It’s 3am. I can’t sleep. Again. And I’m reading through this anti-vax propaganda piece that’s masquerading as “scientific truth,” and honestly? I feel sick.
Because what this movement is doing isn’t just spreading misinformation—it’s destroying the opportunity for legitimate, evidence-based vaccine skepticism. The kind that could actually help families like mine. Instead, they’ve turned the entire conversation into a marketplace of fear. And people like JB Handley? They’re getting rich by monetizing the grief, guilt, and confusion of exhausted, sleep-deprived parents like me.
Let’s talk about what this post doesn’t tell you—because that’s where the real manipulation lives:
⸻
What They Leave Out (But You Deserve to Know):
• Mawson’s study, which this post leans heavily on, was published in a journal so obscure it’s not even indexed in PubMed. It was originally pulled for ethical violations and then quietly republished in a pay-to-play journal. It wasn’t peer-reviewed in any legitimate way. And the sample? Self-selected homeschoolers, many of whom were already anti-vax—meaning the bias was baked in from the start.
• The Hooker and Miller study used medical records from a single pediatric practice that caters to vaccine-hesitant families. That’s like running a climate study by interviewing only flat-earthers. There’s no control group. No randomization. Just cherry-picked data from an echo chamber.
• That “ninefold risk” of special education from the Hep B vaccine? The sample was 46 vaccinated boys vs. 7 unvaccinated. That’s not statistically meaningful. That’s a coin toss dressed up in a lab coat.
• None of these studies have been replicated or included in systematic reviews. Meanwhile, there are dozens of large-scale, high-quality studies from around the world—Japan, Denmark, the U.S.—involving millions of children that show no link between vaccines and autism. And if even one of these fringe studies had found something solid, we’d see it reflected in the broader scientific literature. We don’t.
• And let’s not ignore this: JB Handley isn’t a doctor, a scientist, or an immunologist. He’s a former private equity guy. He’s made money off fear—selling books, pushing documentaries like Spellers, and now raking it in on Substack while emotionally manipulating parents who just want answers.
⸻
So no, this isn’t brave truth-telling. This is yellow journalism 2.0—clicks, cash, and conspiracy vibes.
And what makes me angriest is that this kind of garbage makes it nearly impossible to raise real, thoughtful questions about the vaccine schedule, adjuvants, or long-term outcomes. Because the conversation’s been hijacked by snake oil salesmen in lab coat cosplay.
If you’re a parent like me, wide awake at 3am trying to understand your child’s suffering—you deserve real science. Not someone exploiting your pain to sell a narrative (and a product).
You didn’t fail your child. And you don’t owe these people your belief just because they sound confident. Confidence isn’t credibility. And outrage isn’t evidence.
This movement isn’t about truth. It’s about profit.
And if you’ve got even a shred of self-awareness left after reading these “studies,” you’ll see it
The reason studies questioning the current vaccine products and schedules aren't published in the big journals is because they pull them purposely and, in addition, grant monies are not given to studies that may cast vaccines in a bad light.
I respect your desire, as the parent of an autistic child, to get honest information, but it may require confronting things that are difficult to confront. I never would have believed any of the things coming out now about big pharma, the medical complex, etc., if I hadn't had my own severe health issues that I had to solve on my own. If you find yourself facing life or death you have two choices: believe what you are told and accept your fate or go on your own quest for knowledge. If you choose the latter, it's a tough road - just ask anyone who's been there - and on that journey you discover uncomfortable truths about the current medical system that you must confront to get well.
I wish you the strength to take the more difficult road.
I just read all your comments going down and I see you using every single trick in the propaganda book. If anyone is curious, look up "propaganda techniques" and read the descriptions of each technique. They are all here in this guy's comments. I came across a few people exactly like you, "Tim Lee" on medical chat boards in 2021. I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT certain that you are paid to do this. You may even buy your own phony "let's be reasonable, people" persona, like a method actor, but deep down you know that you are a very, very, very bad person. Get out of here.
Calling someone a “very bad person” because they disagreed with you—and backed it up with facts—is exactly the kind of emotional deflection people fall into when they’ve run out of arguments. Let’s be honest: that’s not how good people behave.
Good people admit when they don’t have a solid argument. They reassess. They grow.
Bad people lash out, insult others, and throw around wild accusations because they’re too emotionally fragile—or too intellectually lazy—to think like adults.
But it doesn’t stop there. Bad people also amplify misinformation without fact-checking it, just like they don’t fact-check their own beliefs. They treat speculation as certainty, memes as data, and anecdotes as airtight evidence—all while acting like they’re the ones bravely seeking the truth.
And here’s the kicker: this isn’t harmless. It’s not just internet debate. Spreading vaccine misinformation has led to real, measurable harm. A study by the Brown School of Public Health estimated that over 300,000 COVID deaths in the U.S. were avoidable, primarily due to vaccine hesitancy—fueled by the exact kind of rhetoric you’re defending.
So no—you don’t get to stand on a moral high ground while pushing ideas that have literally helped kill people. That blood isn’t on my hands. It’s on the people who were too arrogant, too paranoid, or too lazy to fact-check their own garbage before spreading it. I’m not a “pharma shill”—I just read.
And that’s where Dunning-Kruger syndrome comes in. It’s a cognitive bias where people with the least knowledge overestimate their expertise, because they lack the very awareness needed to recognize their own ignorance. Anti-vaxxers are a textbook case: convinced they’ve uncovered “the truth” after watching a YouTube video, while ignoring the work of people who’ve studied immunology, virology, and statistics for decades.
I’ve presented facts. I’ve clarified misconceptions. I’ve broken down complex issues in plain language. If that feels threatening, maybe ask yourself why. Because yelling “pharma bot” and calling me evil isn’t an argument—it’s just deflection.
You’re free to believe what you want. But when your whole playbook is name-calling, conspiracy, and refusing to engage with evidence, the issue isn’t my “persona”—it’s that your worldview collapses under the weight of basic logic.
If you actually cared about truth, you’d welcome challenges. But instead, you attack the people pointing out holes in your thinking. That’s not courage. That’s cowardice in a tinfoil hat.
Virology is a pseudo science. No controls, no isolated/purified virus or virion, not possible to culture in vitro, no evidence of transmission.
No scientific evidence, just a hypothetical construct conveniently used to instil fear in people, extract wealth for big pharma and its stakeholders and further perpetuate medical deception.
Viral pandemics are convenient fear based tools used for control and manipulation purposes and mask the real cause of illness and death.
"And that’s where Dunning-Kruger syndrome comes in. It’s a cognitive bias where people with the least knowledge overestimate their expertise, because they lack the very awareness needed to recognize their own ignorance. Anti-vaxxers are a textbook case: convinced they’ve uncovered “the truth” after watching a YouTube video, while ignoring the work of people who’ve studied immunology, virology, and statistics for decades."
You really think the anti-vaxxers have no argument and don't know how to research?
There is an overwhelming amount of credible data that should at the very least call into question the entire pro-vax message which is almost exclusively funded by big pharma and no this is NOT a conspiracy theory.
And you talk about JB Handly supposably getting rich, while big pharma makes billions from vaccines, and pays handsomely to the msm, regulators, doctors and scientist. This is all known documented fact!!!
Vaccines are a multi billion dollar business and even with liability shields, big pharma is estimated to be on the hook for over a hundred billion in global compensation if a vaccine/autism connection is confirmed. And this is just autism alone. So its almost comical that you mention someone else's financial motive.
Youtube and to some extend even google heavily censors anti-vax arguments.
