ChatGPT analyzed patient intake forms and had to admit that this data is consistent with “vaccines cause autism” and there is no competing explanation.
I have 2 friends who are still true believers that will not consider that shots are the best. thing ever. Both got at least 6 or 7 covid shots. One is so crippled with arthritis now that she can't leave her house. The other has been bleeding from her intestines, requiring blood transfusions, for 4+ years. They will still get every and any shot offered, although the first one's pro-vax doctors now refuse to give her any more covid shots, without elaborating on why. Was it here I read that someone was at a fancy affair with some very drunk doctors. One said they all know vaccines cause autism but there is to much money to be made.
My son rapidly descended into autism in 2003 after an MMR injection. At that time, I met other parents who also described generally similar events with their kids. A lot of parents were aware, or at least suspicious, of vaccines 20+ years ago.
What I find amazing is how effectively big pharma, the CDC and the medical profession have deflected this issue from even being discussed in any mainstream media.
Today, some states run by leftists are working to eliminate even religious exemptions for vaccines. And vaccines remain a taboo subject in most media.
Thanks to Steve Kirsch, Aaron Siri and others for sounding the alarm for anyone who will listen.
I just don’t understand why everyone is so quick to try and dismiss the evidence that vaccines may very well cause autism. I mean some people act like you are attacking them personally. It is basic factual evidence and math and statistics don’t lie. So why is it that intelligent people are so afraid of this conclusion? Especially doctors and scientists who by nature should be open minded and curious people. I see the evidence clearly and never felt one way or the other about vaccines but you cannot have a normal logical conversation with those who will defend vaccines to the death (of innocent children). The argument that vaccines may cause autism is not a personal attack so why do those who refuse to look at evidence of vaccines causing autism act as though it is a personal attack. A vaccine is just a thing made of up chemicals, many of which are toxic, and I would think everyone seeing this data would be like wow we really need to dig into this and hold off on vaccines until we really know. Is it ideological or are they truly brainwashed or owned financially to support vaccines at all costs?
Mike S has a point, 18 months isn’t a law.I’ve seen vaccines causing autism at different ages during the first 2-3 years of vaccines load, but 18 months might be just the “winner”
Thank you, Steve Kirsch, for your continued research and reporting. Without your efforts the dangers of childhood vaccines would be obscured by the government and big pharma
“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?”
You attribute the big spike at 18 months to vaccination, presumably because that’s when vaccines are scheduled.
1. Well Child Card attendance is recommended by the AAP to be at 18 months of age. This is not a given. Children can be scheduled when they are 17 months, or 19 months. This depends upon the clinical and the parent available schedules. Given that, it’s very hard to believe your chart shows the spike at 18 months, but none at 17 or 19 months. Knowing as I do the degree of compromise and variability in visit scheduling, I’d rate the fact that parents report the changes so heavily centred on 18 months as a red flag for memory recall, rather than a sign of consolidation at that time point.
2. Yes…biology doesn’t work that way (for the generation of noticeable changes of behaviour/ASD if the hypothesis of vaccination>ASD is sound). The concept floated is that vaccines somehow trigger immunological responses that lead to pathologies like neuroimflammation and this manifests as ASD. If that is the case, then these events aren’t concertinared into a single day. These changes would take time to manifest biologically. At least a few weeks. That being the case, then on your chart you’d expect to see a spike at 19 months, maybe with a strong signal still at 20 and 21 months. But you don’t. It’s all at 18 months, suspiciously. We have to doubt the parents stories here, I’m afraid.
3. The 18 month shots are just one of several up to that point. Why are you not seeing such strong, same-month signals at 12 months, of at even earlier clinic visit times? Vaccines aren’t only given at 18 months, you know. (There is a small spike at 12 months, but then see 1 and 2 above)
Yes there are peaks, because those are the times when your respondents claim that their kids developed signs of behavioural change.
