# Survey indicates sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender dysphoria are all primarily caused by vaccination

### We are basically causing these effects. Nowadays, 80% of the deviations from traditional norms can be ascribed to vaccination. Clinical evidence (25 years/5,000 kids) aligns with the survey.

### Executive summary

Thanks to your help in responding to my last survey, it took less than 3 hours to answer the question as to whether sexual orientation, gender identity and gender dysphoria are influenced by vaccines.

The answer to all three is yes: the greater someone is vaccinated, the more likely they are to exhibit each of these traits.

For all three measures, the odds ratios were 4.8 or higher which means that the attributable fraction is 79.2%.

In other words, vaccines are responsible for nearly 80% of the effect size.

So the mystery is over. We now know the cause.

### The survey

The survey was announced here.

### The data

The source data is here.

### The analysis

You can find the analysis here.

### The odds ratios

Here are the odds ratio between the fully vaccinated/fully unvaccinated. Odds ratios >2 are traditionally associated with causality:

Sexual orientation: 4.78

Gender identity: 4.81

Gender dysphoria: 5.54

These effects are huge and consistent.

Also, the odds ratios for partially vaccinated are in line with the fully vaccinated: in general, **the greater the number of vaccines someone has, the more likely they are to have a trait that differs from traditional norms**.

So the **vaccines themselves are the elephant in the room here** and the driver of the response, not environment, upbringing, social pressure, etc.

I have not seen any data that disputes this. Nobody in the comments has presented any contrary data.

### We have clinical confirmation!

There is a pediatric clinic which has not had any gender/sex cases in 25 years. They’ve had over 5,000 kids and no cases. They do not vaccinate.

The overall incidence of orientation traits is over .5%.

So in 5,000 unjabbed kids, they should have had 25 cases, but had 0.

This can happen by chance with probability 1.39e-11.

So this was not bad luck.

The only major thing this pediatric clinic did differently was they did not vaccinate.

So that’s an interesting datapoint that would be impossible to explain away if the primary cause (e.g., for 80% of the cases) was something other than vaccines.

### We have biological plausibility

It’s unlikely that these effects are correlated to something else.

We have **biological plausibility** which is required for making a causality assessment using the Bradford Hill criteria. See: How Vaccines Alter Intimate Relationships and Gender Identity.

### Causation evidence

There are 5 Bradford Hill criteria. Four of the five are obvious. The temporal association is harder to show, but we have:

There is a dose-response: when we increase the level of vaccination, the effect increase

We have a clinic with no traits observed over 25 years in unvaccinated kids.

So if it isn’t the vaccine, I’m baffled as to what else it could be that fits the evidence.

So far, not a single person has suggested an alternative that is a better fit to the observed data.

So the vaccine is simply the most likely hypothesis because it’s the only hypothesis consistent with the data.

### Bias in the survey

I have more unvaccinated readers than most journalists. This enables me to get reasonable sample sizes for people in the fully vaxxed vs. unvaxxed cohorts with just 750 responses. Other writers would need 100X as many respondents to get an equivalent number of responses from fully unvaccinated people.

The mix of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated respondents is irrelevant to the odds ratio calculation.

In other words, if all of my readers are all “anti-vaxxers” it simply doesn’t matter. If half of them are fully unvaccinated, it doesn’t skew the results at all; in fact, it makes the results more accurate.

So claims that the survey is unduly “biased” are without merit; all surveys are biased. The question is whether the biases impact the outcome.

If I got it wrong, please show us the correct data.

AFAIK, nobody wants to collect the data for some reason.

### Summary

The data I collected clearly and unambiguously shows that vaccines are the primary cause (79% attributable fraction) of deviation from traditional norms relative to:

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Sexual dysphoria

If I’m wrong, you need to show us all the data showing this is not the case.

I’ll wait.

There are quite a few people in the comments, talking about xenoestrogens. Xenoestrogens feminize males as we know, and could contribute to gender dysphoria. But everyone here is completely missing a biological factor. that may be affecting girls more than boys. And I’m not saying that all the societal pressure around being gay or transgender is not there. It is. That’s a completely separate topic as far as I’m concerned regarding Steve’s survey. But it may also be a secondary consequence of what I’m about to say below.

Steve called me after fielding the first survey that found an association between vaccines and gender dysphoria, and said “Alix, you were right.” I had told him about a potential biological reason for the increase in female to male gender dysphoria.

My theory: hepatitis A vaccine was put on the CDC recommended schedule in 2004. The schedule recommends two doses of that vaccine. That vaccine contains or is grown in male DNA. MRC-5, to be exact. Now if those extra two doses of male DNA are going to have an effect on little girls, the natural “sweet spot” of when it might start being expressed would be when girls reach puberty, right?

If you ask people in the transgender community when there was an inflection point of more girls wanting to become boys, they will say it was 2016. Prior to 2016 the ratio of male to female transitions outnumbered female to male transitions I believe by six or 7 to 1. In 2016 things suddenly started to even out or evened out to 50-50. And since the transitions are now about 50% female to male and 50% male to female, what would’ve caused the girls to suddenly want to be boys when it hadn’t been as big of a factor before?

Assuming the average length of puberty is about 12 years old, add 12 years to 2004 and you get to 2016.

So what looked like an inflection point that began in 2016 probably started biologically back in 2004.

Steve, I hope you decide to pin this comment so people can understand what might actually be happening.

Need some interpretative help, please, Steve. I'm a devoted follower and have been on the Mercola-Kennedy bandwagon for 15 years. So I thought about this post on the vax status of self-reporting gender dysphorics, Yeah, sure, makes sense. Also I thought it was crystal clear. So I shared it with my lovely, highly intelligent and very loving granddaughter, a woke youngster at a good college in her first year. And because she IS such a person, she read it carefully and thoughtfully. Her response required that I go into the Excel files you provide and do my thinking duty.

That required me to go find out how to figure Odds Ratios and try duplicating your results from your data. But since you don't say how you got your OR's in enough detail for my old head to follow exactly, I only got very similar results, using your data, but that was good enough!

So I sent that back to the wonderful gdaughter and, sure enough, she did her homework on the files too. (As I'm sure everyone knows on this thread, this is quite unusual! Only great granddaughters do it.)

So she hit me with two complaints, one about the data, and one more general. Here's the first:

Just which of the total 1321 in the source file have been chosen as the 749 in the analysis file? I had supposed they were the people reporting on themselves rather than on others, but we see that there are only 585 of those in the source.

Here's the second. Why is it, there's no detailed explanation somewhere, like in the analysis file, of matters of that sort? I looked around and couldn't find it in the one file or the other or in your posting.

For me, it would be VERY useful in my efforts to persuade skeptics to be able to send off your postings to them and have them find just a basic explanation of procedures used to reach your conclusions. They expect that. Like what you'd find in an ordinary medical paper's abstract. Unlike me, they have not been following you a long time and do not just instinctively trust you.

And if anyone is still on this thread (which I read through with great interest for its variety and vigor) and can help me with my questions, I'd sure appreciate it!