Executive summary

After the COVID shots rolled out, critical care units of hospitals were seeing massive spikes in clots and strokes.

Why didn’t they speak up?

Because they didn’t want to lose their job (or their medical license).

I wish I was kidding about this, but I’m not.

I heard this directly from the nursing staff at a large hospital I was just at.

This is why people don’t trust doctors. It’s not the fault of “misinformation spreaders.” It’s because doctors aren’t allowed to tell us the truth.

Share

Executive summary

Dr. Bernard Rimland studied autism for over 44 years, including about 35 years collecting parent reports. He is the founder of the Autism Research Institute (ARI).

He testified in Congress on April 6, 2000.

You can find his full testimony here starting on page 337 including the chart on the shift of the onset age post MMR vaccine.

In this article, I will summarize his key points:

1. Vaccines cause autism

2. Authors of papers disputing this will not show their data. They ignored all data requests.

3. There was a shift in parent-observed onset age from birth to 18 months that happened post-MMR vaccine introduction. It flipped from 2:1 (birth onset:18 mo onset) to 1:2 which is dramatic. Nobody has ever explained it including the current ARI which is now pro-vaccine!

4. Starting in 1964, parents started telling Rimland their children were normal until getting a DPT shot, a “triple vaccine.” So in 1967, he started systematically collecting data on the child’s response to the DPT shot.

5. More recently, before his testimony, he was inundated with parents reporting their child was normal until receiving the MMR, another triple vaccine.

You can see the chart Rimland referenced in his testimony above.

You can also watch the full testimony: Dr. Bernard Rimland, Dr. Michael Goldberg & Dr. Mary Megson - Autism & Childhood Vaccines - April 2000.

Key points

These are the four myths he dispells:

1. Vaccines are safe

2. No link between MMR and autism. And Taylor refused to supply his data for re-analysis!

3. Autism is primarily genetic.

4. Autism “naturally” occurs at 18 months

Key statement:

As a parent and as a full-time professional researcher, I am bitterly disappointed with the medical establishment's dismal record with regard to autism over the past 60 years. The medical schools, as well as the governmental agencies, have consistently supported outmoded, unproven and even disproven theories from the very beginning, and have actively opposed the most promising approaches for the treatment of autism.

…

Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on non-productive lines of research, while virtually no money at all has been given to research on the methods of alternative medicine, which are far more promising in terms of both safety and. efficacy.

Summary

Not much has changed in the last 25 years, has it?

I’m certain Rimland was right. And I’m on verge of proving it to the world using very precise methods that anyone can replicate.

Share

Tonight on VSRF Live, we welcome physician assistant and whistleblower Deb Conrad, along with her attorney Jeremy Friedman, to tell the extraordinary story of a legal battle that could have implications far beyond one hospital system.

In 2021, Deb was working as a hospitalist at United Memorial Medical Center, part of Rochester Regional Health, when she says she began seeing patients admitted with strokes, blood clots, heart problems, and other serious conditions following COVID-19 vaccination.

Concerned that these cases were not being reported as possible vaccine adverse events, Deb began filing VAERS reports herself, more than 160 in all. She also repeatedly raised her concerns within the hospital.

In October 2021, she was fired.

Deb fought back, filing a federal False Claims Act lawsuit against Rochester Regional Health. She alleges the hospital system failed to comply with vaccine adverse-event reporting requirements and retaliated against her for speaking up. Rochester Regional Health disputes her allegations and the basis for her termination.

In June 2025, a federal judge allowed key portions of her case to move forward. Now in discovery, Deb and her legal team are seeking answers about what was happening behind the scenes.

Deb and Jeremy will take us inside this remarkable case—what she witnessed, why she felt compelled to report it, what happened when she spoke up, and what they may now uncover through discovery.

Please join us tonight by clicking on the graphic above at 7 PM ET / 4 PM PT.

Steve

PS: Please share our socials!

VSRF on X

VSRF on Instagram

VSRF on Gab

VSRF on Truth Social

VSRF on Gettr

Executive summary

If you are associated (e.g., work at) with any of:

and you are willing to help me collect non-confidential aggregate data

PLEASE fill out this interest form

Thanks!

Executive summary

The 14 different estimation methods listed below are consistent with the 1 in 1,000 hypothesis; some are a bit more, some predict less.

This is not a per dose estimate. This is an overall estimate on a per person basis. Some people got 1 shot. Others had 8 or more shots.

1 in 1,000 means that if 5.5B people are vaccinated, I’m estimating it led to 5.5M excess deaths over a 5 year period, or about 1.1M excess deaths per year. On a 65M worldwide deaths per year, that’s an increase of less than 2% per year. This is why it is easy to miss.

1. The Levi-Ladapo study

This is my favorite study. They compared the non-COVID mortality of two matched groups: one that took Pfizer, one that took Moderna.

The matching was extensive; more extensive than almost any other study.

The matching used was more extensive than Barbra A. Dickerman’s matching and she showed the SMD’s were small on co-morbidities even if you just matched on demographics (2 papers).

The non-COVID all-cause mortality should have been identical in the two groups. It wasn’t.

Non-COVID-19 mortality risk was higher in BNT162b2 recipients compared to mRNA-1273 recipients (OR [95% CI]: 1.374 [1.325, 1.425]).

The most conservative estimate is that Moderna is 100% safe and Pfizer has a 32% higher death rate for 1 year only. Since the Pfizer Moderna split in the US was around 60/40, this would be a 19% mortality increase in 1 year in the mortality of the vaccinated.

But the vaccinated are healthier than the vaccinated (in terms of mortality in the general public and this is caused by selection bias; this is the static HVE effect and is readily verifiable in the Czech record level data for example as noted in the Mirror of Erised paper.), and not everyone in the US was vaccinated. So if 75% got the shots, and those Americans are healthier than the unvaccinated Americans by 20%, we’re looking at an 11% increase in mortality.

The death rate in the US is around .903% so 11% applied to that is 1 per 1,007 which is close to my estimate my 1 per 1,000 estimate.

Nobody wants to talk about this study or replicate it in any other states. The method used is the most accurate method I’m aware of because it compares vaccinated versus vaccinated so it’s immune to the differences between people who opted for vaccination vs. people who declined vaccination.

2. Charles Hoffe

Hoffe reported 1 vaccine death in 900 patients vaccinated. He’s a careful sole practitioner so he knew his patients and why they died.

3. Private Canadian doctors

A Canadian doctor with a 1,200 patient practice reported 3 vaccine related deaths in his practice, but not all were vaccinated. So that’s well in excess of the 1 per 1,000 estimate.

Another Canada doctor (who I verified is a family MD in Alberta, Canada) has been practicing for 25 years. He saw this article and emailed me, “In my medical practice, I would say 1 in 35 of my patients were killed by the vaccines.”

OK, so this is a problem because he didn’t tell me the number of vaccinated patients! We are dealing with Poisson probabilities here and 1 in 35 is completely different than 2 in 70!! Waiting to hear back. But the point is that statistics such as these can help us because this kind of observation may be impossible if the underlying estimate is 1 death per 10,000.

So now I have additional detail and this is quoted verbatim. His practice death rate was flat pre-vaccine, including 2020. Then it doubled. And the people who died died of really odd things, all of which have been linked to COVID vaccine deaths by others. And of the 32 he links to the COVID shots, for him to be wrong, you’d have to show a 25-year practicing doctor got 32 out of 32 death attributions all wrong.

Probably best to not use my name. I can tell you that using electronic medical records I looked at the number of overall deaths in each year for the 10 years up to and including 2020, and compared to the next 4 years. For the first 10 years I averaged 7.6 deaths a year in a practice of about 1100 patients. In 2020 it was 8. The next 4 years it was 16.5 deaths a year. When I looked at all those deaths, I could make a good case that 48.4848% of those who died had their deaths caused by or hastened by the vaccines. I had 3 people die with covid but one fell and hit his head and bled in it. I looked at the other doctors records and they all had similar increases. Deaths under 70, which previously was very rare increased by 4 to 7 times than previously.