But as I’ve explained…
The responses fit precisely with the exact “18 month” visit [with none at 17 or 19 months] which is suspicious because the “18 month” clinic visit will not always take place during the month that the child is 18 months old. It can be scheduled a bit before or a bit after depending on the respective diaries of the clinics and the parents.
The proposed causation of Vaccines=autism seem to boil down to one of neurological damage following neuroinflammation following anomalous or hyper immune response following vaccination. That process will differ in the length of time with which it would take to manifest as behavioural change in the child. If true, this would certainly follows a distribution curve with a long right hand tail and commencing no sooner than a couple of weeks after vaccination, with a median of about a month or two after the vaccine. So you wouldn’t expect sharp. clean incidence spikes at exactly 12 and 18 months anyway.
The only conclusion is that your respondents have been intentionally lying, or are “mis-remembering” (for the reasons I explained above.
Citing anecdotal exceptins where stories tell of infants who profoundly changed within hours of a vaccine shot does not alter the fact that the overall distribution of recalled changes should not be a sharp spike on the day (or month) of vaccination. For every case you point out, there will be many who noted changes only 2 weeks, or 2 months after vaccination. Describing a few anomalies doesn’t make the anomaly the rule.
The McDowell parents’ claim is unverified medically (with no official report and not even a VAERS report). The parents did at one stage I believe claim that the vaccine lots were contaminated. If that is true, then that is a strong reason to expect all 3 infants sickening within hours of the contaminated injection.
One caveat is the common notion of "vaccines". They're not all the same, they don't all interact with another one the same, and when multiple vaccines are given together, interactions can be multiplicative. Outcomes will vary, but be universally clustered at important multi-vaccine inoculation dates. Childhood developmental milestones can amplify such interaction effects, but again, developmental variability can minimize them, as well. On balance, there is plenty to be concerned about.
Doctors should be FORCED to do a survey of every baby during every visit and state how the baby reacts to certain stimuli: eye movements, following the doctor's movements, reaction to noises, etc. Then when there are obvious changes post-shots, the doctors cannot 'change their tune' later. THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED IF ANY SHOTS CONTINUE!
For me, the debate is over. I've not seen one unbiased conclusion that vaccines don't cause autism and poor health outcomes for children. Even my *dog* saw poor outcomes after vaccination. I'm deaf in one ear and have been hyperactive since I was a toddler. My mother had me vaccinated for everything. Two of my three children had reactions to vaccines. They're not autistic, thank God, but they both had poor reactions. One developed childhood asthma and one developed ADHD symptoms within 2 days of vaccination. The asthma I'm not positive about, but my middle child definitely changed post-vaccination.
It's criminal to me that doctors, who claim to be at the peak of scientific progress, refuse to prove their beliefs on vaccines through rigorous scientific research and experimentation and expect us to just take their word for it. These are our *children*, ffs!
Let us be convinced they are not at all scientists. They are something else entirely. Today, seeing a mom with the exact same report about her son at 18 months suddenly nonverbal within a day of MMR.
If you were to compile all of this great info you have, find anyone with legal standing, and file a lawsuit which presents into court record all the info you have collected so far, then what would happen?
Even with assistance of A.I., do you really think a Court (Judge) would actually let you litigate the "science"? Meaning the Judge would have to rule on the merits of the science and not the legal merits if the case. The Judge would need to stipulate via a ruling that one science is correct and the other is incorrect... vis a vis science is static and not challegeable.
Nope. Not a double blind study chance in legal Hell of that happening.
However, defendent (aka Fed Govt, Bigpharma, etc) should not by default prevail in court with their version of scientific truth simply because the Court refuses to rule one way or the other regarding the veracity of the science.
Therefore, science when restricting its use to healthcare should never be embeded in any law, ordinace, or mandate.
If the science itself is not challengeable in court then science itself cannot be used to justify any action or policy position taken by the Fed Govt.
Meaning no law involving
health can simultaneouly use science as both the justification for the law AND justification to prevent legal challenges against the law.
