420 cause autism arose in the late 1990s. Let's just talk about the story because there's a character that is

00:05:05.380 at the center of this story, a character by the name of Andrew Wakefield, a former physician who,

00:05:11.100 I have to be honest with you, I think prior to reading your book, the impression I had was that

00:05:16.280 he was a misguided and not particularly competent physician. But I don't think I was aware of some of

00:05:25.620 the other, shall we say, behaviors that would, I think, go beyond a lack of competence or scientific

00:05:32.560 rigor. Yeah. On that point, it's an interesting point because when I started researching the book,

00:05:38.840 I'm reasonably experienced in the nature of storytelling for one reason or another. I've

00:05:43.640 gone into it a little bit in my life. I really wanted to try and have some kind of arc of development

00:05:49.820 in this character. So I was looking to give him the benefit of the doubt in his early years.

00:05:56.460 This is a guy who, as you say, he's a physician, or in fact, he trained as a surgeon. He went off from

00:06:03.360 the UK to Canada in the late 1980s, where he studied at Toronto General Hospital. Originally,

00:06:10.680 he was observing doctors there who were trying to do the world's first whole bowel transplant. That was

00:06:18.200 the idea they had at the time. And he was a trainee there, but he moved very quickly away from surgery.

00:06:24.620 We've never entirely found out the reason why he did that. Very unusual thing to do because his

00:06:32.220 mother told me that he'd always wanted to be a surgeon, nothing else but to be a surgeon. He moved

00:06:37.720 away into research. And when I went back into those years, I really wanted to make him look believable,

00:06:46.020 credible, almost heroic, because it's a better story. If you're trying to draw people in,

00:06:52.340 they want something to latch onto. They want to get the idea that this was a good guy who, as you say,

00:06:59.300 was misguided, was perhaps incompetent, perhaps moved away from the things that he really understood.

00:07:05.520 But I never really was able to find anything that evidenced that. At a very early stage,

00:07:13.300 he demonstrated a fanatical obsession with proving that a particular infectious agent caused a particular

00:07:24.780 issue. And nothing would shake him from the idea he latched onto. And the way he latched onto it was

00:07:32.000 so extraordinary and so absurd that it was really very difficult to give him a good, positive, heroic,

00:07:41.040 sympathetic start in the story.

00:07:44.940 Let's talk about his eureka moment, which, if I recall, was, oh, I don't know, it was on Yonge Street

00:07:50.140 or Bathurst Street or something like that. It was in a pub drinking a Guinness. What was the amazing

00:07:55.960 insight that he had in that pub in Toronto in the late 80s?

00:08:00.200 Well, what happened was, the story which he told to another journalist, it's a remarkable piece of history

00:08:06.080 because it never surfaced anywhere else other than an interview he did with another journalist,

00:08:11.500 was that he was, as I say, working at the Toronto General Hospital, where they were looking into the

00:08:17.760 possibilities of whole bowel transplants. The reason one might want to do that is in order to deal with Crohn's

00:08:23.640 disease. Most people, I think, have an idea of what Crohn's disease is. It's an appalling, ulcerating,

00:08:29.800 blistering, burning disease of the bowels. And nobody knows what causes it. Even today,

00:08:36.420 nobody knows what causes it. People have got ideas and there's been a lot of epidemiology, but

00:08:41.060 I don't know if you've ever looked at it yourself, but the epidemiology of Crohn's disease is just

00:08:45.440 totally baffling and bizarre. And no matter how many books you stack up on a table to try and

00:08:51.640 understand it, you just realise it's just better to walk away and just believe it. He was in this pub,

00:08:57.800 is the way he tells it, and he wanted to find out what the cause of Crohn's disease was. And the

00:09:04.920 mythology or the legend that he has sought to create is that he didn't want to spend his life chopping

00:09:11.180 out bits of gut, which is normally what happens if you get Crohn's disease. In addition to heavy

00:09:16.640 duty, very heavy duty drug therapy, usually you end up having pieces of your gut chopped out.

00:09:23.700 So he wanted to find out the cause as being a much more credible course in life. And I give him that

00:09:31.040 credit at the start and I set it up like that. He was trying to discover the cause of Crohn's disease.

00:09:36.480 And he's looking into this pint of Guinness and he says, well, thinks to himself, well,

00:09:41.520 the conventional wisdom is that Crohn's disease was caused by bacteria, food, some kind of allergic

00:09:47.480 reaction inside the gut. And he came to the idea, well, maybe it isn't that. Maybe it was a disease of

00:09:54.740 the blood supply to the gut wall and an infectious agent. Now, this was in the late 1980s. This was when

00:10:03.180 AIDS was really big in the news and really an intractable problem. Obviously, in the case of AIDS,

00:10:10.460 they found an infectious agent. So he thought, well, what could the infectious agent be?

00:10:17.080 And he came back to London and got a job at a really, to be fair at that time, a third rate

00:10:22.860 London medical school, the Royal Free in Hampstead, North London. He was still on the budget of the

00:10:29.340 Wellcome Trust, which at the time, today, the Wellcome Trust is a preeminent medicine and health

00:10:35.900 related charity. Absolutely blue chip gives out enormous sums of money and really is in many ways

00:10:42.020 financial engine behind the United Kingdom's extraordinary success or apparent success

00:10:47.960 dealing with the coronavirus outbreak because of the sequencing, which is being carried out here

00:10:54.120 on a massive scale, largely with funding that was originally given by the Wellcome Trust. But at the

00:11:00.100 time, it was the, if you like, the grant giving arm of a pharmaceutical company. He was on their budget

00:11:06.700 and he came back to London and he would be on their budget for a couple of years at this hospital and

00:11:11.920 medical school, but he was going to inevitably be moved off their budget onto the budget of the

00:11:17.240 medical school. He's there, the clock's ticking. He's got this idea about Crohn's disease. He goes to

00:11:24.100 the library, goes to the hospital library and takes out, or at least reads there, a two-volume

00:11:31.580 encyclopedia of viruses called Fields Virology. Big thing is, a couple of bricks thick in its two volumes

00:11:37.920 and starts going through it until he eventually comes to measles virus. And there he sees a paragraph

00:11:46.600 which says that in acute measles infection, the measles virus can be found in the gut, in the colon

00:11:54.580 and the intestines generally. And he thinks, ah, in Crohn's disease, this blistering that you get

00:12:01.240 produces little ulcers. Measles, acute measles infection, characteristically, in fact, it's pathognomic,

00:12:08.640 I think, of the disease. In measles, you get things called coplic spots, which are little spots,

00:12:14.420 mostly in the mouth. He came to the conclusion that these coplic spots were essentially the same

00:12:21.140 thing as was seen in the bowels when somebody has measles, usually a child. So he thinks, ah,

00:12:28.400 I found it. This is my eureka moment. Measles virus is the cause of Crohn's disease. Now, just as a

00:12:36.720 little aside, the thing about fulminant measles is you can find it everywhere in the body. I mean,

00:12:43.000 you wouldn't just find it in the gut. You wouldn't just find it in the mouth. You find it everywhere.

00:12:46.620 I mean, for the period of acute infection, you can find measles all over. So nothing surprising.

00:12:52.720 But that's where he started off. And he then set about trying to prove that measles virus was the

00:13:00.480 cause of Crohn's disease. Now, if the measles virus is, in fact, the cause of Crohn's disease,

00:13:06.520 and the measles virus is waning because of vaccination, is it safe to say then that the

00:13:12.720 next leap is a vaccine that introduces a small amount of measles could still be causing a

00:13:19.480 problem? Is that the next step? The thing about Wakefield was because he wasn't a scientist,

00:13:24.460 he wasn't trained in science. He trained as a surgeon, as a particular psychology, I think.

00:13:30.880 And I think, as I say in the book, in science, courage isn't about proving yourself right.

00:13:37.480 It's in your efforts to prove yourself wrong, your efforts at a very early stage to try and

00:13:42.600 refute your own hypothesis. So a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a guess. So you start off with

00:13:48.600 a guess, and then you try and prove it wrong, rather than try and prove it right. Obviously,

00:13:53.000 you're collecting data that supports it. In order to work in a rational way, you try to prove yourself

00:13:58.520 wrong. And he never got to that second stage. At any time in his life, he never got to the stage

00:14:04.840 of trying to question his own ideas, to doubt himself. And this, I think many people came to

00:14:12.040 regard as an extraordinary flaw of character, possibly for anybody, but certainly for scientists.

00:14:17.920 I'll just interject, Brian, with one of my favorite scientists who you can probably see behind me,

00:14:22.100 Richard Feynman, very famous for having said, and I'm paraphrasing, that the first principle in science

00:14:28.000 is not to fool yourself effectively. You're absolutely right. When one comes up with a

00:14:33.520 hypothesis, the goal is to do everything you can to demonstrate it is incorrect. And even the word

00:14:40.960 proof in science is a loaded word, isn't it? Because unlike mathematics, we really don't have proofs in

00:14:47.580 science. Everything is probabilistic, which I want to get to later. And you look at a body of literature,

00:14:55.720 a body of experiments. You try to ascertain, perhaps just as a court would, what does the

00:15:03.360 mountain of evidence suggest in one direction or another versus say in science, relying on an

00:15:09.280 anecdote or something like that. So I couldn't agree with you more. And I think you're right,

00:15:13.320 by the way, I trained as a surgeon. I would go one step further and say, this is not just about

00:15:18.280 surgery. I just don't think medicine, the actual discipline of medicine does a lot in the way of

00:15:24.300 scientific training. So it is true that many people who train in medicine also go on to receive

00:15:29.780 scientific training. But in speaking for myself, none of the scientific training I learned came

00:15:36.040 from medical school. Medical school was really geared towards getting as many facts as possible

00:15:41.560 into your head. You certainly learned a bit about the history of science. You were fortunate to put in

00:15:46.240 context what other people had done and how we were able to utilize that information. But in terms of

00:15:52.480 the scientific method, this idea that you generate a hypothesis, you figure out what the right questions

00:15:59.320 are to test it, you design experiments, you critically look for all the ways you could be

00:16:04.300 fooled. That is very difficult to learn unless you spend time in a laboratory and you're well mentored.

00:16:10.460 I actually never take offense to the idea when people say doctors don't understand science,

00:16:15.100 which is usually something that someone with real scientific chops would level as a criticism.

00:16:18.840 I think that's right. So there he is with this attempt to prove himself right. As you say about

00:16:26.760 medicine, medicine, I sometimes liken to like learning Chinese. The method essentially is that

00:16:32.080 you read books and you sit in lecture halls and you see things. And if you ask a question, why is that

00:16:37.320 so? Then the person who's teaching you will essentially say, because I say so. That's what it is. You just have

00:16:42.700 to learn this stuff like a European learning Chinese. This is this symbol. This is this. This is this.

00:16:48.900 Don't question it. Just learn it. But the scientific method obviously is different now. But what Wakefield

00:16:53.780 would do, and it's all over his work, it's everywhere. You find a particular word. It's almost his favorite

00:16:59.440 word. And his favorite word was consistent. So he would say this particular finding or this piece of

00:17:08.360 data or whatever is consistent with his hypothesis. But of course, the thing about consistence, I mean,

00:17:16.180 it is consistent that the orbit of mercury is related to, I don't know, inflammatory bowel disease.

00:17:24.480 It's consistent that mercury rose this morning. You could link any things together and say they're

00:17:30.260 consistent. It's consistent with me talking to you.

00:17:33.400 It's an even sillier word than associated with, which means nothing, right?

