Page 58 - Fall2020

injury and brain injury and, therefore established a sort of gut-brain axis efit from vaccination policy—the pharmaceuti-
of disease and the potential role of the vaccine in that, then people were cal industry being first among them. The film
punished for doing this kind of research. What happened to me was used tells the story of the National Childhood Vaccine
as an example to other doctors and scientists to say, “If you get involved Injury Act that Ronald Reagan signed into law
in this, this is what will happen to you.” Nevertheless, very interesting in 1986, which gave liability protection to the
research has been done more recently that shows, for example, that the pharmaceutical industry for damage done by
immune response to vaccines is dependent to some extent on the health their vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies [and
of our microbiome. So, gut bacteria are influencing the way in which we doctors] cannot be sued in any court in the land
respond to vaccines. This in itself is an interesting observation. But it’s if you have a child damaged by a vaccine. And
fair to say that in the field of developmental disorders and autism, there is many people don’t know this. Many politicians
now extensive evidence—the most consistent finding in autism research, don’t know it. Joe Biden said in the presidential
in fact—that there is a gut-brain link. And that is very interesting. We candidacy debate the other day, “Imagine if I
would have been much further along in that research had the pressure got up here and said we’d give indemnity to the
not been put on people not to do it. But in terms of vaccines and the gut pharmaceutical industry.” Here’s a note to you,
microbiome, we are still in the early days of our understanding. Joe: We do! That is exactly what we do.
The 1986 Act was one of the most danger-
HG: And what about the microbiome and this coronavirus? ous pieces of legislation ever passed, not because
it was not well-intended (certainly by those
AW: I saw a paper the other day that I think was from France, looking at parents who supported it), and not because it
the possibility that what we are seeing here is that the virus is working was not set up in a way that—had they followed
indirectly as a respiratory pathogen—a respiratory-causing agent—by the letter of the law—would have been fair, ef-
influencing or affecting gut bacteria. And it’s the immune response that ficient and generous, but because the industry
is generated as a consequence of that interaction with the gut bacteria didn’t want it to work. The agencies—CDC and
that is leading to an autoimmune-type reaction in the lungs. People are FDA—didn’t want it to work. It was systemati-
saying—from emergency room doctors to researchers—that this is not a cally corrupted from the very beginning. Here
classic respiratory pathogen. It’s not producing pneumonia or pneumoni- is the story of how the act came into being. If
tis in the way that we expect infectious agents to do. As a consequence, people think they know what happened, they
using ventilation in the way that we use it for pneumonia is not helping don’t. It’s an extraordinary story of the most
and may be harming patients. In fact, the virus is working indirectly by terrible fraud and corruption that have been
causing an immune reaction and fibrosis or scarring in the lungs in those exposed through discovering documents that
patients rather than through a direct effect. That is very interesting, and had never previously seen the light of day. It’s
I plan to spend some more time researching it. about how, once passed, the act was systemati-
cally corrupted by the very government agencies
HG: Now about your film: What drove you to produce it, and what’s it that are instructed by statute to follow the letter
about exactly? of the law—and the dreadful damage done to
children as a consequence. It is an astonishing
AW: It’s my third film. Film has been an extraordinarily effective way tale. I thought I knew the origins of it, but I re-
of communicating with a wide number of people. The first thing you do ally had no idea. And of course, there were both
is entertain people, and the second thing is you educate them. If you can intended and unintended consequences, and the
get them entertained and sitting forward in their seats, you can appeal power of the industry to influence every aspect
to people who historically wouldn’t have considered the subject or had of our lives is first and foremost among those.
only a peripheral interest in it. If you can create an entertaining film that Therefore what we are experiencing, what is
informs, then you can get to a lot of people. Vaxxed, my last film, did playing out now, is our third act, if you like.
exactly that. It reached millions and millions worldwide and changed the The final part of this film really looks at what is
entire debate about the safety of vaccines. happening contemporaneously in the context of
So I was very keen to make the latest film. It’s a story about what the history of vaccination policy in this country.
really is at the heart of everything we’re going through now: mandatory
vaccination, increased numbers of vaccinations in children worldwide, HG: Bringing it to today makes me think of
cradle-to-grave vaccination, pregnancy-to-grave vaccination, approaches Bill Gates and how he wants to experiment
to Covid and the sheer wealth accumulation and power of those who ben- with developing this coronavirus vaccine. And
56 Wise Traditions FALL 2020