Thus, unless the Courts are willing to now rule on the science justifying the Childhood Vaccine Injury Law, then all vaccine mandates are null and void.
Steve, I have been assuming for 34 years that my daughter is autistic due to vaccines. After reading Dr William Parkers book - Tylenol and Autism: Evidence, Scientific Blunders, and Medicine Gone Wrong. I am more convinced that Tylenol, given at birth, to a child under oxidative stress (in my daughters case, a fever) causes neurodegenerative damage to the brain. The biochemical pathway is known. Infants under stress do not have the ability to clear acetaminophen and the byproducts damage the brain. Read the book. It will broaden your understanding of autism. Yes vaccines cause brain damage but so does acetaminophen when given to certain at risk infants and children from 0-3 years old.
Vaccines are mandatory for all infants and children but Tylenol is optional; therefore, vaccines are far more likely than Tylenol to cause autism. They're probably using Tylenol as a scapegoat to protect vaccines from blame for autism.
Hi Steve, there is autism amongst the reform jewish population when 8 day old boys are circumcised and given Tylenol (no vaccine at that time). It is much LESS common in the orthodox community as the orthodox are less apt to use pharmaceuticals for the infant. The data is referenced in the book "Tylenol and Autism" by Parker.
I can't imagine any pediatric clinic today NOT offering Tylenol to the infant (parent) at the time of the office visit and the injection. VERY common. Besides that, the author of the book (Parker) was removed from his lab by his university soon after his research was published (the university president was on the board of the company that makes Tylenol).
In your 4th paragraph, you write: "If vaccines are causing the spike, then what is?" I think you meant to say: "If vaccines are NOT causing the spike, then what is?"
I have 2 friends who are still true believers that will not consider that shots are the best. thing ever. Both got at least 6 or 7 covid shots. One is so crippled with arthritis now that she can't leave her house. The other has been bleeding from her intestines, requiring blood transfusions, for 4+ years. They will still get every and any shot offered, although the first one's pro-vax doctors now refuse to give her any more covid shots, without elaborating on why. Was it here I read that someone was at a fancy affair with some very drunk doctors. One said they all know vaccines cause autism but there is to much money to be made.
My son rapidly descended into autism in 2003 after an MMR injection. At that time, I met other parents who also described generally similar events with their kids. A lot of parents were aware, or at least suspicious, of vaccines 20+ years ago.
What I find amazing is how effectively big pharma, the CDC and the medical profession have deflected this issue from even being discussed in any mainstream media.
Today, some states run by leftists are working to eliminate even religious exemptions for vaccines. And vaccines remain a taboo subject in most media.
Thanks to Steve Kirsch, Aaron Siri and others for sounding the alarm for anyone who will listen.
I just don’t understand why everyone is so quick to try and dismiss the evidence that vaccines may very well cause autism. I mean some people act like you are attacking them personally. It is basic factual evidence and math and statistics don’t lie. So why is it that intelligent people are so afraid of this conclusion? Especially doctors and scientists who by nature should be open minded and curious people. I see the evidence clearly and never felt one way or the other about vaccines but you cannot have a normal logical conversation with those who will defend vaccines to the death (of innocent children). The argument that vaccines may cause autism is not a personal attack so why do those who refuse to look at evidence of vaccines causing autism act as though it is a personal attack. A vaccine is just a thing made of up chemicals, many of which are toxic, and I would think everyone seeing this data would be like wow we really need to dig into this and hold off on vaccines until we really know. Is it ideological or are they truly brainwashed or owned financially to support vaccines at all costs?
Mike S has a point, 18 months isn’t a law.I’ve seen vaccines causing autism at different ages during the first 2-3 years of vaccines load, but 18 months might be just the “winner”
Please clarify: 27 children are not 64% of 121
The 64% is in the other charts
Thank you, Steve Kirsch, for your continued research and reporting. Without your efforts the dangers of childhood vaccines would be obscured by the government and big pharma
“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?”
You attribute the big spike at 18 months to vaccination, presumably because that’s when vaccines are scheduled.
