Executive summary
I had a nice SMS conversation with Alex Berenson last night.
The short story is:
Alex cites the studies that say vaccines don’t cause autism — and ignores the ones that say they do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Steve, he also is bullish against ivermectin as having any positive cliinical outcomes. i think it is a character flaw, he just will not subscribe to common understanding, he wants to be the brilliant founder of fact, not one who subscribes. he is an intellectual narcissist ..we have seen this before ad nauseum.
When he made some completely rude and unprofessional comments about Dr. Malone, I stopped reading and subscribing to his Substack immediately. That was years ago. I think it had to do with using HCQ or IVM to treat Covid.