00:17:37.880 Yeah. It means it's not a refutation. But he used this word consistent all the time and never

00:17:43.760 stopped. And he never stopped to question at any stage or carry out any kind of experiment or

00:17:51.320 research or anything that would conflict with that commitment to the idea that this stage, that

00:17:58.520 measles virus was the cause of Crohn's disease. When anybody else came up with contrary information,

00:18:06.640 so for example, he would say, I don't have a background in medicine or science. I had to learn

00:18:11.320 it all from nothing to do this work. He would use, for example, a technology called, well,

00:18:18.140 immunohistochemistry. It's essentially a chemical staining, a microscopic staining technique. And so you

00:18:24.800 take bits of tissue out the gut and you prepare it and you stain it and with certain things and use

00:18:31.620 certain antibodies and what have you. And you look down a microscope and if the thing that you're

00:18:36.020 looking for, in this case, it would be measles, you'll see a stain, a change in the colour in the

00:18:41.020 stain. It's usually brown. So this is a microscopic technique. But then other centres around the world,

00:18:47.560 other universities in Japan and in the United States and in the UK, people used what is now,

00:18:54.700 probably everybody knows what it is now, PCR, the polymerase chain reaction, which is now big news all

00:19:00.300 over because of efforts to tackle the coronavirus. When people use this molecular method, they couldn't

00:19:07.500 find the measles virus. Well, anyway, I won't go into the whole detail. They couldn't find the measles

00:19:12.660 virus. Now, I once was giving a talk. I can't remember where it was. It was somewhere in the States.

00:19:17.320 I can't remember. It was a lab meeting with biology students. So they were like about 18 or something

00:19:23.400 like that. And I said that he'd found measles virus using immunohistochemistry. Other people used the

00:19:31.120 polymerase chain reaction. And Wakeford's answer to that was that the PCR wasn't sensitive enough,

00:19:38.420 at which point, to my initial surprise, my audience laughed. I didn't realise it was that funny.

00:19:46.660 I mean, I realised it was rather paradoxical to suggest you could find something under a microscope

00:19:51.120 that you cannot find at a molecular level. But that was the lengths that Wakefield would go to

00:19:57.000 to stick with his hypothesis that measles virus was the cause of Crohn's disease.

00:20:03.680 And let's put that in context, Brian. So in 1993, I believe, is when he first published that paper

00:20:10.960 in the Journal of Virology. Is that correct? Using his immunohistochemistry.

00:20:15.380 Journal of Medical Virology. Yeah.

00:20:17.180 Yeah. J-Med Viral. Right. And he published in there saying, we've identified this using

00:20:22.500 immunohistochemistry. As you said, it was two years later that a Japanese group using PCR

00:20:28.420 said, we cannot replicate these results under any circumstance.

00:20:32.680 Do you have a sense what the scientific community thought at that time? First of all, it's not

00:20:40.020 impossible for scientific results to conflict. But was it just sort of dismissed as, well,

00:20:47.440 maybe there was an artifact. Maybe there was a contamination. Maybe this person didn't understand

00:20:53.440 how to do the assay correctly. Maybe their controls weren't right. Because remember, I'm saying just for

00:20:59.020 the listener, science is about advancing knowledge. It's about being at the edge of what is known and

00:21:04.260 unknown and trying to advance that. And this is a potentially interesting hypothesis. Let's

00:21:09.660 acknowledge that if measles is the cause of Crohn's disease, this would be a very important thing to

00:21:13.320 know. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just sort of curious in hindsight or retrospect, in the mid-90s, when PCR,

00:21:22.080 which at that point was becoming the way that you would do this type of assay. So now the gold standard for

00:21:28.020 the reasons that I think we'll get into later on, because I want to get into O'Leary's lab

00:21:32.360 and really understand how one can be fooled. I think that's the most interesting part of the

00:21:37.100 whole thing for me. But anyway. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So did you get a sense of how the scientific

00:21:42.160 community viewed Wakefield's work at that time prior to 1998? Because when we get to 98, it's a

00:21:48.220 whole other ball of wax. Well, when you say the scientific community, first, you've got to remember that

00:21:52.040 this is a fairly specialist field. So there wouldn't be a lot of people watching this thing too

00:21:57.460 carefully. Even outside of gastroenterology? Within gastroenterology, I mean, I'm sorry.

00:22:01.960 Yeah, within gastroenterology, people would pay a little bit of attention to it. But it's a very

00:22:05.740 small community of scientists who work in this area. And I just think they mostly all know each

00:22:09.960 other. They all go to the same drug industry sponsored conferences. But within that, there were

00:22:15.760 people who thought that he was incompetent because it appeared that he'd been using inappropriate

00:22:22.560 controls in his work. His microscopic work, looking at stains under a microscope, involved controls.

00:22:32.880 So people were saying, well, how is he getting these results with controls? Because you would

00:22:38.680 expect to see if he was using the technique wrongly, you would expect it to show up in not

00:22:44.320 only in the specimens, but also the controls, if it was contamination or something like that.

00:22:48.780 He was claiming to use controls. And some people thought he was incompetent. But there were other

00:22:53.620 people. And I could name, and I don't think he would mind me naming it, a professor in London

00:22:59.020 called Tom MacDonald, now the Dean of Research, in fact, at a medical centre where the Queen's husband

00:23:07.100 is currently resident, as we speak. He was of the view, even then, that Wakefield's work was fraudulent,

00:23:14.440 that he was concocting results, even then. And that created a problem for me, as I was saying

00:23:19.960 earlier, because I wanted to like paint Wakefield in the best possible light. So I never really in

00:23:25.000 the book went too much into that, I suppose, to be authorial about it. I didn't want to piss on my

00:23:31.940 own bonfire. I mean, I didn't want to lead people from the get go to suspect that he was doing what

00:23:40.040 he came to be shown to be doing elsewhere. So I kind of glossed over that a little bit. But there

00:23:45.180 were people even then who said that his work was fraudulent. And in fact, Professor MacDonald

00:23:50.040 declined to go when he was part of a team at another London hospital, who moved to where Wakefield was

00:23:56.940 going to work, or was working in Hampstead, North London. And he refused to go, he took a much less

00:24:02.960 interesting and I don't know whether it was a better paid or worse paid job, way away from 100 miles or so

00:24:08.400 away from London, rather than go and work in a place where Wakefield was. So there was no clear

00:24:12.540 consensus as what explained how it could be that Wakefield would find these things by microscopic

00:24:18.580 techniques. In fact, he said that he'd seen the virus under a microscope. I think it's important

00:24:24.100 to explain to people that that's not possible. That was the claim in the paper. That was the claim.

00:24:29.260 Was this an electron? I thought you meant light microscopy. When we get to him seeing it,

00:24:33.340 it was an electron. And ultimately, that came apart. The wheels came off that one as well.

00:24:37.900 But that was the idea. But so there was this confusion. And medicine, as I certainly found,

00:24:44.120 I certainly found this as I went on through my inquiries. Doctors, I think, and perhaps

00:24:50.040 professionals generally, are very reluctant to come to the conclusion that somebody is dishonest,

00:24:56.980 as opposed to wrong. But dishonesty inevitably requires the intent to deceive or intent to mislead.

00:25:05.120 People are very reluctant to come to that conclusion. That's understandable. You want to give people the

00:25:11.320 benefit of the doubt. So the world just kind of moved on and accepted that there was this doctor

00:25:16.460 with a little team of people he was trying to gather together in London, who maintained that measles

00:25:22.760 virus was the cause of Crohn's disease in the face of really very compelling evidence from multiple

00:25:29.500 centers that in Crohn's disease, measles was not a causal factor. Wakefield just dismissed these other

00:25:37.320 centers and said they didn't know what they were doing. But he did. They were looking in the wrong

00:25:41.500 place or the virus was present in levels below the threshold of detection by PCR, but not below the

00:25:49.580 level of detection by microscopic immunohistochemistry techniques, which in itself...

00:25:54.500 I'm trying to think of an analogy because obviously I've done both of these techniques

00:25:59.200 personally. And there are people listening to this who have spent time in a laboratory that

00:26:03.220 will understand how ridiculous and absurd that statement is. But I appreciate that most people

00:26:07.100 don't. And I'm trying to think of an analogy. It's sort of like saying, I can see the details on the

00:26:14.980 moon with my naked eye, but I can't see them with the most high powered telescope because the resolution

00:26:23.880 isn't good enough. It's not a good telescope or you don't know how to use it properly.

00:26:27.660 Yeah. It's not a good enough telescope lens. So that's why I can't see what's on the moon. That's

00:26:32.140 why you can't see what's there, but I can see it with my naked eye. That's how absurd that claim is.

00:26:37.320 That's why I say undergraduate biology students laughed when I was really interested. I used it

00:26:43.880 ever since. They laughed. Let's fast forward a few years now into a place where his thesis

00:26:50.780 undergoes a change. A new layer is added to this and it becomes effectively the main story that you are

00:27:00.600 writing about, which is a very famous paper that came out in 1998 in a very famous and highly regarded

00:27:08.280 journal called the Lancet, which would probably rank in the top five in the world scientifically.

00:27:15.460 So let's talk a little bit about that paper, which I have to admit, I don't think at the time I

00:27:22.800 realized how pathetic it was. In other words, it's a very poorly done report on the

00:27:30.600 12 patients, not recruited at random. I mean, you're going to go through all of this, but

00:27:36.120 it's outright amazing that the Lancet published it in the first place, let alone took so long

00:27:41.140 to basically pull it. But let's talk about what it is that took Wakefield down this new path to

00:27:48.940 perhaps an even bigger discovery or idea. Right. After he came up with this idea about measles

00:27:56.340 virus causing Crohn's disease, one criticism that was leveled was that, well, you say that

00:28:01.860 measles virus is causing Crohn's disease, but at the time, which is not true now, but at the time,

00:28:07.480 the incidence of Crohn's disease was rising and measles was in decline because of the advent of

00:28:13.700 vaccination. The vaccine itself, he realized, he needed an encyclopedia to tell him this,

00:28:19.660 he realized contained live measles virus. So he modified his theory, his hypothesis at that stage

00:28:27.420 to encompass vaccines causing Crohn's disease. So there he was saying that vaccines were linked

00:28:34.860 to Crohn's disease. And this drew him to the attention of somebody else, a man named Richard Barr.

00:28:41.700 And Richard Barr was an obscure lawyer, an office working lawyer, which we in the UK call a solicitor

00:28:49.840 in eastern England, a small provincial town in eastern England doing humdrum work, magistrates

00:28:57.580 courts, petty offenders, writing wills, things like that, house convincing. And he was in fact a

00:29:03.820 specialist in, written a book about it on house convincing, this man Richard Barr. As I explained in the

00:29:09.200 books, I won't go into now in massive detail, he got a contract with the British government agency to try

00:29:16.320 to show that the MMR vaccine, the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was the cause of developmental

00:29:24.980 issues, particularly autism and how Richard Barr descended on autism, picked autism out of a whole

00:29:32.240 cluster of other things is a story in itself. This man Richard Barr was looking to find a doctor

00:29:38.960 who would help him, would agree with him that vaccines caused, ultimately, they settled on

00:29:46.600 autism. And his problem was, there weren't any in the UK who really took that position at all. It was

00:29:54.360 such a out to the left kind of idea that he couldn't find anybody of the remotest credibility to

00:30:02.080 advance that hypothesis. And without an quote-unquote expert to say, ah yes, I say that there's a probable

00:30:10.520 cause that measles in the MMR causes autism, he ended up going to this man, a bowel surgeon, trained as a

00:30:20.520 bowel surgeon, whose subject was Crohn's disease, and whose whole theory was about measles causing Crohn's

00:30:26.440 disease. This lawyer hired him. This was in early 1996, after some talks between them beforehand. So

00:30:33.820 there Wakefield was now hired by a lawyer, at very generous hourly rates, to help make a case that the

00:30:43.740 measles vaccine in MMR caused autism. Now, this was interesting, not least because Wakefield knew

00:30:51.200 nothing about autism, but he knew nothing about autism. Neither of these were any part of his

00:30:57.640 training, any part of his professional expertise, but he was the best that this man, Richard Barr,

00:31:04.460 could get. So together, they set about trying to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism. It's a long

00:31:15.860 story as to why they picked autism, but they did. This lawyer picked autism. Long story about why that was.

