Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
If vaccines don't cause autism, then how do you explain all this evidence?
We see an odds ratio of 5 when comparing autism in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed in MULTIPLE studies. The before:after odds are even more extraordinary. How can we ignore all this evidence?
Here’s my favorite short list of evidence that can’t be explained if vaccines don’t cause autism. Does anyone think I’m wrong and can explain the list?
Note that I only claim that vaccines are THE major cause, not the sole cause. There are other things that contribute. But if we could change only one thing, eliminating use of all vaccines is the single best way to reduce the rate of autism in the US.
The bottom line is that for questions like whether vaccines can trigger autism, there is only one answer: it does or it doesn’t. It doesn’t change.
We have 25 years of evidence. It’s all either supportive of Hypothesis A or B.
It is a colossal failure of evidence-based medicine and the medical community that they cannot figure out which bucket all the evidence is consistent with.
The answer is so simple because all the studies cited as the strongest evidence on their side are all deeply flawed and can be easily disproven. It is astonishing to me that so many smart people cannot figure this out.
But they are paid not to look. They always completely ignore the studies that go against the narrative and only focus on studies where the studies are designed to minimize the chance of finding an association.
Making statements such as “you review all evidence, giving more weight to the quality and quantity of evidence” is science via “expert opinion.” It is hit or miss.
If you want scientific certainty, you need to be able to show that every known piece of evidence is either consistent or not inconsistent with your hypothesis.
We believe we can do this in this case and that they cannot.
It’s that simple. This is the key.
Let’s go though all the top evidence, both sides in the same room, and let’s let unbiased experts (with no conflicts of interest) listen to the arguments.
If you want a shortcut to the truth, compelling anecdotes or a well done case study are generally powerful tools to reveal the truth. We certainly have this in this case as there are many many anecdotes that they simply cannot explain and they have no anecdotes that we cannot explain.
We can come up with amazing anecdotes, e.g., 40 cases of instant autism within 2 weeks after the vaccine in a medical practice and 0 cases before. Can the other side come up with anything even close to that for 2 weeks before the vaccine?
But it’s actually simple to disprove the null hypothesis because all we have to show is a single black swan… if we show a single case where vaccines cause autism, we’re done. Single cases are always hard to prove since someone can argue “coincidence; it was going to happen anyway.”
But triplets in the same family happening to all the triplets at the same time (who were not identical), is statistically impossible as I point out here. It’s only happened once in history that I know of. And here’s the really weird thing: this “can’t possibly ever happen event” just happened to occur starting 2 hours after a vaccine injection! Do you think that that was just “coincidence”?
Keep this quote in mind as you read this article
A quote from Michael Crichton, MD: “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
Is it “settled science” that vaccines don’t cause autism? No! Here’s the proof
Michael Simpson claims it is “settled science” that vaccines don’t cause autism. He said it right here:
Paul Offit says that the medical consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism. Watch this video. It’s right there. The experts in the video say if there was a link they would have found it. You can absolutely rely on this because they are the experts! <sarcasm off>
But it can NEVER be “settled science” that vaccines don’t cause autism as Paul Offit admitted in that video.
And it can NEVER be settled science when there are cases where the US vaccine court have admitted that the vaccines caused autism such as for Hannah Poling and Porter Bridges. Those cases have NEVER been overturned with evidence to the contrary.
In a shocking admission under oath in 2018, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, one of the world’s top experts on vaccines, agrees with attorney Aaron Siri that the data is insufficient to make the claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism.’
In 2018, the data was simply insufficient to make the claim for the Tdap and DTaP vaccines. Anyone who claims this is “settled science” must show a study after Jan 11, 2018 showing that the ambiguity has been resolved for these two vaccines as well as all the other vaccines on the childhood schedule. This has never been done.
What was also stunning to me was Plotkin’s outright dismissal of the Geier paper. Plotkin cites no evidence whatsoever that the study was wrong. If the study was wrong, why isn’t there a VSD study showing the error?
Is this a fringe view that vaccines cause autism?
Apparently not. I have on order of 1M followers world wide, so even if this poll is only accurate for my followers, that is a huge number of people who agree with me that mainstream science got it wrong in declaring the lack of a link as “settled science.”
But it’s not just me and my followers. It’s so obvious that even this well known personality noticed the same thing everyone else is noticing.
So it is stunning that there are no debates. The people who believe there is a link want the debate. RFK Jr. has been trying to get a debate on this for 20 years. No takers.
I threw down the gauntlet on July 7, 2023 with this tweet
Should the issue be decided in the peer-reviewed literature?
People who claim that the issue must be settled in the scientific literature are living in a fantasy world.
There are over 214 papers in the peer-review medical literature showing the link and 164 papers showing no link. How does that settle which papers are right? By the number of articles on each side? Of course not!
As John Ioannidis has shown, a large number of published papers are false.
The purpose of the challenge in the previous section is it to determine whether it is all of the 214 confirming papers that are false or all of the 164 papers claiming no link that are false. It has to be one or the other because it’s a binary question.
The DeStefano paper (2004) is a perfect example. To decide whether this paper is true or false requires looking into the claims of one of the co-authors (William Thompson) and examining the evidence he produced. The evidence clearly shows scientific fraud took place: it is required for the authors to publish the race subgroup analysis, but they didn’t even mention it in the paper. Co-author Thompson admitted this breach of ethics in a press release. Even worse, CDC management ordered Thompson to destroy any evidence of that subgroup analysis instead. Yet the journal refused to retract the paper. This paper is a perfect example of why it is important to have a dialog on issues such as this. In fact, we are willing to concede the whole debate if we lose on this one paper. Are they willing to do the same?