1. Well Child Card attendance is recommended by the AAP to be at 18 months of age. This is not a given. Children can be scheduled when they are 17 months, or 19 months. This depends upon the clinical and the parent available schedules. Given that, it’s very hard to believe your chart shows the spike at 18 months, but none at 17 or 19 months. Knowing as I do the degree of compromise and variability in visit scheduling, I’d rate the fact that parents report the changes so heavily centred on 18 months as a red flag for memory recall, rather than a sign of consolidation at that time point.
2. Yes…biology doesn’t work that way (for the generation of noticeable changes of behaviour/ASD if the hypothesis of vaccination>ASD is sound). The concept floated is that vaccines somehow trigger immunological responses that lead to pathologies like neuroimflammation and this manifests as ASD. If that is the case, then these events aren’t concertinared into a single day. These changes would take time to manifest biologically. At least a few weeks. That being the case, then on your chart you’d expect to see a spike at 19 months, maybe with a strong signal still at 20 and 21 months. But you don’t. It’s all at 18 months, suspiciously. We have to doubt the parents stories here, I’m afraid.
3. The 18 month shots are just one of several up to that point. Why are you not seeing such strong, same-month signals at 12 months, of at even earlier clinic visit times? Vaccines aren’t only given at 18 months, you know. (There is a small spike at 12 months, but then see 1 and 2 above)
We see peaks at all the vaccination shots. Every single one.
Yes there are peaks, because those are the times when your respondents claim that their kids developed signs of behavioural change.
But as I’ve explained…
The responses fit precisely with the exact “18 month” visit [with none at 17 or 19 months] which is suspicious because the “18 month” clinic visit will not always take place during the month that the child is 18 months old. It can be scheduled a bit before or a bit after depending on the respective diaries of the clinics and the parents.
The proposed causation of Vaccines=autism seem to boil down to one of neurological damage following neuroinflammation following anomalous or hyper immune response following vaccination. That process will differ in the length of time with which it would take to manifest as behavioural change in the child. If true, this would certainly follows a distribution curve with a long right hand tail and commencing no sooner than a couple of weeks after vaccination, with a median of about a month or two after the vaccine. So you wouldn’t expect sharp. clean incidence spikes at exactly 12 and 18 months anyway.
The only conclusion is that your respondents have been intentionally lying, or are “mis-remembering” (for the reasons I explained above.
Citing anecdotal exceptins where stories tell of infants who profoundly changed within hours of a vaccine shot does not alter the fact that the overall distribution of recalled changes should not be a sharp spike on the day (or month) of vaccination. For every case you point out, there will be many who noted changes only 2 weeks, or 2 months after vaccination. Describing a few anomalies doesn’t make the anomaly the rule.
The McDowell parents’ claim is unverified medically (with no official report and not even a VAERS report). The parents did at one stage I believe claim that the vaccine lots were contaminated. If that is true, then that is a strong reason to expect all 3 infants sickening within hours of the contaminated injection.
One caveat is the common notion of "vaccines". They're not all the same, they don't all interact with another one the same, and when multiple vaccines are given together, interactions can be multiplicative. Outcomes will vary, but be universally clustered at important multi-vaccine inoculation dates. Childhood developmental milestones can amplify such interaction effects, but again, developmental variability can minimize them, as well. On balance, there is plenty to be concerned about.
Doctors should be FORCED to do a survey of every baby during every visit and state how the baby reacts to certain stimuli: eye movements, following the doctor's movements, reaction to noises, etc. Then when there are obvious changes post-shots, the doctors cannot 'change their tune' later. THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED IF ANY SHOTS CONTINUE!
I’m sure the medical community will do the opposite and require them not to report this
Guaranteed because they worship demons...some do not know but they will shortly. Some will Repent but most will go bye-bye!
Alex Berenson is a wuss.