“we want to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better. This is a concern that is shared at the highest level (and I mean highest) level of the wh” Attoney General Andrew Bailey, a leaked email to
And all these highly esteemed scientists your trust so much, usually work for or are connected to big pharma and are known to manipulate data for their benefit or that of their employer. Again this is KNOWN, documented FACT!!!!
And not welcoming challenge are you kidding? Its the pro-vax side that resist any challenge to thier belief or dismiss it as a conspiracy.
Ie the FACT that the death rate for most infectious diseases for which we have a vaccine were declining long before vaccines by as much as 97% is ignored! Instead we keep hearing about how we're all gonna die without vaccines.
The FACT that herd immunity has never been proven and some of the largest outbreaks for measles, sp, polio and more, have happened in over 95% vaccinated populations, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
The FACT that the "debunking" of the autism/vaccines connection was done almost exclusively by studies funded by big pharma, the same people known to manipulate data and hid negative results, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy. Though this is a well known documented fact!
The FACT that many INDEPENDANT studies have shown a connection and that multiple court cases have concluded that the vaccine was the cause of the child's autism and awarded compensation is ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
The FACT that big pharma enjoy a massive amount of influence over regulators, medical schools, medical journals the msn and more, and is able to block or censor most negative vaccine info is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy.
And the FACT that doctors are heavily censored from expressing any concern about vaccines is also ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
I could go on,
And btw, people have offered to challenge the pro-vax message on huge podcasts like Joe Rogan, even lay people, but the esteemed scientists you trust so much have refused and no I don't mean just the covid vaccine.
So do NOT tell me anti-vaxxers don't welcome challenge. You have no idea what you're talking about!
Btw, I've been reaching this since before I ever heard of youtube.
"And that’s where Dunning-Kruger syndrome comes in. It’s a cognitive bias where people with the least knowledge overestimate their expertise, because they lack the very awareness needed to recognize their own ignorance. Anti-vaxxers are a textbook case: convinced they’ve uncovered “the truth” after watching a YouTube video, while ignoring the work of people who’ve studied immunology, virology, and statistics for decades."
You really think the anti-vaxxers have no argument and don't know how to research?
There is an overwhelming amount of credible data that should at the very least call into question the entire pro-vax message which is almost exclusively funded by big pharma and no this is NOT a conspiracy theory.
And you talk about JB Handly supposably getting rich, while big pharma makes billions from vaccines, and pays handsomely to the msm, regulators, doctors and scientist. This is all known documented fact!!!
Vaccines are a multi billion dollar business and even with liability shields, big pharma is estimated to be on the hook for over a hundred billion in global compensation if a vaccine/autism connection is confirmed. And this is just autism alone. So its almost comical that you mention someone else's financial motive.
Youtube and to some extend even google heavily censors anti-vax arguments.
“we want to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better. This is a concern that is shared at the highest level (and I mean highest) level of the wh” Attoney General Andrew Bailey, a leaked email to
And all these highly esteemed scientists your trust so much, usually work for or are connected to big pharma and are known to manipulate data for their benefit or that of their employer. Again this is KNOWN, documented FACT!!!!
And not welcoming challenge are you kidding? Its the pro-vax side that resist any challenge to thier belief or dismiss it as a conspiracy.
Ie the FACT that the death rate for most infectious diseases for which we have a vaccine were declining long before vaccines by as much as 97% is ignored! Instead we keep hearing about how we're all gonna die without vaccines.
The FACT that herd immunity has never been proven and some of the largest outbreaks for measles, sp, polio and more, have happened in over 95% vaccinated populations, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
The FACT that the "debunking" of the autism/vaccines connection was done almost exclusively by studies funded by big pharma, the same people known to manipulate data and hid negative results, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy. Though this is a well known documented fact!
The FACT that many INDEPENDANT studies have shown a connection and that multiple court cases have concluded that the vaccine was the cause of the child's autism and awarded compensation is ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
The FACT that big pharma enjoy a massive amount of influence over regulators, medical schools, medical journals the msn and more, and is able to block or censor most negative vaccine info is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy.
And the FACT that doctors are heavily censored from expressing any concern about vaccines is also ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
I could go on,
And btw, people have offered to challenge the pro-vax message on huge podcasts like Joe Rogan, even lay people, but the esteemed scientists you trust so much have refused and no I don't mean just the covid vaccine.
So do NOT tell me anti-vaxxers don't welcome challenge. You have no idea what you're talking about!
Btw, I've been reaching this since before I ever heard of youtube.
You wouldn't be able to discern a fact if it hit you in the nuts with a sledge hammer. See, you are disproportionately active on here pushing for the poison shots because you A) psychologically invested yourself into this belief as a covidian during the scamdemic and desperately seek to justify it as a sunk cost fallacy no matter how demonstrably fucking wrong you are B) work in industries that developed this particular product, so you seek to justify it to yourself and the rest of society (even without necessarily being an outright paid shill) or C) you are in fact, a paid shill or D) all of the above
So just to recap: because I disagree with you, your response is to accuse me of being psychologically broken, financially invested, or literally part of a shadowy plot?
That’s not an argument — it’s a reflex. And it usually comes from people who haven’t actually looked at the data themselves. If you had, you’d be presenting something concrete — studies, evidence, expert consensus — not just insults and conspiracy buzzwords.
Calling people “paid shills” or “covidians” doesn’t make you sound informed. It makes you sound like someone who’s never had their views tested outside an echo chamber.
If truth is really your goal, then let’s talk facts. But if the only move you’ve got is accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being part of a global psyop, you’re not arguing — you’re just flailing
Heather, I hold a similar view re vaccines, including the unlawfully mandated mRNA gene therapy injections without valid informed consent. I received adverse events from a coerced jab and know many people who were seriously harmed from them.
RFK Jr has good reason to introduce gold standard placebo controlled trials for these dangerous products. In the 1980`s there was 1 in 10,000 people with autism.
In 1986 big pHarma was granted exemption from liability for their poorly tested and ineffective profit driven products and since then the childhood vaccine schedule has expanded significantly. This appears to run parallel to the explosion in autism which now stands at 1 in 31. This is the real health epidemic and RFK Jr is the only one that has taken steps to determine the reasons why.
Jabs appear to be the most likely reason but there may be other factors such harmful flouride waste products included in our drinking water, toxic dyes in our foods and pesticides.
Regardless, why would anyone resist trying to find the cause/s of such a serious problem.
The gold standard has been in effect for decades. We don’t take vaccines that were placebo tested and then run them again. It’s unethical and endangers children.
So once again, we’re seeing the usual anti-vax playbook: misquoted data, wildly misleading stats, and arguments built on gut feelings instead of verified facts. People repeating things that feel true because they haven’t taken the time to actually fact-check their own theories. The level of critical thinking failure here is exhausting.
Let’s walk through the latest example:
• The mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. They don’t alter DNA, they don’t integrate into your genome, and the mRNA degrades rapidly after doing its job. This isn’t debatable—it’s basic cell biology.
• The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act didn’t give Big Pharma a free pass. It created a compensation system because the threat of lawsuits was making vaccines unavailable—especially for kids. Vaccines are still heavily regulated and monitored. That narrative has been twisted into conspiracy gold, but it doesn’t hold up.
• The “1 in 10,000 autism” figure from the 1980s is constantly thrown around, but it’s junk without context. Diagnostic criteria have changed radically. We now recognize a broad spectrum of presentations that were totally overlooked or misdiagnosed before. Of course rates look higher—we’re finally diagnosing people who were previously invisible.
