Are COVID vaccines safe? I think not, but the "scientific consensus" is that they are. How can we definitively determine who is right? I suggest a way using science!
The problem with that data is that diagnosing autism is highly subjective. You would need a network of people assessing the autism that was independent of the two experiments and they would be sent subjects randomly from either group along with a similar number of control subjects. There could also be no indication of whether or not a subject was vaccinated, to make it at least single blind.
To make it double blind, each test subject would be given 2 injections several months apart. One injection would be placebo and the other an actual vaccination. Those injections would be blinded and randomly deployed to the doctors.
The data analysis would have to be blinded as well to make it triple blinded and then the correlations revealed only after all the data collection had been analyzed.
You may also want to get subjects assessed for autism more than once by different assesors.
Anything less would be suspect.
Such rigor would be expensive and possibly impractical. You would need to compensate participants and practitioners, and each vaccine may be different, so results cannot be generalized.
WOW, tons of "doubt" after reading others comments... Hmmm, okay, Psychopaths and sociopaths are innately greedy-part of their personality profile. Arrogance is another crack in their armor. Flushing out these bastards w cash is as good approach. Perhaps the only way. Criminals like the stage. It's worked since man walked the Earth.
I can't stop laughing.... Steve, you are one crazy SOB! No disrespect to your actual mom. What makes this exciting for readers like myself is we, "I" have wished to scream the very thing you are saying but don't have the cash. YOU have the capacity to make it happen through your personal example, done, and your leadership. Would you do a fundraiser? Perfect, an offer they can't refuse. May God bless all that you put your heart and mind to. BRAVO 👏
Steve/(all), I suggest another way, based on an existing and contemporary 'template', a successful precedent.
However, it should be understood and accepted that intention toward a society-wide switch of belief is likely to be a 'long game', and wide.
The 'low carb' movement is the precedent. And it is much, much bigger than its deceptively benign sounding name might suggest.
That movement is far from being merely about dietary macronutrient proportions. By default, it simultaneously encompasses and addresses a suite of modern chronic diseases that have manifested since a world-changing decision, based - just as with pro- or anti-vax - on a two-way choice. In this case, the choice was between fat or sugar as the most likely contenders behind just one chronic disease initially but of major concern in the US after Eisenhower's diagnosis in the 1950s, heart disease, and with heart disease skyrocketing from virtual obscurity earlier in the century to a major killer.
The 'decision' was made in 1977. Arbitrarily. By US senator McGovern, who made it based on gut instinct as against as science and stated something along the lines of "politicians need to make decisions now, not wait until all, (or even correct), evidence is in".
His decision resulted in the inception of national dietary guidelines. These were progressively adopted globally, and consistently vilified dietary fat, in particular saturated fat, and cholesterol. By default, the guidelines resulted in a significant rise in consumption of the very thing that happened to be the opposing choice, carbohydrates, since: if you reduce fats you have to make up nett energy requirements from the only other two macronutrients - protein and carbs, and carbs are cheap; and since all carbs either are already, or break down in the digestive system, to sugars.
Subsequently, for nearly 50 years now, society, globally, has seen a coincident rise in - name a chronic, modern disease: obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, Alzheimer's, depression, cancer, etc, etc and, albeit confounded by changes in levels of smoking, heart disease.
Many people have been involved ever since, with trying to reverse society-wide beliefs that dietary saturated fats and cholesterol underlie heart, or any other disease.
UK researcher Zoe Harcombe, a self-acknowledged former vegan, did her PHD thesis on the entire evidence base available in the pre-1977 scientific literature, to see if they supported the dietary guidelines when they were first introduced. No evidence supported their introduction. A follow-up study, this time in collaboration with others, looked at the entire evidence base of literature - after - 1977. Again it was found there was no evidence supporting carb-based (low fat) dietary guidelines.
Former physicist turned freelance researcher Gary Taube, and journalist Nina Teicholz (also a former vegan) along with may doctors and other scientists have written books and presented their findings to numerous audiences, outlining the history of the sugar, fat wars.
In 2015, the USDA finally back-flipped on the stance it had held against dietary cholesterol for decades, stating: 'cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern".
Progressively, ever more individuals have adopted lower, low or very low carb (keto) eating, with consistent success, albeit to varying degrees given varying degrees of condition severity etc, against various of the chronic diseases.