00:31:23.260 Very interesting. And in many ways, I wish I'd gone into it more. But anyway.

00:31:27.620 Do you want to just give sort of a short overview of it?

00:31:30.380 It was essentially that this man, Richard Barr, latched on to another player in all this, which was a woman

00:31:38.620 called Jackie Fletcher. And Jackie Fletcher had a child who, within a couple of weeks of receiving his

00:31:47.240 MMR shot, started having seizures and went on to show serious neurological illness, transformative

00:31:56.900 lifelong damage. And she had seen media coverage of an issue to do with vaccines. And while she was in

00:32:07.140 the hospital talking to other parents, one of them, or some other of them, gave her the idea that

00:32:14.260 vaccines could cause this injury to her child. Now, a child didn't have autism. I hate using the word

00:32:20.600 retarded, but I mean, specialists use it, so I suppose I can. She had a profoundly retarded,

00:32:26.980 handicapped child. She came to believe that the cause was the vaccine. Nothing to do with autism.

00:32:34.380 But in order for her to sue in the United Kingdom, she had to get lots and lots of other people to

00:32:40.460 say the same thing. Because the only place you could ever get money to do that was a government

00:32:44.920 scheme, where they provided money for people who couldn't afford to sue and who can afford to sue

00:32:50.080 drug companies or vaccine manufacturers. She got together with this lawyer, Richard Barr,

00:32:55.300 and with Wakefield. And together, they made music over this idea that the MMR vaccine caused autism.

00:33:04.020 It was generated basically because autism, which although the phenomenon, the manifestations of what

00:33:11.600 came to be called autism have been present, you could go back to like the Victorian lunatic asylums

00:33:17.960 in the United Kingdom, and you would see autism. I've got video in from television programs long before

00:33:24.220 MMR was even licensed, which you would say, well, in that period, you would say that was autism.

00:33:30.500 Autism had come to be constructed. What a lot of people don't realise about autism is that autism is

00:33:35.080 a construct. It's not like Crohn's disease. Autism is a tick box diagnosis of different signs and

00:33:42.140 symptoms which are brought together, clustered together. And it's really been created, a bit like

00:33:47.500 schizophrenia, really. And in fact, schizophrenia went into decline with the rise of autism.

00:33:51.900 A bit like childhood schizophrenia, autism was an emerging diagnosis in the early 1990s. And in fact,

00:33:59.580 the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, both brought out diagnostic

00:34:04.540 categories in the early 1990s, identifying a spectrum of disorders, one of which was autism,

00:34:11.040 and there were several others. So this was something which when this Jackie Fletcher, she's running this

00:34:16.880 effort to sue for her own child. She set up a group and they started doing surveys. And in those surveys,

00:34:23.420 they came up with quite a few cases of autism because it was beginning to be diagnosed. And so they

00:34:27.900 said, okay, well, that's the most common diagnosis we can cluster together. So we'll go after that. So

00:34:34.780 that's why they went after MMR and autism. Simply the artifactual situation of there being a newly

00:34:41.800 emergent diagnostic category, also the introduction in the UK of the MMR vaccine. So they went after

00:34:49.300 this idea. And Wakefield was then enlisted. So Richard Barr provided what initially was most

00:34:55.400 important was the money for Wakefield to do research. And so what they did is they made a grant

00:35:00.560 application, very similar to any scientific research who wants to look into something, you make a grant

00:35:06.400 application to somebody who's got some money. And the people who had the money with this government

00:35:10.440 agency, was actually called the Legal Aid Board, operating a thing called the Legal Aid Fund, which

00:35:15.440 funded people who couldn't afford to sue drug companies to sue the manufacturers of MMR. So Wakefield

00:35:22.400 had the job of ensuring that this lawsuit was launched. At the time, the lawsuit hadn't been launched,

00:35:29.480 it had just been collecting clients, collecting anecdotes, collecting stories, taking statements and

00:35:35.640 preparing so that this government agency would fund them to go forward and sue the drug companies.

00:35:43.160 That was Wakefield's mission. And they made the grant application to the Legal Aid Board in June of

00:35:50.100 1996. Now, the paper we're getting to that you mentioned was published in February 1998. So this scheme

00:35:57.420 between these people, and there were a couple of other people involved in it as well, was the origins

00:36:03.160 of the idea that vaccines caused autism. And ultimately, we would find this was the origins,

00:36:10.560 the acorn, if you like, from which the anti-vaccine movement, even if today, emerged to create the issues

00:36:19.300 they're creating over the coronavirus shots. So that was the explanation in very sketched out terms

00:36:27.480 of why they hired Wakefield. Richard Barr was going to get the money from the legal board.

00:36:35.080 Jackie Fletcher, this woman, she started an organisation which she gave the name of Jabs to,

00:36:40.480 she would recruit the clients. Wakefield would do the tests that were going to show that the MMR vaccine

00:36:49.540 was the cause of autism. In fact, the proposal he put to the Legal Aid Board with this solicitor,

00:36:55.360 Richard Barr, said in advance of a single child in this paper, the 12-child paper which you mentioned,

00:37:03.480 before a single one of those children had been investigated at that hospital, they had made the

00:37:11.100 proposal to the legal aid board that they would show that there was a new syndrome which included both

00:37:18.600 inflammatory bowel disease, which was what interested Wakefield, and autism, which interested the lawyer

00:37:26.120 and Jackie Fletcher, the campaigner. And they bolted it all together, made a grant application,

00:37:33.820 and a duty lawyer in the government's Legal Aid Board, a woman she was in her late 20s,

00:37:40.560 ultimately signed the document for Wakefield to be employed to do research that ultimately was what

00:37:48.820 ended up in the Lancet 18 months or so, a year and a half later, in this paper that created this

00:37:57.540 enormous furore. And what nobody knew until, well, I came along, I suppose I have to say that,

00:38:05.040 although everyone criticises me now, particularly doctors who sort of say, oh, he's self-aggrandising,

00:38:10.720 and they do things like saying, I actually did one at my publisher's university, Johns Hopkins,

00:38:15.100 the other day, and somebody said, you helped to unmask this. I said, no, I didn't help it, I did it.

00:38:20.280 And that's one of the extraordinary things about this story, that the medical establishment just kind

00:38:25.060 of sat back and let all this go on. And it appeared that only a journalist spotted the grounds to

00:38:32.920 believe there was something funny going on here. But anyway, so this was the background to this

00:38:37.100 paper. And then in February 1998, this paper was published in the Lancet, which, in terms of general

00:38:43.780 medicine, I would say was the number two journal after the New England Journal of Medicine. It's way

00:38:48.940 down the rankings from nature and science, but they're general science journals, so they carry a

00:38:53.940 lot of other stuff other than medicine. When you get into general medicine, it goes, broadly goes,

00:38:58.240 New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, which kind of has a bit of a tussle with the

00:39:02.680 Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine. Then you get to the British

00:39:06.980 Medical Journal and onward down you go. Very prestigious journal, a 12-child case series.

00:39:13.380 And you said, Peter, earlier that, I'll sharpen a moment, but you said earlier that this was a

00:39:18.160 ropey paper and so on. I don't agree with that, actually. At face value, with the knowledge of

00:39:24.780 hindsight, once you know the story, you look at that paper and you say, well, this is all a joke.

00:39:28.660 But at the time, it was very credible because it was a case series. Now, when you think about case

00:39:34.960 series, it's literally a collection of anecdotes. For example, Crohn's disease, when that was

00:39:42.240 discovered, formally characterised in the 1930s, fully described a case series of tissue samples

00:39:49.360 taken from 14 patients. Autism itself, which was first characterised and properly described,

00:39:56.760 a fact from Johns Hopkins University, published as my book, on 11 children. It was a case series of

00:40:03.600 11 children. AIDS, what came to be known as AIDS, was first described, classically described, in 1981

00:40:11.760 based on five gay men in Los Angeles. So there's nothing questionable or improper or inadequate

00:40:19.040 about a case series of 12 children.

00:40:21.600 I think what I was referring to is something we'll get to later, so it's less the size of it. And I think

00:40:28.140 if my memory serves me correctly, Brian, there was not an institutional review board that had

00:40:35.400 approved what those children went through.

00:40:38.080 Well, the paper said there was. The paper said there was.

00:40:41.580 I see. I see. But that turned out to be incorrect.

00:40:44.500 It turned out to be a lie. It was a lie.

00:40:46.480 It's kind of a brief aside. A lot of people think I'm like a pro-vaccine campaigner. And I think you

00:40:51.580 probably think this. And I'm not. And that is not what got me involved in this in the first place.

00:40:55.900 What got me involved in this in the first place was to do with the scientific method.

00:41:00.460 How did this paper work? What was going on behind it? One of the things that really bugs me

00:41:04.720 is people who believe they can judge research by a text on a piece of paper or on a screen.

00:41:13.120 And you can't. Those papers are not even the study. You're aware of this, that the people use the word

00:41:19.180 study and paper interchangeably. They believe that the paper is what it's all about. And what I was

00:41:26.220 able to do, and I still believe it, nobody's ever done it. I don't think, but certainly no journalist

00:41:30.060 has ever done it. I've been asking like since last year publicly for if anybody knows somebody who's done

00:41:35.580 anything similar, I'd like to know about it because it would be interesting and I'd incorporate it into the

00:41:39.500 story to go around the back of the paper and find out who the patients were, what was wrong with them,

00:41:45.340 what was their diagnoses, what was their histories, what were their test results, and all of that. And

00:41:50.080 I did it on these 12 children. Let's talk about it because it's so powerful. And as you said,

00:41:57.140 if this is the acorn of the movement, we have to resort to the long and arid dissertations,

00:42:03.160 as Bastia said, and really understand that. So let's start with a fundamental question of how

00:42:10.860 were these subjects recruited? Right. At face value, they appeared just to be part of the routine

00:42:18.440 caseload of this hospital's bowel clinic, a pediatric bowel clinic. Essentially, the picture was this.

00:42:25.740 Over a period of about maximum six to nine months, a series of parents turned up with their children

00:42:32.900 at this bowel clinic in the hospital, a pediatric bowel clinic. And they said, words to the effect

00:42:38.920 of, my child was developing perfectly normally, perfectly happy child. 11 of these children were

00:42:44.880 boys, one was a girl. All of them were white. My child was developing perfectly normally. We gave him,

00:42:50.920 or in one case, her, the MMR, took him to the doctor, got the MMR. And within days, specifically,

00:42:59.240 within 14 days, that was the range, that was the maximum range that they allegedly reported. Within

00:43:06.440 14 days, one of them was said to have come on immediately after the vaccine. So between immediately

00:43:13.020 and 14 days, eight out of these 12, I have to express it carefully because two of the children

00:43:19.460 were brothers. So I have to say, the parents of eight of the 12 children said the first symptoms

00:43:27.700 of their child's developmental issue, autism overwhelmingly, came on within 14 days of an

00:43:36.020 MMR shot. At face value, if that was true, then that could be potentially the first snapshot

00:43:44.560 of a hidden epidemic of catastrophic injuries to children. It may be that these doctors at this

00:43:50.720 hospital were just better doctors, more thorough, asked more questions, had more time or whatever.