• RFK Jr. isn’t a scientific authority. He’s a lawyer-turned-political figure who’s built a brand on amplifying fear and distrust. His demand for placebo-controlled trials on vaccines ignores the fact that withholding vaccines from children just to satisfy skeptics is not just unethical—it’s dangerous.
You ask, “Why resist finding the cause of autism?”
No one is resisting that. What we are resisting is bad science, flawed reasoning, and weaponized ignorance that hijacks legitimate concern for ideological crusades.
And seriously—at this point, is anyone here capable of forming an accurate hypothesis? Or is it just an endless stream of conspiracies, misinfo, and incorrect facts that collapse under five minutes of scrutiny?
You can’t claim to be searching for truth if you refuse to engage with any of it the second it contradicts your narrative.
We can—and should—ask tough questions. But if you’re going to do that, bring your A-game. Because so far, it’s been nothing but logical shortcuts, cherry-picked outrage, and arguments that wouldn’t pass a high school debate team.
You are so ideologically programmed as to believe centralized consolidated institutions can someone be anything resembling neutral. Fact #1 there is no such thing as neutral human actors and fact#2 Centralization makes corruption risk exponentially worse as can be seen in agriculture, finance and central banking, education and so on not just in the medical field fact#3 the compulsory support of institutions by government parasites removes almost all accountability
And if you think the genetic code injections have fuck all benefit to real health, your one of the biggest fucking idiots in society
I wish. The truth is, I’m actually losing my job because I’m really sick and dealing with multiple chronic illnesses—all while raising a child with severe autism.
This isn’t how I make money. This is me speaking from lived experience, exhaustion, and the constant pressure of trying to survive and advocate for my family at the same time. If anything, engaging in these conversations costs me energy I barely have—but I still do it, because I care about the truth.
So no, I’m not profiting from this. I’m just trying to bring clarity where misinformation is doing real harm
A lot of this would be solved by a huge, systematic study of unvaxxed vs. vaxxed 18 year olds and comparing health outcomes. Especially with the insane levels of vaccinations required in children. Yet no one wants to do this. Why?
Let me ask you this. Where are the "peer reviewed" studies that show the current vaccine schedule is superior to thirty years ago?
I’m all for rigorous studies—especially those that challenge assumptions and dig deeper into long-term health outcomes. But the idea that “no one wants to do a vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study” just doesn’t hold up. The issue isn’t some shadowy refusal—it’s ethics and design feasibility. You can’t ethically randomize children into a “no vaccine” group—it would never pass an ethics board. So we’re left with observational studies, which have been done, but they’re messy and full of confounding factors like socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and education. That makes it hard to extract clean, definitive conclusions—which doesn’t mean the data’s useless, but it does mean it’s not the silver bullet anti-vaxxers want it to be.
That said, I absolutely support more studies—especially for vulnerable subgroups. We need research that’s specifically designed to pick up what broad population studies might miss. Subsets matter. Long-term nuance matters. But that kind of research needs to be done properly—with solid methodology, transparency, and no predetermined agenda.
And here’s the critical point that gets missed over and over: a lack of evidence is not evidence of a cover-up. Sometimes, the study hasn’t been done yet because it’s hard to design, hard to fund, or hard to do ethically—not because “they” are hiding something. This is one of the most common and embarrassing logical failures in anti-vax circles: treating every gap in the data as proof of conspiracy. It’s lazy reasoning, and frankly, it makes you look like someone who can’t think critically.
As for comparing the current vaccine schedule to that of 30 years ago: sure, it’s a fair question. But you’re not going to find a single peer-reviewed paper comparing two entire schedules head-to-head, because that’s a massive, complex task involving countless variables. What you can find are studies of each vaccine’s safety and efficacy, which is how the current schedule got built in the first place. It evolves based on data.
So yes—ask for better research. Demand more transparency. Push for long-term, granular studies. But don’t fall into the trap of assuming that what hasn’t been studied (or what hasn’t confirmed your suspicion) must be part of some nefarious plot. That’s not skepticism—it’s narrative addiction. And it’s doing real damage to people trying to have serious conversations about vaccine safety
You bring up a ton of roadblocks to getting the gold standard type scientific study you demand as any sort of evidence of anything. Yet because "it's too hard," people continue to jab their babies 72 times before they're 18 on the word of people who say "it's too hard" to prove their products are safe. You can't have it both ways.
Once again—poorly researched and poor logic. Are there any anti-vaxxers here who haven’t based their conclusions on misinformation or emotionally satisfying narratives they were too lazy—or too confident—to fact-check before making life-altering decisions?
Because so far, between all of you, not a single actual argument has been presented. No controlled data. No scientific analysis. No coherent engagement with any of the studies I mentioned. Just anecdotes, vibes, and tone policing.
And now we’re back to the classic talking point: “You can’t prove vaccines are safe because there’s no gold standard RCT!”
Let me explain—for the hundredth time.
A randomized controlled trial where we intentionally withhold vaccines from one group of children to compare long-term outcomes isn’t avoided because “it’s too hard.” It’s avoided because it would be grossly unethical. You can’t deliberately leave kids vulnerable to preventable diseases like measles or meningitis just to satisfy someone’s suspicion. That’s not a “roadblock.” That’s called not running human experiments on children.
But that doesn’t mean vaccines aren’t studied. They are—extensively. We have massive observational studies, cohort studies, vaccine injury monitoring systems, retrospective analyses, and decades of post-marketing surveillance—across millions of children, in multiple countries, with independent oversight. The data exists. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t say what you want.
What you’re calling a “lack of proof” is really just “not the specific kind of proof I demand while rejecting all other forms of evidence.”
If your position was actually grounded in evidence, you wouldn’t need to avoid the argument—you’d be making one. But when the entire stance relies on mocking sources, dismissing science, and shifting the goalposts every time you’re cornered, it’s not truth-seeking. It’s just intellectual laziness pretending to be courage.
What are you even talking about? It would NOT be unethical to withhold vaccines from children. THAT (not injecting children with known toxins in a soup of various other things that they'll likely develop immune reactions to because of their relationship with said known toxins), actually would be "called not running human experiments on children". No one said "vaccines aren't studied". And "tone policing"? YOU are the only person here I've seen doing that. You don't need to "explain--for the hundredth time" because we already understand everything you are saying better than you do. You are out of your depth, man. You said "The data exists. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t say what you want." LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Up above you said "If you’re a parent like me, wide awake at 3am trying to understand your child’s suffering—you deserve real science. Not someone exploiting your pain to sell a narrative (and a product). You didn’t fail your child." Well, if you DO have an autistic child, and I'd bet my HOUSE you don't, you failed your child and you are failing your child hard now, being such a malignant narcissist that you will double, triple, quadruple down and ignore everything in the world that might even hint that you made some human errors. You also said above "And you don’t owe these people your belief just because they sound confident. Confidence isn’t credibility. And outrage isn’t evidence." YOUR confidence, outrage, etc is PHONY, and we here are not gullible. Quit talking down to us and go look for a more ethical way to earn a living than defending (other) pharma sociopaths.
Wow. The amount of projection packed into this one comment is almost impressive.
Let me start with the facts: Yes, it is unethical to withhold a proven medical intervention from children in a randomized controlled trial when we already have overwhelming evidence that the intervention prevents serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths. That’s not just my opinion—that’s established research ethics. You can look it up in any legitimate bioethics text or IRB guideline. That’s why we don’t randomly assign kids to “no seatbelt” groups or withhold insulin from diabetics for the sake of a placebo trial. It’s not because we’re scared to test—it’s because we already have the answers, and to pretend otherwise would be negligent and cruel.