Consequently, progressively ever more doctors who have witnessed beneficial changes in their - patients who happen to be low carb - have adopted the switch for themselves and/or applied it to other patients.
Other doctors and researchers have progressively built an ever more compelling multi-faceted case through perhaps the most impactful instrument, the LCDU (low carb down under) forum, which includes public conferences in different major cities of various countries, with scientists and doctors presenting data, insights, case studies, and compilations of others' research, for audiences to consider, question live, cross-check, try for themself and challenge their beliefs. All video-captured then shared on at least one of the world's major media platforms, YouTube.
Furthering of the 'low carb' (aka eat and live healthier) cause has included of outcomes of several high profile cases brought by vested industry (Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Medicine), or dietitian's associations on their behalf, against individuals recommending low carb to patients or members of the public (heresy against the dietary guidelines), including against Professor Tim Noakes in South Africa, Dr. Gary Fettke in Australia and Dr. Annika Dahlqvist in Sweden. Despite all being David vs Goliath cases, thus far, each individual has won. In part because the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports the low carb position. In part because of assistive collaborations of support of the accused by certain 'subject-matter-expert' members of the low carb community.
A new playbook, against vaccines, in a nutshell? . . .
Absolute top priority is to build trust, in a sufficient proportion of the global population, to reach/force a tipping point, a worldwide shift in consensus opinion.
Mirror the LCDU model, but super-sized: public conferences, in major cities, internationally, with presentations by MDs, PHDs, lawyers, authors, researchers, victims, etc., video-captured, shared online via major media channels including YouTube but also facilitated in all major world languages including Mandarin etc, and inclusive of multiple layers of redundancy to combat censorship, deletion, system attacks, etc., and alternative major media platforms to YouTube to maximise audience views and minimise risk of any one platform applying Big Brother tactics. Perhaps the LCDU mirror could be called ALTX, for 'alternative' whatever - viewpoints, evidence, treatments, medicine, etc. (and as an unintended but useful implied connection to Twitter/X).
Do NOT start with vaccines. Doing so would risk permanently losing the very audience most required to be won over, those with opposing beliefs.
Start instead with topics close to us all personally, health, disease, causes of death, of loss of loved ones, and in particular medicines. Once a large body of doubt has been produced and shared online about medicines A, B, C, ... X, Y, Z, ... Aa, Ab, Ac, ie a suite of examples that becomes apparent as being endless if not encompasses them all, for a massive, tipping-point proportion of the world's population, then, finally, presentations on the other form of 'medicine', 'vaccines' may be introduced to the forum with reasonable confidence that they won't simply be outright dismissed, discredited, deplatformed, etc, per current tactics.
By the way, for reasons aired by many Commenters in this forum, but also for others highlighted in the book 'The Real Anthony Fauci', Steve's starting suggestion may be referred to as 'How to Lose a Million Dollars':
Journal articles aren't read by but a few.
They are understood by even fewer.
Many authors are industry funded, across their entire career, so will be unlikely to bite the hand that feeds their families.
Likewise, many publishers are not independent but have also been captured by industry.
Even if an honest article somehow made it to an honest publisher, who in the media would publish stories about it since many of the major media platforms have also been captured by industry and/or are required to comply to government directives for fear of heavy penalties if not termination.
Conversely, if there were none willing to even accept the challenge from the pro-vaccine camp, what would be achieved; who of the world's entire population would care, who would know, other than the followers of this forum, and, again, who of mainstream media would publish a story on it?
Good idea. But we all know that indeed many medical doctors are becoming aware that there could indeed be vaccine harm as a result from over-jabbing children (apart from a deep, but unspoken awareness that the mRNA gene-therapy jabs have caused debilitation and death in their wake).
And Big Pharma is running scared, too. We see that in the now oft-repeated line from talking heads of the MSM: "... repeats the thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism...", without, of course, presenting any of the purported debunking.
As more and more studies are published establishing a clear correlation between childhood vaccine schedule and autism (as well as a host of other ailments), it is starting to resemble a dike breaking, with the Big Pharma paid MSM News playing the child who's finger attempts to stem the leakage.
So financial incentives aside, you'll have to keep up the impish taunting to get anyone to bite. But they still won't, for the last thing any medical professional wants is to be associated with bringing down the rotten house. Maybe a few whistleblowers would help. O'Keefe's OMG might help.
They say that science advances one funeral at a time.