00:43:57.700 And that possibly all over the world, children were experiencing this and just nobody had

00:44:03.760 noticed. So the fact that this paper said these things was extraordinary in itself. It got network

00:44:11.940 coverage right across the spectrum that night. The UK then had five national networks and they all

00:44:18.280 carried it on the evening news. Very substantial media coverage because the hospital and medical school

00:44:23.660 convened a press conference, which was chaired by the dean of the medical school. One of the people

00:44:29.720 on the platform, the table anyway, with Wakefield was a professor of gastroenterology, the man in fact

00:44:35.420 had hired Wakefield from Canada. So the media thought, well, this must be something important. And it had

00:44:40.400 been trailed in advance. There'd been leaks and promotional things have been done to attract more and more

00:44:45.760 attention to this thing. They absolutely knew what they were doing. Extra phone lines, extra landlines

00:44:51.700 were installed in the hospital. This is back in the day of mechanical answering machines. They went out

00:44:57.020 and bought mechanical answering machines to field the public alarm that they knew they were going to

00:45:01.800 create. And this hospital, this medical school, and this Andrew Wakefield announced to the world their

00:45:08.760 probable cause of autism as the MMR vaccine. And of course, the result would be obvious. And it was.

00:45:18.180 Tell people what those kids went through when they were enrolled in a study that, as we would later

00:45:24.460 learn, did not even have an IRB to approve it. What was the actual set of procedures that these

00:45:30.380 children went through? It was described in advance. This is very interesting. It was described in advance

00:45:35.900 to the legal board, to the funding agency, to which they'd made this grant application to do this work.

00:45:41.380 First, I should say, these children are children who don't like their lives being disrupted.

00:45:45.260 These are the kind of children who the slightest variation in some cases to their routine will

00:45:51.680 cause them great distress. One of the curiosities of autism. So they were brought to London. None of

00:45:58.560 them lived in London. The nearest family was 60 miles away. Some were 280 miles away.

00:46:06.680 And one was in the United States.

00:46:08.260 Yeah. One was on the island of Jersey in the English Channel near France. And one was from the

00:46:12.640 Bay Area of California. And just to hit pause for a second, that immediately speaks to the idea that

00:46:18.720 these weren't just kids being seen in this hospital as part of the routine caseload. But let's put that

00:46:24.200 aside for a moment. I mean, the idea that you would bring somebody from the Bay Area of California

00:46:28.920 to London for medical treatment, particularly that hospital, is absurd. The idea that there aren't good

00:46:35.400 hospitals in San Francisco or California generally is an absurdity.

00:46:39.500 Yes. Back to your point. We're talking about children who any disruption of routine is traumatic.

00:46:46.460 And so we're going to bring these kids here. And what was done to them?

00:46:49.620 The children were brought in on a Sunday, different Sundays. They didn't turn up at the same time,

00:46:55.320 different Sundays. Sunday afternoon, they would turn up. Doctor would take their histories from the

00:47:01.340 parents. So the parent would simply be interviewed as to what they could remember.

00:47:04.940 The child would be examined. They would then be bowel prepped for colonoscopy. In fact,

00:47:11.500 it was an ileocolonoscopy. I mean, I've had a colonoscopy, but I've never had an ileocolonoscopy.

00:47:16.540 In a colonoscopy, you go in, I don't need to tell you, but there might be a few people who

00:47:20.960 might just need the route map. You go in through the anus, you come up through the sigmoid colon,

00:47:25.840 you come up the descending colon, you cross at the splenic flexure, across the transverse colon,

00:47:33.400 which sort of sags across behind the breastbone. You turn at the hepatic flexure, you go down the

00:47:39.120 ascending colon to the cecum, which is pretty much where the appendix is. And then there's a valve

00:47:45.220 there. So that's a colonoscopy to do that. Then there's a valve, a little valve. And if you go

00:47:50.960 through that valve, that valve separates the large bowel, the colon, from the small bowel. And that

00:47:56.480 particular stretch of the small bowel is called the ileum. And the first couple of centimetres

00:48:00.560 of that is accessible to an instrument, colonoscope or endoscope, if you like. And you can get into the

00:48:08.140 first two centimetres. And the thing is, when you go past that valve into the small intestine,

00:48:12.280 the small intestine is the bit that takes nutrients out of food. It's actually prior to the colon. So

00:48:18.340 from your mouth, this is the top end rather than the bottom or the distal end. So you get into the

00:48:23.300 distal end of the small intestine. The small intestine is what takes nutrition out of food.

00:48:28.560 And the large bowel, more or less, takes water out of your feces so that we don't trail stuff around

00:48:34.340 behind us for most of our lives anyway. So this scope, this instrument would go up, round, down. And

00:48:40.720 then there was a quite a difficult manoeuvre to get into the small intestine. It's quite a significant

00:48:45.280 piece of work in itself. And in fact, later, not actually one of the 12, but later in the series,

00:48:50.280 a child had catastrophic damage caused to him by this procedure. And there was a huge financial

00:48:55.880 settlement from the hospital. That was the first thing they'd do. Some of them also had upper

00:49:00.380 endoscopies where you push a tube down the throat and look around, mostly in the duodenum and that

00:49:06.360 area. That would be the first thing that would happen the next day. And then most of the children had

00:49:12.120 lumbar punctures, spinal taps, which is a needle basically pushed into the spine to take fluid,

00:49:18.900 essentially brain fluid through the spine. They were required to undergo MRI scans, EEGs,

00:49:27.200 electroencephalograms, barium meals where you're essentially x-rayed, you drink a radioactive drink

00:49:33.540 and you're x-rayed to get an image of the gut. Blood tests, which generally required with these

00:49:40.120 kids, three people to hold them down. In fact, Andrew Wakefield sued me over some of this. Maybe

00:49:46.620 get to that at some point. One of the things he sued me over was saying that these children were being

00:49:50.720 held down by three people. In fact, yes, they were. There were children screaming. One child collapsed

00:49:56.880 three times in the corridor. One had to be admitted to another hospital after discharge from the Royal

00:50:02.060 Free for apparent side effects or consequences of lumbar puncture. Another one had an emergency

00:50:07.820 doctor calls to their home. So they had that. They had blood tests. What else did they have? I've

00:50:13.600 probably forgotten something. And some of these children were so constipated upon arrival that if I

00:50:19.140 recall, the colonoscopies were very difficult colonoscopies. They did not have easy bowel preps the way

00:50:26.760 a child might. The irony, of course, is that most of these kids were anything but having

00:50:32.000 inflammatory bowel disease or Crohn's disease, given the incredible constipation that many of

00:50:36.940 them experienced. You can have constipation with inflammatory bowel disease, but it's unusual. And

00:50:41.360 it's usually part of the differential diagnosis that the patient doesn't have inflammatory bowel

00:50:45.400 disease. And they also had blood tests. In fact, the clinicians working on this had themselves

00:50:50.840 published on a panel of blood tests, which they used to do, which determined whether or not there

00:50:58.640 was a probable cause to do colonoscopies or ileocolonoscopies in this case. And those blood

00:51:04.320 tests all came back normal. But they still went ahead and did it anyway, because Wakefield had said to

00:51:09.060 them, which is part of his contract with the legal board to help sue vaccine manufacturers, that there

00:51:14.320 might be some lesser inflammation that wasn't being picked up by the blood test, just like with

00:51:20.720 the measles virus not being detected by the PCR, because the PCR wasn't sensitive enough. So the

00:51:27.360 blood tests weren't sensitive enough to detect the bowel disease that he said these children had,

00:51:34.520 or suspected they had. In fact, he told the legal aid board that they did have it before he did the

00:51:39.140 research, which purportedly discovered it. But anyway, that's just the way things go in this story.

00:51:43.880 How does John O'Leary enter the story? Because he becomes a very important collaborator,

00:51:49.460 effectively doing the most important pathology here, correct?

00:51:52.940 Yeah. What Wakefield was trying to do, the reason why he wanted these tests done,

00:51:57.940 was that he was looking for measles virus. So if your hypothesis is that measles virus causes

00:52:04.200 Crohn's disease or causes autism or whatever, well, those two things. The thing about the last part of

00:52:12.240 the small intestine, the small intestine, the ileum, that is the most characteristic part of the bowel

00:52:19.540 where Crohn's disease is found. Crohn's disease can manifest anywhere between the mouth and the anus.

00:52:26.780 In fact, it can. But where it most characteristically manifests is exactly where they went to. And this

00:52:35.700 got Wakefield really excited. So what he wanted to do was to get into the small intestines of these

00:52:43.660 children in order to find the measles virus. Because if you found measles virus alive long after

00:52:51.980 vaccination, we're talking about it persisting years after vaccination. These were some of these kids

00:52:56.980 were aged nine. The youngest was three. The oldest was nine and a half. You're talking about children

00:53:03.300 who would have been vaccinated years previously. And his hypothesis was that the measles virus was

00:53:09.540 persisting in the small intestine and he was going to find it. Basically, when you do a colonoscopy,

00:53:16.140 you go all the way in without doing very much. You just try and get in. And as you say, some of these

00:53:20.720 children were so constipated they couldn't get in and actually had to abandon the thing and clean them

00:53:25.440 out again. But one child, they said they were going to, ultimately, we're going to do it three times

00:53:29.800 until the mother said, no, no more of this. He wanted to find the measles virus in the small

00:53:35.500 intestine. So when the endoscopist got as far as the small intestine, he then, a man named Simon

00:53:41.460 Murch did some of it, and another guy called Mike Thompson did some of it. They would take little

00:53:47.960 biopsy snips. They would snip off. On the end of the colonoscope, they had got little jaws and they

00:53:53.720 would snip off a bit of tissue and bring it back through the thing. There'd be a nurse standing to

00:53:59.600 one side who would like be pulling these things back through little rods down the tube. And then

00:54:05.960 the colonoscope would come back through the gut, taking little bits of tissue at each of the points

00:54:11.040 at the ascending colon, transverse colon, the descending colon, and the sigmoid colon of the rectum.

00:54:17.900 But the gold in this for Wakefield was in the small intestine. And so waiting in the endoscopy

00:54:23.860 suite where this went on, there was a scientist who was actually doing his PhD, working under

00:54:30.820 Wakefield's direction, waiting to take samples of the tissue away and freeze it in liquid nitrogen

00:54:38.420 so that it could be tested using the polymerase chain reaction for measles virus. This scientist,

00:54:46.800 his PhD was a very good piece of work. It's not like a PhD in the arts. Well, you just, I think in

00:54:52.260 the arts, sometimes you get a PhD just for turning up and writing the thing, but he actually did a bit

00:54:56.280 of science. He developed a gold standard PCR test for measles virus. Wakefield supervised that

00:55:05.460 and they published on that. And then they went on in Wakefield's own lab to use the PCR technique to

00:55:14.540 identify measles virus. And they couldn't find measles virus in any of these children. And

00:55:21.760 Wakefield's answer to that was, oh, the PCR wasn't sensitive enough.

00:55:25.380 And why had he switched to PCR here as opposed to going back to the immunohistochemistry? Because he

00:55:30.920 had already made this criticism in 95 when the Japanese group said, using PCR, we can't find it.

00:55:38.800 And he had previously in 93 said, oh no, it's here with immunohistochemistry. So why in 98 is he not

00:55:44.280 going back to immunohistochemistry? That's a good question. I like your questions. I don't normally get

00:55:49.200 doctors doing these conversations, so nobody asked that. It's a very good question. The reason why he

00:55:56.180 wanted to do PCR and had to do PCR was in the grant application to the British government's legal aid

00:56:04.100 board, he'd said up front, 18 months before the paper was written and before any of these children

00:56:10.500 had been investigating the hospital, that they would undergo PCR for strain-specific sequencing.

00:56:18.220 Everyone who's got a television set or radio these days knows what that means because it's so

00:56:23.320 part of the discussion over vaccines. He wanted to show that this virus came from a vaccine.