You claim you “understand everything I’m saying better than I do,” but nothing in your comment reflects that. Instead, you’ve resorted to personal attacks, assumptions about my child, and accusations that are as cruel as they are baseless. That’s not the behavior of someone confident in their position—it’s the lashing out of someone unwilling to confront the weakness in their own argument.
And just so we’re clear: I do have an autistic child. You don’t need to believe me, but fabricating a narrative in which I don’t—just because you can’t stomach that someone in my position doesn’t share your views—is pure delusion. That level of hostility toward someone you’ve never met is exactly what people mean when they talk about misinformation being driven by rage and insecurity, not evidence.
You’ve written paragraphs about who you think I am, but you haven’t engaged with a single piece of data I’ve referenced. Instead, you’ve tried to dismiss everything with insults and armchair psychoanalysis. That’s not debate. That’s emotional flailing.
I’m not here to win you over. I’m here to make sure other people reading this thread see the difference between genuine skepticism and unhinged conspiracy thinking. Between people asking tough questions and people screaming abuse at anyone who doesn’t validate their worldview.
So if you’re still convinced I’m some pharma-paid narcissist with no child and no integrity, that’s your fantasy to keep. But the rest of us will keep working with facts, evidence, and ethics—no matter how loudly you yell
the fact that you repeat the term 'misinformation' probably means you are some kind of agent provocateur, which by the way it has been openly admitted that intelligence agencies use their own agents and bot farms to push various narratives on the public. And the term ''misinformation' is particularly a rhetorical tactic of 5th generation warfare, so you are either a shill or a useful idiot
the irony of calling me a “useful idiot” while accusing me of being an agent just because I used the word “misinformation.” That word doesn’t magically prove someone is a shill — it just means false or misleading info is being spread, intentionally or not.
Yes, intelligence agencies do push narratives — that’s well-documented. But pointing that out doesn’t automatically make every disagreement part of some covert op. That’s how critical thinking collapses into conspiracy spiraling: when every challenge to a belief gets dismissed as infiltration.
If your default response to disagreement is, “You must be a government agent,” maybe take a step back and ask yourself whether your beliefs can hold up under scrutiny — or if the paranoia is doing the thinking for you
Ah yes, the classic fallback: “pharma bot shill.” The moment someone presents actual evidence or asks you to make a coherent argument, suddenly they must be part of some global conspiracy.
This is exactly what people do when they run out of facts and critical thinking—they replace reason with paranoia. I’m not paid by pharma. I’m just not allergic to logic. Try it sometime—it’s free- idiot
IT's either that or you are a useful idiot. The genetic code injections caused countless deaths and varying severities of injuries UNECESSARILY that even the regime itself basically admits. And oh yes presume that conspiracy REALISM implies that we must believe that thousands and thousand of people are all individually plotting together, instead of the REALITY of compartmentalization and the fact that various actors with disproportionate influence over the compulsion of the state leverage its control systems to align incentives for various social engineering schemes. Nice strawman moron
Thank you for your well reasoned response. One thing I suggest, given the dearth of data for the reasons you mentioned, is to look up autism rates by race/ethnicity, and vaccination rates by same. It looks like vaccination is not causing autism.
Thank you for the respectful tone—I really appreciate that.
You’re absolutely right that population-level data like vaccination rates by race/ethnicity is a useful reference point. But I think it’s important to clarify that the most credible skepticism around vaccines and autism doesn’t claim that vaccines broadly cause autism across all populations. That theory has been thoroughly investigated and debunked, and I fully accept that.
The open question some of us are raising—particularly those of us with children who experienced late-onset regression or have no known genetic explanation—is whether a small subgroup of vulnerable children may react differently due to unique environmental or biological factors. That’s a very different inquiry, and one that population-level data simply isn’t designed to detect.
Population studies are excellent for broad patterns, but they often lack the resolution to identify rare or subgroup-specific phenomena—especially when those subgroups haven’t been clearly defined yet. That’s why targeted research is important and why I’m not advocating for throwing out the existing data, but for adding to it in a more nuanced way.
Thanks again for engaging in good faith—conversations like this are how we move forward.
One more question -- if all the studies to prove the ultimate safety of these products are too difficult to design and carry out, then why are we supposed to believe the results of these other scientific studies "debunking" damages from the vaccines?
This is a false equivalence—and it’s based on a misunderstanding of how scientific research actually works.
No one said studies proving vaccine safety are “too hard to do.” What’s off the table are randomized controlled trials that would require knowingly withholding vaccines from one group of children and giving them to another just to observe who gets sick or dies. That’s not “too hard”—it’s unethical. You don’t need to run a morally indefensible experiment to study something responsibly.
And guess what? Vaccine safety is studied—extensively. We use massive cohort studies, case-control studies, retrospective analyses, and global surveillance systems like VAERS, VSD, and AusVaxSafety. These methods are used across all areas of medicine—not just vaccines—and they allow us to draw strong conclusions without deliberately harming anyone.
So your question—“why believe studies that debunk vaccine injury if we can’t run the perfect trial?”—misses the point. These studies aren’t perfect because no study is, but they’re based on real-world data from millions of children, across decades, and they’re constantly updated. When an actual signal of harm appears, systems catch it and policies change—just look at the rotavirus vaccine withdrawal in the ’90s or the restrictions on AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.
But here’s the part that’s honestly more frustrating than the misinformation itself:
If you want to be a vaccine skeptic—fine. Seriously. Ask tough questions. Push for better safety monitoring. That’s fair.
But at least do the work to understand the issue and make credible arguments. Because right now, 99% of anti-vaxxers are just parroting talking points built on emotional reasoning, cherry-picked anecdotes, misinterpreted studies, or straight-up nonsense. And the fact that so many of you seem completely unashamed of how sloppy the reasoning is? That’s the real problem.
You’re calling me the “anti-truther” while engaging in outright delusion. That’s not critical thinking. That’s tribalism wrapped in self-righteousness.
So yeah—be skeptical. But don’t confuse contrarianism with insight. You don’t get extra points for “going against the mainstream” if you’re just doing it with garbage logic and zero accountability.
Relating to autism but not vaccines, I thought you might like this article:https://voyagela.com/interview/meet-sharmila-quenimherr-integrated-therapy-solutions-west-los-angeles/. My children have not been diagnosed with autism, but I sought out this woman (and a few others) when I suspected my son had a learning disability) and I interviewed her about a method she practices called INPP. I ended up employing a different Occupational Therapist who also uses INPP, and was amazed at the results. INPP (Sally Goddard) doesn't claim to "cure autism" but seems to be able to help people with different kinds of neurological problems. Helped my son begin writing and reading well, and helped my daughter with sensory issues. This woman's son was at age 8 nonverbal and not toilet-trained, and was told there was nothing more that could be done for him. She sought out different treatments (pretty sure it included INPP) and he went to college, speaking and using restrooms and everything, but still autistic.). Might want to contact her and/or Sally Goddard (but I think Sharmila knows more techniques that helped.)
If “anti-truther” just means “someone who doesn’t blindly accept whatever sounds dramatic and emotionally satisfying,” then sure—guilty.
But truth isn’t a team sport. It’s not something you win by repeating it louder or labeling anyone who disagrees. If you actually care about the truth, you should welcome scrutiny—not run from it every time your beliefs are questioned
The truth is still the truth, no matter who says it. But people who can’t handle being wrong often attack the person speaking it, because facing reality is more painful than staying in denial. In the end, it’s comfort over truth-regardless of the consequences. And let’s be honest: that usually comes down to a mix of low integrity and a below-average IQ
Ironic, isn’t it? I get accused of being a bot for using logic instead of emotion—then in the same breath, emotional arguments are dismissed as “rubbing you the wrong way,” even when I’m speaking from lived experience as a parent. So which is it?