This tells me that - for many, "science" isn't about reality or fact, its about human ego and a construct, along with a severe unwillingness to admit you might have been wrong - with all the loss of ego that would cause.
That said - I suspect there's a "moveable middle" group who might be identifiable. Maybe pick those who have done U-turns before, showing they're open. Then from this group, pick people who are relatively secure - i.e. not funded by Fauci et al.
Find a population with significant variance in vaccination rate and compare their all-cause mortality since 2000. Eg. East vs West Germany. Sweden vs their neighbors. Indian states.
The Rona scamdemic displays as much merit and locus in 'science' as the Climate Change scam, or bacteria becoming a baseball batter.
The Health-Medical Industrial complex is corrupt, self serving, and evil. More transparency and factual data which informs decisions and 'science', was forthcoming from Nazis and Communists.
Thanks Steve for starting this debate. Resolving the accuracy of scientific statements is incredibly important, however I suspect that your method will not work for the many reasons in the comments. Isn’t the key problem to resolve “free speech”. Governments, the WHO, Google and many others have decided that vaccines and climate change are so important that free speech cannot be allowed in case we find the truth. Sometimes the result of any change to policy such as vaccinations or carbon credits are in the balance, only free speech can help people decide which argument holds the truth.
Steve I think you’ve got it right. Those who do not respond should be considered that they don’t have an argument worth defending, that their case is unsupportable and that the money for research goes to the ones who take the trouble to support their claims. What I like about it is that the reward goes to the ones who make the effort not the ones who leave us high and dry. I think one very important component of it should be this must all be done in the public eye, all open for anyone to see, nothing done behind closed doors. I feel making everything public is like an insurance that protects us from nefarious intentions. It makes it so much harder to cover up omissions, errors or even manipulation. Bravo for tackling this issue.
The problem with that data is that diagnosing autism is highly subjective. You would need a network of people assessing the autism that was independent of the two experiments and they would be sent subjects randomly from either group along with a similar number of control subjects. There could also be no indication of whether or not a subject was vaccinated, to make it at least single blind.
To make it double blind, each test subject would be given 2 injections several months apart. One injection would be placebo and the other an actual vaccination. Those injections would be blinded and randomly deployed to the doctors.
The data analysis would have to be blinded as well to make it triple blinded and then the correlations revealed only after all the data collection had been analyzed.
You may also want to get subjects assessed for autism more than once by different assesors.
Anything less would be suspect.
Such rigor would be expensive and possibly impractical. You would need to compensate participants and practitioners, and each vaccine may be different, so results cannot be generalized.
WOW, tons of "doubt" after reading others comments... Hmmm, okay, Psychopaths and sociopaths are innately greedy-part of their personality profile. Arrogance is another crack in their armor. Flushing out these bastards w cash is as good approach. Perhaps the only way. Criminals like the stage. It's worked since man walked the Earth.
I can't stop laughing.... Steve, you are one crazy SOB! No disrespect to your actual mom. What makes this exciting for readers like myself is we, "I" have wished to scream the very thing you are saying but don't have the cash. YOU have the capacity to make it happen through your personal example, done, and your leadership. Would you do a fundraiser? Perfect, an offer they can't refuse. May God bless all that you put your heart and mind to. BRAVO 👏
Hotez was offered a bunch of dough that he could have used for his cherished causes. He rejected it. How will this succeed where that failed?
Steve/(all), I suggest another way, based on an existing and contemporary 'template', a successful precedent.
However, it should be understood and accepted that intention toward a society-wide switch of belief is likely to be a 'long game', and wide.
The 'low carb' movement is the precedent. And it is much, much bigger than its deceptively benign sounding name might suggest.
That movement is far from being merely about dietary macronutrient proportions. By default, it simultaneously encompasses and addresses a suite of modern chronic diseases that have manifested since a world-changing decision, based - just as with pro- or anti-vax - on a two-way choice. In this case, the choice was between fat or sugar as the most likely contenders behind just one chronic disease initially but of major concern in the US after Eisenhower's diagnosis in the 1950s, heart disease, and with heart disease skyrocketing from virtual obscurity earlier in the century to a major killer.
The 'decision' was made in 1977. Arbitrarily. By US senator McGovern, who made it based on gut instinct as against as science and stated something along the lines of "politicians need to make decisions now, not wait until all, (or even correct), evidence is in".