All of the excess deaths were vaccinated. Over 4 years 2021 2022 2023 and 2024, 32 patients out of roughly 1100 I believe were killed by the vaccines.

From 2021 to 2024, 32 vaccinated people out of a practice of around 1100 were likely killed by the vaccines. From 2020 to 2024 3 died with covid. 2 were unvaccinated.

…

Reference the other EMR and results, I would bet everyone had similar increases of deaths. The problem is that even when I looked at the other doctors results, they kind of went into a sort of denial as to cause. My practice had rapid cancers, sudden deaths, rapid neurological conditions, aneurysmal growth at rates that don’t normally happen. I had seen people get 14 cm and 8 cm lung cancers that radiated to the spine and hip when I know they had a clear CT scan 2 months before the first injection. I had people with cancers that were cured 20 years previous come back. I would follow similar case reports and studies and this is why I am pretty convinced the increase in deaths was from the shots. If it is just numbers of increase death rates on different practices I can see what I can do.

So his COVID vaccine excess death rate was 29 per 1,000 vaccinated.

So let’s do the math. Let’s say my estimate of 1 per 1000 is correct. Then we just saw 32 deaths and expected to see 1.1 deaths.

Chance of that happening is remote:

I can’t cherry pick this statistic no matter how hard I tried. So this means the COVID vaccine likely killed more than 1 per 1,000. These are medical records, not “an anecdote.” Yes, this is a statistical outlier, but the problem is that it is so outside what is possible to even find as an outlier.

4. VAERS

There were 34.5K deaths in VAERS in 2021 and 2022. Take away 500 baseline deaths per year reported and that is 33.5K deaths. VAERS underreporting factor (URF) is 26.

26*33.5=871K deaths.

That is well over the 1 per 1,000 estimate since only around 300M people got the COVID shots.

5. FDNY

6 members of FDNY died within 3 months of the COVID vaccine rollout. This is unprecedented. Normally, they might see 1 and at most 2 deaths in a year for active duty firemen. If you run the numbers, the chance of this being a “coincidence” is 2.7e-7. In short, something killed a whole lot of really healthy young people and if it wasn’t the vaccine, what was it? It wasn’t COVID and it wasn’t bad luck.

There are 11,000 active duty FDNY. Assuming they all got the shot and all deaths from the shot ONLY happened within 3 months of the shot, then the 6 deaths is a kill rate of 1 in 1,833. So that’s lower than my estimates, but this is only from 3 months of data and assumes nobody died after the 3 month window. Not reasonable.

6. Men’s rugby coach

I spoke today to the 10 year coach of a men’s rugby team. She is a medical doctor. She mentioned that before the COVID shots, they never had a death on the 80 person team (ages 22-39 all men). The deaths were aged 26 to 33.

They had 3 deaths since the shots rolled out: 2022, 2023, and 2025. Two were prion disease and one was cardiac.

80 vaccinated, 3 unexpected deaths. That’s more than 1 per 1,000 for sure; it’s like 1 in 27.

7. Jay Bonnar

Jay Bonnar lost 15 friends unexpectedly since the shots rolled out. Four of them died on the same day as their shot and 3 of the 4 were 30 or younger. Before the shots, his died suddenly death count was 0.

This is statistically impossible (5e-22) and his story is verifiable. I verified it myself since he provided all the names. Fact checkers seem uninterested for some reason.

Jay only knows around 15,000 people so he just happens to be around 1 per 1,000 as well.

Most people are lower than Jay because they aren’t as well networked as Jay.

8. Doctors and nurses in the US reporting on their patient base (72 different practices reporting)

Observations from doctors, nurses, and paramedics in the US show a variety of death rates, some higher than 1 per 1,000, some lower.

There were more twice as many over 1 per thousand than those at or under 1 per 1000.

The comments though are stunning. Worth reading if you are still skeptical.

9. Wayne Root

Here’s the original story.

Here’s the summary:

200 guests at Wayne Root’s wedding

• 100 vaxxed

• 100 unvaxed

He checked on them 8 months AFTER the wedding and found:

Among the vaxxed:

• 26 seriously injured

• 7 dead

Among the unvaxxed:

• 0 injured

• 0 dead

This is like a real-world clinical trial. We have a control group and a vaccinated group.

7 in 100 dead is far in excess of my 1 per 1,000 estimate.

It’s hard to explain if the vaccine is safe.

10. George Fareed’s medical practice

George just texted me. 2 vaccine deaths in 3,000 patients.

In this case, slightly under the 1 per 1,000 number. My estimate is an average so some observations will be higher, some lower.

11. X survey

My estimate of one per thousand would be a 10% increase in the death rate in one year

Most of my followers on X believe the increase in mortality was higher than my 10% estimate.

12. Reader stories posted for this article

See the comments. Some of these rates are absurdly high. Statistics predicts outliers, but that many of the vaccines are safe seems very unlikely.

13. Family survey of 7,297 families

I asked over 7,000 families what they observed in their family. Not friends. Extended family members.

The survey is here.

The survey results are posted here.

29,031 total vaccinated family members.

1,489 believed by a family member to have died from the COVID vaccine.

So around 51 death per 1,000 vaccinated which I think is way too high, but that’s explainable because people who had death were more likely to report them. About 80,000 people read my articles so it’s a reach of around 240,000 family members. So the 1,500 deaths reported is consistent with the one per thousand estimate.

Wouldn’t it be great if someone tried to replicate this and see what number they got?

14. Ed Dowd estimates

I asked Ed for his estimate and he said between one and three per thousand.

15. McCullough autopsy study

74% of those who died after getting a COVID vaccine died from the vaccine. Whoops.

See A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination which was unethically removed from preprint servers.

The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination, of which the primary causes of death include sudden cardiac death (35%), pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), VITT (7.9%), myocarditis (7.1%), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).

This implies a more than a doubling of the normal death rate in the first 2 weeks. So that’s a 4% increase in the annual death rate, but we are only counting deaths caused in the first 2 weeks. So if the deaths were only caused in the first 2 weeks, the rate would be on the order of 1 per 2,000. So once again, our 1 per 1,000 is right in the ballpark based on autopsy evidence.

Also this paper on vaccine-caused deaths (autopsy study).

16. Israel FOIA

18. V-safe

8% required professional medical care after their vaccination.

1% to 2% are estimated to be disabled.

So is it that hard to imagine that 1 in 10 of those ended up dead?

Among the 10M reporters:

• 1,722 unique V-safe registrants flagged as “Death”

• 1,521 of those were reported by a family member

• As of August 2025, the CDC had forwarded only 26 of those to VAERS

Sounds pretty safe doesn’t it? The problem is that if you have 10M people in v-safe, 100K are going to die over a 1 year period. Yet they had only 1,722 death reports instead of 100K.

This means V-Safe is extremely unreliable for assessing deaths based on the death reports themselves. You could extrapolate from the 8% needing medical attention and say that the probability distribution function on severity would predict a two-orders-of-magnitude lower rate of death. But we don’t have good data on the probability distribution function for medical detention so that’s just a rough estimate. But 8%, two orders of magnitude lower, is consistent with the 1 per 1,000 hypothesis.

19. Ambulance service DOA calls per year

This is confirmation that governments are not sandbagging deaths. These are the real “DOA” calls of an ambulance service serving a stable population. These sorts of numbers are consistent with the 1 in 1,000 estimate.

Summary

There are more examples. These are just the ones off the top of my head.

I haven’t seen anybody publish a similar list, using an equally diverse set of sources that came to a different conclusion.

What do you think? Please share your own stories, especially if you know of death rates in LARGE groups where a death in the group is tracked and constant over time like pilots, police officers, firemen, healthcare workers, your church, your private adult living community, nursing homes, etc.

I’m again asking you to sign our petition to repeal the 1986 vaccine law.