Maybe the issue isn’t how I’m responding—it’s that I’m not saying what you want to hear.
Calling reasoned replies “AI” doesn’t make the facts disappear. It just shows how quickly anything that challenges your narrative gets deflected.
And what’s even more telling? Between all of you, not a single actual argument has been presented. No data. No controlled analysis. No response to the studies I referenced. Just anecdotes, tone policing, and vague “just look around you” vibes.
What does that tell you?
If your position were grounded in truth, you’d be engaging with the evidence—not dodging it. But when the entire stance relies on dismissing sources, mocking dissent, and repeating emotionally charged soundbites, it’s not skepticism anymore. It’s a belief system with no accountability.
If the evidence were strong, you’d be making an argument—not avoiding
The article that hosts all these comments provides a good deal of evidence.
You tell us we should dismiss all that evidence for all the reasons same we know we should pay extremely close attention to that evidence.
* "JB Handley isn’t a doctor, a scientist, or an immunologist." EXACTLY--he's a super smart guy driven to do brave and dangerous work out of tremendous love for his child.
*"Mawson’s study, which this post leans heavily on, was published in a journal so obscure...." EXACTLY--the journals run by people who care about nothing more than money wouldn't touch it, and this lends it more credence, not less.
*"None of these studies have been replicated or included in systematic reviews." See my previous point.
I’ve already addressed all of this in a previous comment—and refuted it point by point.
Instead of responding to the counterarguments, you’re just repeating the exact same talking points as if no one said anything. That’s not a conversation. That’s avoidance.
• JB Handley’s lack of medical or scientific training wasn’t dismissed out of bias—it was highlighted because he presents himself as a credible authority while relying on flawed reasoning and cherry-picked data. That matters.
• Mawson’s study being published in a fringe, non-peer-reviewed journal isn’t proof of censorship—it’s proof it couldn’t survive real peer review. That was already explained in detail.
• And no, a study being excluded from systematic reviews isn’t suspicious—it’s standard when the study fails to meet minimum scientific quality thresholds. Again: already explained.
Repeating bad arguments after they’ve been debunked doesn’t strengthen your position—it weakens it. It shows you’re not engaging in good faith, just looking to reassert a belief you’ve already emotionally committed to.
If you’re going to continue arguing these points, at least respond to the refutations—don’t just hit copy/paste on the original claim and pretend I didn’t already dismantle it.
Every comment you make is just more time you get to bill to big pharma. I don't get paid for this. Hence the difference in the amount of time and energy we are willing to put into arguing. I'm done with you. I hope you find someone else to argue with so you can clock more hours and buy that sailboat you have your heart set on.
Not sure what your point is, but if you’re referring to my comment about how easily the anti-vax community is being manipulated, let me clarify: I wasn’t suggesting anti-vaxxers themselves are doing the manipulating. I’m talking about the people feeding you the misinformation—the grifters, bloggers, and influencers who know exactly what to say to keep you hooked. That’s who I was calling out
Except your AI responses have no answer to WHY there has been a >27,000% increase in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses since 1970. Genetics literally cannot even remotely explain it. If you imagine a genetic mutation that somehow has a 100% chance of being passing on to offspring, you'd have, at most, a few dozen cases. And even, in the infinitely small (i.e. non-existent) chance, that the same exact genetic mutation occurred spontaneously in a thousand different carriers, you'd still be nowhere remotely close to a genetic explanation. So, the answer for the >27,000% increase *must* have an environmental explanation. So, where do you begin to look for an answer as at why 1 in 12 boys in California is today diagnosed with ASD. Well, what has changed since 1970? More pesticides/herbicides in our food supply? Check. More radiofrequencies inundating us everyday? Check. More chemicals, many synthetic, included in everyday products like flame retardants and plastics? Check. And more drugs like SSRIs, pain relievers and yes, vaccines (the U.S. has among, if not the, longest vaccine schedule on earth - ~80 childhood vaccine doses compared to about 7 when I was born in the early 80s)? Check. No one is claiming to have all the answers; it's complicated, and it may well be due to a combination of lots of factors. But, what no one has time for is people (or AI bots) like you stifling the righteous search for an answer.
No one’s stifling a righteous search for answers—we want better answers. What we’re pushing back against is when that search gets hijacked by confirmation bias and bad logic masquerading as certainty.
You’re absolutely right that the dramatic rise in autism diagnoses since the 1970s can’t be explained by genetics alone. That’s not controversial—no serious researcher thinks it’s purely genetic. But the leap you’re making—from “not genetic” to “must be vaccines”—is a logical error.
Let’s break it down:
• The 27,000% increase? That number includes massive changes in diagnostic criteria, awareness, school-based services, early screening, and the broadening of what counts as ASD. Autism in the 70s was diagnosed almost exclusively in children with profound intellectual disability. Today, it includes kids who are verbal, highly intelligent, and socially functional but have sensory or communication differences. We’re comparing apples to an orchard.
• Genetic contribution is still real. Twin studies consistently show heritability estimates of 50–90%. That doesn’t mean “caused only by genes,” it means genes create the vulnerability, and something in the environment might pull the trigger—but that’s a far cry from blaming one specific thing like vaccines just because they’re on the list of “stuff that changed.”
• Everything changed since 1970. Diet, parental age, air quality, screen exposure, education standards, antibiotics, acetaminophen use in infants, NICU survival rates, IVF, gut microbiome composition—you name it. Vaccines are one of dozens of changes. And while they’re easy to focus on because they’re high-profile and universal, that doesn’t make them the most plausible culprit.
• Vaccines have been studied more than almost any other environmental factor. Large-scale population studies, meta-analyses, international cohorts—none of them show a causal link to autism. And when a study did claim to show a link (like Wakefield’s 1998 paper), it turned out to be not just flawed but fraudulent, retracted, and discredited by the global scientific community.
Here’s the bottom line:
Yes, the rise in autism diagnoses is real.
Yes, it’s probably not just genetics.
But no—you don’t get to skip over rigorous evidence and latch onto a scapegoat just because it feels emotionally satisfying.
Asking what changed since 1970 is the right question. But scientific inquiry means testing every possibility, not just the ones that already match your suspicion.
Because we’re finally diagnosing people who are not little white boys who flap their hands. Our diagnostic criteria has expanded, which most of us late diagnosed are extremely grateful for.
probably because despite mountains of data, burden of proof still lay with the pro vax side. And if will forever be there, until they perform a saline placebo study. Which they won't.
I appreciate the intent behind your message, and I don’t doubt for a second that your health journey has pushed you to question a lot—mine has too. But let’s be clear: casting the entire research and publishing system as purposefully silencing any critical study on vaccines is not “the hard road.” It’s an emotionally satisfying narrative that fills in gaps without solid evidence.
In fact, using the conspiratorial brush here reveals the very thing you’re warning against: when you hit a gap in knowledge, instead of remaining agnostic or seeking a methodologically sound explanation, you’ve let your preexisting worldview fill it in. That’s not skepticism. That’s confirmation bias with a hero’s arc.
The truly hard road is the one that forces you to challenge your own assumptions, especially the comforting ones that make you feel like you’ve seen through it all. The hard road isn’t believing “what you’re told,” but it’s also not automatically rejecting it because it came from a white coat or a journal. It’s holding space for complexity—for institutional flaws, yes, but also for evidence that doesn’t always land where you want it to.