His decision resulted in the inception of national dietary guidelines. These were progressively adopted globally, and consistently vilified dietary fat, in particular saturated fat, and cholesterol. By default, the guidelines resulted in a significant rise in consumption of the very thing that happened to be the opposing choice, carbohydrates, since: if you reduce fats you have to make up nett energy requirements from the only other two macronutrients - protein and carbs, and carbs are cheap; and since all carbs either are already, or break down in the digestive system, to sugars.
Subsequently, for nearly 50 years now, society, globally, has seen a coincident rise in - name a chronic, modern disease: obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, Alzheimer's, depression, cancer, etc, etc and, albeit confounded by changes in levels of smoking, heart disease.
Many people have been involved ever since, with trying to reverse society-wide beliefs that dietary saturated fats and cholesterol underlie heart, or any other disease.
UK researcher Zoe Harcombe, a self-acknowledged former vegan, did her PHD thesis on the entire evidence base available in the pre-1977 scientific literature, to see if they supported the dietary guidelines when they were first introduced. No evidence supported their introduction. A follow-up study, this time in collaboration with others, looked at the entire evidence base of literature - after - 1977. Again it was found there was no evidence supporting carb-based (low fat) dietary guidelines.
Former physicist turned freelance researcher Gary Taube, and journalist Nina Teicholz (also a former vegan) along with may doctors and other scientists have written books and presented their findings to numerous audiences, outlining the history of the sugar, fat wars.
In 2015, the USDA finally back-flipped on the stance it had held against dietary cholesterol for decades, stating: 'cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern".
Progressively, ever more individuals have adopted lower, low or very low carb (keto) eating, with consistent success, albeit to varying degrees given varying degrees of condition severity etc, against various of the chronic diseases.
Consequently, progressively ever more doctors who have witnessed beneficial changes in their - patients who happen to be low carb - have adopted the switch for themselves and/or applied it to other patients.
Other doctors and researchers have progressively built an ever more compelling multi-faceted case through perhaps the most impactful instrument, the LCDU (low carb down under) forum, which includes public conferences in different major cities of various countries, with scientists and doctors presenting data, insights, case studies, and compilations of others' research, for audiences to consider, question live, cross-check, try for themself and challenge their beliefs. All video-captured then shared on at least one of the world's major media platforms, YouTube.
Furthering of the 'low carb' (aka eat and live healthier) cause has included of outcomes of several high profile cases brought by vested industry (Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Medicine), or dietitian's associations on their behalf, against individuals recommending low carb to patients or members of the public (heresy against the dietary guidelines), including against Professor Tim Noakes in South Africa, Dr. Gary Fettke in Australia and Dr. Annika Dahlqvist in Sweden. Despite all being David vs Goliath cases, thus far, each individual has won. In part because the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports the low carb position. In part because of assistive collaborations of support of the accused by certain 'subject-matter-expert' members of the low carb community.
A new playbook, against vaccines, in a nutshell? . . .
Absolute top priority is to build trust, in a sufficient proportion of the global population, to reach/force a tipping point, a worldwide shift in consensus opinion.
Mirror the LCDU model, but super-sized: public conferences, in major cities, internationally, with presentations by MDs, PHDs, lawyers, authors, researchers, victims, etc., video-captured, shared online via major media channels including YouTube but also facilitated in all major world languages including Mandarin etc, and inclusive of multiple layers of redundancy to combat censorship, deletion, system attacks, etc., and alternative major media platforms to YouTube to maximise audience views and minimise risk of any one platform applying Big Brother tactics. Perhaps the LCDU mirror could be called ALTX, for 'alternative' whatever - viewpoints, evidence, treatments, medicine, etc. (and as an unintended but useful implied connection to Twitter/X).
Do NOT start with vaccines. Doing so would risk permanently losing the very audience most required to be won over, those with opposing beliefs.
Start instead with topics close to us all personally, health, disease, causes of death, of loss of loved ones, and in particular medicines. Once a large body of doubt has been produced and shared online about medicines A, B, C, ... X, Y, Z, ... Aa, Ab, Ac, ie a suite of examples that becomes apparent as being endless if not encompasses them all, for a massive, tipping-point proportion of the world's population, then, finally, presentations on the other form of 'medicine', 'vaccines' may be introduced to the forum with reasonable confidence that they won't simply be outright dismissed, discredited, deplatformed, etc, per current tactics.