00:56:31.780 The measles virus could come from three possibilities. One, it's a virus that comes from nature. You've

00:56:36.940 caught it from somebody. One is that it's a laboratory strain because there are particular

00:56:41.220 strains of the virus which are kept for laboratory work. And the other is it came from a vaccine.

00:56:47.880 But in order to determine which one it was, you couldn't use immunohistochemistry because it wouldn't

00:56:52.220 get you down to the nucleotides, which is what you need to get down to in order to sequence. Classic

00:56:58.220 procedures, absolute workhorse procedures.

00:57:01.040 Maybe to just explain to people, immunohistochemistry might have the ability to recognize there's a

00:57:05.880 person there. PCR can fingerprint the person. And this is sort of like saying there are three people

00:57:11.860 and I just need to see which fingerprint it is to know if it's the lab strain, which would be a

00:57:17.560 contamination if it showed up in your sample, a naturally occurring strain. So it's a transmission

00:57:22.520 that you acquired versus a vaccine strain.

00:57:25.940 Yeah, yeah.

00:57:26.780 And he was trying to demonstrate, test the hypothesis. If we're going to continue to give him the benefit

00:57:31.340 of the doubt at this point, he was testing a hypothesis.

00:57:34.340 Yeah, I'd have to take issue with your use of the word testing. He wasn't testing hypothesis.

00:57:40.560 He was advancing it and simply trying to prove that it was so. He at no stage did what a scientist

00:57:48.220 would do, which would be to test it by attempting to falsify it, try and find some reason to believe

00:57:54.060 that he was wrong. He simply wanted to prove that he was right. He'd set out what it was he was going

00:58:00.860 to find in his grant application before a single one of these children went anywhere near the hospital.

00:58:07.940 This is a totally random aside, but I remember you made the point about the relative lack of rigor

00:58:14.260 that went into his grant application. It wasn't like he was applying through the most rigorous or

00:58:20.820 applying to the most rigorous granting entity. And it actually reminds me of the first grant application

00:58:27.440 I ever wrote in my life, which was in medical school for a very small project. It was for a summer

00:58:32.280 research project. At my medical school, they had this amazing thing where you could get paid an

00:58:37.800 enormous sum of money to do research for a summer. It was basically a great way to offset your

00:58:42.380 tuition. It amounted to about a third of your tuition for the year. So I put my little application

00:58:47.500 together and I just happened to review it with a guy named Pat Brown, who's a very famous scientist

00:58:54.900 at Stanford. And I must say, I have to hand it to him. He just schooled me on what it means to write a

00:59:03.140 scientific proposal. He didn't pull any punches with how pathetic it was. And part of it was this

00:59:09.920 lack of, at the time, understanding. I was a first year medical student. I really didn't understand

00:59:15.800 what it meant to have a hypothesis, generate a series of questions and go through this process

00:59:21.680 we're describing. And I had to go back to the drawing board and start all over again. And I bet that

00:59:26.660 if someone like a Pat Brown were to take a look at the proposal put forth by Wakefield,

00:59:31.600 they would have had the same reaction, which is this is not a person who has the chops to do this

00:59:37.880 type of investigation. And again, I think it speaks to another point you made, which is the relative

00:59:42.900 lack of policing in the field. And by policing, I don't mean literal policing, but I mean self-auditing

00:59:48.300 and self-policing. The grant application he put in was received by somebody with no medical

00:59:53.180 background and no medical or scientific advice or contrary opinion or anything was sought by the

00:59:59.020 funding agency. It was literally a lawyer, a young lawyer with no background in science who simply

01:00:07.140 authorized the work. So after Wakefield and his colleague cannot find any evidence of the measles

01:00:13.040 virus, either naturally occurring or through vaccine in the distal ileum via PCR, in theory, that should be

01:00:20.180 the end of this inquiry at this point in time. But what happens next? Well, so what he did was he

01:00:26.080 using public money. He flew to New York and found an Irish professor who was then teaching in New York

01:00:32.800 and asked him if he could use his PCR equipment. This professor, a man named John O'Leary, was going

01:00:42.900 back to Ireland, back to Dublin to work at a hospital, the Coombe Women's Hospital. It was a maternity

01:00:49.040 hospital, not exactly a great centre of scientific inquiry, but he was going back there and he said

01:00:56.800 to Wakefield, yes, I can find whatever you need to find, and then proceeded to set about trying to

01:01:03.360 find measles virus in bowel tissues taken from children at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead in

01:01:12.320 North London. And he was paid an enormous amount of public money to do this. He ultimately, from his

01:01:20.000 lab, they published a paper claiming that they found measles virus in nearly all the children that

01:01:26.480 Wakefield had sent samples from. Now, I think to really explain what happened in O'Leary's lab,

01:01:33.740 one has to understand a little bit about PCR and what the number of cycles mean, what amplification

01:01:41.900 means. And ultimately, we'll even talk a little bit about the controls. And again, I don't ask this

01:01:47.480 of you lightly because I know that these are technical topics. But again, if one truly wants to

01:01:53.680 understand what took place, I think one has to understand what took place in O'Leary's lab. Because

01:01:59.360 in many ways, maybe you would interpret the facts differently. And I would respect your opinion more

01:02:04.640 than my own. But I almost view O'Leary's lab as the epicenter of the epicenter of the fraud.

01:02:10.100 I agree with you. I appreciate the point you're making, because you would not believe how difficult

01:02:15.880 it is to describe molecular amplification in a single paragraph. I think I'll use two paragraphs in

01:02:23.520 different places. To a certain extent, I repeat it slightly to get it down to its simplest level and

01:02:30.360 yet still be accurate. So maybe I'll try. I mean, I'll do it off the top of my head now. And I can't

01:02:36.260 obviously, I haven't got words in front of me to shuffle around. But essentially, this is what's

01:02:41.900 topical at the moment. All over the world, this stuff is being done on samples from members of the

01:02:47.300 public, who are being tested for evidence of infection with the coronavirus.

01:02:54.520 I mean, I've probably had 20 coronavirus tests via PCR in the last nine months. Maybe that's more than

01:03:02.380 the average person, but very few people at this point will not have had PCR touch their life. So whether

01:03:07.500 it's a coronavirus test, or a crime scene that is trying to demonstrate if that microscopic drop of

01:03:15.940 blood is from a suspect, it would go through this amazing technology for which the Nobel Prize was

01:03:22.860 awarded in the 1980s to Cary Mullis. Yeah. Something isn't in the book, I don't think,

01:03:27.940 I'm not sure it's in the book, is that partly it begins with the discovery of a polymerase in the

01:03:34.480 Yellowstone National Park. Now, you can say, what's a polymerase? Tell me what a polymerase is,

01:03:39.000 just to shorten it a bit. So it's an enzyme, basically, that catalyzes a reaction. I mean,

01:03:45.940 I can even shorten a bit of this whole thing for you, which is, when you have a double strand of

01:03:50.280 DNA, how does DNA replicate? So there are basically two reactions that you want to be able to do with

01:03:55.420 DNA. Sometimes you want to just make more of it. For when a cell is dividing to make another version

01:04:00.860 of itself, it has to break apart that double strand of DNA, and it has to make another template of each of

01:04:09.160 it. And it uses enzymes to do the breaking apart and then the building. And there's a code for DNA.

01:04:15.220 It's a very simple code because there are four letters, and each letter has a known corresponding

01:04:21.440 letter. You have this code where you basically break it apart, where you replicate it, and then

01:04:25.660 you duplicate the strand. There's another side of breaking apart DNA, which is if you want to make

01:04:30.020 protein. And here, you actually break it apart to make a single strand of something called

01:04:36.400 messenger RNA. And the RNA carries that message out to be transcribed as a protein. So it depends

01:04:44.060 on the application in which you're doing it. But these polymerase enzymes basically facilitate

01:04:49.600 different aspects of this process. Like the evening news, I'll do a little bit. Maybe on that. Yes,

01:04:57.260 so there's this ladder joined together. This is the classic double helix of DNA. We'll do the machine

01:05:04.080 version because that's what we do. These days, this is all automated. Not so long ago, not so many

01:05:08.940 decades ago, this was all done manually, very time consuming, extremely boring process, now done by

01:05:14.220 machine. And the machine heats up test tubes with your samples in and a few other things, controls and

01:05:20.440 what have you. As it heats up, the ladders split apart. So that instead of having something joined

01:05:26.520 together, you've got them separate. In the case of measles virus, you have something, a preliminary

01:05:32.160 step called reverse transcription, where because RNA is a single strand, rather than DNA, which is a

01:05:39.320 double strand, RNA, ribonucleic acid is a single strand. So for this technology to work, you need

01:05:47.160 two strands for reasons which I'm sure you'll probably get to. So what happens initially is a

01:05:52.460 second strand is created synthetically so that you then have what is called cDNA, which is kind of an

01:05:59.700 artificial construct of DNA. Once that's done, won't go into how it's done, but once that's done and

01:06:05.160 you've then got this piece of DNA, the machine heats up the material, the test tubes in it, and these two

01:06:12.060 ladders split apart. And at that point, this polymerase, this enzyme that amazingly was discovered in the

01:06:19.900 Yellowstone National Park, goes along the broken rungs of this ladder and creates a complementary

01:06:28.380 second ladder. So for each of the points, rungs on the ladder, it creates another one which joins to it.

01:06:36.460 And these are the nucleotides, the base nucleotides, the fundamental building blocks of life.

01:06:41.380 So when you start off with these two, these split apart, the polymerase runs along from one end of the,

01:06:47.960 it's unbelievable really, runs along from one end of the ladder to the other, and then you've got two

01:06:54.980 DNA, two double-stranded samples. So then you cool it, the cooling brings these two together and they

01:07:02.540 solidify, and then you repeat the procedure, they split apart again, the TAC polymerase goes along and creates

01:07:11.300 the extra thing, and then instead of two, you've got four. And then as you cool it down, then you heat it up again,

01:07:17.480 and you keep repeating this process until two becomes four, four becomes eight, eight becomes

01:07:24.060 64, is it?

01:07:25.880 Yeah, 16. It goes exponentially. Yeah, it's just two powers, yeah. It becomes astronomical.

01:07:31.360 And then at that point, you can read it and it's read by, well, it's read by things called primers and

01:07:40.120 probes. What primers do, these are other little bits of nucleotides in a chemical solution, which

01:07:47.680 bind to very specific nucleotides. They're like bookends. You've got these primers, which take a

01:07:56.380 slice, essentially mark out a slice of this, and this other thing comes along and identifies,

01:08:03.520 it's called a probe. And if the thing that you're looking for is present, the whole thing by magic,

01:08:10.420 which is now all being monitored by laser beam, which is like taking samples, measurements by

01:08:16.280 millisecond as to while this is going on, will give a signal, which is then recorded on a computer

01:08:23.000 and generates a curve. And this curve, it starts off flat and then it rises and then it goes, what's the

01:08:32.400 word? Well, it asymptotes into a flat thing again. So it goes, it's kind of a rough S shape. Before it

01:08:38.900 asymptotes, goes flat, you take a reading. And that's usually at about 35 cycles.

01:08:46.560 To put that in perspective, that means two to the 35 copies you've potentially made. By the time I was

01:08:54.520 doing this, it had become so automated. The kit was called TACMAN, like T-A-Q because of the polymerase

01:09:02.000 you mentioned, the TAC polymerase. And so it was called real-time quantified PCR. And it was really

01:09:10.180 quite amazing because as the scientist, you only had to prepare the reagent. And it was literally

01:09:17.200 as simple as a Betty Crocker cooking exercise where you put in your primers, you put in your

01:09:22.580 probes, you put in your TAC, you put in your sample, and the machine would go through everything you just

01:09:27.840 said, the heating, cooling, heating, cooling, heating, cooling cycles. And it would spit out for you

01:09:32.340 the information of what's present and how much of it is present. Because remember, you can go up to 35

01:09:39.020 cycles. But if you start with a large amount of nuclear material, you'll see it much sooner.