And just to clarify, I know your “hard road” comment may have been aimed at someone else in the thread, but since you included a note of support addressed to me personally as a parent—I’m responding from that context. I do appreciate the goodwill behind it.
But if we’re really talking about taking the harder road, it starts by resisting both blind compliance and seductive cynicism—and keeping the spotlight on evidence, not ideology.
Tim, I've read many more of your responses on this thread and I agree with much of what you're saying. I'd really like to know, what do YOU think has caused the 27,000% rise in autism since the 70's? What theories do you place the most credence in?
I really appreciate your tone and your willingness to engage in good faith—seriously, it makes a huge difference.
As for the rise in autism diagnoses since the 1970s, I think there’s no single explanation—but a combination of factors that together create what looks like an explosion when, in reality, it’s partly a shift in how we define, detect, and understand autism.
The biggest and most well-supported contributors are:
1. Broader diagnostic criteria: The definition of autism has expanded massively over time. What used to be considered rare and severe is now a spectrum—including high-functioning individuals, sensory processing differences, and social/communication challenges that weren’t previously labeled as ASD.
2. Increased awareness and screening: Parents, teachers, and doctors are looking for signs earlier. In the past, many kids were just seen as “quirky,” “difficult,” or misdiagnosed with intellectual disability, ADHD, or even schizophrenia. Today, they’re more likely to be diagnosed accurately—and earlier.
3. Diagnostic substitution: Studies have shown that many children who would’ve been diagnosed with something else decades ago (like mental retardation or language disorder) are now being diagnosed with autism instead.
That said, I do think environmental factors are worth serious investigation. I just don’t believe vaccines are the strongest candidate based on the evidence we currently have. But there are plausible leads worth exploring:
• Parental age (especially paternal age) is strongly correlated with higher autism risk, and the average age of parents has increased significantly over time.
• Gut microbiome disruption (via antibiotics, diet, C-sections, etc.) is an area of growing research, and could have developmental implications.
• Prenatal exposures—to certain medications, endocrine disruptors, heavy metals, or even chronic inflammation during pregnancy—might be contributing.
• Genetic susceptibility + environmental triggers is likely part of the picture too—this idea that some kids are biologically more vulnerable to environmental insults.
I think the real tragedy is that this conversation keeps getting hijacked by a singular, emotionally charged narrative around vaccines—often pushed with weak evidence or ideological bias—which derails serious research into other potential causes. We lose time, funding, and trust because people get stuck defending bad science instead of investigating new questions.
So yes, I believe the rise is real—but I also believe it’s complex, and it deserves the kind of open-minded, rigorous investigation that sadly gets drowned out by misinformation wars.
I’d be genuinely curious to hear which explanations you find most plausible,
I think it's critical to go back to the definition of words when we're trying to understand a subject and I realized I didn't have a good definition of the word "autism," so I found this one by The American Heritage Dictionary:
"A pervasive developmental disorder characterized by severe deficits in social interaction and communication, by an extremely limited range of activities and interests, and often by the presence of repetitive, stereotyped behaviors.
A mental disorder characterized by inability to engage in normal social interactions and intense self-absorption, and usually accompanied by other symptoms such as language dysfunctions and repetitive behavior.
Behavior showing an abnormal level of absorption with one's own thoughts and disregard for external realities."
I thought about this definition and looked back over all the children I've known and observed over my many years of life and I can honestly say, that for me, the most well-supported contributors to the rise in autism diagnoses are not broader diagnostic criteria and increased awareness and screening. I feel those things could explain a small percentage of the rise in autism, but not be the biggest contributors.
I believe the rise in autism and chronic disease in general is due to all of the factors you mentioned in your comment above - microbiome, endocrine disrupters, medications, diet, pesticides, heavy metals. In addition, I add vaccinations to that mix of factors just mentioned, as another thing the body rejects and views as a poison. Children today receive 70+ vaccines if they adhere to the current schedule, compared to just a few received when I was growing up. Because of their mechanism of action, vaccines can become "the straw that broke the camel's back," whereas the other poisons seem to build up more slowly.
I think one of the main reasons so many "anti-vaxxers" object to vaccines in general is due to the very large numbers of people who have reported very fast decline in health status of infants and children after childhood vaccination appointments. This relatively sudden change in health status was also very widely reported in adults after the Covid shots. It's the suddenness that gets people's attention not the long, slow decline due to the other just as deadly health menaces noted in the last paragraph.
Human bodies were not created to take the toxic onslaught they face today and evolution is a very long process. Because of this fact, many people have decided they will take no more vaccines as a start to recovering their's and their children's health. Then, they know they must undertake the process of eliminating as many of the other toxic factors of modern life as they can. The good news is more and more people are taking up this challenge and there is so much wonderful support from an incredible community of truly health- oriented doctors, scientists and practitioners. It's a wonderful time to be alive and we just need to logically and methodically take the steps to restore health to our bodies.
The human body was not built to take the onslaught of abuse it encounters in today's world and evolution is a long process.
I appreciate that you’re trying to understand this from the ground up—but it’s exactly why we need to clarify what science does and doesn’t say before drawing sweeping conclusions.
First: you’re absolutely right that the world today is full of environmental stressors—endocrine disruptors, pesticides, ultra-processed foods, and more. These are real concerns that are being studied seriously. But you can’t just group vaccines in with that list because they “feel” like one more toxin. That’s not how evidence works.
Vaccines aren’t just another input the body “rejects.” They’re specifically designed to stimulate an immune response in a highly controlled, temporary way—not to accumulate toxicity. They’ve been studied for decades, with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and remain one of the most intensely monitored public health interventions in history. So when we talk about “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” we need actual data showing a causal link—not just timing.
The idea that autism rates have skyrocketed and that diagnostic expansion or awareness only explain a “small percentage” might feel true, but it’s not supported by population-level research. Multiple large-scale reviews have shown that most of the increase in autism diagnoses over the last few decades is due to broader diagnostic criteria, better screening, and increased access to services. That’s not a cover-up—that’s science doing its job: refining definitions and catching what used to be missed.
I understand the temptation to trust our observations—especially when we see kids change suddenly or dramatically. But temporal correlation is not causation. If we used that logic consistently, we’d be blaming teething, airplane rides, or even sleep training for everything from allergies to ADHD. And frankly, I’ve seen far more families experience sudden health crashes from environmental mold exposure or antibiotic disruption of the microbiome than from vaccines—but they don’t always connect those dots because vaccines are a more visible, emotionally charged event.
So yes—let’s take seriously the toxic load our bodies face. Let’s question big food, big pharma, and environmental regulators. But we also need to make sure we’re not lumping everything together just because it feels intuitively “off.” Otherwise we end up ignoring the nuance and throwing out tools—like vaccines—that have saved millions of lives.
Health restoration is a noble goal. But if we want to do it intelligently, we can’t rely on feelings alone. We need to know how to weigh evidence, not just collect anecdotes. Because that’s how progress is made—not by blaming the wrong thing, but by understanding the full picture.
Well, then let me cross "which they won't". I would still be waiting for a saline placebo. By the way, you can dig your teeth into an even deeper conspiracy: that viruses have never been proven to exist. Your searchables would be Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan. Both MDs.
Ah, great—we’ve officially crossed into “viruses don’t exist” territory. I was wondering how long it would take. At this point, we’ve left skepticism behind and landed squarely in epistemological fan fiction.
If you’re still holding out for a saline placebo in vaccine trials, I’d suggest checking the actual data. Several major trials—like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Phase III studies—did use saline controls. Not all trials do, for ethical and logistical reasons, but claiming they “never happen” is just false.