By the way, for reasons aired by many Commenters in this forum, but also for others highlighted in the book 'The Real Anthony Fauci', Steve's starting suggestion may be referred to as 'How to Lose a Million Dollars':
Journal articles aren't read by but a few.
They are understood by even fewer.
Many authors are industry funded, across their entire career, so will be unlikely to bite the hand that feeds their families.
Likewise, many publishers are not independent but have also been captured by industry.
Even if an honest article somehow made it to an honest publisher, who in the media would publish stories about it since many of the major media platforms have also been captured by industry and/or are required to comply to government directives for fear of heavy penalties if not termination.
Conversely, if there were none willing to even accept the challenge from the pro-vaccine camp, what would be achieved; who of the world's entire population would care, who would know, other than the followers of this forum, and, again, who of mainstream media would publish a story on it?
Good idea. But we all know that indeed many medical doctors are becoming aware that there could indeed be vaccine harm as a result from over-jabbing children (apart from a deep, but unspoken awareness that the mRNA gene-therapy jabs have caused debilitation and death in their wake).
And Big Pharma is running scared, too. We see that in the now oft-repeated line from talking heads of the MSM: "... repeats the thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism...", without, of course, presenting any of the purported debunking.
As more and more studies are published establishing a clear correlation between childhood vaccine schedule and autism (as well as a host of other ailments), it is starting to resemble a dike breaking, with the Big Pharma paid MSM News playing the child who's finger attempts to stem the leakage.
So financial incentives aside, you'll have to keep up the impish taunting to get anyone to bite. But they still won't, for the last thing any medical professional wants is to be associated with bringing down the rotten house. Maybe a few whistleblowers would help. O'Keefe's OMG might help.
Reminds me of (The Amazing) Randi's standing offer of, I think it was, $1 million to prove the existence of telepathy or telekinesis.
They say that science advances one funeral at a time.
This tells me that - for many, "science" isn't about reality or fact, its about human ego and a construct, along with a severe unwillingness to admit you might have been wrong - with all the loss of ego that would cause.
That said - I suspect there's a "moveable middle" group who might be identifiable. Maybe pick those who have done U-turns before, showing they're open. Then from this group, pick people who are relatively secure - i.e. not funded by Fauci et al.
Then ask them to structure the experiment.
Find a population with significant variance in vaccination rate and compare their all-cause mortality since 2000. Eg. East vs West Germany. Sweden vs their neighbors. Indian states.
Won't work because it makes too much sense..ha PLEASE keep fighting the good fight!
'Scientific Consensus' translated
'$cientific $elf Interest, $elf promotion, Narci$$ism, Award$, $elf-deception, Profit$'
The Rona scamdemic displays as much merit and locus in 'science' as the Climate Change scam, or bacteria becoming a baseball batter.
The Health-Medical Industrial complex is corrupt, self serving, and evil. More transparency and factual data which informs decisions and 'science', was forthcoming from Nazis and Communists.
Excellent and refreshing to see possible action for truth and consequences!! Thanks for all YOUR action‼️👏🏼🙌🏼❣️😁
Thanks Steve for starting this debate. Resolving the accuracy of scientific statements is incredibly important, however I suspect that your method will not work for the many reasons in the comments. Isn’t the key problem to resolve “free speech”. Governments, the WHO, Google and many others have decided that vaccines and climate change are so important that free speech cannot be allowed in case we find the truth. Sometimes the result of any change to policy such as vaccinations or carbon credits are in the balance, only free speech can help people decide which argument holds the truth.
What do you mean by "If there are no takers for 1 million dollars (sic), the issue is settled by default."?
Look no further than existing science that proves Autism is Caused by Endotoxin in Jabs.
Deliberate causation of Autism is routine using non-human Primates hit with 0.000000004 gram per kilogram bodyweight Endotoxin late in pregnancy
Steve I think you’ve got it right. Those who do not respond should be considered that they don’t have an argument worth defending, that their case is unsupportable and that the money for research goes to the ones who take the trouble to support their claims. What I like about it is that the reward goes to the ones who make the effort not the ones who leave us high and dry. I think one very important component of it should be this must all be done in the public eye, all open for anyone to see, nothing done behind closed doors. I feel making everything public is like an insurance that protects us from nefarious intentions. It makes it so much harder to cover up omissions, errors or even manipulation. Bravo for tackling this issue.