This has never been done AFAIK. If I'm wrong, please provide the reference in the comments.
A single verifiable anecdote is all it takes to disprove the null hypothesis (and prove that vaccines can cause autism)
We don’t need peer-reviewed papers in the medical journals to make our proof.
If the medical community consensus claims there are no black swans, but I have evidence of a black swan that anyone can easily verify, then I have shown the medical community is wrong, even with a single anecdote.
We can do this quite easily for vaccines and autism as shown in this article.
It is statistically impossible for this event to have occurred by random chance, i.e., if something other than vaccines are causing autism cases.
This doesn’t prove that all autism cases are caused by vaccines, but it does prove that vaccines can trigger autism.
The list (in no particular order)
Here is a list of some of the most compelling evidence I’ve run across.
If there is a hypothesis that is a better fit to this evidence than vaccines cause autism, I’d love to hear it.
We have a single case that is statistically impossible if the vaccines don’t cause autism. This is all we need to prove our case. Details here.
Lack of a single case where a child became “overnight autistic” before a vaccination appointment: There are thousands of parents who report that their child became “overnight autistic” within 24 hours after a vaccine shot. I personally know dozens of these parent (and here are some parents who agreed to have their name used publicly if you want to verify this). So if vaccines don’t cause autism, there must be a roughly comparable number of parents who noticed this within 24 hours before a vaccine appointment (because the number of cases will be comparable on any day you pick). Yet, nobody has ever heard of a single kid who became “overnight autistic” even within 2 weeks before a vaccination appointment! All the “overnight autism” stories are all after a vaccination appointment, generally within a 2 week window but sometimes as short as just 2 hours after the shot is given. Here’s an example of overnight autism. And here’s another where 3 twins all developed autism within hours after the shot. Note that in general that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if there was such a story, someone would have heard it. None of the experts I contact had heard of a single “before” case. Note that I also asked on Twitter for a counter-example, and nobody had one there either. Here’s yet another ask for exceptions. If vaccines weren’t causing overnight autism, the anecdotes of this happening pre-vaccine appointment would be as easy to find as the anecdotes of it happening post-vaccine appointment. Finally, the argument that nobody would remember if their child got overnight autism before their vaccination appointment is silly as this simple Twitter poll demonstrated (relating a sudden death of a friend and when the friend was scheduled to be vaccinated). As a second demonstration of recall, I did a second poll on getting COVID right before the COVID shot appointment. People remember this stuff. In both cases, people easily recalled a big event happening right before a vaccine appointment. Bottom line: If you are a critical thinker, you really don’t need anything more than this one point to prove causality. We’re done.
Their studies don’t prove what they claim they prove. See this 92 page article created by SafeMinds, Vaccines and Autism What do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us? which describes what you need to know about many of the most important studies they cite as strong evidence including both widely cited studies such as the Verstraeten study (where it describes in detail the five generations of the study) and some of the more esoteric studies like the Honda study (where the just replaced a single vaccine MMR with separate vaccines M. M. and R. and found no difference). See also this analysis by Jerry Hammond entitled: “Why the Claim ‘Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism’ Is Disinformation” as well as this article which debunks the 16 most cited papers on their side: Part 2: Vaccines and Autism - What Do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us?. The reality is that their evidence isn’t compelling at all. There is also the Hviid 2019 study which was debunked by Brian Hooker here.
214 papers in the peer-reviewed literature linking vaccines and autism: Autism mom Ginger Taylor compiled a list of 214 studies showing the link between vaccines and autism. Here’s the list as a single download. Here’s a short list (30 key papers). There are also 400 papers showing how dangerous the vaccines are in general. See Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.
We can show how every one of the papers brought forward by vaccine proponents are flawed. For example, there are 164 papers listed in this Michael Simpson article which he claims is proof that there is no association between vaccines and autism. He asserts that the single best paper is a 2014 meta-analysis by Taylor et al., “Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies” (you can see a proof of the article here without a fee) which analyzes 10 studies (5 of each type), including Madsen (2002), Hviid (2003), DeStefano (2004), Andrews (2004), Smeeth (2004), and Verstraeten (2003). The problem of course is that all of these papers were debunked in the SafeMinds analysis. The best studies were the cohort studies and one of the cohort studies was judged to be “high risk.” The other four cohort studies were described in the SafeMinds analysis. For the case-control studies, the two largest ones in the study were also described in the SafeMinds analysis. So the best of the best of their best studies were debunked. These meta-analyses are only as good as the underlying papers. Can we talk in detail about the top 3 papers in each group? I’d love to meet with Simpson and we can debate his strongest evidence vs. my strongest evidence and let’s see what happens. But Simpson ignored my request. We cannot get a debate on this with anyone.
The other side declares victory (that it is “settled science”), yet runs when challenged to a simple debate on the top 5 papers on both sides. It is odd that they write pages and pages of text attempting to explain why they are right, but when challenged to discuss the top evidence, they don’t even reply. There are two “tells” here: anytime someone uses the term “settled science” when there is such a massive reality disconnect as demonstrated here, that’s disingenuous. Secondly, the side declaring “settled science” subsequently refusing to even respond yes or no (with a legitimate reason or counter offer) to a legit debate challenge with experts is a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong.
They won’t meet with scientists on our side to discuss all the data on the table to see if we can get a consensus. This is tragic. Kids suffer because their side won’t meet with our side. We are willing, they are not. What does that tell you? Someone is afraid of debate. RFK Jr. has been trying to get a debate on autism for 20 years.