Now, as for your suggestion to “look deeper” into the idea that viruses don’t exist—and pointing to Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan as proof, because they have MDs—here’s the problem: you’ve been fooled by credentials. You’re treating their medical degrees like they magically validate whatever fringe theory they attach themselves to. But having “MD” next to your name doesn’t make you an authority on virology—especially when your arguments completely fall apart under scrutiny.
You’re making the exact kind of appeal to authority you probably accuse others of—just in reverse. You reject mainstream experts but cling to contrarians with the same credentials because they confirm your worldview. That’s not skepticism—that’s bias wearing a lab coat.
And let’s be real: if Kaufman or Cowan had actually disproven the existence of viruses, they wouldn’t be running online echo chambers—they’d be rewriting textbooks and shaking the foundations of biology. But they haven’t. Because they can’t. Because what they’re selling is selectively interpreted nonsense wrapped in credentials, and you’ve mistaken it for insight.
So no, I’m not blindly trusting institutions—but I’m also not mistaking confidence for credibility. If you want to argue science, bring data, not just a guy with an MD and a theory no one in the field takes seriously.
MDs mentioned just to humor you. You have a clever way of flipping the rhetoric back around. But you type too much. Last 2 or 3 back and forths before we go back to our own business.
Thanks—this is exactly the kind of confirmation bias and faulty logic I was talking about. You’ve just perfectly illustrated the classic anti-vax reasoning loop:
“I see unvaccinated kids, and they seem healthier—therefore vaccines must be bad.”
That’s not data. That’s anecdotal observation filtered through expectation. If you believe unvaccinated kids are healthier, you’ll notice every time one doesn’t have a runny nose and ignore every time one ends up hospitalized with a preventable disease.
That’s not science—it’s pattern-seeking with blinders on. And it’s exactly how conspiracy thinking works.
Meanwhile, actual population studies with hundreds of thousands of children—accounting for income, education, and healthcare access—don’t show any mysterious “unvaxxed health advantage.” What they do show is higher rates of hospitalization and preventable illness in unvaccinated kids.
So no, the proof isn’t “in what you’ve seen.” That’s not how proof works. That’s how bias works. Thanks for proving the point.
Said like a true bot! AI Bots cannot "humanize" an argument, Their source of reasoning are strictly the prioritized datasets they are programmed to look at. They don't have the required intelligence nor intuition to make common sense discerning judgements. The problem is that this type of "thinking" is what is promulgated in the fields of education to churn out processing chipmunk humans with barely a an original or creative thought. Leave that task to the "immune" elite!
I’m sorry but it really looks like you used ChatGPT to read and respond to this post. If you’re going to dispute something, have the dignity to do it yourself.
Oh wait — do you actually have an issue with the facts in my argument, or is it just the way they were delivered?
Because honestly, this kind of comment makes it clear that truth doesn’t seem to be your top priority. If it were, you’d be engaging with the points raised — not dismissing them based on how they were written or whether I used ChatGPT to help with structure and fact-checking.
Yes, I wrote the response. I used ChatGPT to help smooth the flow and triple-check accuracy — because I care about getting things right. That’s something we should all want in a discussion, no matter what side we’re on.
But again, instead of addressing any of the actual content, your response goes straight to tone and personal digs — which unfortunately seems to be a pattern in these conversations. If more people on your side took time to fact-check, reflect, and respond in good faith, these debates could actually go somewhere meaningful.
And just to be clear: I wouldn’t mind if you used ChatGPT too — in fact, I’d welcome it. Because if we’re both striving for clarity and truth, we’re already on better ground than most of what’s out there.
Hey, I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the effort you are putting in to counter the misinformation and exemplify using critical thinking to determine who and what to trust, in a time where that can be challenging for people to figure out.
I sense outrage from you, which makes perfect sense in response to the type of misinformation that has caused harm. Nothing wrong with anger or outrage; it can be a very helpful emotion to drive action. But I also feel that maybe I sense some exhaustion.
If that's the case, I hope you don't get pulled in too much and can find moments to step away from this heavy act of arguing with anti-vaxxers and also not think about it for a time.
This seems important to you and is probably helpful to those reading, so I'm certainly not suggesting stopping. Also I am making assumptions about how much energy you are putting in, but in case it ever does feel too draining, I'd like to send a gentle reminder to stay aware of your well-being and prioritize it when having these arguments. ❤️
It may help your 3 AM night worries to know I didn't trust it for the reasons you cited. Not all of us blindly follow select group fringe studies without peer review.
"Confidence isn't credibility." Many of us knew that too. RFK just confidently cited statistics on an interview and every one of them is wrong.
Take good care. I know words from a stranger on the internet may not be helpful, but guilt takes a lot of energy. Give yourself a little kindness for being a good enough father trying to make the best decisions for your child.
I appreciate the sentiment , but I’m getting the impression you have the wrong idea about why I’m awake at 3am- it’s not guilt, I have multiple chronic illnesses myself, plus my level 3 son also has deregulated sleep
Being on the computer at 3am is going to make matters worse for you, and any parent of a "level 3 son". Screens (even when turned red) and all sources of bright, flickering (LED, CFL), and "blue" light should be strictly avoided from dinnertime to morning. Of course this only applies to diurnal animals, not AI bots.
Yes. And the first study mentioned? "Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect."
The second study? States very clearly the results are from a period when thimerosol was in the vaccine.
Also I’m feeling like kids whose parents are taking them to get vaccines are the ones who are more likely to pursue diagnostic work up for mild or moderate symptoms of NDD that may not immediately affect performance but that’s just me.
Thanks for laying it all out because I read the studies too and was going to write up something like this but now I don’t have to!
There is also something called intuition and if we are going to get really crazy, the frequency of Truth that you can feel flowing through everything as either resonant to truth or not. I appreciate science to a degree but the real skill I am interested in parenting and life is being able to follow something else that isn’t dependent on something outside of you. I’m sure many parents can relate and will either know because they followed it or know because they recall suppressing that knowing because it ‘didn’t make sense’ based on everything they are told to do. Most likely we all have examples of both. No one needs to be blamed, but we do need to look toward a different way of being and raising children in the future.
I hear what you’re saying, and I actually agree that intuition plays a huge role in parenting. I’ve had plenty of moments where something didn’t “feel right,” and I’ve trusted that instinct over conventional advice — especially when it came to my medically complex child.
But intuition can’t be the only tool in the toolbox — especially when lives are at stake. Intuition is shaped by emotion, bias, past experiences, even trauma. It’s valuable, but it’s not infallible. That’s why we have science: to check our gut against objective reality.
When it comes to things like vaccines or serious health decisions, relying only on a feeling of “resonance” is dangerous — because your intuition might be screaming based on misinformation you didn’t even realise you absorbed.
The tragedy is, anti-vax rhetoric has hijacked people’s genuine desire to protect their kids. It takes something sacred — that parental instinct — and twists it into fear-based certainty, often against mountains of evidence.
So yes, let’s honour intuition. But let’s also have the humility to admit when our instincts might need to be tested, challenged, or clarified by science. The goal isn’t blind obedience to authority — it’s wisdom. And wisdom means knowing when to trust your gut… and when to double-check it
I so appreciate your persistence on this topic. You could have lived in obscurity and accepted your son's damage in private. Thank you for not doing that.
And kids on Medicaid. Some groups with sample sizes so tiny that they are indicative of absolutely nothing. This is a scientifically illiterate article
Because he’s not showing you the full picture—he’s leaving out the mountain of high-quality studies that directly contradict everything he’s claiming. And the ones he is citing? Many are so weak or methodologically flawed that they’re only taken seriously by fringe anti-vax communities. Some aren’t even considered valid evidence by any credible standard.