Data is enough
For me, the debate is over. I've not seen one unbiased conclusion that vaccines don't cause autism and poor health outcomes for children. Even my *dog* saw poor outcomes after vaccination. I'm deaf in one ear and have been hyperactive since I was a toddler. My mother had me vaccinated for everything. Two of my three children had reactions to vaccines. They're not autistic, thank God, but they both had poor reactions. One developed childhood asthma and one developed ADHD symptoms within 2 days of vaccination. The asthma I'm not positive about, but my middle child definitely changed post-vaccination.
It's criminal to me that doctors, who claim to be at the peak of scientific progress, refuse to prove their beliefs on vaccines through rigorous scientific research and experimentation and expect us to just take their word for it. These are our *children*, ffs!
Why are you calling out Berenson? What did I miss?
He thinks Vaccine don’t cause Autism and wouldn’t talk to me about it
Let us be convinced they are not at all scientists. They are something else entirely. Today, seeing a mom with the exact same report about her son at 18 months suddenly nonverbal within a day of MMR.
How many of those have you seen in your career?
I don’t see kids but moms or grandparents report I guess a dozen or so. No hard data. And it’s not a regular conversation at their visit.
Hey Steve
If you were to compile all of this great info you have, find anyone with legal standing, and file a lawsuit which presents into court record all the info you have collected so far, then what would happen?
Even with assistance of A.I., do you really think a Court (Judge) would actually let you litigate the "science"? Meaning the Judge would have to rule on the merits of the science and not the legal merits if the case. The Judge would need to stipulate via a ruling that one science is correct and the other is incorrect... vis a vis science is static and not challegeable.
Nope. Not a double blind study chance in legal Hell of that happening.
However, defendent (aka Fed Govt, Bigpharma, etc) should not by default prevail in court with their version of scientific truth simply because the Court refuses to rule one way or the other regarding the veracity of the science.
Therefore, science when restricting its use to healthcare should never be embeded in any law, ordinace, or mandate.
If the science itself is not challengeable in court then science itself cannot be used to justify any action or policy position taken by the Fed Govt.
Meaning no law involving
health can simultaneouly use science as both the justification for the law AND justification to prevent legal challenges against the law.
Thus, unless the Courts are willing to now rule on the science justifying the Childhood Vaccine Injury Law, then all vaccine mandates are null and void.
Steve, I have been assuming for 34 years that my daughter is autistic due to vaccines. After reading Dr William Parkers book - Tylenol and Autism: Evidence, Scientific Blunders, and Medicine Gone Wrong. I am more convinced that Tylenol, given at birth, to a child under oxidative stress (in my daughters case, a fever) causes neurodegenerative damage to the brain. The biochemical pathway is known. Infants under stress do not have the ability to clear acetaminophen and the byproducts damage the brain. Read the book. It will broaden your understanding of autism. Yes vaccines cause brain damage but so does acetaminophen when given to certain at risk infants and children from 0-3 years old.
Vaccines are mandatory for all infants and children but Tylenol is optional; therefore, vaccines are far more likely than Tylenol to cause autism. They're probably using Tylenol as a scapegoat to protect vaccines from blame for autism.
Hi Steve, there is autism amongst the reform jewish population when 8 day old boys are circumcised and given Tylenol (no vaccine at that time). It is much LESS common in the orthodox community as the orthodox are less apt to use pharmaceuticals for the infant. The data is referenced in the book "Tylenol and Autism" by Parker.
I can't imagine any pediatric clinic today NOT offering Tylenol to the infant (parent) at the time of the office visit and the injection. VERY common. Besides that, the author of the book (Parker) was removed from his lab by his university soon after his research was published (the university president was on the board of the company that makes Tylenol).
i haven't heard of any acetaminophen-only sudden onset autism cases unless there is an infection at the same time.
But you wouldn’t be giving your child acetaminophen if your child didn’t have a fever presumably
In your 4th paragraph, you write: "If vaccines are causing the spike, then what is?" I think you meant to say: "If vaccines are NOT causing the spike, then what is?"
correct. fixed. thanks!