Their argument for why vaccines don’t cause autism is to cherry pick all the studies showing no signal, and completely ignore every study with any signal. That’s dishonest science. An honest scientist would present credible studies and then explain with evidence the other studies that show the opposite to show why those studies not credible. They don’t do that. They avoid the studies that show the linkage like the plague. Watch this Susan Oliver video to see how they argue by cherry picking flawed studies and ignoring studies that conflict. Note in this article I include supportive studies and I debunk every study that they use. So I’m walking the talk here.
The McDowell triplets all became autistic within hours of each other on the same day (full video here). How is that possible? Easy. They were all vaccinated at the exact same time in the same pediatrician appointment with just one vaccine shot: the pneumococcal vaccine! Date of vaccination 6/25/07. They never held hands again after that day. The girl (Clair) shut completely off just 2 hours after the shot. The first boy, Richie, shut down 4 hours after the shot. See also this article. They were all 9 months and 4 days old at the time with no problems. The geneticist that was consulted told the McDowell's that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY for this to happen due to GENETICS. It is impossible for three different siblings to genetically get autism on the same day. What they mean by that statement is that the odds of this happening are so rare that you are highly unlikely to see a single case like this in your lifetime if it happened by chance. The article goes on to say, “We hear about children getting autism ALL THE TIME after their vaccinations.”
Hannah Poling developed autism within 2 days after her shot. She went from perfectly healthy to autistic. It was even determined scientifically that her autism was caused by the vaccine. So that should have ended the debate.
There are way too many of these “coincidences” (like Hannah and the triplets) to be random chance. You cannot orchestrate anecdotes like you can game a large research study.
There are apparently no cases of a unvaccinated child who was meeting all their milestones, then suddenly regressed into profound autism at 12 months or older. Note that profound autism affects 1 in 4 kids with ASD. See this tweet for details and the references.
Madsen study: A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism (Madsen, 2002). This is cited by Martin Kulldorff as proof vaccines don’t cause autism. Even in this heavily flawed study, the raw data showed a strongly elevated risk of autism. So they never showed the raw data odds ratio (did you know that the rate of autism was 45% higher in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group?) and the paper only showed the adjusted numbers! That’s unethical. You can read the flaws in this study that was widely cited to prove that there was no association here. Over 1,000 scientists didn’t see anything wrong with the study! It’s really stunning how easily bad science propagates into the mainstream. Note that this is the single best study that is cited to prove that vaccines don’t cause autism and it is deeply flawed. The authors wouldn’t provide the underlying data and refused to answer any questions. Is that the way science works? There is also the Hviid 2019 study which was debunked by Brian Hooker here.
Wakefield 1998 paper: Wakefield’s retracted paper reported that “We investigated a consecutive series of children… Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another.” So 66% of the cases were associated with the MMR vaccine.
The 2022 Morocco study: 70% of the 90 parents surveyed affirmed that the first autistic features appeared after vaccination with the MMR vaccine. The rates are nearly identical to the 66% rate in the Wakefield study.
DeStefano paper evidence destruction: CDC scientist William Thompson was ordered by his bosses at the CDC to destroy ONLY the evidence linking vaccines and autism. Furthermore, the race subgroup analysis showing the link was omitted from the paper which is also unethical. When Congressman Bill Posey tried to get Thompson to testify in Congress, they shut him down so there was no testimony. This coverup was what convinced Wakefield that he was right: vaccines cause autism. DeStefano refused to release the data when James Lyons-Weiler requested it. Also, all data has to be retained for 7 years. You can’t destroy data before that. The FOIA request took 10 years before the CDC responded to it. More about the DeStefano paper in this article.
Simpsonwood meeting: CDC scientist Thomas Verstraeten did a study in 1999 linking thimerosal with autism. They tried to make the autism signal go away. They couldn’t. The original signal was a RR=7.6 (see also this abstract) which is a huge signal. See my article for details and a link to the original Verstraeten study. See also this article and this historical overview and Simpsonwood 23 years later and the transcript. More history here.
Paul Offit lied to RFK Jr. about thimerosal: RFK Jr told me the story personally, but now, it’s on the Joe Rogan podcast Episode #1999. Start listening at 23:00. The punchline is at 28:33. Basically, the ethylmercury in the thimerosal makes a beeline out of your blood and deposits into your brain (unlike the methylmercury in fish which has a harder time entering your brain so it stays in your blood longer). Offit tried to convince RFK that the mercury gets excreted by referring to a paper. When RFK brought up the Burbacher study, there was dead silence on the line because Offit knew he had been caught in a deception. In short, thimerosal can seriously damage people’s brains. Vaccines are not supposed to cross the BBB. This creates biological plausibility needed for causality. See also my article about Offit attempting to respond to the episode.
Japan, France, and Sweden have fewer vaccines with better health outcomes. Why not adopt one of their schedules in the US?
There was a House bill (HR 3069) asking the NIH to compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, but it never made it out of committee. They know the damage.
A 1998 CDC study admitted that the measles vaccine can cause permanent brain damage and death. It’s right there in the peer-reviewed literature.
If the measles vaccine causes permanent brain damage, is it feasible that autism might be within that spectrum of damage?
The most remarkable paper showing the MMR vaccine causes permanent brain damage and death is this 1998 paper Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It is written by CDC authors and has not been questioned or retracted and cited by 90 papers.
The really important piece of this paper that most people miss is the part highlighted above:
“No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine.”
This is huge. Only the measles vaccine caused permanent brain damage. Does that mean the other two didn’t? No, it just means that the incident rates for the other two vaccines were much lower (or zero).
The fact that the permanent brain damage effect was vaccine-type dependent is a smoking gun that nobody likes to talk about.
Of course, if the authors wrote that the vaccines killed these kids, they wouldn’t be able to get their paper published (that’s how “science” works). So you have to read between the lines that severe brain inflammation/damage might cause death. Do you think that might be reasonable?
