277 Comments
author
Apr 3·edited Apr 3Pinned

I forgot to mention the positive and negative controls in my article. I’m adding that section shortly. There were other sections i neglected to add as well. So as of 4/3/24 at 10:47am the missing pieces have been added.

Expand full comment

Remember when the "science" claims it's just anecdotal, they are really saying don't trust what you see with your own eyes. I'm coming up on the 13th anniversary of my wakeup event, which resulted in a significantly advanced and well endowed unvaccinated 12 year old daughter, whose immune response to pathogens is spectacular, the way God or your favorite deity designed us to be. The only mistake I made with her was to allow the Vitamin K shot. I've been over this target for more than a decade.

https://podiatryarena.com/index.php?threads/anyone-following-the-mmr-vaccine-and-autism-debate.173/page-2#post-244151

Expand full comment

Not really . Anecdotal means you may have a blind eye (or eyes) or you just report what you already believe and ONLY if your “data” (observations) support what you believe….. That’s why scientific method produces accurate meaningful non- bias data when done right

(Honestly)….. and thats why we should do it, discuss it, and re-do it to confirm… Then believe .

Expand full comment

Have you seen this post from A Midwestern Doctor?

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-makes-all-vaccines-so-dangerous

A bit on the long side, but fascinating hypothesis that ties into what you're finding.

Expand full comment

The Midwestern Doctor has written lots of great articles about the sinister history of vaccines. Even the first smallpox vaccines which were just as bad as the COVID vaccines.

Expand full comment

Thanks Steve. This compliments A Midwestern Doctor's analysis of what Nicole Shanahan's VP candidacy is about. She is the mother of an autistic daughter.

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-is-the-source-of-the-modern

Expand full comment

Sorry but she is way far left for my vote. I am sorry she has been touched with this vax madness, though.

Expand full comment

Well we know that, but all the ones totally fixated on vaccines believing that is our biggest, most important problem will flock to her like they did RFK jr! Both worthless and would be EXACTLY like voting in Brandon again! I guess those folks don't care about being energy self reliant or getting inflation down! Or don't care about NOT going to war and sending trillions to countries that hate us! Nor care our military is a laughing joke that couldn't protect anyone in their skirts and stuffed bras! 🥴

Expand full comment

Vaccines ARE our biggest, most important problem.

Expand full comment

Negative Ghost Rider. No president will ban vaccines or big harma. If we lose our guns eventually some administration could force vax's like in Australia! This administration KNEW they couldn't force them. They were just testing the waters! I'm far more concerned about illegal immigrants. Ever heard Trojan Horse story! Tennessee and Colorado are already pursuing gun grabs! Wouldn't all these illegal immigrants love that! If we don't get a grip on government spending sending trillions to other countries while also paying them for oil and gas WHEN WE HAVE OUR OWN RIGHT HERE we are all going to starve to death. On top of they keep starting fires to harm farm animals and land they eat off of! Too many people still lining up for shots...not my problem. We tried. I'm worried about my pocketbook and not eating bugs!

Expand full comment

The question about sexual orientation issues/gender dysphoria lumps these very different identities/behaviors together. If there had been a check box for "Republican/Democrat," it seems to me that a high association would also have been found because it would have covered people with very different political views. I'm not an epidemiologist or an expert in constructing surveys, but I think that separating the sexual orientation and gender identity categories would give more accurate results.

In addition to conflating two very different "issues," I think the fact that the question shows a ridiculously high association (higher than chronic conditions and birth defects--really?), as well as the pathological terms used to frame it, are "tells" that it's set up to confirm biases rather than show a true association.

Expand full comment

Hey Peter, this is what I came on here to say.

I bet if you polled people who are still wearing masks outside, to this very day, there would be a huge correlation between whether they were liberal or conservative.

I also believe the same would hold true with sexual orientation.

Expand full comment

I think that makes sense. I found this from 2020:

"A 2020 Williams Institute report said that nearly 9 million LGBT adults are registered and eligible to vote in the 2020 general election and half of registered LGBT voters (50%) are Democrats, 15% are Republicans, 22% are Independents, and 13% identify with another party or did not know with which party they most identified. . . . The U.S. Transgender Survey finds only 2% of transgender people, not included in this report, are Republicans."

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-party-affiliation/

Expand full comment

Wow, good research there Peter! 2% shows this is a mind virus, not something biological.

Expand full comment

Thanks. Although I don't know if I'd agree with the "mind virus" aspect, if you're relating it to being Dem. To me it seems like it's more a question of values. A lot of conservatives think liberals are nuts, and a lot of liberals think conservatives are way off base, too.

I think biology and pathology can play a part in whether an individual IDs as lgbt, etc., and social norms as well. I just don't think that being lgbt in general is a pathological "condition." If anything is a "mind virus," the social stigma attached to minority sexualities and genders is a mind virus, imo.

Expand full comment

With aborted fetal tissue in childhood vaccines what could go wrong injecting female babies with male dna and vice versa?! Then add rona clot shots. Bunch of liberal furries running around with blue hair and pj's all day! Look up furries. It's NUTS! I live in a predominantly conservative city...but still over ran with people from blue states. A friend of mine teaches here. She said she knew it was bad when she went to the principal's office and a mother had her teenage daughter laying in her lap and was petting her while she was purring! My personal opinion...that mother needs her @$$ beat, child taken from her, and teenager in therapy! When I was a kid yeah there were gay/lesbians. Which I've always said was a birth defect of the mind. People who are bi-polar, schizophrenia, severe depression, anxiety, etccan work and appear intelligent. This new group of mental doesn't even come across as remotely intelligent! All followers and believe screaming and spitting in people's faces is acceptable behavior. Along with doing the same and hitting cops. There's something more going on here and I firmly believe it's vaccines. But also let's note...chemtrails, bpa, all the GARBAGE in fast food or any prepackaged foods, fluoride in water supply, mrna vax's in animals, and a university has successfully put it in fresh vegetables! Oh and Tyson announced they'll add bugs to their prepackaged meats and because it's under a certain level our good ole crooked fda says they don't have to list it on the package!

Expand full comment

These individuals have development disorders that make them neurodiverse, and autism leads the way. None of them are neurotypical, and plenty will develop gender dysphoria.

Expand full comment

Which individuals are you talking about, who (all of whom?) have development disorders, in whom autism leads the way, and none of whom are neurotypical? Gay men? Lesbian women? Transgender people? The conditions you mention are already on the list. I have read that a substantial percentage of trans people are "on the spectrum" (haven't seen anything about development disorders), but this is certainly not true of all of them, and being lesbian, gay, bi, or trans in itself is not a pathological "condition." LGBT people existed long before vaccines came on the scene, but if you really want to see if there's an association of actual pathological conditions with sexual orientation and/or gender identity, you really need to a) separate these categories, because they're substantially different, and b) analyze the results in a way that is able to show those links, if they exist. If you don't separate pathology from sexual orientation and gender identity, you might as well ask about "heterosexual issues" and "cisgender issues," too, because I'm guessing most people who are reporting the medical issues listed are hetero and non-trans, which are also in themselves not pathological conditions.

Expand full comment

I agree. On top of this, it is unclear what we are talking about here. How does someone link their vaccination status with sexual orientation or gender identity? This seems to imply that people retroactively attribute their sexual orientation to childhood vaccination. This is "science"? Mr. Kirsch's statement, "Basically, 93% of the cases of sexual orientation issues in those under 60 are caused by vaccines." is shocking. What are these "issues" and how are they linked biologically/developmentally to sexual orientation. How can anyone possibly demonstrate that they are gay or lesbian due to vaccination, much less Mr. Kirsch. The comment below (Mark Heatherbell) confirms that this "study" simply validates biases against gay men and lesbians, among others. Can't "find many blokes who want to be gay"? Try again. Are heterosexual rapists, etc. more "normal" than your average gay person? Ugh..

Expand full comment

Exactly. The bias is baked in.

Expand full comment

MRI images of brain development from 1y.o. to 3y.o. can show what normal or neurotypical brain development looks like, and what abnormal or autistic development looks like. MRI images dont lie, but not all conditions are pathological. My neighbour is seriously autistically handicapped, but her condition wont kill her in a hurry, and I wouldnt call it pathological. I am just saying that normal still exists, and that doesnt include all the queer people who claim to be normal. I know that gay people are more normal and better adjusted than trans folk with autism, but I cant find many blokes who want to be gay. Gay women seem to be generally better adjusted. I thought it was good that vaccine damage to brain development can be observed happening in real time, despite the denial by gaslighting doctors.

Expand full comment

Yes, normal still exists, and it doesn't include all the straight people that claim to be normal, either. And trans people are more normal than gay people with autism. And if "seriously autistically handicapped" isn't pathological, what is? And what do you mean by "better adjusted"?

The only thing you said that makes sense is that vaccines can damage the brain.

Expand full comment

I think pathological refers to threats to ones health, and Hannah is not at risk of imminent death. She is bad with traffic though. Havent you heard of the term "well adjusted"? Do you really need me to explain it ? Neurotypical people would understand, but we cant all be that lucky.

Expand full comment

was psoriasis a condition that was analyzed

Expand full comment

I not arguing your results but wondering how big an inpact each flaw has. For instance, if the parents of the unvaxxed did not believe in vaxxing, chances are they also did not believe in taking birth control pills. The pill plays a significant roll in everything (1 could argue higher significance),. Even just a simple thing like choosing best match for better genetics of offspring is a factor.

Expand full comment

What I find the most interesting, and I apologize if other posters already noted this, is that you are so open with both the methodology and the data. If, and as you note, that's a big IF, anyone thinks you "gamed" your results or committed other errors of bias or approach, they can refute you directly. That. Is. Science. I won't hold my breath, but if anyone takes you up on it, I look forward to reading all about it!

Expand full comment

Steve this data is from insurancenewsnet.com you might be interested. Look at the maternal mortality

Up by 38% since 2021 (!) 19% increase in adverse events leading to permanent or severe harm or death. Coincidence? I think not.

Examining some patient characteristics before the pandemic (2019) and

after (2022 and 2023), Landis presented some statistics showing that

many patients are worse off. One-third of adults reported symptoms of

anxiety and depression in 2022, compared with 11% in 2019. The

percentage of kindergarten students covered by MMR vaccines dropped

from 95% in 2019 to 93% in 2022 – below herd immunity level. In 2021,

26% of Americans reported they postponed receiving care due to costs,

and that percentage rose to 38% in 2022. Aggression is on the rise,

with 46% of nurses reporting workplace violence in 2023 as opposed to

22% reporting it in 2021.

The health care quality outlook is declining. Between 2021 and 2022,

there was a 19% increase in adverse events leading to permanent or

severe harm or death. The maternal mortality rate rose by 38% between

2021 and 2022. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of adults said they believe

the current health care system is not meeting their needs.

Expand full comment

Please never forget that the very same doctors you go to "religiously" (The church of modern medicine, and her high priests in white coats), are the same doctors who gave the shots to save THEIR paycheck!! Yet, most run back to them with a sniffle or a pain. What is the definition of insanity? Yeah, y'all know!!

Expand full comment

Dear Steve

I respect you & your work & objective goals … FIND THE TRUTH !

I’d love to see what unbiased statistition experts would say after a full analysis of your study and data… ( you are one, I realize). They MAY find it all ok & correct and then agree with your conclusions ?…..

PERHAPS ED DOWD could do it?…. He seems quite objective…. ( having many statistic experts would be best)

However, conclusions about the health of Fully vaccinated (FV) people who have received all the Recommended childhood vaccines is likely difficult to assess….. Their age group could make a difference.!!

Some Points that I have (as an MD out of UCLA) to be questioned/analysed would be:

1. If many of the unvaccinated (UV) population in years past died of the diseases that they were not protected from, how would/could that have affected population selection.

2. This is not a study of measured outcomes of past medical studies, but a look at possibly subjective answers on questionaires by people with variable memories AND opinions… Are they honest and how is their memory recall and accuracy.

3. I plan to read it, but haven’t yet. Just generating thought/discussion now!

4. If the Fully Vaccinated (FV) people had more deaths, how would that affect population selection.

5a. If the opinions of UV people made them more or less likely to participate in your questionaire, how could/would THAT affect population make-up in your study… 5b. Same question for FV people.

6. Education level for the FV vs the UV groups was kikely quite different…. As would be medical care availability….

7. The fact that the incidence & prevalence of the diseases vaccinated for undoubtedly changed (DECREASED) over past decades THIS undoubtedly changed the risk (exposure) of disease for both groups (decreased, i guess). The HERD immunity was changed by past immunization programs.

8. I wonder what a similar questionaire type study would show in areas of the world which had No- Low, vs high Vaccination access over the decades..

……. many more issues to discuss!

COMMENTS ?

Expand full comment

The baseline (background) rate for birth defects from all causes OTHER THAN vaccines during pregnancy is 0.29%.

Stale national stats for birth defects in the U.S. population, 50% of which is exposed to vaccines during the pregnancy is OVER 3%. Again, the birth defect rates are stale in incomplete for the U.S. And the % of women who vaccinate during pregnancy has been increasing over the past 20 years. Until about 25 years ago, it was almost unheard of to push vaccines on pregnant women. It was UNDERSTOOD that this was dangerous to the baby. No new research was completed to prove that it was suddenly "safe." One day, they just started pushing it and CLAIMING (falsely) that they knew it was safe.

Although the CDC states that the birth defect rate is 3%, I do not know HOW they could have determined this because I found THIS in the study they cited:

"The United States does not have a national birth defects surveillance system to

estimate birth defect prevalence on a national scale." Source: file:///C:/Users/Stayout/Downloads/cdc_149716_DS1.pdf

Also found in this same paper cited by the CDC to support their "3%" presumption:

"However, most states have birth defects surveillance systems to monitor these conditions. Data from these programs have been used to estimate the prevalence of birth defects in the United States. In 2006, Canfield et al. (2006) published national birth defect prevalence estimates for deliveries from 1999 to 2001. Parker et al. (2010) published estimates for deliveries from 2004 to 2006, and Mai et al.

(2019) published estimates for deliveries from 2010 to 2014."

So at best, we might have a mixture of data running up to 2014. I have to assume the birth defect rates are much higher today than when the numbers were last collected and published. According to the Control Group numbers, the CURRENT birth defect rate amongst babies exposed to vaccines during the pregnancy is at least 6%. And of course, you'll notice the CDC's word-salad about the entire issue in their term "major birth defects." I don't care what the defect is, when it's YOUR child suffering from it, it's MAJOR.

Expand full comment
Apr 16·edited Apr 16

The horror of the covid-vaccine deaths, injuries, cover-up, and deliberate defamation of those who told the truth, has done enormous damage.

That's why it's vital we create a way to sometimes publish and peer-review scientific preprints and research with all authors and editors pseudonymous or anonymous.

The obvious way to do this is by publishing preprint academic papers on the blockchain with all authors, editors, and institutions anonymised or pseudonymised.

This has an extra benefit -- making each pseudonym reversible at the discretion of the person whose identity is protected. If ten years go by, the academic consensus gradually shifts, and Dr FFF (or Researcher 22X or Editor PP1) decides to announce his or her name as being that person on that historic anonymous research paper, the dividend of having turned out to be a dissident who was right, of being prescient when the consensus was suppressing all dissident views, can be reaped.

We can do this by creating an easy-to-use, turn-key software package that turns the text of a normal academic research paper into an equally readable paper with all identifying authors, editors, reviewers, and institutions blockchain-encrypted behind pseudonyms.

We are looking for both blockchain coders, and participating academics in any research field (climate science, epidemiology, health administration, any area where positions have become politicised) to join us in creating an early working version of this text-editing tool.

For centuries in science, ad hominem attacks on the private lives of researchers with politically unpopular views have stifled the search for truth. This must change. We all deserve a way that dissident voices can be protected from persecution & intimidation, and science will benefit from research papers which can be judged only on the strength of the presented results and reasoning, blinded from reputation effects.

We could consider this as "triple-blinding", extending the benefits of double-blind studies to shield established suitable authors and editors from reputation-led bias. Get in touch to help out.

Expand full comment

Been reading your twitter posts. I hope you have a followup survey for pet owners RSN. Thanks for all your hard work!

Expand full comment

I knew sexual development was impaired among the vaccinated developing children because there are both genders from aborted fetal tissues in the vaccines. I did not know how high the prevalence was for causing gender dysphoria. Many children have developed strangely opposite sex physical characteristics but still remain straight as they grow older.

Nothing short of nuremberg trials will suffice for the sick people behind this.

Expand full comment

You couldn't have nailed it on the proverbial head any better. Outstanding work! From our dirty Congress prostituting themselves for big pharma dollars to the entire connection between chronic diseases and vaccines, boom!

Expand full comment

Ok…call me a rustic bumpkin BUT it seems to me that if one “takes” something that doesn’t actively complement the human body / anti-disease system (aka one’s immune system) … then one is “playing with fire”. To me this whole mRNA vaccine humbug was a no-brainer. First for it to work required a system that Rube Goldberg would marvel at. There were so many steps and processes that had to work perfectly - it was akin to buying a lotto ticket and expecting to win the jackpot - every time! Assuming everything went right…it was designed to “mess” with one’s genetic makeup. What could go wrong???? Well it turns out we rapidly found out… and the results are currently tragic on the way to catastrophic. Pax

Expand full comment

This CAN be fixed. In the option of SCOUTUS during if gun manufactures could be shielded from liability. They concluded that NO LAW could be made to shield a company from law suits. THIS IS HOW to attack the Childhood vaccine injury act and get it shut down and no more protection for big pharma. need someone with the resources to attack it at that angle in federal court. The law would be thrown out and then we could bankrupt the vaccine industery!

Expand full comment

Oh boy, you are right over the target.

Keep in mind if all vaccines were ceased tomorrow, some illnesses would definitely make a comeback, most notably measles & chickenpox. The incidences would skyrocket. The authorities always hammer this fear into the population. But over years, the benefit of no vaccines would become obvious, a generally healthier generation of children.

Expand full comment

If gender dysphoria, what you are terming LGBT, was a real mental condition there is no reason to think it would not affect the population equally. Because its only affecting 2% of Republicans, that would lead me to believe it's not a real mental condition but a mind virus for those who follow a particular ideology. When I say mind virus I mean it's not a real clinical mental condition but something that infects the mind. Could be my definition of mind virus is just not correct.

Expand full comment