The PLOS Biology journal editors claim vaccines don't cause autism and we should NOT do a proper study to find out if this is true or not

I also talk about the secret CDC Simpsonwood meeting where the data clearly showed vaccines were causing autism and they looked the other way and tried to hide the transcript.

Executive summary

The PLOS, the Public Library of Science, Biology editors declared in April 2025 that vaccines don’t cause autism and we should stop doing research in this area (rather than calling for a proper study be done):

“As does the use of precious resources to revisit debunked claims of links to autism, which is known to fuel societal concern [4].”

The fact is that there has never been a proper study of the number of vaccine doses and rates of autism published anywhere in the peer reviewed literature.

The studies that have been done are all seriously flawed.

That doesn’t seem to bother the experts who think we should move on.

We have the data, but we don’t allow scientists to do a proper study. It is forbidden. The data remains secret, locked away out of public view, because the public must never be allowed to learn the truth because that would cause adverse public health outcomes like people refusing to give vaccines to their kids.

Even the head of HHS, RFK Jr., is powerless to get the data released publicly so a study could be done.

The PLOS editors should be appalled by the lack of a credible, objective study on this important issue and they should all be demanding that a PROPER study be done to resolve the question (I outline that below).

Instead, they want us to stop asking questions.

Let’s be clear. Encouraging the silencing of inquiry is anti-science.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not closing the door before a fair examination of the data has been done.

These editors are all a disgrace to their profession. If they had any integrity, they would all resign.

No proper study has ever been published in the peer-reviewed literature examining the connection between vaccines and autism

Here are 3 cited by Grok that claim to do a fair examination of this question:

• DeStefano et al. (2013): This CDC case-control study analyzed antigen exposure from vaccines in the first two years of life among 256 children with ASD and 752 controls. It found no difference in cumulative antigen exposure between ASD cases and controls, concluding that “the total amount of antigen from vaccines received was the same between children with ASD and those that did not have ASD.” This directly addresses total vaccine exposure via antigen load. Citation: DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. J Pediatr. 2013;163(2):561-7. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001. PubMed PMID: 23541369.

• Taylor et al. (2014): This meta-analysis of five cohort studies (1,256,407 children) and five case-control studies (9,920 children) assessed ASD risk by overall vaccination status, cumulative mercury dose from thimerosal-containing vaccines, and number of vaccines. It reported no association (e.g., odds ratio for vaccination and ASD: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68-1.20). Citation: Taylor LE, Swerdfeger AL, Eslick GD. Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine. 2014;32(29):3623-9. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085. PubMed PMID: 24814559.

• Uno et al. (2015): This Japanese case-control study compared 189 ASD cases and 224 controls, examining MMR vaccination history and the total number of vaccine injections received. It found no association between total vaccines and ASD development (adjusted odds ratio: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.48-2.14). Citation: Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N. The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia. Vaccine. 2015;33(28):4183-90. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.001. PubMed PMID: 25982356.

Per AlterAI, here’s why all 3 studies are deficient:

Here are the common problems with all the studies:

What Would a Genuine Dose–Response Study Require?

To answer the question, you would need:

1. A large unvaccinated baseline cohort (≥ 10 000 children)

2. Detailed vaccine histories logging each injection, antigen type, and adjuvant amount

3. Longitudinal neurodevelopmental tracking through at least age 8

4. Biological covariates: inflammatory markers, mitochondrial function, methylation status, etc.

5. Independent data access free from government or pharmaceutical oversight

Those conditions have never been met anywhere to date.

We have the dataset, but they don’t allow researchers to ask the question

The dataset used in the DeStefano et al. (2013) paper, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), is essentially the CDC’s crown jewel: a mammoth real‑time record of millions of U.S. children’s medical data — their full vaccine histories, diagnoses, and outcomes. It’s the treasury vault that could instantly end debate about vaccine safety, if researchers were ever permitted to query it directly.

That is just never going to happen.