There is no other explanation than the vaccines caused the effect. If there is, let’s hear it. If not, the precautionary principle of medicine demands that we should assume that was the cause until proven otherwise.
Here’s is simple example of that principle. Suppose you are a physician and you inject vaccine X which the CDC says is safe and effective into your first 5 patients and they all die the next day. What do you do? Do you say that correlation isn’t causation and continue to vaccinate patients? Or do you stop vaccinating until you can find out what killed all 10 patients?
This excellent Substack article shows the statistically significant peaks at days 8 and 9 after the shot. That’s causality.
So the CDC knew in 1998 that the measles vaccine was causing brain damage. But the paper said that the relationship “may exist.” Right. No other way to explain the data if it wasn’t causal.
This gives us more biological plausibility.
My survey of my followers
I surveyed 10,000 parents who follow me to ask them about their kids.
The results were striking: the more vaccines the kids got, the more likely they were to suffer from chronic diseases (including autism, ADHD, epilepsy, seizures, PANDA/PANS, autoimmune diseases, sinusitis, type I diabetes, food allergies, etc.):
I fully acknowledge that there is selection bias in the people who respond to my survey. But this just affects the mix of my respondents in terms of number of vaccines they give their kids. It’s going to be lower for my followers than a full nationwide survey.
But if the measures are independent of the mix of the respondents, then it simply doesn’t matter that I have a skewed mix of respondents.
If vaccines don’t cause autism, the rate of autism among parents who gave their child 0 shots will be identical to the rate of autism among parents who gave their child any number of shots. So that blue line above should be a horizontal line (slope of 0).
Just to be sure, we found that the rate of birth defects didn’t change no matter how many shots you gave your child since birth defects happen before the shots. It was the control for the survey.
But the rate of autism increases based on the number of shots the child received as the blue line above shows. That’s a huge problem for the narrative because they can’t claim my data is biased or flawed; it won’t work.
This is a dose-response relationship. The higher the dose, the higher the response. That is a “smoking gun” for causality.
The only argument left is that kids who got more shots saw the doctor more and had more chances to be diagnosed with autism. The problems with that explanation:
It was disproved in the Lyons-Weiler study; the kids who didn’t get vaccinated were more likely to keep their wellness clinic visits, precisely the opposite of what is claimed. If anything, the kids who got no vaccines should have been diagnosed with autism more because they kept their wellness appointments.
Missing autism in doctor visit is like missing a train wreck. It’s generally not a subtle thing. It’s very binary. You either see it or you don’t.
You can’t get through the kids vaccine schedule in fewer than 7 visits. If diagnosis is simply proportional to vaccination visit frequency, the kids who are fully vaxxed would have at least 7X the rate of autism as the kids who are sparsely vaccinated.
Kids see their pediatrician more times than just the vaccine appointment. The Paul Thomas study showed the fully vaccinated kids had 25X more healthcare visits than unvaccinated kids. So the rate of autism for the fully vaccinated should be 25X higher than rarely vaccinated. It’s not. It’s only around 4X higher.
And nobody on earth seems to have the courage to do their own survey!!! Isn’t that interesting? Mine took only 24 hours to return results. What is everyone so afraid of?
More importantly, how come in over 25 years, nobody has done the survey I just did? Are scientists afraid of the truth?
Would anyone want to fact check my survey and talk to all 10,000 parents directly to validate they were telling the truth? You can do a statistical sample of 100 at random. Please!!! Why won’t anyone fact check this?? I’d jump at the opportunity to have the responses “fact checked.” There is simply no way, even if my followers wanted to support me, they could have gamed the survey. I really want the fact check because it would end the debate. There is no way to explain such a smooth effect.
My survey found the same odds ratio for autism and vaccines as found in the Hooker and Mawson studies. Again, more confirmation that my survey reflected reality rather than distorted view of reality.
Studies of the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed
There are numerous studies of the unvaxxed vs. vaxxed which show a statistically significant higher rate of autism and other chronic diseases in the vaccinated.
More importantly, those who argue that this is not the case cannot produce a single study of the fully unvaxxed vs. fully vaxxed showing that the number of autism cases are comparable in the two groups. In fact, even in the highly acclaimed (but deeply flawed) Madsen study, there was a statistically significant higher incidence of autism in the “got MMR vax group” vs. “didn’t get MMR vax group” (p=.01) in the raw data before they made the signal go in the opposite direction by doing undisclosed adjustments (changing the relative risk from 1.45 to .92. The “adjusted” RR value had a confidence interval of .68 to 1.24 which means that even after applying all their “adjustments” they can’t rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism. And this is their best study!! Nobody ever tells you about this paper showing the underlying data they used is flawed. And nobody seemed to be bothered by the fact that the number of black male children in this study severely underestimates the number of black kids in America. In fact, it doesn’t look at race at all in the study. Whoops! See this article for more about the Madsen study.
Paul Thomas (2020) had 0 autism cases in 561 unvaxxed patients total. For patients who followed the CDC vaccination schedule, there were 15 autism cases in 894 patients. The Fisher exact test p-value is 0.0008 which is stunning. See also this excellent article about the study which points out that “unvaccinated children are healthier in several metrics and enjoy 25 times fewer pediatric visits.” The bad guys were able to get the paper retracted by claiming the higher rates of autism among the vaccinated were due to more office visits. The problem with that criticism is that the reason for retraction was later disproven in a subsequent paper.