01:09:45.180 And in fact, even with the coronavirus, that's an important feature. So when a patient tests positive

01:09:51.220 via PCR, you have to remember these tests are really geared for their negative predictive value

01:09:56.100 more than their positive predictive value. You would like it if a lab would report how many cycles

01:10:00.760 were necessary to demonstrate a positive test. And in a clinical assay, we're going to come to why

01:10:06.740 all of this is relevant. In a clinical assay, you need to be able to report the number of cycles

01:10:12.840 because it matters if it was positive after 20 cycles versus 30 cycles. That's a very big

01:10:19.820 resolution difference in something being present. So I think you did a fantastic job, by the way,

01:10:25.040 explaining PCR. Let's now go back to O'Leary's lab. So I mean, the way you describe it, it's like

01:10:30.920 he was basically paid to find something. Yeah. Yeah. So O'Leary has now sent the samples,

01:10:36.800 the ileocecal biopsies of these children. He has what at the time is a state-of-the-art machine,

01:10:42.520 right? The ABI Prism 7700? Yeah, I guess at the time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And as you said,

01:10:48.180 this is a machine that is not rated for a clinical diagnosis, correct? Right. Yeah. It does not have a

01:10:55.860 CLIA certification. One cannot make clinical diagnoses with it. It is a research tool only.

01:11:01.280 And the company that makes it says, what? If you go more than 35 cycles, what is the inference of what

01:11:09.160 you're looking at? And in fact, Tony Fauci said the same thing. He did a video just a couple of

01:11:13.860 months ago where he was talking about cycles and he came up with 35 as well. Basically, once you go

01:11:19.400 past 35, where the rising line asymptotes basically goes flat, at that point, if you haven't found what

01:11:26.580 you're looking for, then you either conclude it's not there or you've done something wrong and you

01:11:33.220 need to start again. I mean, you said how simple this thing appears to be. And it's interesting that

01:11:38.120 you would say it that way. In fact, the apparent simplicity is beguiling and misleading.

01:11:44.620 It wasn't this simple in 1998.

01:11:46.760 No.

01:11:47.300 And furthermore, you can still be fooled by the machine an awful lot.

01:11:52.300 Yeah. The technology is so sensitive. We're probably into 2001 or something now. One of

01:11:58.160 the reasons why it's a research tool and not a clinical instrument was because so much goes

01:12:02.420 wrong. And the technology is so sensitive that just anything will create contamination.

01:12:09.360 If you're getting signals after 35 and you think they're positive signals, it's probably

01:12:14.560 contamination or some kind of error you've made in the thing.

01:12:18.220 And even with the coronavirus, so now we're dealing with a couple of things that are different. One,

01:12:23.500 you're dealing with a clinical grade PCR assay. That means it is under far greater regulatory

01:12:28.840 scrutiny and it is far more standardized than anything that someone like O'Leary was using.

01:12:33.640 Secondly, even under those conditions, the test is far better at demonstrating something is negative

01:12:40.120 than positive. So we say it has much greater negative predictive value. So when the test comes back

01:12:44.980 negative, you can almost with certainty, 99, more than 99% certainty say it's truly negative.

01:12:51.460 When it comes back positive, you really don't know that it's positive. You have to repeat the test.

01:12:55.420 And any physician listening to this or patient listening to this, who's had either themselves

01:13:00.360 or a patient with a positive PCR for COVID realizes the first thing you do if they're not symptomatic

01:13:06.280 is test again. And even in my practice, we've seen three false positives on PCR that were later found

01:13:11.680 to not be positive. And that's just the nature of using a test that is so sensitive.

01:13:16.560 This man, John O'Leary, was hired on Wakefield's recommendation. He was actually hired by Richard

01:13:22.960 Barr, the lawyer that was working with Wakefield, to test these samples on these children, these

01:13:28.560 children with developmental issues, mostly autism from the Royal Free Hospital. And O'Leary found,

01:13:34.420 or at least, this is again, where you get use of words is very important. I won't say he found,

01:13:39.480 he reported measles virus in pretty much, I don't know, nine out of 10 children. This

01:13:47.140 created huge interest. They published a paper. This was apparently the evidence that the measles

01:13:55.280 virus was there in the guts of these children. But then you get to the question of, well, if

01:14:01.880 they really did find measles, where was it from? Was it from one of these three things I was

01:14:07.440 talking earlier on? Was it from nature? Was it from a natural viral infection picked up

01:14:12.660 from somebody? Was it from the MMR vaccine? Or was it a laboratory strain? Because laboratories

01:14:20.940 who work in these areas usually have a special room where these materials are prepared, called

01:14:27.280 the plasmid room, where they prepare samples of laboratory strain virus in the case of measles.

01:14:35.380 So there would be within this laboratory situation of O'Leary's, there would be laboratory strain

01:14:42.420 virus being used and manipulated on the premises. So then the question would be, OK, he says he's found

01:14:52.260 measles virus. Well, you sequence it. So in addition to this particular PCR machine that does this process,

01:15:00.260 and you can say, well, OK, there's an element of identifying a sequence there because your

01:15:05.100 primers and probes, these things that bookend and then lock onto the samples, nucleotides,

01:15:12.280 would do so more effectively if what you were looking for was there. But nevertheless, there's a second

01:15:17.120 machine, a sequencer. These days, they're called capillary sequencers, and they literally run the

01:15:24.920 individual nucleotides, these minisculely tiny things which are contained, coiled up in the

01:15:31.700 DNA of every cell in your body. And they string it all out and run them past laser beams, and they

01:15:37.900 will identify each and every one of those nucleotides and mark out for you what it is, the four

01:15:44.480 nucleotides. Do you want to do the four bases? I think we can spare people, but A, T, C, and G

01:15:50.340 would be their acronyms. Yeah. It's slightly different with RNA. With RNA, you substitute in U, but yeah.

01:15:56.680 Yeah. So there's a machine, and O'Leary had one of these machines in his lab. And in fact, he was

01:16:03.420 invited to give evidence. With Wakefield sitting next to him, O'Leary represented himself as being an

01:16:09.360 independent researcher. And in fact, he was in a business deal with the guy sitting next to him, Andrew

01:16:14.240 Wakefield. They had actually got a whole raft of business plans and joint ventures and money go

01:16:19.860 around and directors of each other's companies and all this kind of stuff. He actually said in a

01:16:25.620 congressional committee that he had one of these sequences. He identified it, gave the make and what

01:16:31.680 have you in his lab. And so did O'Leary's lab produce the sequences to answer that question? Was it a virus

01:16:42.540 from nature? Was it a virus from the MMR or was it a virus from the laboratory? And he never, ever produced

01:16:53.400 any sequence data from those children at all. This is why the book has this process described in it

01:17:03.020 and why we're talking about it in such detail now, because it's important that people understand

01:17:08.540 what that means to not ultimately sequence your samples, to read that code that can definitively

01:17:18.360 fingerprint the virus, where it's from. And if it was from a vaccine, then which vaccine? Was it from

01:17:25.340 a vaccine from this company or that company or whatever? And he never produced any sequences.

01:17:32.100 And when it ultimately came to the lawsuit that was launched in the United Kingdom,

01:17:37.800 Andrew Wakeford's paper was published in February. The lawsuit was approved to go and was the first

01:17:42.980 writs were served, the first legal papers were served on the defendant drug companies the following

01:17:47.940 October. Finally, when it came to the crunch and a lawsuit which consumed in today's money,

01:17:56.180 roughly 100 million US dollars between the two parties by which this lawyer Richard Barr in a duel

01:18:05.960 with the drug companies fought out in preliminary papers and what have you. The case never came to

01:18:11.780 trial because it collapsed. They never, ever produced any sequence data from these children, notwithstanding

01:18:20.260 the fact that by this time, thousands upon thousands of families in Britain, the United States and

01:18:26.900 increasingly around the world had been told that the measles virus had been found in these children and

01:18:33.540 it was from the MMR vaccine. And that data has never been produced. And that to me is the most extraordinary

01:18:42.180 indictment of these people. Not only the fact that these children in the Wakefield 1998 paper were a

01:18:50.640 preselected group of children from parents who'd come to the hospital to make the allegation that their

01:18:58.860 child had been injured by the vaccine and hence to join the lawsuit that Richard Barr was preparing and

01:19:05.060 Andrew Wakefield was working on. None of this was known. None of this was reported until a Sunday Times

01:19:11.300 investigation by yours truly went into it at enormous cost in terms of my time. And then we had a big

01:19:19.540 medical board hearing that disclosed information and disclosed children's records or what have you.

01:19:24.900 So there was that. And then there was O'Leary paper where, again, there was nothing that revealed

01:19:31.720 that this whole project had basically gone after something that was a complete illusion. I would describe it

01:19:40.040 as a scam. And I would say that the only reason these people aren't under arrest is because they

01:19:48.280 say and can say, oh, I believed the MMR vaccine caused autism, which to me, in my opinion, I'm giving

01:19:57.060 you my opinion now. In my opinion, that's just like the mafia saying, we're the good people. We're the good

01:20:05.320 people. We think that we're protecting our clients. These people refused to sequence the samples in the

01:20:14.240 PCR. They did not disclose who these parents were and why they'd come to the hospital to make these

01:20:20.800 allegations. And by the interplay between these two events, the Wakefield paper and the O'Leary work,

01:20:29.300 they were able to manufacture the belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism. And the consequence of

01:20:38.580 that is there are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of families around the world

01:20:45.440 today who've been led to believe that their child with developmentally challenged kids, that their

01:20:52.940 child was injured as a result of the parents' own decision to vaccinate them. And these people,

01:21:01.060 why this is so important, these people provide much of the backbone for the anti-vaccine movement

01:21:07.940 today, which is running the websites and the Facebook pages and the YouTube channels, pumping out all this

01:21:15.580 stuff now about the coronavirus up until December of 2019 and January and February of 2020. That was all

01:21:24.360 about vaccines and autism and the MMR and all that kind of stuff. When the great switch came over to the

01:21:31.120 pandemic we see today, that network, that infrastructure of parents who are torturing themselves with this

01:21:39.800 idea that it might be their own fault for vaccinating their child, that their child has some kind of

01:21:44.960 developmental issue, have become mobilised in the belief they need to identify an alternative culprit

01:21:54.220 to themselves. Now I don't believe for a minute that these parents are in any way culpable for their

01:22:01.000 children's autism, but these parents have learned to deflect and project onto others, the drug industry,

01:22:08.520 me, governments, whoever, who they say are involved in this conspiracy to, well, what they now call the

01:22:16.400 pandemic, this conspiracy to promote vaccines and so on and so forth. Before we get to that, there are a few

01:22:22.880 other things I want to go back to that I also think are technically important to understand. Can you talk a

01:22:28.300 little bit about the formalin-stained samples in O'Leary's lab? Because I think that in addition to the

01:22:33.860 failure to do strain-specific sequencing, which was the absolute mandate of this research, this was the

01:22:41.720 purpose of the study. So in addition to failing to do this one thing you set out to do, when you look

01:22:48.960 at the formalin-staining, it to me is one of the most revealing parts of how contaminated this work was.

01:22:57.400 Do you want to give people a sense of what that found? Yeah. Well, okay. So if we go back to the

01:23:04.020 Royal Free Endoscopy Suite, and these children being scoped, as they call it, when they go into the

01:23:10.320 small intestine, they would bring out these samples, these pieces of tissue, and they were divided and

01:23:17.440 went in two directions. One direction went to Wakefield's own researcher, scientific researcher,

01:23:24.000 this guy called Nick Chadwick. He's actually left science now, because I think in part because he

01:23:28.700 became so disillusioned after this whole Farrago. He went off and froze his tissues in liquid nitrogen.