For 40 years, vaccine manufacturers have been protected from legal responsibility when their products injure people.

Now, bills to repeal the 1986 law are finally before both chambers of Congress. We have a real chance to change the law. The tide is turning in our favor.

We are at just over 20,000 signatures. Our next goal is 50,000.

We had some technical issues with a previous version of the petition form. Those problems have been fixed.

You don’t have to be an American to sign. We welcome signatures from around the world.

I signed it. It takes less than a minute.

Bottom line

Sign it.

Share it.

Now is the time and it’s so urgent!

Share

What happens when a mother who spent years fighting for answers for her own child gets a seat at the table where America’s autism priorities are being set?

Tonight I’m joined by our friend, Tracy Slepcevic. Tracy is the founder of Autism Health and the Autism Health Summit, author of Warrior Mom: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Her Son with Autism, and a member of the federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

Tracy’s journey began with her son, Noah, who experienced profound developmental regression as a toddler. Refusing to accept that nothing could be done, she spent years searching for answers, investigating underlying medical issues, and pursuing interventions that she says helped her son recover significant function.

That experience transformed Tracy into a fierce advocate for children with autism and families seeking answers about causes, treatments, and recovery. Today, she’s bringing that perspective directly into the federal autism conversation.

Last month, Tracy participated in a pivotal IACC meeting as the committee debated its new 2026–2028 Strategic Plan, which will help shape federal priorities for autism research, health care, services and support.

From one mother’s fight for her son to a seat at the national policy table, Tracy has dedicated her life to seeking answers and advocating for families affected by autism.

You won’t want to miss this conversation. Please join us tonight by clicking on the graphic above at 7pm ET / 4pm PT.

Steve

PS: Please share our socials!

VSRF on X

VSRF on Instagram

VSRF on Gab

VSRF on Truth Social

VSRF on Gettr

This is from a whistleblower in Medicare. The x-axis is days since the Medicare recipient (mostly those over 65) got the COVID shot on 2021. The y-axis is the number of deaths. The rise on day 0 to 21 is the dynamic healthy-vaccine effect (HVE) which is well known. It’s the rest of the chart that is inconsistent with a safe vaccine.

Do you know why?

The answer

This may be one of my most important posts.

The answer is that the slope of the deaths/day should trend lower over time for a fixed age cohort time-series plot like this one. So instead of turning “up” like this line does, it should be flat and turning down.

The slope of deaths/day depends on the average age of the fixed cohort. It slopes up for cohorts with an average age of under 85, it slopes down for older cohorts. The slope over MANY years gets more negative with time. The positive slope should rarely exceed 8.5% per year which is the human biological constant increase in mortality. For young cohorts, depletion is minimal. At 85 years old, the 8.5% increase due to biological aging is neutralized by the increased absolute death rate, so the slope is zero.

The observation is that the slope here is pathological. Over a one year period, the slope should be the same or it should slope down if nothing is happening.

If Delta/Omicron surface in Sept 2021, we’d start to see the slope START to very gradually increase about midway in the graph. We don’t see that. The slope increase starts earlier and is relatively constant.

For the full analysis as to why this data is inexplicable, see AlterAI.

The other single best chart is VAERS

The VAERS death reports are also a smoking gun. That’s not reporting bias or “more people got the shots.” There is no honest way to explain the rise in VAERS death reports.

Was it effective?

The single best chart is cumulative COVID deaths vs. time. Most of the world got the COVID vaccine but there was no knee in the death curve anywhere. It was a straight line. The vaccine was supposed to “flatten the curve.”

Instead, it flattened worldwide all on the SAME day, March 12, 2022, the day the virus mutated to be less lethal.

Summary

The shots killed a lot of people and the population data shows clearly nobody was saved. That’s why the BMJ unethically retracted the Mostert paper, to cover it up. None of the cited reasons meet the COPE standards for retraction.

However, the journal’s view is that this would be insufficient.Overall, the journal concludes that the discussion of causes of mortality is imbalanced, lacks rigour, and includes misinformation.

Share

Executive summary

Like most people, members of Congress who claim to “follow the science” don’t really walk the talk. They follow what the talking head “experts” have to say.

So if you want to convince them, the battle has to start by convincing the “experts.”

And we all know how THAT goes, don’t we? They don’t engage. No debates. No public discussions. They run and hide when challenged.

So how do you make progress?

For most members, I think the ONLY viable approach is to:

1. Ask the member for the name of an expert they trust and have the member reach out to the expert to have him respond

2. Have a short written discussion with their expert.

3. Share with the member the result of that discussion.

For actual scientists who are members of Congress like Rep. Bill Foster, you can go direct.

I wrote, “You have said previously that vaccines don’t cause autism. I was wondering if you would be open to looking at very persuasive evidence that shows that is not the case.”

Bill responded immediately, “I’ll take a look. Send me a link.”

Holy shit! I had to pinch myself. I wished every member of Congress reacted that way. That is exactly the right response.

In this article, I’m going to summarize what happened when I tried this approach on my member of Congress Sam Liccardo who is a more typical member than Bill Foster.

My exchange with Rep. Liccardo

First off, let me say that I like Sam Liccardo. He’s a decent, hard working, talented, and smart guy.

The fact that Sam is engaging with me rather than blowing me off (like my former member of Congress Anna Eshoo) is evidence that he’s fundamentally a good human being. He has my respect for doing that.

My goal is to open his eyes to what is really going on here with respect to “follow the science” and vaccines in particular.

I’m going to summarize our conversation rather than quote it.

1. I wrote an email to Sam that we have 11 studies showing the unvaccinated are healthier and asked if he’d speak out about it in Congress and say that vaccine mandates are a bad idea because the State shouldn’t mandate a medical intervention that uniformly makes our children unhealthy. I cited the reanalysis of the Henry Ford study done by

2. He wrote back saying the first first two authors of the Henry Ford reanalysis study are experts in linguistics and that he relies on the advice of subject matter experts for forming his opinions on scientific matters. He wrote, “In the meantime, I’ll continue to follow my boring, uninteresting approach of heeding the counsel of trained, experienced medical doctors and epidemiologists who publish in peer-reviewed journals, and who openly and actively debate their findings. Those findings are far from infallible -- they’re routinely contested, as they should be. But they should be contested by scientists in their fields. I’m not ready to abandon the scientific method. When top doctors and epidemiologists conclude as you have, I’m happy to heed them.” He concluded “We’ll have to agree to disagree.”

3. I wrote back that the senior author was an epidemiologist, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that critically, there are no errors in the paper. I addressed all the possible reasons he could reject the Henry Ford study.

4. I didn’t hear back so I wrote him again asking for a reply and suggested that he simply connect me with a scientist he trusts and we can have a conversation about it and report back.

5. He wrote back that he had a better idea: we should trust the peer-reviewed scientific literature. He said, “I have a better idea: let’s let the medical and scientific community identify the experts. Then they debate publicly—through peer reviewed journals, conferences, and subsequent studies. Steve, I’m not trying to be difficult or to duck a tough issue. This isn’t a tough issue for me—if the preponderance of the scientific community arrives at a conclusion, politicians like me should listen, and implement policy consistent with those conclusions. Otherwise, we should shut the hell up and stay out of it.”

6. I wrote back “You’ve set the standard: if the preponderance of the scientific community arrives at a conclusion, you implement policy consistent with it.

   So let’s apply that standard. How does the scientific community ‘arrive at a conclusion’? It does so through its published, peer-reviewed work — that’s the only observable evidence a conclusion exists. And on the specific question of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, there are 11 published, peer-reviewed studies — Mawson (two studies, 2017), Hooker & Miller (SAGE Open 2020; JTS 2021), Lyons-Weiler & Thomas (2020), Lyons-Weiler (2022), Garner (2022), Enriquez (2005, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology), and the others in my article. All 11 find the unvaccinated cohort is healthier. To my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed vaxxed/unvaxxed study finding the opposite. So the preponderance of the published scientific record — 100% — points one way.