Hooker (2021): 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
Mawson (2017): 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)
Geier (2013): 2.1 to 3.4 odds ratio in the VSD database depending on age at injection. Higher odds ratio when older. That study, published in the peer-reviewed literature, was done using a two-phase methodology used by the CDC. It showed that the HepB vaccine was strongly associated with autism. They looked at each of the 3 injection times and in all cases the OR was high and the p-value was low! The study has never been retracted. After Brian Hooker found this signal in VSD, his access was immediately revoked by the CDC with no explanation. Nothing like being open to data transparency is there?
Garner / Control group (2022): 82 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. “For those with zero exposures to post-birth vaccines, pre-birth vaccines, or the K shot, the total rate of autism in the entire CGS is 0% (0 of 1,024)” Doing an OR calculation relative to my survey of 10,000 children: OR=82 CI:5.1197 to 1315 z statistic: 3.114 Significance level. P = 0.0018. See also the Control Group website.
Lyons-Weiler (2022): The study was too small to assess autism risk, but showed better health outcomes among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated in other conditions. See this article which notes that the unvaccinated had better compliance to their wellness checks than the vaccinated which eliminates a common argument that anti-anti-vaxxers use. It says, “the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.”
Liz Mumper study: She reduced the incidence of autism in her practice by 10X limiting the vaccines given to kids. How does the medical community explain this?
A new study of 50,000 kids (submitted for publication but not yet published) shows the same odds ratios for chronic diseases as the Hooker and Mawson studies. The author is well respected and the dataset is very large.
The Generation Rescue (GR) study that was done on June 26, 2007 showed that vaccinated kids were significantly worse off in every category they looked at. “For less than $200,000, we were able to complete a study that the CDC, with an $8 billion a year budget, has been unable or unwilling to do.” Where is the CDC survey? Nowhere to be found! They simply don’t want to do it. Read the survey and see this article for more information. GR couldn’t tamper with the study or manipulate the results because it was done by a third party survey firm with no conflicts of interest. If the drug companies didn’t like the result, they could have easily commissioned a different polling company. But they didn’t!!! Or maybe they did and simply chose not to publish the results because they were so bad. In any event, the lack of a poll showing the opposite of the GR poll is very very problematic for the “safe and effective” narrative.
There is a failure on behalf of the other side to cite a single study that shows the opposite of what these studies show, e.g., that the fully vaccinated are either as healthy or healthier than the fully unvaccinated.
But aren’t vaccines the reason kids live longer today?
Nope. From PEDIATRICS 2000;106; 1307-1317.
Nearly 85% of the decline in child mortality for children over 1 year of age in the 20th century took place BEFORE World War II, "a period when few antibiotics or modern vaccines and medications were available." (p. 1313)
"... nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available." (p.1314)
There are large cohorts with a no vaccination policy which have ZERO or near zero autism
The Amish: We couldn’t find an Amish child with autism who wasn’t vaccinated or adopted.
A large clinical pediatric practice I am personally very familiar with has eschewed the use of all vaccines and acetaminophen and achieved a zero autism rate over the past 25 years even though autism rates were skyrocketing in adjacent clinics. Furthermore, despite the lack of vaccination, the kids were also uniformly healthier than the kids in any of the surrounding clinics. This means that we can end the autism epidemic merely by altering individual choices we make. Unfortunately, this clinic cannot “go public” with this information because the medical boards would take away their license to practice medicine because they failed to push the vaccines on their patients like they were told to do by the medical establishment.
There are other pediatric clinics in the US which eschew vaccination. For example, at Homefirst Medical Services, “We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.” What makes this believable is that other clinics who didn’t vaccinate reported the same results.
My survey of the parents of 10,000 kids showed more vaccines mean that an autism diagnosis is more likely.
The Homefirst clinic in Chicago run by Mayer Eisenstein had tens of thousands of patients and not a single case of autism over 47 years. He died in 2014.
From this article in UPI:
In the past, public-health officials have said such an approach [surveying the public to look at health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated] would be impractical due to low numbers of never-vaccinated children, but this column found tens of thousands of such children -- beginning with the Amish -- in various locations in the United States. In our anecdotal and unscientific reporting, the rate of autism seemed strikingly lower in never-vaccinated children, …
But this column identified several groups that might fit the bill -- from the Amish in Pennsylvania Dutch country to homeschooled children to patients of a Chicago family practice.
"I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century.
"You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that's just the way it is."
In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never-vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois' relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst's medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We have a fairly large practice," Eisenstein told us. "We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. "We do have enough of a sample," Eisenstein said. "The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We're all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there's no communication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's not something that anyone would miss."
The VAERS evidence is damning: it’s vaccine dependent
There are two different ways we can use VAERS to show vaccines cause autism.
If a group of vaccines are given around the same time and in the same number, then the number of VAERS autism reports for these vaccines should be comparable. They aren’t. The reporting rate is dependent which vaccine is given. That is impossible if vaccines don’t cause autism.
It turns out that that there is a second peak in autism reports for some vaccines around day 15-30. Strong peaks like this after vaccination are a smoking gun for causality because if it was just coincidence, there would be a peak near the date of the shot and the curve would go down from there. It doesn’t. There is a second peak for several vaccines. I bet you can guess which ones give that second peak, can’t you? It’s the same vaccines parents most often cite as causing autism. Coincidence? Nope. It’s a statistically significant effect that nobody ever noticed before I pointed it out.
See my article on VAERS and autism for details.
People who work with autistic kids regularly report experiences similar to this testimonial. The remaining kids have a slow regression into autism so the “starting point” is simply hard to pinpoint. In cases where there is a definitive rapid regression, it is nearly always shortly after a vaccination. I’ve never talked to an autism worker who has had the opposite experience. In fact, I don’t know of a single case of a child who rapidly developed autistic behaviors anytime 2 weeks before a shot.
The before:after odds measures
The before:after odds measures are the most stunning pieces of evidence there is for vaccines causing autism. Many parents notice a sudden, dramatic change in their child shortly after vaccination. But the funny thing is, none of them noticed this right before the appointment with the pediatrician to get the shot. It’s simply nearly impossible to achieve a disparity like this if the shots are safe.
This isn’t observer bias either. If a child suddenly developed autistic behaviors right before the doctor appointment to get vaccinated, you can bet the first thing out of the parent’s mouth would be telling the doctor before the shot of the sudden change. What pediatrician in the world can recall that ever happening?
Yet we are inundated with stories of parents saying their child got a fever right after the shot, the parent may have given the child Tylenol (which makes everything worse), and within hours, the child is never the same.
These clearly aren’t anti-vaxxer parents who believe Wakefield because if they were, they wouldn’t have vaccinated their child!!! So there is no way to ignore these reports.
Pediatrician Doug Hulstedt statistics: He had 150 autism patients, about half where the parents linked the autism to the vaccine. He said there were 44 cases where autism signs developed very quickly. In every single case, the regression happened within 2 weeks after a vaccine shot rather than in the days or weeks before a vaccine appointment. That is statistically impossible if the vaccine is a placebo (
poisson.cdf(0,44)=7.781132241133785e-20). But even more devastating is that you cannot find a pediatrician in the world where the before/after stats are comparable. Why not? If the vaccines are safe, every pediatrician should have comparable before vs. after stats and it would be impossible to find a single Doug Hulstedt.
My survey of parents of 300 autistic kids showed a 0:66 odds for getting autism the month before a vax shot vs. within a month after a shot. This is in remarkable agreement with Doug Hulstedt’s numbers. This is impossible if vaccines don’t cause autism. Even if my study is biased because many of my followers joined after their kids got autism, those parents comprise a small fraction of my follower base. How could the same be true for the kids of the vast majority of my followers who follow me for other reasons?
The fact that nobody is doing these studies. This article points out that the most effective way to answer the question about whether vaccines cause autism is to plot the before:after data for each vaccine and each dose.
What’s interesting and telling is that I can easily name 24 parents whose kids first developed very obvious telltale autistic behaviors within 24 hours after the shot. And I’m not an autism expert. I have their contact info!
Yet all the autism experts in the world cannot come up with a list of 24 parents in the entire world that suddenly developed these symptoms within 24 hours of their vaccination appointment.
“Overnight autism” statistics are easy to verify and unexplainable
Some people claim that “overnight autism” doesn’t exist.
I define this as normal the day before and severely autistic within 24 hours of a normal observation.
Prominent examples of this include Hannah Poling and the McDowell triplets who have been mentioned earlier.
In order to prove that “overnight autism” doesn’t exist, at a minimum you’d have to show that:
These two cases regressed very slowly over time, rather than a dramatic change.
None of these kids were diagnosed with autism
Nobody has ever been able to do either that I’m aware of.
Citing possible contributing factors such as fragile-X syndrome or mitochondrial enzyme deficiency does not change the fact that these kids went from normal —> severely autistic within 24 hours. See this tweet for a discussion.
If the vaccines didn’t cause the transition, then there should be the same number of these cases pre-vax vs. post-vax. Nobody has ever heard of a pre-vax case (developed 24 hours before the vax.
Retired pediatrician Doug Hulstedt had nearly 150 autism cases in his practice. 44 were “overnight autism” and they all happened within 2 weeks after a vaccine shot.
I did a survey of overnight autism cases among parents who are my followers. The results were stunning: 33% of the cases happened within 1 day of the vaccine. 50% of the cases happened within 3 days after a vaccine shot appointment.
No one else in the world has ever dared to do the survey I did. Ever. I wonder why?
I always tell people, if you think I got it wrong, can I see the survey you did? I always get crickets when I ask that.
Hulstedt’s numbers and my survey both show a clustering of cases right after vaccination that is impossible to explain. If vaccines didn’t cause autism, you’d expect that the chance of getting autism would be equally likely on every day after vaccination for at least 30 days (assuming kids are vaccinated on average no more often than every 30 days). You simply cannot have half the cases within 3 days of vaccination.
I have a $5M bet that vaccines cause autism. Nobody will bet against me $10,000 or more. Why is that? Isn’t anyone confident in “settled science”?
There isn’t a single study in peer-reviewed literature looks at the time between a vaccine shot and when a parent notices clear symptoms of autism. This should be easy to do retrospectively in dozens of pediatric practices. How is it that nobody is curious about this? If there is no relationship, the time to first symptoms will be a horizontal line. Every survey I’ve done shows it is nothing close to being a horizontal line.
Vietnam had virtually no autism. Then they introduced the vaccines. Autism took off. Coincidence? The Japan numbers are even more staggering: Annual incidence of ASDs for children born in 1987 was 20-per-10,000, but after MMR was introduced, in 1988, annual incidence more than quadrupled, to 85.9-per-10,000 for children born in 1990. But then, MMR coverage began to decline dramatically, as concerns over the mumps viral component grew. ASD incidence likewise declined during this period, to 55.8 for children born in 1991 – representing a drop of 35%. So you add it, the problem increases; you subtract it, the problem decreases. That’s a clear marker of causality.
Autism really took off exponentially in the US in 1986, right after Congress made the vaccine manufacturer not liable for injuries.
“Overnight autism” is unlikely to be triggered by something you eat or is in the environment because all of these would be a very slow effect. So it MUST be something injected. That’s the most likely biologically plausible cause of something so dramatic in your brain. The only thing injected into most people are vaccines. What else could have caused the McDowell triplets to have become overnight autistic within hours of each other?
Autism is brain injury. The only things that could cause such an injury is a pathogen that is either injected, ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by the skin. There may also be a genetic cause. This limits our solution space.
There is not a single cause for autism. If you remove the major causes (e.g., vaccination, use of Tylenol, etc.), autism will still happen, but at a much lower rate.
Tylenol given to a child after vaccination will increase the risk that the child will develop autism. In 2/3 of the autism cases, the parents gave the child Tylenol in an attempt to reduce the fever post vaccine. Most scientists I know believe that this actually exacerbates the risk rather than reducing it: the body is basically trying to get rid of the pathogen and the Tylenol disarms the body’s ability to do that. Here’s a Twitter survey showing some rough statistics showing vaccine+tylenol is more common than not, but that tylenol doesn’t have to be given for your child to get autism:
Vaccines are much more likely to cause a febrile seizure than a virus would. If vaccines are perfectly safe, then how can anyone possibly explain this Twitter poll in which the perfectly safe vaccines are 5X more likely to cause a febrile seizure than a virus? And if the poll is wrong, can we see the correct polls? This poll makes perfect sense. It says that a vaccine’s ability to cause brain injury is far greater than any virus. Are you surprised?
I recently learned of a police investigator who was assigned to investigate SIDS cases. She had 3 to 4 cases a month over 7 years. She found that 75% of the SIDS deaths happened within 48 hours of a vaccine shot. In short, the vaccine killed the child’s brain. If a vaccine can do that, is it any surprise that it can can irreparable brain damage?
Tylenol given in pregnancy can increase the risk of autism. Tylenol given after an type of activation of the immune system (through a vaccine but not a virus) can increase the risk of autism. The biggest single mistake parents make is vaccine—> fever—> tylenol. This dramatically increases the risk of an autism outcome.
The pathogen must be relatively new because autism rates didn’t “take off” until 1983. In 1983, the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") recommended a total of 10 vaccines for our children up to the age of 5. In 2007, the CDC recommended 36, an increase of 260%, or 3.6x. You can see the slope change at both those dates in the graph below.
This rapid climb was not due to a change in criteria to diagnose ASD. Such a change would create a quick step function and just shift the existing line upwards; the slope wouldn’t change.
Also, this growth isn’t due to a genetic issue because genetic traits don’t replicate exponentially over short time periods like this.
The fact that we can dramatically reduce the rate of autism by withholding all vaccines suggests that the vaccines are the major driver.
Distortion of truth
When people on the other side of the argument have to lie and distort the truth to make their point, you really have to wonder why they have to do that.
For example, For example, Matt Carey when he wrote about William Thompson’s study, he claimed that there was nothing wrong with excluding the RACE subgroup analysis from their published paper or being ordered to destroy ONLY the documents that were related to the RACE subgroup analysis (i.e., to ONLY destroy that data that goes against the CDC narrative).
Carey excels at gaslighting people who don’t know how science works. He wrote another article which deliberately misrepresented the results of the Generation Rescue survey (Matt claimed they showed the opposite of what they actually did). Nobody can read the results of the GR survey and think that the vaccines are bad. But he deliberately didn’t link to the source so you can’t easily check out that he’s lying.
As a result, none of the comments pointed out the huge misdirection.
Professor Anders Hviid had to create a bogus study which was designed not to find a signal. And when I notified him that another paper proved that his underlying data was inaccurate, he ignored me. When I asked to see the data, he blocked me. Lots more in my article.
Finally, in general, the anti-anti-vaxxers will not engage in a civil dialog to discover the truth. That should be very very concerning.
Can they simply “explain away” everything in this article? Can we talk about it?
The best explanation I’m aware of is in JB Handley’s book How to end the autism epidemic in Chapter 5. The short story is that man-made nano particles such as aluminum never clear the brain and result in persistent inflammation. It lists 11 key papers.
Here’s Peter McCullough explaining that the only cause that fits the evidence are vaccines in general (some vaccines are more toxic than others):
For example, here’s a very short video explaining how thimerosal which contains mercury can destroy brain neurons. When testosterone is added, the effect increases. This might explain why boys are more likely to be autistic than girls. This video would be hard to just “explain away” by the other side.
Here’s another possibility.
Other material I’ve written on autism
What the data tells us: A slide deck about vaccines in general as well as autism showing vaccines are bad news
The admission of a top autism expert
Finally, one of the most damaging pieces of evidence comes from James Lyons-Weiler who got a call from one of the top autism experts in the world (whose name I know but will not reveal to protect him). He told James that “We all know vaccines cause autism. We just aren’t allowed to talk about it.” He was referring to his fellow autism experts.
If they admitted this, they would lose their funding, their job, their license to practice medicine, their hospital privileges, their board certifications, etc.
That’s why I can’t get a debate and when I try to reach out to these experts they ghost me.
And that’s why there are never the before:after studies and why all there are so many studies are designed to not find a signal.
Are vaccines safe?
None are tested against a placebo.
Gardasil had a very small saline placebo arm, but for all the critical measures (Tables 5 and later), they either lumped in the placebo with the adjuvant control or they omitted the control group entirely in the table. See this tweet which got over 200K views:
If all 5 Bradford Hill criteria are satisfied, you have causality. All of these criteria are satisfied in spades.
Challenge anyone who claims this is not causality to tell you which criteria is not satisfied.
What do you think?
My best 7 arguments
Here are the top 7 arguments that I think are the most compelling and impossible to explain if vaccines don’t cause autism:
No autism in clinics that don’t vaccinate. There is zero autism rates in clinics that don’t vaccinate, even though surrounding clinics have normal rates of autism. You simply cannot find a single clinic where the kids who don’t get any vaccine have comparable rates of autism as fully vaccinated kids. Zero.