01:23:34.900 They were frozen, just like frozen peas, which preserves the DNA of the sample and the RNA of the

01:23:42.140 virus, were there to be any there, but there wasn't. But anyway, would have preserved the virus,

01:23:46.960 but in pristine, deep frozen form. There was another set of samples, split from this set,

01:23:56.220 that went to the hospital's pathology unit, and for what is a routine process, it's called

01:24:04.480 histopathology, in hospitals where pathologists look down a microscope at samples, which they stain

01:24:11.020 with chemicals and you get various reactions that they're looking for. So this second set of samples

01:24:18.960 is fixed in formalin, and I think everybody knows what formalin is, it's a preservative.

01:24:24.420 The thing about when you preserve things in formalin is it tends to slightly scramble, or at least make

01:24:32.280 less accessible the nucleic acid in the samples. So when you come to run a PCR test, you have to run

01:24:42.540 more cycles to get to the same results. If you split a biopsy, and you froze this sample, and you

01:24:51.280 used the other sample, and you preserved it in the other sample in formalin, and ran the machine,

01:24:57.660 you would find the virus much quicker in the frozen one than you would in the formalin fixed one.

01:25:05.080 Just to go back to what we were talking about, that means if you take the exact same piece of

01:25:09.240 tissue, you cut it in half, one goes in formalin, one goes in nitrogen. Let's say the nitrogen one

01:25:13.700 hits its PCR threshold in 20 cycles, you might expect the formalin one to require 30 cycles to reach

01:25:21.300 the same amount of genetic material, because you functionally started with so much less because

01:25:26.960 the formalin had degraded it.

01:25:29.020 Yes, thank you.

01:25:30.240 So what happened in O'Leary's lab?

01:25:32.100 We should have a show on CNN, and we could like bat it.

01:25:34.660 That was... Yes, so the only reason this ever came out, and you see, that's another thing I have

01:25:39.760 to say about my work, is it's less to do with vaccines and promoting vaccines or anything like

01:25:45.200 that, which is not really part of my agenda. It's the scientific questions going on behind all of

01:25:51.280 that, which are applicable to all sorts of... It's much bigger than just vaccines. So what happened

01:25:57.020 was they came up against, because of the particular importance of the vaccine programme, and they

01:26:03.220 were suing vaccine manufacturers, they came up against the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical

01:26:07.800 industry, effectively unlimited money. They can pay for anything, any kind of legal, scientific test

01:26:13.800 whatsoever. Came up against the pharmaceutical industry, who hired Britain's top expert on the

01:26:21.180 PCR technology. So they hired him, and he produced reports which made the comparisons, among many,

01:26:30.080 many other things, made the comparisons between the number of cycles on the fresh frozen biopsies and

01:26:37.380 the formalin-fixed biopsies, and found they were compared with a, I guess very complicated, they were

01:26:43.060 compared with another gene. And essentially, what he found was that it took the same number of cycles

01:26:50.040 on both samples, on both the formalin-fixed and the fresh frozen samples. To which there's only one

01:26:57.340 explanation. To which there's only one explanation, which is that the virus got into the samples after

01:27:04.220 they were fixed informally. In other words, they could not have come out of the children. So the

01:27:10.200 most gracious explanation is that this was purely a laboratory contamination. A less gracious

01:27:18.960 interpretation is that it was deliberately falsified. Well, this PCR expert, he went a stage

01:27:25.200 further, a man named Steve Bustin, he went a stage further because he was paid an enormous amount of

01:27:31.300 money to do this. I'm not saying he paid too much money, because get what you pay for. He then went

01:27:37.240 further and started looking at the individual wells, because this machine would have a whole rack of

01:27:44.340 wells. I think there are, from the top of my memory, I think there are 96. They're 96, yes. So you have 96

01:27:50.180 wells in a tray which goes into the machine, and some of these wells would have the samples you're testing

01:27:56.040 for. Some would have positive measles controls taken using a laboratory strain of measles would

01:28:02.860 be in some other ones. Some would have distilled water, and some would be empty. These wells are

01:28:09.260 being monitored second by second by second by second by the machine, and all this data that's spewing

01:28:15.980 out of the machine, I think hundreds of data points for each well, if not thousands, I can't remember off

01:28:22.060 the top of my head. All this material was gathered. And O'Leary was very keen to avoid it being disclosed

01:28:29.780 to the drug companies who were demanding. In fact, ultimately, the drug company's lawyers had to go to

01:28:36.380 the High Court in London, who then made an application to the Irish High Court to order O'Leary to produce

01:28:45.080 the data, to produce the outputs from this machine. And he came up with all kinds of reasons why he couldn't.

01:28:50.740 He was in Australia. The machine broke down. The dog ate his homework, and on it went. But ultimately, this guy

01:28:58.120 Bustin did get data, and he found that wells that had been reported by the machine to be positive for measles

01:29:08.280 virus were, in fact, submitted in legal papers as being an empty well, as having nothing there, as though somebody

01:29:16.060 had taken an eraser and rubbed out the results. In other cases, he found that wells that were

01:29:23.160 then themselves empty were reported positive and rubbed out. In his analysis, there had been manual

01:29:33.180 human intervention to adjust the results coming out of those machines, that machine, in fact, well,

01:29:40.580 there were two, actually, but out of that machine, in order to make the results consistent with what

01:29:48.480 Wakefield wanted to find. So the interpretation of that by many people, and I've just simply observe

01:29:56.900 it, was you would have to assume that a person or persons unknown had deliberately cleaned up the output

01:30:06.500 of that machine. Yeah, let's reflect on that for a second, right? So let's pretend we were talking

01:30:12.680 about a company, say Enron, who had deliberately, with its accounting firm, manipulated its books in

01:30:23.320 such a way that it could deceive shareholders. What would be the consequences of that? Well, in that

01:30:29.820 example, the consequence is jail. Part of the Volkswagen group did precisely that with fuel emissions from

01:30:36.320 their cars where they rigged the results. I don't actually know how that one's played out yet. I

01:30:40.880 don't know if anyone's gone to jail on that one, but you would think, yeah. So it's interesting when

01:30:45.420 you look at this case, if you just viewed it through the lens of the behavior, not the consequence,

01:30:52.220 but the behavior, it's as nefarious as the most nefarious thing, the stories of corporate greed and

01:30:59.100 things like that. And certainly more than even the corporate incompetence that sometimes masquerades as

01:31:05.720 greed. Again, I don't want to just dwell on this beyond anything, but again, it's worth noting,

01:31:10.180 when you finally got a hold of the medical records of those 12 kids, or at least a subset of them,

01:31:15.980 which again, if you were looking at medical records of children that went back to when the events

01:31:20.540 actually occurred, meaning when they were actually vaccinated, when their symptoms truly showed up,

01:31:25.780 so before they were recruited into the study, how consistent were the true findings with what were

01:31:33.000 ultimately reported? My recollection is they were not entirely congruent in that regard.

01:31:37.080 Oh, that was all bullshit. We kind of skipped that one. What happened was that when I first broke the

01:31:42.080 story in the Sunday Times, a series of pieces, and then I was invited to make a television documentary

01:31:47.420 an hour long in the dispatches strand in the UK. And in the course of that, Wakefield then sued us,

01:31:54.320 using actually the medical profession's money at the time. He was still a doctor at the time.

01:31:58.100 He sued us, but then he wanted to have his lawsuit frozen so that he didn't actually have to go ahead

01:32:04.840 with it. So he was going around telling people he was suing us, but in fact, he had his suit stayed,

01:32:10.120 as the legal word to freeze these things. So we, me and the television company, Channel 4 Television,

01:32:16.560 which is a national network with statutory duties for fairness and balance and accuracy,

01:32:21.420 we took him to court and forced him to sue us. So he'd either have to put up or shut up. And in the

01:32:28.120 course of that, I was able to read these children's medical records and get other documents disclosed to

01:32:33.900 me, which are evidence to me that these children did not have what he said they had. There was not a

01:32:42.480 single one of those 12 children whose cases were accurately reported in that paper in the Lancet in

01:32:49.280 February 1998. Not one of them. There were children whose developmental issues preceded their

01:32:56.760 vaccination. There were children whose issues were not 14 days or less after vaccination, but months,

01:33:03.920 in some cases, many months later. In fact, what he called his sentinel case, the first parent who came

01:33:10.480 to him, who phoned him at the suggestion of the Jackie Fletcher who'd set up the campaign group,

01:33:16.440 the first patient, she ultimately admitted in court papers that her child had shown no issues

01:33:24.540 associated with inflammatory bowel disease or autism or anything like that for nine months after

01:33:30.460 vaccination. And yet when she went to the hospital, she said 14 days was actually nothing before nine

01:33:37.640 months later. And then there were children who were reported in the paper as having a diagnosis,

01:33:42.760 a behavioural diagnosis of autism who didn't have autism at all. Well, didn't have an autism diagnosis

01:33:50.720 at all. I can't say what people did or didn't have. I can't bring them back and can only say what the

01:33:56.900 reporting said. They did not have autism diagnosis. So what Wakeford had done was to change the times to

01:34:04.340 onset, change the diagnoses. He was a non-clinical academic gastroenterologist, wasn't a clinician,

01:34:11.440 had no patients, as it's called him in the book, a doctor without patients. Although some other

01:34:15.940 doctors who don't have patients have taken issue with that. He changed diagnoses. He represented as

01:34:22.420 an inflammatory bowel disease, normal pathology findings. And there was nothing in that paper

01:34:29.180 that could be reconciled with the actual children's diagnosis, records, histories, laboratory and blood

01:34:36.580 tests at all. Not one of them. That really, I suppose, is what I was able to do. I mean,

01:34:42.140 interestingly, because he sued us in the UK and then abandoned that. He actually abandoned it on

01:34:49.100 the day I was sitting reading the medical records of the children at my lawyer's offices. I couldn't

01:34:54.200 use that material because it was sealed material. I was seeing it as pursuant to court order. I was

01:34:58.980 reading the children's medical records pursuant to a court order, which allowed me to do it. In fact,

01:35:03.060 one of the parents turned up to court and challenged and said, they shouldn't be allowed to read my

01:35:08.540 child's medical records. It's confidential. And the judge said, well, I'm not having these parents

01:35:11.980 saying who can have what documents and gave an order for me to read the children's medical records.

01:35:16.260 But I couldn't use it until what happened then was there was a huge medical board hearing went on for

01:35:21.940 217 days, longer than the trial of OJ Simpson, at which these medical records were studied and read

01:35:29.980 aloud over and over and over by lawyers in London. And at the end of it, Wakefield lost his license to

01:35:37.040 practice medicine and the Lancet retracted the paper. So that medical board hearing, which was a

01:35:42.680 reinvestigation of my findings in the Sunday Times, and really as a newspaper, we forced them to do it.

01:35:47.960 They had, and it cost, I think the ultimate figure was about 10 million pounds to have this hearing.

01:35:53.220 But I couldn't use that material until it was ventilated at that hearing. And other documents I

01:35:58.400 couldn't use until Wakefield then sued me again in Texas, when I did some reports for the British

01:36:04.680 Medical Journal, because they asked me to do a series of reports for a medically qualified readership.