And the PLOS editors don’t seem to mind at all. Bad studies are OK. Why would we need more than that?

I asked the PLOS editors if they would defend their editorial in a debate with their academic peers. No answer.

I sent the offer below on 11/9/2025.

My hypothesis: there is no chance they will accept (p<.0000000000001).

They cannot defend what they wrote. So they must ignore challenges from their academic peers (comparable average h-indexes).

The full AI analysis of the connection between vaccine rates and autism shows autism rates are >5x higher in the fully vaccinated vs unvaccinated

Here’s a link to the full AI analysis of what is known about the relationship between the number of vaccines and autism.

The signals are large and statistically significant.

A 5x higher prevalence:

Here’s another table:

The signal is consistent worldwide: fewer vaccines, less autism.

I found the exact same signal when I surveyed over 12,000 parents about their kids… fewer vaccines, less autism. Odds ratios of 2.5 and greater depending on the number of doses.

I personally know a pediatric practice which avoids vaccination and hasn’t had a single autism case in the last 25 years. Again confirming the connection.

Pediatrician Doug Hulstedt had 44 cases of rapid-onset autism. All 44 cases happened within 1 week after vaccination.

The only known case of triplets getting autism at the same time happened within 12 hours after vaccination.

More info on my parent survey and Simpsonwood, see my github autism repo which also contains the Simpsonwood transcript which was a meeting to decide how to cover-up the vaccine-autism signal.

When they found a signal, they met to talk about how to cover it up: the Simpsonwood meeting

Here’s the AlterAI analysis of the Simpsonwood meeting and the Verstraeten VSD study which prompted the meeting.

How do the PLOS editors explain this?

They don’t. They avoid it.

The editors just want you to stop talking about it and accept their opinion.

Was Simpsonwood just an innocuous meeting with “nothing to see here folks”?

No chance. Simpsonwood was no accident. It was a secret meeting that nobody was ever supposed to find out about. The Simpsonwood Retreat in Norcross, GA was a 30 minute drive from CDC headquarters in Atlanta (it is now a park).

View the Simpsonwood transcript yourself and you decide or put it into your favorite AI chatbot.

Or read my earlier article on Simpsonwood.

Or the AI analysis of the Simpsonwood meeting

But the provenance of the transcript tells the story.

Nobody leaked it. Not a single ethical person at the meeting.

The CDC never voluntarily released the transcript. This was not an oversight.

They fought the release after someone heard about the meeting.

The CDC was forced to release it after a FOIA by RFK Jr. and threat of litigation.

If it were up to the CDC, this meeting about what to do about a RR=11 signal between vaccine and autism, would have remained secret and out of public view. A relative risk of 11 is insanely high (it’s comparable to smoking and lung cancer). Of course, the PLOS editors don’t have a problem looking the other way on this, just like nobody at the Simpsonwood meeting (with around 55 attendees) ever said anything at the time or now.

What few people noticed is that there were many lines of the Verstraeten study showing statistically significant harm. Not a single cohort had statistically significant benefit. So this was not likely “noise.”

None of the key participants at Simpsonwood have ever publicly admitted error or wrongdoing

Not one of the main CDC figures, pharma representatives, or outside academics who were present has ever stood up and said, “We mishandled that meeting, we misled the public, or the early signal was real.”

Summary

The full AI analysis of vaccination rates and autism is revealing. The studies not in the literature show more than a 5X higher rate in fully vaccinated kids as noted above.

>5X higher in fully vaccinated kids… what does that tell you?

The “proper” study can’t be done because the CDC prohibits such research. Researchers simply aren’t allowed to ask the question unless the study is designed to not find a signal in which case your study is approved.

I showed the Simpsonwood analysis for how “scientists” reacted to the news that the CDC found a huge link between vaccines and autism. The CDC never willingly released the transcripts and hoped nobody would ever find out the meeting ever occurred. They actually fought RFK’s FOIA request. Why would they do that if there was nothing to hide?