No overnight autism cases ever happen prior to vaccination. For cases of overnight autism, where a definitive date can be determined, these always cluster disproportionally in the days after a vaccine, never before the vaccine appointment. In one clinic (Doug Hulstedt), all 44 cases of overnight autism happened within 2 weeks after a vaccine. There are many cases, some very high profile, of kids turning autistic within 24 hours after a vaccine. By contrast, there are no cases in history that anyone is aware of where a child became autistic 24 hours before the child was scheduled to get a vaccine. If vaccines don’t cause autism, the frequency of cases before a vaccine and after a vaccine should be identical.
Autism risk is proportional to dosage. Multiple independent surveys (including 3 published in the peer review literature: Mawson, Hooker, and Garner) show clearly that more vaccines lead to higher likelihood of autism (and other auto-immune disorders). Mawson, Hooker, and I all found a 5X odds ratio of autism for vaccinated kids vs. unvaccinated kids.
DeStefano paper corruption: When the CDC looked at the MMR vaccine, they had to have one of the investigators destroy the data showing the link between MMR and autism. This was done before the paper was published so this wasn’t just “housecleaning.” The only data ordered to be destroyed was the data relative to the race analysis which showed a strong signal that could not be obfuscated. All the other data was preserved.
Verstraeten 1999 paper corruption: When the CDC looked at thimerosal and vaccines they found a huge signal. The goal of reanalysis was to make the signal go away. It should have been to expose the truth. The final paper never acknowledged the raw data signal. That’s unethical.
Madsen paper corruption: The raw data showed a 1.5 increased risk in autism in the MMR vaccinated. This was never acknowledged. That’s unethical. Furthermore, a Cox regression analysis should have only considered the independent factors known to affect rates of autism: race and gender. Why didn’t they show that?
1998 paper showed causality of vaccines causing brain damage: The CDC admitted that permanent brain damage was caused by the measles vaccine and not other vaccines. Permanent brain damage is thus dependent on the type of vaccine given. This is a smoking gun. If the measles vaccine didn’t cause the permanent brain damage, what did?
The Geier paper showed adding thimerosal increased the rate of autism: Done using the CDC’s own methodology and gold standard database, they showed thimerosal increased rates of autism by 2X when added to the DTaP vaccine. Result highly statistically significant. CDC cut off all access to VSD for the researchers after this.
Top 5 papers
What are my “best five” papers to argue vaccines can trigger autism?
Here are some of the finalists for the top 5.
DeStefano 2004. This is a clear winner due to the clear corruption and large signal for black males.
Verstraeten 1999. This is another clear winner due to the high OR and Simpsonwood.
Geier (2013). They used the CDC’s own two-phase methodology and all data was obtained from the CDC. They found that the DTaP vaccine with thimerosal had a 2X higher rate of autism than the DTaP vaccine without thimerosal. p<.02. The CDC permanently terminated the researchers access to VSD after they discovered this result.
Hooker (2021): 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
Mawson (2017): 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)
Delong 2011: Confirms association between vaccines in general and autism. The title of the paper is “A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population.” Conclusion: “A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI.”
Madsen (2002): Because of the raw data and the corruption to bury the signal. The funny thing is that the opposition will use this paper to make their point!
Holland (2011): Cases from US Vaccine court that nobody wants to talk about and they hope you never discover. As of 2011, nearly 5,000 parents (p. 481) applied to the VICP program claiming their child became autistic after vaccination and awards were made in 83 of these cases where there was autism in the vaccine-induced brain damage cases (p. 482). There are now over 100 of these cases according to one of the authors of this paper. Analyzing a database of VICP published decisions and online federal court records, the authors found 83 cases of acknowledged encephalopathy and seizure disorder that included autism or autism-like symptoms. Most involved the combination vaccine for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus. The second most common was the combination vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR). Awards ranged from $80,000 to $5.9 million. See also this Medscape article. So if vaccines can cause brain damage, is it that much of a leap to believe they can cause autism (since in many of these brain damage cases, the child had autism).
Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (1998) showing ONLY the measles vaccine, not mumps or rubella, was shown to be causing permanent brain damage. So it is vaccine-specific.
For more information
How to end the autism epidemic. JB Handley’s best book of all time on autism. If you only read one book, this is the book. Chapter 5 which explains how the brain’s immune system is triggered by adjuvants from vaccines causing autism.
The Brave Ones: The Highwire episode featuring JB Handley and RFK Jr.
The story that caused RFK Jr. to look at the science behind vaccines and autism
214 papers linking vaccines and autism: Autism mom Ginger Taylor’s list of of relevant papers. Searchable! This is a subset of the most important papers but I’ve found some that aren’t listed, so there are now over 220 papers showing the link.
130 studies linking vaccines and autism. A separate list independent from Ginger’s list.
Science is about matching hypotheses to data to which hypothesis is best able to explain all the data.
It’s clear that there have been studies which have been deliberately or inadvertently designed to not find a signal. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a link; it simply means the study was inadequate to find the link or the underlying data was compromised.
The thing is that if there really is not a link, then no matter what you do, you won’t find a link.
But the problem they have is that there have been other studies which show very clearly that vaccines cause autism that cannot be explained away because the signals are too strong.
Furthermore, I was unable to find a single study showing that the fully vaccinated had better health outcomes than the fully unvaccinated. Judy Gerberding, the former head of the CDC, promised to do such a study in 2005.
Twenty years later, that study has still never been done.
So in the meantime, the precautionary principle of medicine is pretty clear on what we should be doing: nobody should be getting any vaccines.