01:36:10.620 So we did that. And then Wakefield sued on that. He was funded by a New York financier called Bernard

01:36:16.320 Seltz and his wife, Lisa, who put up the money, who ponied up the money for him to sue me and the

01:36:22.120 British Medical Journal. And that was thrown out too. But in the course of that, the documents that

01:36:28.240 were disclosed behind seal in the UK litigation was unsealed in the American litigation. And I was

01:36:38.060 able to use it in my book, The Doctor Who Fooled the World. That tells the story of all of this and

01:36:44.340 indeed a lot more. There's one piece of the story, Brian, that I think I'd love for you to also tell,

01:36:50.720 because it still comes up a lot to this day. And it's the story of, quote unquote,

01:36:54.500 the CDC whistleblower. Yeah, to be honest, Peter, I mean, I think I'm getting a bit tired now. I mean,

01:37:01.640 we've been talking for more than two hours. And that is, I mean, I think people- That's a record

01:37:08.120 for you. I know that's a record. People want to know about the CDC whistleblower and this movie

01:37:14.100 Vax that Wakefield came out of and the rebirth of the anti-vaccine move. Because by the time I'd

01:37:19.040 finished this aspect of the investigation, Wakefield was finished. I mean, he had haircuts worse than mine.

01:37:23.780 This is a COVID lockdown London haircut. I haven't had my hair cut for like, I don't know,

01:37:28.800 two months or something, three months, God knows what. He was walking around looking like me now.

01:37:34.440 Yeah. He was finished. He was written off. None of his colleagues would speak to him. He was done.

01:37:41.400 But then came the return of Andrew Wakefield on the scene. That's the fourth part. The book is in

01:37:48.480 four parts. The first part is big ideas. The second part is secret schemes. The third part is exposed.

01:37:56.260 And the fourth part is avenged. And you then come to avenged. Wakefield's, what I would characterize

01:38:03.160 as a vindictive riposte to his personal ruin, where he started to do what he's always done,

01:38:12.860 which is to mirror his own behavior onto others and accuse or claim, falsely claim, that a researcher at

01:38:21.880 the CDC had accused his colleagues of fraud and that Wakefield had discovered with this fraud through

01:38:30.040 this alleged whistleblower. And that wasn't true either. Let's give people a chance. They'll read

01:38:35.880 the book. You do a very good job describing this with full transcripts. And again, I think it's

01:38:41.520 important for people to understand this. Do you think that Andrew Wakefield would ever sit down

01:38:46.140 with me for an interview? No. No. No. He will only sit down for an interview with somebody he knows

01:38:52.740 will not ask him questions that are difficult. That's the first thing. And secondly, you would not be

01:38:59.360 able to field his replies. So, for example, he will say, and he does say, I never got involved in the

01:39:08.840 lawsuit until after the children were seen at the hospital, which is just a most flagrant lie. I mean,

01:39:18.140 I've got the paperwork. I've got the contract. Right. He was involved two years before.

01:39:23.980 Yeah. But he would just lie to you. I'm just giving you a really obvious one.

01:39:27.060 I see. So you're talking, the degree of pathologic lying is so great. You're in a fact-free zone.

01:39:33.240 I want to end on two things. The first is I want to read you something from

01:39:36.500 the New England Journal of Medicine, which in 2011 wrote an article or published an article rather

01:39:42.420 titled, The Age-Old Struggle Against Anti-Vaccinationists. I'm going to read you a quote

01:39:47.860 from it. And I want you to tell me if you think this is accurate or if you think this is too harsh.

01:39:51.980 So it states that this has been an issue that's existed since the 19th century, but now the

01:39:57.480 anti-vaccinationist media of choice are typically television and the internet, including social

01:40:02.000 media outlets, which are used to sway public opinion and distract attention from scientific

01:40:08.060 evidence. The editorial goes on to characterize such people as they tend toward complete mistrust of

01:40:15.080 government and manufacturers, conspiratorial thinking, denialism, low cognitive complexity

01:40:21.460 in thinking patterns, reasoning flaws, and a habit of substituting emotional anecdotes for data,

01:40:28.560 including people who range from those unable to understand and incorporate the concepts of risk

01:40:33.100 and probability into science-grounded decision-making, and those who use, presumably on the other side,

01:40:38.820 deliberate mistruths, intimidation, falsified data, and even the threats of violence.

01:40:44.200 Do you think that's too harsh?

01:40:46.200 I think that's absolutely right. What I would say about it, that is static prose exposition.

01:40:52.180 Now, that's one way where somebody could say, well, I don't know who wrote that, but whoever it is,

01:40:57.120 is probably a very learned person with enormous experience. I'm telling you this. That's what he's

01:41:01.560 doing. I'm telling you this in the New England Journal of Medicine. What I've tried to do is to take a

01:41:07.580 different approach to it, which is to tell the story and to show people, which is why we got into all

01:41:14.120 that stuff about cycles of PCR and things like that, is to show people the real characters behind this

01:41:21.020 and the specific facts of how they did it. And that's what I've tried to do in The Doctor Who

01:41:27.000 Fooled the World, is to tell the story as a narrative. Who did what? And the closing point

01:41:34.360 from me would be a quote from my own book, I suppose, if I can remember it, is, and this is

01:41:39.260 just before the pandemic began. I wrote this. To me, the importance of it was not just about vaccines

01:41:46.100 and vaccine safety and the issues that you deal with in your clinical practice, but it's this.

01:41:51.000 If he could do what he did, and I'll show you what he did, who else is doing what in the hospitals and

01:42:00.160 laboratories that we may one day look to for our lives. Now we are looking to those hospitals and

01:42:07.240 laboratories for our lives. And that's really the message behind the whole thing. I had no message to

01:42:14.240 convince people to vaccinate their children. I don't advise people to vaccinate their children.

01:42:18.560 I don't accept endorsements of my book from vaccine manufacturers or the usual suspects whose

01:42:25.240 names we all know. I was interested in that question. If he could do what he did, who else is

01:42:31.600 doing what in the hospitals and laboratories that we may one day look to for our lives. And that's the

01:42:37.480 importance of it. Because the reason Wakefield got caught was because he took something as high

01:42:43.640 profile as vaccination, affecting everybody's children, subject of primary concern to almost

01:42:52.180 everybody. And he chose to do what he did within that. So therefore, I was able to, for my very first

01:42:57.840 story, I got four months to investigate before we published a single story. And the television

01:43:03.620 programme that I think we're about eight months or nine months preparing that. The BMJ series,

01:43:08.960 which took six months to prepare for publication, the book, and all of this is subject to the scrutiny

01:43:16.440 of lawyers, other journalists. My contract with Johns Hopkins University, my North American publishers

01:43:22.680 requires that I've told the truth. And if I hadn't told the truth, my publishers would be in a position

01:43:29.320 to pulp the book and send me the bill. That is the contractual position I'm in. The book has been

01:43:36.440 reviewed, peer-reviewed, two different libel lawyers, one in New York and one in London,

01:43:42.000 have looked at it. And two members of staff at the Johns Hopkins University Press went through all my

01:43:47.940 documents against a 2,000 footnoted references in the manuscript of this book to be sure that what

01:43:56.960 I've been saying is backed by the evidence. It's not just me saying it. So while I appreciate those

01:44:03.300 words from handed down by somebody who knows about these things and summarises it based on their

01:44:11.420 expertise and their life story themselves, what I've tried to do is to tell the story of the real people

01:44:17.960 and the specific facts as to how we got the anti-vaccine movement that is today causing all this

01:44:25.980 mischief over SARS-CoV-2 shots. So that's my pitch and that's why I wrote the book and I hope somebody

01:44:34.880 might go out and buy it. I think people absolutely will. And I think that people should not assume

01:44:39.160 that because they've heard this podcast, they know all that's in the book. The book is incredibly rich

01:44:43.160 with detail. As I said at the outset, I read the book twice because it's a book that you can easily

01:44:48.240 miss parts the first time through. My closing thought, Brian, will be this. First, I guess I have two.

01:44:54.120 One, I really appreciate the point you just made, which is this is really less a book about vaccines

01:45:01.260 and it's more a book about how science can go wrong and how science can be corrupted by bad people.

01:45:09.600 And I think we can say that. I think for me, a very sad footnote to this story, which you've alluded

01:45:15.660 to, begins with the kernel of those 12 children who were summarily tortured in a hospital some 20 years

01:45:24.040 ago. And if anybody listening to this has a six or seven year old child, and especially if any parent

01:45:30.060 listening to this has a child with autism, they will understand what you said, which is these are

01:45:35.560 children in whom any deviation from a normal routine is devastating. That means bedtime being at a

01:45:43.840 slightly different time. Nevermind going to a hospital, sleeping in a foreign place, being tortured

01:45:49.960 through a bowel preparation when you're constipated, having a colonoscope rammed into your colon, one

01:45:55.700 child having 12 perforations, if my memory serves me correctly, having a lumbar puncture, multiple venous

01:46:02.520 punctures, to then realize all of this was done without even a modicum of investigational review board

01:46:11.160 oversight. In other words, this was not even deemed an ethical thing to do. To think that that's the kernel

01:46:17.860 of evil that then went on to produce so much angst for so many parents who now are left wondering,

01:46:25.840 have I done something to cause harm to my child? I think that is the absolute saddest legacy of this.

01:46:35.480 And effective tomorrow, if this story vanished, which it won't, there would be no undoing what I

01:46:41.960 consider that unspeakable harm. So I thank you for doing what you've done. I wish we could end

01:46:47.840 on a happier note. And I thank you for staying up so late. I know it's very late there in London,

01:46:52.280 but I'm greatly appreciative for this time, Brian.

01:46:55.820 No problem. Thanks, Peter. Thanks for your interest.

01:46:58.820 Thank you for listening to this week's episode of The Drive. If you're interested in diving deeper into any

01:47:03.760 topics we discuss, we've created a membership program that allows us to bring you more in-depth

01:47:08.480 exclusive content without relying on paid ads. It's our goal to ensure members get back much more than the

01:47:14.400 price of the subscription. Now to that end, membership benefits include a bunch of things.

01:47:18.940 One, totally kick-ass comprehensive podcast show notes that detail every topic, paper, person,

01:47:24.880 thing we discuss on each episode. The word on the street is nobody's show notes rival these.

01:47:30.340 Monthly AMA episodes or Ask Me Anything episodes, hearing these episodes completely.

01:47:35.440 Access to our private podcast feed that allows you to hear everything without having to listen to

01:47:40.740 spiels like this. The Qualies, which are a super short podcast that we release every Tuesday through

01:47:46.340 Friday, highlighting the best questions, topics, and tactics discussed on previous episodes of The

01:47:51.060 Drive. This is a great way to catch up on previous episodes without having to go back and necessarily

01:47:56.240 listen to everyone. Steep discounts on products that I believe in, but for which I'm not getting paid

01:48:02.160 to endorse. And a whole bunch of other benefits that we continue to trickle in as time goes on.

01:48:07.100 If you want to learn more and access these member-only benefits, you can head over to

01:48:10.700 peteratiamd.com forward slash subscribe. You can find me on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook,

01:48:17.760 all with the ID peteratiamd. You can also leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast

01:48:24.260 player you listen on. This podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute

01:48:29.820 the practice of medicine, nursing, or other professional healthcare services, including the giving of

01:48:35.300 medical advice. No doctor-patient relationship is formed. The use of this information and the

01:48:41.020 materials linked to this podcast is at the user's own risk. The content on this podcast is not intended

01:48:47.200 to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard

01:48:53.700 or delay in obtaining medical advice from any medical condition they have, and they should seek the

01:48:59.840 assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. Finally, I take conflicts of

01:49:05.560 interest very seriously. For all of my disclosures and the companies I invest in or advise, please visit

01:49:11.860 peteratiamd.com forward slash about where I keep an up-to-date and active list of such companies.

01:49:29.840 Thank you.

The Peter Attia Drive - April 19, 2021

#158 - Brian Deer： A tale of scientific fraud—exposing Andrew Wakefield and the origin of the belief that vaccines cause autism

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript