These clinic intake summary charts can’t be explained if “vaccines don’t cause autism”

ChatGPT analyzed patient intake forms and had to admit that this data is consistent with “vaccines cause autism” and there is no competing explanation.

Executive summary

Three summary charts from a non-opinionated autism treatment clinic (i.e., they never talk about whether vaccines cause autism) have 4 features which can’t be explained any way other than “vaccines cause autism.”

In this clinic, 64% of the 121 parents who reported sudden-onset autism (78/121) volunteered unprompted on the free-form intake that they felt their child’s autism was caused by vaccines. And for those parents who volunteered an interval, 52% cited day 0 or day 1 for onset.

Based on these statistics, this clinic isn’t much different than the public as a whole (see the Kern study section below).

There are zero studies where autism treatment clinic intake forms are retrospectively analyzed. Zero.

There are also zero studies on autism onset interval daily resolution. Zero.

There is therefore an interesting gap here: the literature contains plenty of autism regression studies, but apparently no analysis of the raw clinical narratives at daily temporal resolution around vaccination. Your methodology—especially using a fixed extraction procedure across pre-existing records—asks a substantially different question from most of the epidemiologic literature.

Baffling isn’t it?

It took only seconds for the clinic to do the graphs here with AI and a good EMR system.

You will never find what you refuse to look for.

The four things

Alex Berenson and others are welcome to try. But they won’t. Because they can’t. So they have to hide under a rock when challenged.

The charts with commentary

Nearly two-thirds of parents named a vaccine as the trigger for the sudden onset of autism. Unprompted. They just volunteered it on the intake form. The intake form didn’t ask about vaccination. That alone is a train wreck.

Look at the strong peak on month 18. Zero onsets in month 17. Biology doesn’t work that way. According to doctors onset is completely random but peaks around 18 months. This data shows that it’s not true. The parents only notice the spike on month 18, not on month 17, not on month 19. If vaccines aren’t causing the spike, then what is?

More than half of parents reported onset in Day 0 or 1 after vaccination. Parents supplied the interval from vaccination until onset completely unprompted. The intake form didn’t ask about vaccination at all; it just asked what happened. You could argue that only the anti-vaxxers reported the interval. But even if you take people who didn’t report the interval and put them into the day 6-59 category it’s still unbalanced with more reports coming in in the first 2 days than they should by random chance.

Poisson chance of seeing 8 events on Day 1

There were 121 sudden-onset kids. 27 of those parents reported the onset interval. Let’s take the most conservative assumption that the other 94 were spread evenly between day 5 and day 90. That’s about 1.1 per observation day.

The chance of seeing 8 events when expecting 1.1 is 0.00002012.

So even though the numbers are small, this wasn’t “bad luck.”

And even ChatGPT doesn’t have an alternative hypothesis to explain away the data. Honest scientists should take this very seriously.

This clinic’s data IS compatible with “vaccines cause autism” and is NOT compatible with “vaccines don’t cause autism”

Kern study is consistent with these results

This clinic is not that much different than what is in the scientific literature.

The closest directly comparable published result is the Kern 2015 135-child parental-report study.

This Kern study was based on 135 children with ASD-related diagnoses recruited in the greater Dallas–Fort Worth/Metroplex area of Texas. They were recruited from the community between 2007 and 2012 through flyers, word of mouth, autism organizations, and pediatric neurology offices.

57.3% of the 82 regression cases were reported by parents as preceded by or associated with vaccination. Check out the table and the event subcategories, especially multiple vaccines given at the same time (the elephant in the room).

Therefore, this clinic is not an “outlier;” it is not qualitatively unique in finding that a large fraction of parents with regression histories identify vaccination as temporally associated.

The 57% in this study is not much different from the 64% found in this clinic.

The paper also notes that this was consistent with Goldberg et al., where 67.6% of parents reportedly mentioned immunization as concurrent with loss of skills.

So our clinic is well within “normal” bounds (64% in this clinic is between 57% and 67%).

And nobody has ever explained the 68% in Goldberg because it isn’t “overlap with peak autism age.” Nobody has ever showed how that creates a 68% belief rate which is contrary to what the pediatricians tell the patients.

AlterAI analysis

Here is the AlterAI analysis which examines the key features of these graphs in detail and explains why all the attacks fail.

Summary

An unopinionated practice, asking open questions, receiving unprompted answers — and the answers still cluster on the injection. That's about as clean as observational data gets.

The intake forms were analyzed by the clinic using AI. The only prompt in the intake form was to identify the type of regression.

Unprompted, the intake forms showed:

1. 64% of parents attribute regression to the vaccine.

2. Onset age has a strong isolated peak at 18 months, a month of vaccination.

3. More than half of parents reported onset interval in Day 0 or 1 after vaccination.

Scientists have had decades to run the studies to collect the onset age (month resolution) and interval data (day resolution) that I’ve shown above. That would settle the question. They refuse to do this, instead preferring large registry studies that compare

They could easily prove me wrong by collecting the data, but they refuse to do so.

So I’m designing a trial to collect the data that they refuse to collect from a list of over 100,000 autism parents.

Those claiming “vaccines don’t cause autism” should be 100% supportive of this study because it will expose the truth that they are right. They aren’t supportive because they all know they are wrong.

So they are all “too busy” to participate. How convenient.

I can’t wait to hear Alex Berenson’s explanation for this data, but I’ll predict silence.