   If ‘the scientific community’ arrives at conclusions by some other means than its published work, tell me what that means is, and who’s in it. Otherwise, the community has spoken, and the preponderance is unanimous.

   What’s the next step?”

7. I’m waiting for a response and will update this article as I learn more.

My latest email to Rep. Liccardo sent on 9/14/26

Sam,

You proposed a better idea: let the scientific community identify the experts, and let them debate publicly through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and subsequent studies. You framed this as deference to science — politicians stay out, experts sort it out, and you implement whatever conclusion emerges.

In response, I showed you in my previous email why this doesn’t change my original request because the published science shows vaccines are harming our kids.

But I also want to explain, respectfully, why that isn’t a better idea. It’s the mechanism by which inconvenient findings get killed.

Take a concrete case, because abstraction is how this always gets hand-waved.

Alzheimer’s disease is perhaps the most important disease of our lifetime in terms of cost to society.

Did the science journals get it right and RESOLVE whether aluminum is a major cause?

Answer: it absolutely did not. It’s crystal clear.

In 1992, a paper appeared in Nature — the most prestigious journal in the world — concluding there was no aluminium in the senile plaques of Alzheimer’s patients. It was treated as a landmark. It single-handedly ended the aluminium–Alzheimer’s hypothesis, and defunded the field for thirty years.

Here’s what actually happened. The instrument used in that study had a detection limit of roughly 10 ppm. It literally could not detect aluminium below that threshold. So “we found no aluminium” was really “our machine couldn’t see aluminium unless it was above 10 ppm.” The reviewers never asked. The editor never asked. When the flaw was pointed out afterward, the letters to Nature were ignored. The paper was “never going to fail” — not because it was right, but because it was useful.

That’s the system you’re proposing we trust. Peer review didn’t catch an elementary, checkable error in a flagship journal. The correction was suppressed. The flawed conclusion became “consensus,” and the scientist who actually did the experiment — Christopher Exley, who demonstrated in the lab that amyloid beta binds aluminium and refolds into exactly the form found in plaques — was ignored for thirty years.

So when you say “let the journals decide,” I have to ask: which journals? Nature decided, and Nature was wrong, and Nature never corrected itself. The peer-reviewed literature doesn’t referee the truth. It’s an arena where power and funding determine which findings survive.

Now apply that to the question in front of us. There are 11 published, peer-reviewed studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. All 11 find the unvaccinated cohort is healthier. There is no peer-reviewed vaxxed/unvaxxed study finding the opposite. Under your standard — the literature decides — the conclusion is already in, and it’s not the conclusion you’re comfortable with.

Here’s the part that worries me. I suspect your next move will be to tell me those 11 studies “don’t count” — wrong journals, contested methods, one was retracted. And that’s the Watt move. That’s exactly how the aluminium research was disappeared: drown the inconvenient finding in process objections, and call the silence “consensus.”

You don’t need journals to settle this.

You need experts who can actually read the methods and tell you whether the 11 studies were refuted or just buried. That’s what I proposed originally — a short, written exchange between experts, which you could read in an afternoon. You declined it in favor of a process that has a thirty-year track record of laundering industry conclusions into “science.”

I’m not asking you to become a scientist. I’m asking you to stop pretending the referee you’ve chosen is neutral. He isn’t. He was never going to fail.

Are you willing to name an expert you trust now?

-steve

From: Sam Liccardo <sam.liccardo@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 6:23 PM
To: Steve Kirsch <stk@skirsch.com>
Subject: Re: A simple process to resolve scientific issues

I have a better idea: let’s let the medical and scientific community identify the experts. Then they debate publicly—through peer reviewed journals, conferences, and subsequent studies.

Steve, I’m not trying to be difficult or to duck a tough issue. This isn’t a tough issue for me—if the preponderance of the scientific community arrives at a conclusion, politicians like me should listen, and implement policy consistent with those conclusions. Otherwise, we should shut the hell up and stay out of it.

Sam

Sam Liccardo
Member of Congress
16th District of California
(this email is being sent from my private account, and is not official correspondence)

On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 5:43 PM Steve Kirsch <stk@skirsch.com> wrote:

The simplest way to resolve issues like these is for you to identify an expert you trust on the topic area.

Then I (or a mutually agreeable expert) can have a short back in forth discussion in writing addressing the issue in an attempt to get to closure.

You then view the result.

Would that work for you?

-steve

Summary

By and large, members of Congress don’t really directly trust the science.

Instead, they listen to the advice of “medical experts” and believe those experts hook, line, and sinker.

That’s the mistake they are making.

I had proposed a reasonable approach that was actually suggested by ChatGPT which is for the member to facilitate a conversation with an scientific expert that the member trusts. Normally, such experts won’t give you the time of day, so that’s why having a member of Congress requesting the expert to engage is crucial.

Sam didn’t accept my suggestion; he went straight to “I follow the scientific literature.” That’s a corrupt system but Sam, like most people, is clueless about that. But I’ll work with what I’m given. The literature supports my point about vaccines. There are no unvaxxed/vaxxed studies showing the vaxxed are better off.

Stay tuned.

Share

Vaccines either cause autism or they don’t.

To answer that question, I’ve listed some key pieces of evidence.

You can play detective and judge for yourself which hypothesis that these observations are consistent with.

The single most important piece of evidence of causality is the sequence of events. It’s nearly always vaccine—> fever —> tylenol—> sudden-onset autism.

The first 3 are clearly causal and nobody denies that. The fourth aligns perfectly with the first 3 as the next step.

If autism was a random event, there would be no alignment; onset would happen randomly in the sequence, not always in the same position.

30 different observations all consistent with “vaccines cause autism”

Each of these alone is not definitive. Taken as a whole, it’s hard to see how these are all consistent with vaccines having nothing to do with autism.

For details on all of these, see my autism survey results article:

1. Autism onset survey of Sharyl Attkisson’s followers show all 20 sudden onset cases that were reported were attributed to vaccination by the parents. Two of the parents believed their pediatrician it was a “coincidence” and changed their minds later after learning it wasn’t a “coincidence.”

2. To date, none of the 7 autism survey predictions applied to the survey data were consistent with the null hypothesis.

   

3. There is a no-vax US pediatric practice with over 6,000 unvaccinated/low vaccinated patients and zero autism over 25 years.

4. We couldn’t find an Amish person who was aware of an unvaxxed Amish child with autism ever. One Amish wrote to me, “I’m in my 60s and I haven’t met one yet, I don’t think I’m going to before I die of old age either. Pigs would likely fly first.” But only vaxxed Amish with autism are easy to find. The only difference in these kids: whether they were vaccinated. Unvaccinated Amish with Down’s syndrome are easy to find. So autism is not likely genetic. No Amish with turbo cancer (they didn’t take the COVID shots). No “died suddenly” either.

5. Monterey pediatrician Doug Hulstedt had 46 sudden-onset cases in his practice. The sequence for the sudden-onset cases (wh.

   1. 154 patients carrying an autism diagnosis seen over 23 years.

   2. Of those 78 patients (51%) had an absolute temporal relationship with vaccine administration.

   3. Of those, 46 patients (60%) began regression within 2 weeks after vaccination.

   4. 0 patients had a sudden-onset starting within 2 weeks before vaccination.

   5. The others had parents noted regression as the start point at time of vaccine administration but more a slide than an abrupt change.

   6. He had no patients that had spontaneous sudden regressions not associated with vaccines.

   7. The other flavor of autistics would have been infants never hitting their milestones but unable to locate any temporal relationships with anything.

6. Paul Thomas’s vaccine-delay plan achieved 0 autism cases in 1,176 children.

7. Other under-vaccination practices all achieve lower autism rates than surrounding clinics.

8. I wasn’t able to find any sudden onset cases happening a week before a vax appointment, but easily found hundreds happening within a week after.

9. The autism survey showed large numbers of sudden onset happening the same day, all after vaccination. Far too many to have happened just from random chance. The 0 to 5 day incidence rate is typically 20x higher than the rates during days 6 to 59.

10. JB Handley reports that among cases at his local autism child daycare facility, 90% of parents determined their child changed right after vaccination. The other 10% were not open to talking about it.

11. The Chief Science Officer of the Autism Science Foundation Alycia Halladay ran for cover when I asked her “Would you like to see the data?” Why would she do that?

12. I tried to get anyone on the other side to use my survey to prove it was all selection bias. All refused.

13. Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the government’s expert witness in the Hannah Polling case, admitted vaccines can trigger autism. The DOJ fired him immediately thereafter.

14. Top autism researcher Richard Frye has privately admitted that vaccines cause autism but “we aren’t allowed to talk about it.”

15. Additional vaccines —> step change in behavior (see the Jeremy story)

16. Heavy metal toxicity was a common factor in the 4 kids with autism. The 2 kids without autism: no heavy metal toxicity.

17. Aluminum concentration in the brains of autistic kids are among the highest ever measured (Exley 2017 study).

18. The onset sequence is extremely well defined: vaccine, fever, Tylenol, autism onset. It always happens in the same sequence. If autism were random, the autism onset would be randomly distributed in that sequence. It’s not.

19. Bogus large population studies designed to not find a signal, and the authors don’t want to talk about it.

20. The authors of the Amish with autism paper refused to answer any questions about vaccination status of the Amish kids (even though they had it).

21. Vaxxed /unvaxxed study odds ratios (ORs) allow show a spike for autism being higher in the vaccinated. No exceptions.

22. CDC vaccination schedule shifted —> onset age shifted (Bernard Rimland testimony in Congress). It’s not genetic. It’s man-made. This was the clearest signal and everyone ignored it.

23. Rise in vaccinations —> rise in autism rates X post

    

24. The McDowell triplets became autistic within hours of each other, starting just 2 hours after vaccination.

25. All the genetic research to date can explain only 20% of cases

26. The CDC Verstraeten study showed Thimerosal caused autism; it was discussed at Simpsonwood secretly and it took them 4 years to figure out how to adjust the data to make the signal go away.

27. CDC scientist William Thompson admitted Coleen Boyle ordered him to delete the study data linking vaccines with autism in the DeStefano study. Why would they need to delete data? That’s unethical.

28. There are 1,200 papers showing the association between vaccines and autism. See the Palmer “Truth Will Prevail” e-book (718 pages).

29. 250 papers showing how vaccines cause autism (mechanism of action)

30. Surveys show autism onset is not symmetrical around the day of vaccination like it would be if vaccines don’t cause autism. Try running this survey yourself.

    

31. Vaccines cause autism in baby monkeys. What is different about people that it wouldn’t also cause autism in people?

    

Summary

We’ll have even more reasons soon. Stay tuned.

I have yet to meet anyone who can explain how this evidence is more likely associated with the null hypothesis. Any takers?

Quick change of plans for tonight: Dr. Meryl Nass is sick and unfortunately won’t be able to join us.

So I just checked with Dr. Robert Malone, and he is in!

We have plenty to talk about, and I suspect this will be a very interesting show.

Join us tonight at 7pm ET / 4pm PT by clicking the graphic above.

See you soon,

Steve

Executive summary

I had a nice SMS conversation with Alex Berenson last night.

The short story is:

1. Alex cites the studies that say vaccines don’t cause autism — and ignores the ones that say they do.

2. When I pointed out that real-world data isn’t consistent what those studies claim, he had no answer. He wouldn’t engage. Silence.

When I asked him to spend sixty seconds posting a survey on X — a survey that would let families tell us, in their own words, what actually happened to their kids — he refused.

His exact words: “The survey is worthless. It proves nothing.”

Think about that.

He never looked at the survey. He never looked at the data collected to date. He didn’t even ask to see it.

Am I supposed to believe that Alex is so brilliant he can predict the results of a survey he hasn’t seen?

I was a paying subscriber. Not anymore. I don’t fund people who refuse to engage with data.

That’s not science. That’s not curiosity. That’s not even intellectual honesty.

Scientists seek truth. They collect data. They follow the evidence wherever it leads — even when it makes them uncomfortable.

Alex just showed us exactly what he is: someone who’s already decided he’s right, and has no interest in being proven wrong.

I built a tool to find the truth. He built a wall to hide from it.

I’m willing to be wrong. He’s not willing to find out.

Autism is a huge unsolved problem

We need to find what’s causing autism. The more we inquire, the better our chance of finding the cause.

Alex Berenson was given an opportunity to help collect data that might reveal something helpful to finding the cause of autism. He refused.

A recent Rasmussen survey showed that 34% of US households reported having a kid on the spectrum. That’s non-trivial. That’s millions of families.

So if we asked you to take sixty seconds to help collect data that might shed light on the problem — what would you do? Refuse because you already know the answer?

The questions he wouldn’t answer

After Alex cited studies claiming no relationship with vaccines, I asked him to answer the following observations — each of which is at odds with his beliefs. He answered none of them.

1. The asymmetry question. If autism is random, it should happen at the same rate just before a vaccine visit as after. Former pediatrician Doug Hulstedt is one of the few pediatricians who actually tracked statistics in his practice, which specialized in autism. He had 46 cases of sudden-onset autism across 23 years. All 46 happened within two weeks after a vaccination. Not before. All after. And the claim that parents would never tell a pediatrician about autism occurring before a visit is sheer fabrication. That's not what any of the autism parents I asked did. Who are these parents who never tell the pediatrician — and where the pediatrician never notices on the next visit? Come on.

2. The unvaccinated vs. vaccinated Amish question. Same genes. Same environment. Same food. Same water. Same everything. The only difference: only vaccinated Amish kids get autism. Why? I've been asking for over a year now, and nobody in the Amish community is aware of an unvaccinated Amish child with autism — they only know vaccinated Amish kids with autism.

3. The under-vaccinated clinic question. Pediatric clinics that under-vaccinate have lower autism rates than their peers in the same area who follow the full CDC schedule. Every single one. I personally know the owner of one such clinic that severely under-vaccinates: zero autism in 25 years across over 6,000 kids born into the practice. We have the data from the practice obtained under a BAA. If vaccines don't cause autism, what do all these under-vaccinating clinics have in common — other than under-vaccination?

How he could have shown I got it wrong in 60 seconds

All Alex had to do was make a post like the ones that Sharyl Attkisson, Chris Martenson, Lara Logan, Rob Schneider, and others have done.

If Alex is correct, we’d see it in the data in under 24 hours.

Alex refused.

The survey is step one — not the end

The autism survey is simply the first step of a subsequent study process that includes using only carefully curated data sources — from autism diagnosis and treatment clinics — greater engagement with responders, pre-registered analysis protocols, verification of dates with contemporaneous evidence, and so on.

But to get the data that justifies the time and expense of a comprehensive study, you start modestly and ramp up from there.

That’s how science actually works. You don’t launch a multi-million-dollar investigation on a hunch. You collect preliminary data, see if there’s something worth pursuing, then build on it.

My survey is the first domino. Alex doesn’t want that first domino to fall.

Pre-empting the Rebuttal

Before Alex writes his response, let me address what he’ll almost certainly say:

“Your survey isn’t scientific.”

It is. And here’s why.

Science is about seeking truth.

And that means considering all the evidence — not just the studies that agree with you. As Norman Doidge’s article points out, when you exclude inconvenient data, you’re not doing science. You’re doing advocacy.

A survey like the one I created is systematic data collection — structured questions, documented responses, and a clear methodology. That’s not “unscientific.” That’s the foundation of science.

Every epidemiological study ever conducted started the same way: someone asked a question, collected data, and looked at what it said.

And this survey goes further than most. It doesn’t just ask families to make a claim. It asks whether they have contemporaneous documentation — records written at the time, not recalled years later. And it asks whether they’re willing to be contacted to verify what they reported.

That’s not a poll. That’s a case series with a chain of evidence attached. It’s the first step in a more comprehensive study — and it’s built to survive scrutiny.

And the more different audiences the survey targets, the more we can do subgroup analyses to quantify the uncertainty caused by selection bias.

If Alex thinks measuring bias is worthless, then he doesn’t understand what science is.

The difference between Alex and me: I’m collecting data to find the truth. He’s dismissing data he hasn’t even looked at.

Summary

This opened my eyes.

Alex himself is no better than the people he writes about. Challenge his beliefs and he refuses to engage in a dialogue to explain the data — or volunteer to collect the data that would show who’s right.

He demands evidence from everyone else. He just won’t allow any that might contradict him.

Share

Our friend, Dr. Meryl Nass, joins me on VSRF Live tonight, and the Maine medical board may have a much bigger problem than they expected!

Dr. Nass has practiced medicine in Maine since 1997. She’s an expert on anthrax and biological warfare, has testified before Congress six times, and had no disciplinary history before the COVID era. Then she challenged the medical establishment’s COVID narrative.

In January 2022, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine suspended her license and ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation amid controversy over her COVID-era prescribing and public statements.

Now the tables may be turning.

A Maine court previously threw out that order as “arbitrary and capricious.” And on August 20, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker allowed a central part of her federal civil-rights lawsuit against individual Board members to move forward.

The language in his ruling is remarkable. Walker described the psychological-evaluation order, based on Nass’s allegations, as “based on no evidence or process” and wrote that such an action “simply ought not occur, ever.” He even raised the possibility that the Board was “making an example out of Dr. Nass.”

Tonight, Meryl and I will talk about what happened, what this ruling means, and where the case goes from here. But this is bigger than one doctor: How much power should a medical board have to punish a physician for challenging medical orthodoxy—and what happens when the people doing the disciplining are forced to answer for their own conduct?

I look forward to this conversation, and hope to see you there. Bring a friend.

Steve

VSRF on X

VSRF on Instagram

VSRF on Gab

VSRF on Truth Social

VSRF on Gettr

See also

My main autism survey results article.

Executive summary

The latest autism survey revealed instantly why pediatricians haven’t connected the dots and made the association with vaccines and autism: the typical practice has too few cases! So that fact, combined with their medical school gaslighting that all vaccines are safe makes them blind to the problem.

The latest survey is shows that the rate of “rapid onset autism” (where the child develops normally and then has a sudden and dramatic regression) are rare: the current numbers are showing fewer than 10% of all autism cases.

So even if a pediatrician is paying close attention to the sudden onset cases, a typical practice will see too few of these cases to spot the temporal association.

It’s only when you collect the data from multiple sources and look at hundreds of “sudden onset” autism cases that you can see this enormous temporal association where the cases of autism in day 0 to 5 are around double the number of in days 6 to 60, a stunning 18X reversal (it should be around 9X more in the larger interval).

Could it be that only the sudden onset autism cases are caused by vaccines?

Could this just be a special type of Autism that is triggered by vaccines?

Unlikely.

The Amish are a perfect example and the pediatric clinic that avoids vaccination (and has no autism) is another example.

For details, see my earlier article:

The surveys and the data

Surveys
Original survey (only sudden onset cases)
Updated survey (captures all autism cases, not just sudden onset cases)

Results
We will post results once the survey is complete (over 1,000 verified entries).

Summary

The reason the average pediatric practice hasn’t figured out the connection between vaccines and autism is simply because a given pediatric practice will see too few cases of sudden onset autism to establish a statistically significant association.

But when you collect the sudden-onset autism cases from multiple practices, the signal is impossible to miss.

No research paper has ever done this before as far as I know. This is the first collection of onset data for rapid onset autism cases.

Share

My main autism survey results article.

Executive summary

My post on Amish unvaccinated kids not having autism got picked up by President Trump.

Nobody in the Amish community has ever heard of an unvaccinated Amish kid with that autism.

IMPORTANT
If you have an autistic child who is under 20 years old, please take this new survey even if you’ve filled out previous surveys. This new survey has been carefully designed to collect everything we need. Thanks!

My original post on X on autism for unvaccinated Amish kids

On August 14, 2026, I made this post about the Amish this using a graphic I generated with ChatGPT. Nobody can dispute this by producing the name of an unvaccinated Amish child with autism.

Only vaccinated Amish kids get autism.

Baffling isn’t it? Scientists can’t “explain it.”

It’s the perfect natural experiment because everything else is the same about these kids (environment, food, water, air, genetics). The only thing differing in autistic Amish kids is their vaccination status.

The trolls on X simply hate this.

So they claim “misinformation” and point to studies which OMIT the vaccination status of the Amish kids, hoping that nobody sees the difference.

17 days later, President Trump posts the image I made on Truth Social

If you have an autistic child under age 20, please take this new survey (takes about a minute for most people)

Just click the image for the survey…

Summary

No unvaccinated Amish kid with autism in history as far as we know.

All the Amish kids with autism have one thing in common: they are all vaccinated.

So states like New York are trying to require the Amish get vaccinated to protect them.

If you have a child under age 20 with autism, please take the survey.

Share

Tonight I’m joined by Sayer Ji, investigative journalist, health-freedom advocate, and Senior Advisor to MAHA Action. Sayer founded GreenMedInfo in 2008, long before COVID made censorship and medical freedom mainstream political issues, building what has become an enormous open-access database of scientific research on natural health.

Sayer has spent nearly two decades digging into the scientific literature, questioning conventional medical narratives, and advocating for informed consent and health freedom.

He has also experienced the censorship machine firsthand. After being named one of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” Sayer and GreenMedInfo were deplatformed from Facebook and Instagram, cutting them off from a social-media audience of more than 2 million followers.

And he kept going.

I am really looking forward to my conversation with Sayer. Please join us tonight by clicking on the graphic above at 7pm ET / 4pm PT.

Steve

VSRF on X

VSRF on Instagram

VSRF on Gab

VSRF on Truth Social

VSRF on Gettr

Update

Survey result links are posted in this article.

Executive summary

The preliminary results of the sudden-onset autism study are summarized below. They are stunning.

I reached out the Chief Science Officer of the Autism Science Foundation to share the results, but at the recent IACC meeting, she turned off her camera as soon shortly after I joined the green room and started speaking, and then she ignored all my emails sent during and after the meeting offering to share the data with her. This tells you that “they” know damn well this is a mass gaslighting campaign.

Mainstream AI will claim the results are survey bias.

Survey bias is a credible hand-waving explanation because the people promoting the survey have critical thinking skills intact and tend to attract other critical thinkers. So this could be a possible explanation.

Fortunately, this isn’t our only data source.
We have dispositive data showing this simply isn’t the case and that the AI is just gaslighting us. Specifically,

We have the actual medical records from a large US pediatric clinic with over 6,000 unvaccinated kids over the last 25 years. ZERO AUTISM in the practice only for the unvaccinated kids (which is most of the kids). These are the counts of kids tracked from birth to over 4 years old. Yet every surrounding clinic has autism rates of 1 in 20. The kids share the same environment, the same food, the same air, water. The big difference: vaccination.

US Vaccine Court admits vaccines can cause autism

This is the case of Hannah Polling. They spent 5 years doing the investigation. It doesn’t get more thorough than that!

“In 2002, Hannah’s parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government admitted vaccines caused her autism.”

And the US government’s own expert witness Dr. Andrew Zimmerman admitted it to the lawyers so the DOJ fired him, then used his earlier testimony (which he recanted) to sideline future autism claims.

The Amish are the best real-world stunning example. The ONLY difference between Amish kids w/autism and Amish kids w/o autism is whether or not they were vaccinated. Let that sink in.

The Amish are the single best natural experiment for vaccines and autism.

