Appreciate your comment. However, they are placing wireless devices in every conceivable nook and cranny, for example on apple watches, smart meters, even baby diapers. Sea water doesn't appear to be of much good under those circumstances. I mean, how would one apply it for protection? Live in a sea water fish bowl? The real problem remains that, as far as I can tell, no matter which government is in charge, Progressive or Conservative, neither governing side seem willing to acknowledge that wireless radiation in our current configuration is harmful to biological life under safety standards that are far below that to which the general populace is being increasingly exposed.
The Environmental Health Trust under Dr Devra Davis, and Childrens Health Defense, under Robert Kennedy Jr, won their twin law suits in the US Court of Appeals in the DC district in August of 2021 against the FCC for not updating their wireless safety standards since 1996, in the face of overwhelming evidence. But neither the Biden nor the Trump Administration has made any changes in policy, nor has the FCC reset their wireless safety standards as a result.
Its as if the Lawsuit virtually never took place.
Until there is a real awakening to the core issue, neither seawater, nor anything else will stem the increasing tide of wireless caused illness coming our way. Pray for a public awakening on this issue that will not be able to be ignored by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Unfortunately, this paper is seriously flawed, with pervasive methodological weaknesses and repeated statistical misapplications.
Critical Review of the McCullough Foundation Report:
“Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder” (2025)
Overview
The paper titled “Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder” (2025), authored by Nicolas Hulscher, John Leake, Andrew Wakefield, and Peter A. McCullough, presents itself as a systematic review of factors contributing to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It concludes that early and combination childhood vaccination is the most significant modifiable risk factor for ASD.
Summary of the Report
The report combines epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies and claims to have reviewed 136 vaccine-related papers, of which 107 allegedly support a positive association with ASD and 29 report no associations. It incorrectly interprets correlations between vaccine dose schedules and autism prevalence as causal, asserting that vaccines trigger mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and immune dysregulation leading to autism. To establish a causal effect requires an experimental design. Observational data can NEVER be used for causal effect.
Major Methodological and Scientific Errors
Category Description of Error Why It Is Invalid
Misclassification of Study Design The report calls itself a “systematic review” but provides no PRISMA flow diagram, inclusion criteria, or reproducible methodology. Violates all PRISMA and GRADE standards; it is a narrative review, not a systematic one.
Vote Counting Claims “107 positive” vs. “29 neutral” studies without weighting, bias assessment, or effect size synthesis. “Vote counting” is not a valid meta-analytic approach.
Selection Bias Over-represents small or retracted studies (e.g., Wakefield, Geier et al.) while excluding large null studies. Cherry-picking of evidence; not representative of the literature.
Correlation–Causation Fallacy
Plots vaccine dose counts against autism prevalence.
Two time-trending variables do not imply causation; ignores confounders such as diagnostic broadening and parental age.
Misrepresentation of Sources Misquotes IOM, CDC, and WHO reports as suggesting possible links. Citation distortion; these reports explicitly found no causal association.
Inclusion of Non-Peer-Reviewed Material Uses ideological sources (e.g., Children’s Health Defense, blogs). Not acceptable evidence in scientific reviews.
Lack of Confounder Control No statistical control for genetics, socioeconomic status, or parental age. Causality cannot be inferred without adjustment.
Mechanistic Speculation as Proof Infers human risk from in vitro and animal studies at non-comparable doses. Mechanistic plausibility ≠ population causation.
Inflated Quantitative Claims States autism rose by “>32,000%” and that vaccines are the “strongest modifiable factor.” Baseline estimates from 1970s were crude; diagnostic criteria have changed.
Conflicts of Interest Authors include Wakefield and McCullough, both prominent anti-vaccine advocates. No disclosures, peer review, or ethics statement; bias undermines credibility.
Statistical Misinterpretation Treats non-significant results as evidence of “overadjustment.” Contradicts standard interpretation of p-values and confidence intervals.
Misuse of Bradford Hill Criteria Asserts causation based on selective application of criteria. Ignores key conditions such as consistency, specificity, and experiment.
Logical and Conceptual Problems
• Association vs. Proof: Observational correlations are presented as causal without experimental evidence.
• Confirmation Bias: Conclusions appear predetermined to support a vaccine–autism link.
• Argument from Ignorance: Asserts danger because cumulative vaccine schedule studies are lacking.
• Ecologic Fallacy: Population-level trends misused to infer individual-level causation.
• Appeal to Authority: Relies on historical anecdotes and discredited figures.
Overall Assessment
• Scientific rigor: Poor.
• Transparency: Absent.
• Objectivity: Compromised by conflicts of interest.
• Reproducibility: None.
• Alignment with evidence base: Contradicts established consensus.
Conclusion
The McCullough Foundation Report is not a credible scientific analysis and cannot be used to claim proof of autism. Its methodology lacks transparency, its evidence base is cherry picked, and its causal inferences violate fundamental epidemiologic principles. The report’s conclusions are inconsistent with decades of global, peer-reviewed research demonstrating no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
"The paper titled “Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder” (2025), authored by Nicolas Hulscher, John Leake, Andrew Wakefield, and Peter A. McCullough, presents itself as a systematic review of factors contributing to autism spectrum disorder (ASD)."
I searched the paper for every occurrence of the word "systematic" and "comprehensive." While these were certainly present in references to studies performed by others or in discussions , I do not see where Hulscher et al represented their work as a "systematic review."
Did I miss something?
They did address the issue of changing diagnostic criteria and attempted to deal with it by concentrating on cases of profound disability (more or less the situation in the early use of the term "autism") where the question is one of causation, not of "is it really there."
There is certainly room to comment on that; profoundly neurologically disabled individuals in highly developed countries have had (although this is changing fast) a much better chance of survival and living long enough to be counted when looking at prevalence than would be the case in very poor countries.
I do think new drugs should be tested with an RCT randomized double blind controlled trial.
INCLUDING VACCINES.
Some of us are not impressed with what passed for "safety trial" recently. But we could do another safe and convincing test if we wanted to! Put any doubt to rest for sure forever!
If you are the "Evidence Based Medicine RCT (TM) True Believer", please ...
can you point me to the time when the vaccine ingredients, minus the immunogen, were tested for safety in an RCT?
I have heard that vaccine ingredients were grandfathered in and have never been tested in the normal way. Particularly aluminum nanoparticles designed to enrage the immune system, don't work the same as aluminum salts in baking powder. Likewise we can't say iron daggers are safe because we eat rust all the time.
That's what we really need to put this debate behind us.
Test the old common vaccine ingredients, minus the new target, ahead of time in a long duration RCT. So far I hear the vaccine industry and its FDA Trade Assn always says "it's an emergency, we don't have time for an RCT, the virus is mutating".. Which is true only for the immunogen. There is no reason not to test the "passive" and supporting ingredients for safety, with high integrity. The control must be saline. Not last year's vaccine.
We are facing an "epidemic" of chronic disease in the "Modern" countries that isn't as bad in the developing countries. We need all hands on deck to figure out why autism, auto-immune, allergies, and so many other diseases are increasing and hurting Americans worse than poor Africans.
The biggest health victory we ever made was taking Lead out of Gasoline in 1970, and ending the crime wave of the 80's... See "America's real Criminal Element". We have something equally big and more destructive still going on. All hands on deck to figure out what. We need science on the side of the people, not Wall Street BlockBuster Drugs.
To have any hope of that, we need taxpayer funded regulators. No more "User Fees" and "Voluntary Donations" that keep the FDA and NIH and CDC and WHO dependent on Industry for their salaries. We don't let the police be paid by the criminals. Why let drug regulators depend on drug vendors?
Weird, why do you send us an ideological anti-science diatribe based on the cult of RCT? You say falsely " To establish a causal effect requires an experimental design. Observational data can NEVER be used for causal effect."
The RCT is the Poll Tax of science. Only the rich get to vote. The RCT Never could help us prove that Cigarettes Cause Cancer. But we did prove causality in a court of law WITH NO EXPERIMENT. Because no one is going to pay to try to get random testing of cigarettes... You going to get people to think they are smoking fake cigarattes? But the Bradford Hill statistical method works fine, as established by court of law and huge penalties.
Please learn statistics and stop the nasty RCT excuse. Waiting for a new expensive experiment, endangering lots of people, is saying "I only believe science from rich companies who don't mind hurting people".
I've been a statistician for 45 years—34 at the University of Wisconsin, the rest in private consulting. You, like every other chatbot, have zero grounding in statistical theory and lap up junk science whole, starting with Bradford Hill’s made-up “criteria” checklist.Frequentist statistics is garbage always has been, always will be. Fewer than 1% of practitioners actually understand it. Start with Bernoulli’s Fallacy; it’s light on math, so even you might follow. To grasp real statistical theory you’ll need a full year of real analysis and measure theory prerequisites Fisher assumed before anyone touched his methods. Fisher never intended his tools to be abused the way they are. Over 90 % of published research is irreproducible trash riddled with p-hacking, violated assumptions, and broken math. Rant all you like; you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I'd love to hear more about where in the real world you can find a application of the Bradford Hill criteria that did not indicate causality. It certainly worked on cigarettes.
I do have graduate level of coursework and statistics for scientists, as well as stochastic systems for electrical engineers. It's been a while. I've learned a lot since then. But I'm willing to learn more.
I respect your skills as a statistician. But I worry that you might be a little too close to it and a little too emotionally involved. Sometimes the best educated can be the most conformist distracted by ideology. Peer review is another name for peer pressure. We all know economists whose predictions are always completely wrong, but beautiful mathematically. And physicists many of whom spend their whole career in imaginary realms like string theory, untethered to our universe.
As an engineer, I know that all models are wrong. And some are useful! I'm not looking for a perfect model of the world. I'm looking for something that is right more than 95% of the time, and timely and relevant.
The gas lighting demands for randomized control trials that institutions never allow to happen is cruel and evil. You can't sit around and say there's insufficient evidence for something, And pretend you don't see how they work hard to keep the evidence insufficient. Terminating studies early. Changing the end plants. Destroying the control group. Mischaracterizing the injuries . Censoring people talking about their own injuries. What passes for science these days is horrifying.
We need to insist that regulatory agencies like the FDA and CDC and NIH are 100% taxpayer-funded. No significant "user fees." No "voluntary donations" from pharma corps..
The Bradford Hill criteria are invoked as though they constitute a formal causal framework but they do not. They’re a mental shortcut, a set of post hoc guidelines developed without the mathematical rigor required for causal inference. None of the “criteria” are formally defined, falsifiable, or internally weighted. Hill himself emphasized that they were not rules of proof, but considerations for possible risk factors.
That’s precisely the problem: they’re subjective, not inferential. There is no internal mechanism to quantify uncertainty, separate confounding from causation, or estimate counterfactuals all of which are central to causal modeling. So, Bradford Hill is not a statistical framework at all, but a system useful for context, but lacking the rigor required for reliable inference. Invoking it as if it carries evidentiary weight is, at best, an appeal to authority rather than to analysis.
You wanted to see where Bradford has failed. Here are a few examples where claims that “fit” the Bradford Hill criteria failed under rigorous testing:
Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular disease
• Observational data and mechanistic reasoning suggested vitamin E could reduce cardiovascular events.
• The Physicians’ Health Study II (14,641 men, ~8 years) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events versus placebo.
• Citation: JAMA. 2008; 300(18): 2123-33.
• Met plausibility, strength, and consistency, yet causality collapsed under randomized testing.
Vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular outcomes
• Cohort studies linked low vitamin D to higher cardiovascular risk (temporality, plausibility).
• Meta-analyses of 21 RCTs (RR ≈ 1.00) found no benefit.
• Citation: Nutrients. 2022; 14(2): 303.
• Dose–response and coherence appeared strong but proved spurious.
Multivitamin use and cardiovascular disease prevention
• The Physicians’ Health Study II – Multivitamin Component (14,641 men, ~11 years) showed no effect on major CVD events.
• Citation: JAMA. 2012; 308(17): 1751-60.
• Specificity and biological gradient assumptions failed.
Vitamin D supplementation (alternative systematic review)
• RECORD trial and others: associations existed observationally, but no causal benefit under RCTs.
• Citation: Am J Cardiol. 2014; 113(3): 149-55.
• Another clear example of Hill-type reasoning failing when tested experimentally.
General nutrition/supplement interventions
• The NHLBI meta-analysis of 277 trials (992,129 participants) found no strong evidence that most supplements or diets reduced mortality or CVD.
• Citation: Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170(9): 633-642.
• A large-scale failure of observational “causality” once tested empirically.
These cases are mainstream examples showing that satisfying Hill criteria is neither necessary nor sufficient for causal proof.
And regarding your claim about statistical training: an undergraduate course in stochastic systems provides, at best, an introduction to probability theory, not causal inference. The subtleties of statistical reasoning—likelihood, identification, counterfactuals, priors require far more advanced study, both mathematically and philosophically.
Frequentist inference, for example, doesn’t even evaluate what most people think it does. It attempts to compute P(data | H), not P(H | data) which of course is what people think they are doing. Because H is treated as fixed, frequentists cannot assign probability to hypotheses at all. The result is a convoluted system that tells you only how extreme your data are if the null hypothesis were true—nothing about whether your hypothesis is plausible given the data. It is epistemically shallow.
That’s the real point: Hill’s criteria are interpretive aids, not mathematical inference. And confusing heuristics for proofs is precisely how false causal claims persist in modern science.
Many solid points made here regarding association not confirming causation, and the fact that this is a narrative review. However, a true meta analysis is not probably possible in this area due to the dearth of studies that actually ask the question, and narrative reviews are helpful in drawing out what things are associated with an outcome (ASD in this case) being studied. I give them credit for bringing these things to the public square for further evaluation and discussion. The real question everyone should ask is who is going to the study you want to see? Moreover, why hasn’t it been done already?
WOW, thanks so much for digging into that-- I am shocked every single day how more apparent it is that all our savior figures (big names) are just controlled opposition. I know these authors are not stupid either, so that's another funny thing -- why are they making so many clumsy errors? Surely on purpose
You did this, overnight, w/o sleeping, in a time frame of 10, to ~15 hours (based on Steve's post) or were you 'loaded for bear' for Steve's blog from work you did a couple days ago? Did AI play a part in preparation, with some human text-edits here and there? Just curious on a few of these peripheral points ...
When will medical examiners be required by law to test for vaccine(s) as a cause of death? They could ascribe the official cause of death as vaccine-related and that could be used in a court of law for lawsuits. Currently, medical examiners are prohibited from doing that, so we don't have any official, legally recognized evidence for vaccines as a cause of injury or death. So far, all the "evidence" is indirect, such as "my child developed autism soon after getting vaccinated."
Vaccines plural. As in total vaccine burden (although in some cases a hot vaccine lot and/or elevated individual susceptibility).
Note the rhetorical ploy used by vax industry shills: "There is no good evidence that vaccine X causes autism. " Generally coupled with ad holiness attacks.
And no one is going to do the study in a way that would satisfied the Vaccines Amen Crowd. They simply critique any evidence that points to a problem as being insufficient, while never bothering to even collect good retrospective studies comparing Vax vs unvaxed. You’ll never find what you refuse to look for.
All new drugs on the market have manipulated data to get approval! Don’t take any new meds. Ask for the old tried and true stuff. If any at all. And stay far away from death jabs they corruptly call “vaccines”. They’re actually bio weapons from bio weapons labs!
Not new to us parents. We’ve known this for decades. Finally, the doctors & 3 letter government agencies can stop gaslighting us! We deserve reparations for the harms done & all the gaslighting we’ve endured. It’s pathetic. Doctors sure do love to gaslight and dismiss people when they don’t know what the hell they’re doing. I’ll never trust another doctor. They don’t do any continuing education like they are supposed to. They don’t stay up on the research or do their own to know who’s manipulating data to push a new drug or an agenda. They’re as clueless as the rest of us.
Stop or at least reduce Autism cases immediately by refusing many of the 'quack' jabs that have entered the FDA market as 'Approved' for Safety and Efficacy.
The FDA sells out to the highest bidder. Corrupt FDA has become notorious for voting to approve any medical products, whether safe, effective, dangerous or deadly, in order to thrive financially.
They don't care about dangerous materials being marketed, because their finances depend upon contributions from evil, corrupt companies like Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc, needing 'Approval'.
And while this skulduggery continues, these corrupt agencies and pharmaceutical criminals continue to enjoy ZERO LIABILITY for injuries and DEATHS caused by their 'cures'.
Injected mRNA poisons have to be made safe for humans before they can be marketed.
If the 'PREP ACT' (= No LIABILITY) is terminated, millions of vax recipients with injuries or with relatives who have died - post-vax, will cripple and bankrupt the likes of Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc. Mick.
No, that would not happen, because it would not be retroactive. Those already screwed would remain screwed. It would absolutely curtail most vaccines going forward.
But surely, the floodgates would instantly burst open and a litany of claims from people adversely impacted by the Pfizer, Moderna, etc, poisons would start instantly? Stopping the PREP Act would surely drop the shield which the murderers have enjoyed for decades. Mick.
The only problem I see would be for companies too stupid to immediately pull their product. Unless, of course, they are willing to stand by their claims of safety. Frankly, given the extent of their crimes, I’m not concerned about their financial future, as they have destroyed millions of lives. Be well.
Even if they 'pulled their product/s', they would still be responsible and liable for all historic consequences (injuries and DEATHS) their products caused!
I cannot wait for the REST OF THE TRUTH to get EXPOSED! We will be FLOORED by the number and magnitude of TOXINS in ALL SHOTS! God will have the FINAL JUSTICE for ALL of the MURDEROUS, DEMONIC PERPS!
A wonderful effort. The distinguished Dr Dietrich Klinghardt also noticed that high exposure to wireless radiation in the womb led to increased rates of autism. He ever saw in some cases marked improvement in the child's condition when when the young childs environment was removed from exposure to wireless radiation. I assume that was covered in the report under environmental hazards?
Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is heavily attenuated by seawater, with the attenuation rate increasing significantly with frequency due to water's high conductivity. For example, at \(2.4\) GHz, the attenuation can be over \(700\) dB/m, making high-frequency communication impossible, though lower frequencies can penetrate more deeply before being absorbed.
Appreciate your comment. However, they are placing wireless devices in every conceivable nook and cranny, for example on apple watches, smart meters, even baby diapers. Sea water doesn't appear to be of much good under those circumstances. I mean, how would one apply it for protection? Live in a sea water fish bowl? The real problem remains that, as far as I can tell, no matter which government is in charge, Progressive or Conservative, neither governing side seem willing to acknowledge that wireless radiation in our current configuration is harmful to biological life under safety standards that are criminally outdated and useless in terms of their ability to protect the public.
The Environmental Health Trust under Dr Devra Davis, and Childrens Health Defense, under Robert Kennedy Jr, won their twin law suits in the US Court of Appeals in the DC district in August of 2021 against the FCC for not updating their wireless safety standards since 1996, in the face of overwhelming evidence. But neither the Biden nor the Trump Administration has made any changes in policy, nor has the FCC reset their wireless safety standards as a result.
Its as if the Lawsuit virtually never took place.
Until there is a real awakening to the core issue, neither seawater, nor anything else will stem the increasing tide of wireless caused illness coming our way. Pray for a public awakening on this issue that will not be able to be ignored by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Amniotic fluid is very similar to seawater in every way. It's a sign of our heritage. For a while fetuses have gills. So in the womb, there's quite a bit of protection from high frequency EM
"Lancet/NIH ask: “How do we improve outcomes for neurodivergent people?”
Don't worry about it - we are the wave of the future, as my wife (also autistic, 155 IQ) said ......
Most autistic people I know are rather disturbed at the thought patterns and processes of NT people - especially in inter- human relations - you're insane.
Maybe you guys should look into helping families with autistic children. Some NT families have extremely low functioning autistic children and they're lives are tougher than most people could possibly imagine.
Ben V, there should be a program to help families with autistic children, and make big pharma pay for the program while we're at it.
Lebo Von Lo~Debar
Former/Always 82nd Airborne Infantryman, Disabled Veteran for Life, & Author of the book, "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" Available on Amazon.
Thank you! We spent tens of thousands of dollars helping our son. Autism is a spectrum. Folks are affected very differently across the board, so one cannot generalize about the entire population of autistic individuals. Many are unable to live independently & are profoundly disabled. It is extremely difficult to deal with a profoundly autistic person. Trust me. Not a walk in the park folks. High level functioning people can compensate for their challenges of being on the spectrum, but not everyone afflicted with this insidious condition.
Appreciate your comment. However, they are placing wireless devices in every conceivable nook and cranny, for example on apple watches, smart meters, even baby diapers. Sea water doesn't appear to be of much good under those circumstances. I mean, how would one apply it for protection? Live in a sea water fish bowl? The real problem remains that, as far as I can tell, no matter which government is in charge, Progressive or Conservative, neither governing side seem willing to acknowledge that wireless radiation in our current configuration is harmful to biological life under safety standards that are far below that to which the general populace is being increasingly exposed.
The Environmental Health Trust under Dr Devra Davis, and Childrens Health Defense, under Robert Kennedy Jr, won their twin law suits in the US Court of Appeals in the DC district in August of 2021 against the FCC for not updating their wireless safety standards since 1996, in the face of overwhelming evidence. But neither the Biden nor the Trump Administration has made any changes in policy, nor has the FCC reset their wireless safety standards as a result.
Its as if the Lawsuit virtually never took place.
Until there is a real awakening to the core issue, neither seawater, nor anything else will stem the increasing tide of wireless caused illness coming our way. Pray for a public awakening on this issue that will not be able to be ignored by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
I'm blocked by Sayer Ji and Midwestern Doctor... I thought this was the "debate me" crowd? Curious what Steve thinks about RFK Jr's claims on aluminum: https://thescamdoctor.substack.com/p/how-to-cherry-pick-data-to-scam-people?r=6hgshq
Contrary to what big pharma and the mainstream media conglomerate tell us, there were studies linking vaccines to autism 50 years before Wakefield. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/303298
Autism possibility due to synthetic folic acids added to US flour around 1998.
John Campbell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cIIN5-vn5E
But don't they want to use synthetic folic acids (leucovorin) to cure autism? Can't make up their minds?
END THE VACCINE HOLOCAUST ONGOING 2025 END THE BLACKROCK WEALTH HARVEST ALGORITHM MEDICAL SYSTEM USA….
DeBecker’s Book is fabulous! I’m on Ch 10 of Aaron Siri’s BookVaccines Amen and it is every bit as good.
In how many of these vaxpacs is aluminium or graphine oxide used as a carrier across the blood brain barrier?
Unfortunately, this paper is seriously flawed, with pervasive methodological weaknesses and repeated statistical misapplications.
Critical Review of the McCullough Foundation Report:
“Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder” (2025)
Overview
The paper titled “Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder” (2025), authored by Nicolas Hulscher, John Leake, Andrew Wakefield, and Peter A. McCullough, presents itself as a systematic review of factors contributing to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It concludes that early and combination childhood vaccination is the most significant modifiable risk factor for ASD.
Summary of the Report
The report combines epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies and claims to have reviewed 136 vaccine-related papers, of which 107 allegedly support a positive association with ASD and 29 report no associations. It incorrectly interprets correlations between vaccine dose schedules and autism prevalence as causal, asserting that vaccines trigger mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and immune dysregulation leading to autism. To establish a causal effect requires an experimental design. Observational data can NEVER be used for causal effect.
Major Methodological and Scientific Errors
Category Description of Error Why It Is Invalid
Misclassification of Study Design The report calls itself a “systematic review” but provides no PRISMA flow diagram, inclusion criteria, or reproducible methodology. Violates all PRISMA and GRADE standards; it is a narrative review, not a systematic one.
Vote Counting Claims “107 positive” vs. “29 neutral” studies without weighting, bias assessment, or effect size synthesis. “Vote counting” is not a valid meta-analytic approach.
Selection Bias Over-represents small or retracted studies (e.g., Wakefield, Geier et al.) while excluding large null studies. Cherry-picking of evidence; not representative of the literature.
Correlation–Causation Fallacy
Plots vaccine dose counts against autism prevalence.
Two time-trending variables do not imply causation; ignores confounders such as diagnostic broadening and parental age.
Misrepresentation of Sources Misquotes IOM, CDC, and WHO reports as suggesting possible links. Citation distortion; these reports explicitly found no causal association.
Inclusion of Non-Peer-Reviewed Material Uses ideological sources (e.g., Children’s Health Defense, blogs). Not acceptable evidence in scientific reviews.
Lack of Confounder Control No statistical control for genetics, socioeconomic status, or parental age. Causality cannot be inferred without adjustment.
Mechanistic Speculation as Proof Infers human risk from in vitro and animal studies at non-comparable doses. Mechanistic plausibility ≠ population causation.
Inflated Quantitative Claims States autism rose by “>32,000%” and that vaccines are the “strongest modifiable factor.” Baseline estimates from 1970s were crude; diagnostic criteria have changed.
Conflicts of Interest Authors include Wakefield and McCullough, both prominent anti-vaccine advocates. No disclosures, peer review, or ethics statement; bias undermines credibility.
Statistical Misinterpretation Treats non-significant results as evidence of “overadjustment.” Contradicts standard interpretation of p-values and confidence intervals.
Misuse of Bradford Hill Criteria Asserts causation based on selective application of criteria. Ignores key conditions such as consistency, specificity, and experiment.
Logical and Conceptual Problems
• Association vs. Proof: Observational correlations are presented as causal without experimental evidence.
• Confirmation Bias: Conclusions appear predetermined to support a vaccine–autism link.
• Argument from Ignorance: Asserts danger because cumulative vaccine schedule studies are lacking.
• Ecologic Fallacy: Population-level trends misused to infer individual-level causation.
• Appeal to Authority: Relies on historical anecdotes and discredited figures.
Overall Assessment
• Scientific rigor: Poor.
• Transparency: Absent.
• Objectivity: Compromised by conflicts of interest.
• Reproducibility: None.
• Alignment with evidence base: Contradicts established consensus.
Conclusion
The McCullough Foundation Report is not a credible scientific analysis and cannot be used to claim proof of autism. Its methodology lacks transparency, its evidence base is cherry picked, and its causal inferences violate fundamental epidemiologic principles. The report’s conclusions are inconsistent with decades of global, peer-reviewed research demonstrating no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
"The paper titled “Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder” (2025), authored by Nicolas Hulscher, John Leake, Andrew Wakefield, and Peter A. McCullough, presents itself as a systematic review of factors contributing to autism spectrum disorder (ASD)."
I searched the paper for every occurrence of the word "systematic" and "comprehensive." While these were certainly present in references to studies performed by others or in discussions , I do not see where Hulscher et al represented their work as a "systematic review."
Did I miss something?
They did address the issue of changing diagnostic criteria and attempted to deal with it by concentrating on cases of profound disability (more or less the situation in the early use of the term "autism") where the question is one of causation, not of "is it really there."
There is certainly room to comment on that; profoundly neurologically disabled individuals in highly developed countries have had (although this is changing fast) a much better chance of survival and living long enough to be counted when looking at prevalence than would be the case in very poor countries.
I do think new drugs should be tested with an RCT randomized double blind controlled trial.
INCLUDING VACCINES.
Some of us are not impressed with what passed for "safety trial" recently. But we could do another safe and convincing test if we wanted to! Put any doubt to rest for sure forever!
If you are the "Evidence Based Medicine RCT (TM) True Believer", please ...
can you point me to the time when the vaccine ingredients, minus the immunogen, were tested for safety in an RCT?
I have heard that vaccine ingredients were grandfathered in and have never been tested in the normal way. Particularly aluminum nanoparticles designed to enrage the immune system, don't work the same as aluminum salts in baking powder. Likewise we can't say iron daggers are safe because we eat rust all the time.
That's what we really need to put this debate behind us.
Test the old common vaccine ingredients, minus the new target, ahead of time in a long duration RCT. So far I hear the vaccine industry and its FDA Trade Assn always says "it's an emergency, we don't have time for an RCT, the virus is mutating".. Which is true only for the immunogen. There is no reason not to test the "passive" and supporting ingredients for safety, with high integrity. The control must be saline. Not last year's vaccine.
We are facing an "epidemic" of chronic disease in the "Modern" countries that isn't as bad in the developing countries. We need all hands on deck to figure out why autism, auto-immune, allergies, and so many other diseases are increasing and hurting Americans worse than poor Africans.
The biggest health victory we ever made was taking Lead out of Gasoline in 1970, and ending the crime wave of the 80's... See "America's real Criminal Element". We have something equally big and more destructive still going on. All hands on deck to figure out what. We need science on the side of the people, not Wall Street BlockBuster Drugs.
To have any hope of that, we need taxpayer funded regulators. No more "User Fees" and "Voluntary Donations" that keep the FDA and NIH and CDC and WHO dependent on Industry for their salaries. We don't let the police be paid by the criminals. Why let drug regulators depend on drug vendors?
Weird, why do you send us an ideological anti-science diatribe based on the cult of RCT? You say falsely " To establish a causal effect requires an experimental design. Observational data can NEVER be used for causal effect."
The RCT is the Poll Tax of science. Only the rich get to vote. The RCT Never could help us prove that Cigarettes Cause Cancer. But we did prove causality in a court of law WITH NO EXPERIMENT. Because no one is going to pay to try to get random testing of cigarettes... You going to get people to think they are smoking fake cigarattes? But the Bradford Hill statistical method works fine, as established by court of law and huge penalties.
Please learn statistics and stop the nasty RCT excuse. Waiting for a new expensive experiment, endangering lots of people, is saying "I only believe science from rich companies who don't mind hurting people".
I've been a statistician for 45 years—34 at the University of Wisconsin, the rest in private consulting. You, like every other chatbot, have zero grounding in statistical theory and lap up junk science whole, starting with Bradford Hill’s made-up “criteria” checklist.Frequentist statistics is garbage always has been, always will be. Fewer than 1% of practitioners actually understand it. Start with Bernoulli’s Fallacy; it’s light on math, so even you might follow. To grasp real statistical theory you’ll need a full year of real analysis and measure theory prerequisites Fisher assumed before anyone touched his methods. Fisher never intended his tools to be abused the way they are. Over 90 % of published research is irreproducible trash riddled with p-hacking, violated assumptions, and broken math. Rant all you like; you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I'd love to hear more about where in the real world you can find a application of the Bradford Hill criteria that did not indicate causality. It certainly worked on cigarettes.
I do have graduate level of coursework and statistics for scientists, as well as stochastic systems for electrical engineers. It's been a while. I've learned a lot since then. But I'm willing to learn more.
I respect your skills as a statistician. But I worry that you might be a little too close to it and a little too emotionally involved. Sometimes the best educated can be the most conformist distracted by ideology. Peer review is another name for peer pressure. We all know economists whose predictions are always completely wrong, but beautiful mathematically. And physicists many of whom spend their whole career in imaginary realms like string theory, untethered to our universe.
As an engineer, I know that all models are wrong. And some are useful! I'm not looking for a perfect model of the world. I'm looking for something that is right more than 95% of the time, and timely and relevant.
The gas lighting demands for randomized control trials that institutions never allow to happen is cruel and evil. You can't sit around and say there's insufficient evidence for something, And pretend you don't see how they work hard to keep the evidence insufficient. Terminating studies early. Changing the end plants. Destroying the control group. Mischaracterizing the injuries . Censoring people talking about their own injuries. What passes for science these days is horrifying.
We need to insist that regulatory agencies like the FDA and CDC and NIH are 100% taxpayer-funded. No significant "user fees." No "voluntary donations" from pharma corps..
The Bradford Hill criteria are invoked as though they constitute a formal causal framework but they do not. They’re a mental shortcut, a set of post hoc guidelines developed without the mathematical rigor required for causal inference. None of the “criteria” are formally defined, falsifiable, or internally weighted. Hill himself emphasized that they were not rules of proof, but considerations for possible risk factors.
That’s precisely the problem: they’re subjective, not inferential. There is no internal mechanism to quantify uncertainty, separate confounding from causation, or estimate counterfactuals all of which are central to causal modeling. So, Bradford Hill is not a statistical framework at all, but a system useful for context, but lacking the rigor required for reliable inference. Invoking it as if it carries evidentiary weight is, at best, an appeal to authority rather than to analysis.
You wanted to see where Bradford has failed. Here are a few examples where claims that “fit” the Bradford Hill criteria failed under rigorous testing:
Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular disease
• Observational data and mechanistic reasoning suggested vitamin E could reduce cardiovascular events.
• The Physicians’ Health Study II (14,641 men, ~8 years) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events versus placebo.
• Citation: JAMA. 2008; 300(18): 2123-33.
• Met plausibility, strength, and consistency, yet causality collapsed under randomized testing.
Vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular outcomes
• Cohort studies linked low vitamin D to higher cardiovascular risk (temporality, plausibility).
• Meta-analyses of 21 RCTs (RR ≈ 1.00) found no benefit.
• Citation: Nutrients. 2022; 14(2): 303.
• Dose–response and coherence appeared strong but proved spurious.
Multivitamin use and cardiovascular disease prevention
• Observational studies showed regular users had lower CVD risk (strength, consistency).
• The Physicians’ Health Study II – Multivitamin Component (14,641 men, ~11 years) showed no effect on major CVD events.
• Citation: JAMA. 2012; 308(17): 1751-60.
• Specificity and biological gradient assumptions failed.
Vitamin D supplementation (alternative systematic review)
• RECORD trial and others: associations existed observationally, but no causal benefit under RCTs.
• Citation: Am J Cardiol. 2014; 113(3): 149-55.
• Another clear example of Hill-type reasoning failing when tested experimentally.
General nutrition/supplement interventions
• The NHLBI meta-analysis of 277 trials (992,129 participants) found no strong evidence that most supplements or diets reduced mortality or CVD.
• Citation: Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170(9): 633-642.
• A large-scale failure of observational “causality” once tested empirically.
These cases are mainstream examples showing that satisfying Hill criteria is neither necessary nor sufficient for causal proof.
And regarding your claim about statistical training: an undergraduate course in stochastic systems provides, at best, an introduction to probability theory, not causal inference. The subtleties of statistical reasoning—likelihood, identification, counterfactuals, priors require far more advanced study, both mathematically and philosophically.
Frequentist inference, for example, doesn’t even evaluate what most people think it does. It attempts to compute P(data | H), not P(H | data) which of course is what people think they are doing. Because H is treated as fixed, frequentists cannot assign probability to hypotheses at all. The result is a convoluted system that tells you only how extreme your data are if the null hypothesis were true—nothing about whether your hypothesis is plausible given the data. It is epistemically shallow.
That’s the real point: Hill’s criteria are interpretive aids, not mathematical inference. And confusing heuristics for proofs is precisely how false causal claims persist in modern science.
Many solid points made here regarding association not confirming causation, and the fact that this is a narrative review. However, a true meta analysis is not probably possible in this area due to the dearth of studies that actually ask the question, and narrative reviews are helpful in drawing out what things are associated with an outcome (ASD in this case) being studied. I give them credit for bringing these things to the public square for further evaluation and discussion. The real question everyone should ask is who is going to the study you want to see? Moreover, why hasn’t it been done already?
WOW, thanks so much for digging into that-- I am shocked every single day how more apparent it is that all our savior figures (big names) are just controlled opposition. I know these authors are not stupid either, so that's another funny thing -- why are they making so many clumsy errors? Surely on purpose
Talk about clumsy errors: https://thescamdoctor.substack.com/p/how-to-cherry-pick-data-to-scam-people?r=6hgshq
I disagree with your assessment on that one. The signal is clear and accurate.
You did this, overnight, w/o sleeping, in a time frame of 10, to ~15 hours (based on Steve's post) or were you 'loaded for bear' for Steve's blog from work you did a couple days ago? Did AI play a part in preparation, with some human text-edits here and there? Just curious on a few of these peripheral points ...
Exactly…. the more flak you get ….the closer you are getting to the target...
When will medical examiners be required by law to test for vaccine(s) as a cause of death? They could ascribe the official cause of death as vaccine-related and that could be used in a court of law for lawsuits. Currently, medical examiners are prohibited from doing that, so we don't have any official, legally recognized evidence for vaccines as a cause of injury or death. So far, all the "evidence" is indirect, such as "my child developed autism soon after getting vaccinated."
Vaccines plural. As in total vaccine burden (although in some cases a hot vaccine lot and/or elevated individual susceptibility).
Note the rhetorical ploy used by vax industry shills: "There is no good evidence that vaccine X causes autism. " Generally coupled with ad holiness attacks.
And no one is going to do the study in a way that would satisfied the Vaccines Amen Crowd. They simply critique any evidence that points to a problem as being insufficient, while never bothering to even collect good retrospective studies comparing Vax vs unvaxed. You’ll never find what you refuse to look for.
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/4415086956436-Can-I-edit-my-comment-on-a-Substack-post
ad hominem. .
All new drugs on the market have manipulated data to get approval! Don’t take any new meds. Ask for the old tried and true stuff. If any at all. And stay far away from death jabs they corruptly call “vaccines”. They’re actually bio weapons from bio weapons labs!
Not new to us parents. We’ve known this for decades. Finally, the doctors & 3 letter government agencies can stop gaslighting us! We deserve reparations for the harms done & all the gaslighting we’ve endured. It’s pathetic. Doctors sure do love to gaslight and dismiss people when they don’t know what the hell they’re doing. I’ll never trust another doctor. They don’t do any continuing education like they are supposed to. They don’t stay up on the research or do their own to know who’s manipulating data to push a new drug or an agenda. They’re as clueless as the rest of us.
Stop or at least reduce Autism cases immediately by refusing many of the 'quack' jabs that have entered the FDA market as 'Approved' for Safety and Efficacy.
The FDA sells out to the highest bidder. Corrupt FDA has become notorious for voting to approve any medical products, whether safe, effective, dangerous or deadly, in order to thrive financially.
They don't care about dangerous materials being marketed, because their finances depend upon contributions from evil, corrupt companies like Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc, needing 'Approval'.
And while this skulduggery continues, these corrupt agencies and pharmaceutical criminals continue to enjoy ZERO LIABILITY for injuries and DEATHS caused by their 'cures'.
Injected mRNA poisons have to be made safe for humans before they can be marketed.
Unjabbed Mick (UK Patriot).)
hey btw i just synthesized some autism research, you might find it useful!
https://ibogaqueen.substack.com/p/autism-trends-causes-and-remedies
Exactly! Trump & RFK,Jr. need to take the liability protection off the table for big pHarma. That will be a huge net positive for the people.
If the 'PREP ACT' (= No LIABILITY) is terminated, millions of vax recipients with injuries or with relatives who have died - post-vax, will cripple and bankrupt the likes of Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc. Mick.
No, that would not happen, because it would not be retroactive. Those already screwed would remain screwed. It would absolutely curtail most vaccines going forward.
But surely, the floodgates would instantly burst open and a litany of claims from people adversely impacted by the Pfizer, Moderna, etc, poisons would start instantly? Stopping the PREP Act would surely drop the shield which the murderers have enjoyed for decades. Mick.
The only problem I see would be for companies too stupid to immediately pull their product. Unless, of course, they are willing to stand by their claims of safety. Frankly, given the extent of their crimes, I’m not concerned about their financial future, as they have destroyed millions of lives. Be well.
Even if they 'pulled their product/s', they would still be responsible and liable for all historic consequences (injuries and DEATHS) their products caused!
Unjabbed Mik (UK Patriot).
Good. I say good riddance to big pHarma. It’s completely corrupted.
I cannot wait for the REST OF THE TRUTH to get EXPOSED! We will be FLOORED by the number and magnitude of TOXINS in ALL SHOTS! God will have the FINAL JUSTICE for ALL of the MURDEROUS, DEMONIC PERPS!
A wonderful effort. The distinguished Dr Dietrich Klinghardt also noticed that high exposure to wireless radiation in the womb led to increased rates of autism. He ever saw in some cases marked improvement in the child's condition when when the young childs environment was removed from exposure to wireless radiation. I assume that was covered in the report under environmental hazards?
Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is heavily attenuated by seawater, with the attenuation rate increasing significantly with frequency due to water's high conductivity. For example, at \(2.4\) GHz, the attenuation can be over \(700\) dB/m, making high-frequency communication impossible, though lower frequencies can penetrate more deeply before being absorbed.
Appreciate your comment. However, they are placing wireless devices in every conceivable nook and cranny, for example on apple watches, smart meters, even baby diapers. Sea water doesn't appear to be of much good under those circumstances. I mean, how would one apply it for protection? Live in a sea water fish bowl? The real problem remains that, as far as I can tell, no matter which government is in charge, Progressive or Conservative, neither governing side seem willing to acknowledge that wireless radiation in our current configuration is harmful to biological life under safety standards that are criminally outdated and useless in terms of their ability to protect the public.
The Environmental Health Trust under Dr Devra Davis, and Childrens Health Defense, under Robert Kennedy Jr, won their twin law suits in the US Court of Appeals in the DC district in August of 2021 against the FCC for not updating their wireless safety standards since 1996, in the face of overwhelming evidence. But neither the Biden nor the Trump Administration has made any changes in policy, nor has the FCC reset their wireless safety standards as a result.
Its as if the Lawsuit virtually never took place.
Until there is a real awakening to the core issue, neither seawater, nor anything else will stem the increasing tide of wireless caused illness coming our way. Pray for a public awakening on this issue that will not be able to be ignored by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Amniotic fluid is very similar to seawater in every way. It's a sign of our heritage. For a while fetuses have gills. So in the womb, there's quite a bit of protection from high frequency EM
"Lancet/NIH ask: “How do we improve outcomes for neurodivergent people?”
Don't worry about it - we are the wave of the future, as my wife (also autistic, 155 IQ) said ......
Most autistic people I know are rather disturbed at the thought patterns and processes of NT people - especially in inter- human relations - you're insane.
Maybe you guys should look into helping families with autistic children. Some NT families have extremely low functioning autistic children and they're lives are tougher than most people could possibly imagine.
hey btw i just synthesized some autism research, you might find it useful!
https://ibogaqueen.substack.com/p/autism-trends-causes-and-remedies
Ben V, there should be a program to help families with autistic children, and make big pharma pay for the program while we're at it.
Lebo Von Lo~Debar
Former/Always 82nd Airborne Infantryman, Disabled Veteran for Life, & Author of the book, "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" Available on Amazon.
Thank you! We spent tens of thousands of dollars helping our son. Autism is a spectrum. Folks are affected very differently across the board, so one cannot generalize about the entire population of autistic individuals. Many are unable to live independently & are profoundly disabled. It is extremely difficult to deal with a profoundly autistic person. Trust me. Not a walk in the park folks. High level functioning people can compensate for their challenges of being on the spectrum, but not everyone afflicted with this insidious condition.