Over the past 330 years, nobody has been able to identify a single Amish unvaccinated kid with autism. If there is such a child, the child doesn’t seem to have a name.

President Trump, 17 days later, picked it up and retweeted the image I created (with the help of AI):

330 years later, no exceptions. Not a single autistic unvaccinated Amish child.

If there was such a child, the Amish would know that such a child existed and they world all know the name of the child. The Amish are a tight knit community. Everyone knows everyone.

The scientific community hates this. They absolutely hate it. Because the ONLY difference in the Amish kids with autism vs. w/o autism is their VACCINATION status. Everything else is the same. It’s the perfect “real-world 330 year randomized trial.”

Think about it. The Amish kids with autism:

1. have the same genes,

2. have the same environmental exposures,

3. eat the food

4. breathe the same air

5. drink the same water

as the Amish kids without autism.

The Amish kids that did get autism only had ONE difference from the Amish kids who didn't get autism: whether they got vaccinated or not.

If there is another difference, nobody has discovered it.

From a doctor in an Amish county in the US

No autism in nearly 30 years of his medical practice

They thought they had finally found an unvaccinated Amish child with autism, but no luck. Watch this entire 90 second video

Watch especially 45 seconds into the video.

No winners of my offer

Not a single name.

Even more data

From Jenna McCarthy’s substack article New York Declares War on the Amish couldn’t find an unvaccinated Amish child with autism either. Zero.

The late Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, whose Chicago-area practice cared for over 30,000 children—thousands of them never vaccinated—stated plainly: “I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.”

Dr. Paul Thomas, whose Oregon clinic oversees more than 15,000 patients, reports zero new autism cases among 1,176 children who followed his delayed vaccination protocol (see the last sentence in the image below):

Among the Amish of Middlefield, Ohio, Dr. Heng Wang—medical director of the DDC Clinic for Special Needs Children, which treats all special-needs children in that community—found a rate of 1 in 15,000 [not a typo], compared to 1 in 166 nationally at the time. The one autistic child he identified had, you will not be shocked to learn, received routine immunizations.

That same UPI article also noted:

-- A Lancaster doctor who has treated thousands of Amish for nearly a quarter-century said he had never seen any autism. "We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none -- and that's just the way it is," that doctor said last month.

Additional vaccines are associated with making autism much worse

Too many anecdotes where family reports giving additional vaccines to autistic children and the child gets dramatically worse. This would be the definitive study to run but no parent would enroll their child in the study for some reason.

Look what happened to Jeremy after he received the Tdap shot in August 2005:

Within days of that shot, everything changed.

Not gradually. Not subtly.

Immediately.

Jeremy’s behavior didn’t just get worse—it escalated to a level we had never seen before. The aggression that had once been directed mostly toward himself started turning outward. He became dangerous not just to himself, but to the people around him.

And then something else happened.

For the first time in his life, Jeremy began having seizures.

Grand Mal seizures.

They came weekly. Sometimes multiple times in a single day.

This wasn’t a small shift. This wasn’t part of a slow progression.

This was a line in the sand.

My mother went back to the doctor, demanding answers.

And this is the moment everything changed.

The doctor told her:
“There ‘may’ have been traces of mercury and thimerosal in the vaccine. There is no regulation of how much is in a trace. And I am convinced Jeremy got a full dose of thimerosal.”

Heavy metal toxicity

Autism cases often have something in common: heavy metal toxicity. See Chris Exley’s brain aluminum study and read this post.

My testimony in the Pennsylvania Senate after I visited Amish country

The “fact checkers” claim I’m wrong, but none of them have ever produced the name of the unvaccinated Amish child with autism.

Click the link to see the video.

It’s the same SEQUENCE of events. If autism wasn’t caused by vaccines, the sequence would vary. It doesn’t.

It’s the same stories in the data we collected. This post below is from a physician.

But the key is the sequence. If autism was not caused by vaccine, the regression would be in a random place in the sequence. It’s not. That is the smoking gun that “science” can’t explain.

Not all autism is caused by vaccines

Also, references to autism pre-vaccines is not proof vaccines don’t cause autism. It is proof that not all autism is caused by vaccines. Only around 80% of autism onsets (and probably more) are caused by vaccines.

Please take 5 seconds and retweet this now

Most importantly, PLEASE take 5 seconds and click on this tweet below and hit the re-post button to spread the survey. This is really important. There are only 140 retweets and if everyone retweets it, we can spread it to 80,000 retweets and reach a much bigger audience.

Just click the image and click the retweet button in the lower left. Thanks!

Survey expectations under null hypothesis

We expect the same results for kids who were vaccinated vs. kids who are completely unvaccinated:

1. All years should have around the same number of reports. In particular, there shouldn’t be a dip in reports in 2020 because even though there were fewer vaccinations, the survey asks about PARENT observations.

2. Weekday vs weekend reports should be in proportion 5 / 2

3. Day of week should be evenly spread although there maybe higher number on weekends because parents would be spending more time with their kids

4. Age at onset will have a single peak month with the most reports. There shouldn’t be relative peaks at 6,12, 15, 18, 24, and 48 months

5. The age at onset peak will be relatively broad: no more than a 20% drop from the peak months on both sides

6. Age at onset should be symmetrical in both directions from the peak onset age

7. The time distribution in the 0 to 5 day window post last regular wellness visit should be approximately 1/9 of the distribution of day 6 to 60

8. On the day of the appointment, the number of onsets before the shot should be about half the number of onset after the shot (simply because the shots are given from 9am - 5pm).

Survey results

The survey showed we’ve been lied to. The primary trigger of autism is vaccination. No doubt about it.

1. 30% of onsets on the same day as vaccination

2. 40% of onsets within 2 days of vaccination

3. Onset age peaks at 18 month aligning with CDC vaccination schedule

4. Onsets are least likely to happen on Sunday.

Look at how onset counts ALIGN with the CDC schedule. The lack of cases between 24 and 48 month peaks is the smoking gun. That isn’t natural. It’s aligned with the CDC vaccination schedule. Nature doesn’t provide case spikes that coincide with the CDC schedule. No way.

AI analysis

AlterAI analysis
Includes the reaction to Claude claiming “nothing to see here.”

This data is a great example of taking the identical dataset to two experts and getting two completely different answers. There can only be one truth here.

We can pre-specify the test

Here is the pre-specified test: Under the null, number of onsets on day 6 to 60 should be 9x the number from 0 to 5.

It turns out the actual data shows 0 to 5 day onsets are around 2x the 6 to 60 onset count which is mind-blowing. It’s a huge signal. It’s an 18X inversion with a p-value < 1e-100. See calculation.

Q: Does anyone have any data showing parent recall has an 18x bias?
A: No! The very best example Grok could find is the Andrews paper which showed no statistically significant bias in parent recall (not affected by MMR publicity).

But the paper is behind a paywall, so most people just trust the abstract which is misleading. The CI’s tell the whole story.

What the Andrews study Actually Found

The paper compared two cohorts:

• 1998 study (pre-publicity): parents of kids diagnosed before the MMR-autism controversy hit the news

• 2000 study (post-publicity): parents of kids diagnosed after the media storm

The key finding, in Andrews’ own words: “the differences compared with the 1998 study were not significant.”

Let that land. The entire Andrews paper is built to argue that recall bias explains away the MMR-autism temporal association, and the headline finding is that the pre-post difference didn’t reach statistical significance. The paper’s conclusion is essentially: “We didn’t find significant evidence of recall bias, but trust us, it’s probably there.”

Grok never tells you that.

The AI’s basically are designed to keep gaslighting you into believing fairy tales.

Also, under the null, the number of onsets in 2020 should be comparable to the number of onsets in 2019 and 2021.

How the experts “explain” the results

When I ask autism “experts” to explain this, they either ignore me or claim the survey is biased. Of course it is biased! All surveys are biased.

But these scientists NEVER OFFER to run the survey against their followers. Every single one refused. They don’t want to know. That’s the confirmation.

If we were wrong, the “experts” would eagerly embrace the opportunity to prove we are wrong using our own survey against us similar to how Marcus Zervos was so excited to run the definitive study to show vaccinated kids are healthier. We all know how well that worked out, don’t we?

But none want to do that.

Scientists are supposed to seek truth, not run and hide under a rock like Autism Science Foundation Alycia Halladay did when I tried to share the survey results with her.

The smoking gun question that they cannot answer that demonstrates that autism is not random; it is causal. There is simply no alternate explanation for the asymmetry.

I can easily name dozens of kids who became suddenly autistic on the day of their shot, after the shot was given. They are extremely frequent in the survey results.

But nobody can name a kid who became suddenly autistic on the day of their shot, before the shot was given. These are completely absent from the survey results.

If autism was random, the numbers should be roughly comparable (within a factor of 2 to 3 because there are fewer waking hours before the shot vs. after the shot).

So the inability for the “pro vaccine” folks to name one child when I can easily name dozens is the smoking gun and it has nothing to do with survey bias.

There is no explanation other than causality

Existing scientific research supports my position

Read this excellent article on how vaccine-autism connection studies are designed to show no association.

Popular Rationalism

What Ben Shapiro Misses on the Question of Vaccines and Autism

Ben Shapiro titled his August 11 essay “The Cardinal Sin That Shattered America’s Trust” and gave it the subtitle, “Data still doesn’t lie.” On that much we agree. Data do not lie. They can, however, be asked a narrow question and then conscripted into answering a much broader one. They can be averaged across people who are biologically unlike one anoth…

Read more

a month ago · 196 likes · 89 comments · James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

My 3 minute IACC speech

I want to talk to you today about the elephant in the room: the biggest and most destructive gaslighting campaign in human history: the claim that vaccines don’t cause autism.

My name is Steve Kirsch and I’m a data scientist in California.

I’m currently involved in a research study focused exclusively on sudden-onset autism cases where children were developing normally until an ONSET date which is when the PARENTS first noted a DRAMATIC and LASTING behavior change had occurred.

I’d like to share with you the preliminary results which indicate that autism onset is man-made, not naturally occurring.

The method used was a parent survey that was publicly distributed by a diverse group of individuals and organizations that asked open-ended and specific questions, and asked parents to quantify both their certainty AND ability to produce contemporaneous documentation.

We found three things:

1. the age at autism onset noted by parents PEAKS at 18 months and then drops by a factor of 12 at month 19. -- pause-- This is not natural; it aligns precisely with the man-made CDC vaccination schedule.

2. 30% of the onsets happened within 1 day of vaccination and 40% within 2 days of vaccination. That is not random chance. That is a hallmark of causality.

3. The day of the week mattered; Sunday was 50% lower than weekdays. Genes don’t take weekends off. But pediatricians do.

The McDowell triplets are a stunning example of this effect: the only time in human history where perfectly normal triplets became severely and irreversibly autistic within hours of each other and it started just 2 hours after vaccination. Nobody can explain why that happened even though it’s obvious to anyone who hears the story.

Genes may load the gun, but vaccines pull the trigger. And if nobody pulls the trigger, nobody gets shot.

Why aren’t doctors speaking out? Consider the case of California Pediatrician Doug Hulstedt. In 23 years, he had 47 cases of sudden onset autism happening 2 weeks AFTER vaccination but ZERO in the 2 weeks before a scheduled vaccine appointment. The medical board of California revoked his license because Hulstedt wrote ONE vaccine medical exemption.

And there is ONE pediatric practice operating in the US that doesn’t vaccinate kids. Not a single case of autism since inception, 25 years ago. Over 6,526 unvaccinated kids. 0 autism. In adjacent clinics that follow the CDC schedule, the rates of autism are 1 in 15 kids. But they can’t go public with their data, because their medical licenses would be revoked for not following the CDC guidelines on vaccination.

I urge the panel to set as a TOP priority to INDEPENDENTLY replicate these results. The questions are simple and the data collection can be completed in less than a day.

This is the single most important thing you can and should do. Collect and PUBLICLY release the data for all to see.

Summary

This survey will soon be run against a neutral list.

Then it will be all over and there will be no place to hide.

This will be the biggest upset in scientific history because for decades parents were gaslit by pediatricians who assured them that “vaccines don’t cause autism.” It was a big lie that has irreparably damaged millions of kids.

And it is so preventable because every peer-reviewed study comparing fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated shows that the fully unvaccinated are healthier. And if you did a survey on families where some kids are fully vaccinated and other kids are fully unvaccinated, you will find that in 20 out of 21 families the unvaccinated kids are far healthier.

Please take 5 seconds to retweet that post at the top of the article. Thanks!

Share

Executive summary

The new Jmii paper, “SARS-CoV-2 disrupts the integrity of a human blood-brain barrier model in the absence of infection” is the latest confirmation that the spike protein generated from the COVID vaccine can dislodge the blood-brain barrier (BBB) which can lead to all sorts of temporary and/or permanent neurological injuries including death.

In short, the COVID vaccine is inherently unsafe by design.

Given to perfectly healthy people, it can leave you with permanent and severe neurological damage. Or dead.

This has happened to people who take the COVID shots and now we have further confirmation of the mechanism because the Jmii paper replicates other studies (one as early as 2020) and it also aligns with autopsy findings demonstrating vaccines breach of the BBB.

It’s a violation of medical ethics to give these shots, but it’s legal because they are FDA approved.

The COVID vaccines should be taken off the market. Now.

AI analysis

Grok
Shows other studies confirmed disruption of the blood-brain barrier. Claims the levels of spike are unknown in the human body, but notes autopsies confirm that vaccine spike makes it way into the brain. So we know it happens. We just don’t know how frequently it happens because nobody is studying that.

AlterAI

AlterAI didn’t mince words: Take it off the market. Now.

For more information

I first learned about it on X from someone in Prague!

Summary

The Jmii paper should be front page news that the health authorities got it wrong and the mainstream media amplified it and tricked people into getting a deadly vaccine.

So we now know that severe permanent neurological vaccine injuries (including death) were not coincidences. They are a totally expected result of giving billions of people an unsafe vaccine.

And the worst part is they never warned you about this (and still don’t). The warning label should read:

“May cause permanent neurological injury or death.”

But we can’t even get that.

Share

What happens when a police detective investigating unexplained infant deaths asks a question that authorities apparently don’t want asked?

Tonight on VSRF Live, we’re joined by Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus and her attorney, Bath-Shéba van den Berg.

Helen was investigating sudden and unexpected infant deaths when she began looking into whether maternal COVID-19 vaccination could be a relevant factor. Instead of being allowed to pursue that line of inquiry, Helen herself became the subject of an investigation. She was suspended, charged with Discreditable Conduct, and put through a disciplinary proceeding that lasted years. In 2025, she was ultimately found guilty.

Tonight, we’ll hear directly from Helen about what happened and from Bath-Shéba, who defended her throughout the proceedings. We’ll get into what unfolded behind the scenes, what the public may not know about the case, and where things stand today.

Join us tonight by clicking on the graphic above at 7pm ET / 4pm PT. This story is one you will want to hear straight from the source.

See you soon,

Steve

PS: Please share our socials.

VSRF on X

VSRF on Instagram

VSRF on Gab

VSRF on Truth Social

VSRF on Gettr

Executive summary

Do you have a child who was developing normally and subsequently experienced a sudden and lasting change in behavior consistent later diagnosed as autism?

There is a new survey out that is collecting data to help researchers worldwide identify the most likely triggers.

The survey answers will be made publicly available to everyone after the data is collected.

Parents and researchers will all find the answers insightful because some of these questions have NEVER been asked before.

These are questions that should have been asked if people really want to know the truth.

It takes only around 3 minutes to fill out. Thanks!

Sudden-Onset Autism parent survey (3 minutes)