So ask yourself: is it more likely that he somehow missed all the most robust, widely-accepted research and just happened to find the most obscure, rejected studies out there? Or does he know exactly what he’s doing—and simply doesn’t care, because fear and misinformation are profitable when you’re targeting people who are overwhelmed, desperate for answers, or just trying to protect their families?
As a parent of a level 3 autistic child, I can tell you—this kind of misinformation doesn’t just muddy the waters. It actively harms people. It makes it harder for genuine skeptics like myself to have real, evidence-based conversations, because now any questioning gets lumped in with this manipulative garbage.
If you want to see the actual evidence behind what I’m saying, refer to my reply to his article. It breaks it all down clearly. Then decide for yourself whether this is someone worth trusting.
Tim Lee is an AI Bot. Look at all of his responses: they're AI-generated (i.e. regurgitating the narratives that have programmed AI). Ignore them at your peril.
No im not regurgitating ai narratives im presenting studies, just like the author of this article - except , im presenting high quality studies and giving you the full picture , as opposed to a limited perspective and making sweeping truth claims based on al ost totally irrelevant data, or at the very least using that data in a totally incoherent way, but he knows none of you will actually fact check him because he understands that you all are quite simple , and are desperate for anyone to confirm what you already believe with what looks like rational argumentation to the untrained mind.
So yes - exactly , ignore my arguments at your own peril- or more importantly to your children’s peril, because you clearly do not understand the risks you’re taking.
Also facts are facts - whether they come from ai or they come from your pet dog, so how about engaging with them instead of attacking my character or questing my humanity, it just shows how fragile your position is and that your opinions are not based on truth. Proving all the stereotypes about anti vaxxers true , most people would be embarrassed vs by that, but you seem wholly ignorant of it , just like your ignorant of the mountain of facts that undermine your position.
That ‘tip of the iceberg’ conclusion should tell everyone that your ability to drawn conclusions from zero facts is impressive.
I mean, there’s THIS (poor quality) study! And because it’s hard to get this (poor quality) study published in a high quality scientific peer-reviewed medical journal, it must mean there’s lots more of THESE (low quality) studies.
You’re right Mr. Pants On Fire, there are lots of low quality studies waiting to be manipulated into your low quality opinions.
You think the New England Journal of Medicine would publish a study showing vaccines cause harm? If so, you are living in a dream world. The final study included Medicaid records of 47 thousand people...
That’s odd — if the study with 47,000 Medicaid records is so compelling, why didn’t you cite that in your original essay instead of the much smaller 1,000-participant one?
It looks like you’re trying to retroactively strengthen your point with a study you didn’t originally reference — and hoping no one notices. If the data was that decisive, you would’ve led with it. That you didn’t suggests either the study doesn’t say what you’re implying, or you haven’t actually read it.
And claiming that journals like The New England Journal of Medicine would never publish harm data? That’s simply false. Peer-reviewed journals have absolutely published on adverse effects — including rare vaccine-related risks. That’s how we know about them: because legitimate researchers studied them and published the results transparently.
If you want to argue that the Medicaid records were manipulated or selectively analyzed to push a narrative, that’s a serious accusation — and it requires serious evidence, not just suspicion.
Science advances through open data, reproducible methods, and constant challenge. If you’ve got hard evidence that overturns current consensus, great — submit it, replicate it, and publish it. But brushing off peer-reviewed studies just because you don’t like the outcome isn’t critical thinking. It’s motivated reasoning.
Find a study that controls for the fact that, 40 years ago, the only kids getting autism diagnosis were the profoundly autistic boys with signficant developmental delays.
Neurodivergence in 2025 is seen as a spectrum disorder, and ASD is being diagnosed in more kids who don't have such a profound handicap. 20-30 years ago these low level ASD diagnosis would likely have been diagnosed with ADHD, Asperges, OCD or other mood disorders.
I think we are very close to finding genetic markers that link all these disorders and it will be possible to have a diagnostic test for ASD in the near future.
And I think what's driving this trend in diagnosis of low level ASD is parents looking for accomadations and supports for their neurodivergent kids in schools.
It also seems very likely that parents who are more compliant with vaccine schedules would also be more likely to seek a medical diagnosis of ASD than parents who were non-compliant with vaccination.
Absolutely! These studies have been coming out from other countries for quite a while. Anyone who really has done their research on jobs would have come across these studies and as a general role they have consistently shown the same things: un jabbed children have less short and long-term illnesses And immuno deficiency issues than jabbed kids do!
If we ignore the overwhelming evidence of child life expectancy with and without vaccines, then we can apply basic logic. Vaccinated children don't die of Smallpox or Measles, nor suffer early death due to comorbities such as Polio. Unvaccinated children do. All other causes of death are vaccine agnostic.
What sort of source would you like me to link? The peer-reviewed science is in any of the robust scientific journals. The life expectancy statistics are too (and are often linked on health policy websites). The 'children who catch fatal diseases can die from them' stats are, well, I'm not sure anyone has formally done research on that.
Well, idk what country you live in and if they also have an official website where they state numbers of infecions of diseases that are obligatory to report, and how many of these infected people die. In some cases they even state how many of them were unvaccinated.
Looking at these numbers I can tell you that your generalized "unvaccinated children die much earlier" is wrong.
It’s good to see these studies; thanks for sharing them. It seems as if vax status is likely to be compounded with other factors, however, if there is no random assignment to groups? In a society in which most kids are vaccinated (many under coercion of course), it seems likely that unvaccinated kids are different in other ways than just vax - eg parental attention to diet and other environmental matters. It’s hard to tell of course, but studies in which vax status is randomised (not the results of parental volition) - while clearly very difficult to conduct - will provide better evidence.
One of the more fascinating data we need to capture is the unvaccinated younger siblings of kids with autism. Anecdotally, they seem to be incredibly healthy...
A (hero!) vaccine skeptic doctor refused that money. And what happened when pressed by his medical board to prove that his no-vaccine plan for his adolescent patients was as safe as the CDC schedule? Turns out it was basically 99% less damaging based on every metric he could measure. His license was revoked for his trouble (this one is a must watch if you have yet to see it):
The Film Rain Man Was Likely Forged to Pre-Program the Populace For the Upcoming Explosion in Vaccine Induced Autism.
1986: Congress Grants Immunity Shield to Vaccine Makers for Venom Injection Damage | Film Rain Man Begins Production
1988: Rain Man Released to Educate, Condition, & Normalize Autism
1986—2025: Number of vaccines administered explodes to 78 - and rising - from birth to two years of age. Autism diagnoses explode right along with them.
I thought it was 78 vaccines by age 18? You’re saying it’s 78 by age two, is this accurate? If so that’s startling. That would be 3+ vaccines a months for the first 2 years.
You're absolutely right, it is by age 18. And it's 78 doses of vaccines across the spectrum rather than 78 different vaccines. I've updated my information, thank you KT
Do your homework… the media says measles. The truth is one died of mycoplasma pneumonia, incorrectly treated. The other, likewise, a misdiagnosis and wrong treatment. The parents allowed independent MDs access to the records. But go ahead and swallow the media lies. Guess you still believe in Iraq’s WMDs or that COVID vaccines prevent infection and transmission
Mycoplasma pneumonia is actually a sign of immune suppression. The child probably had an underlying immune condition, which is precisely the type of person that could die from measles, and which wouldn’t be elegible for the vaccine either. A healthy child will just have a rash and malaise for a few days.
She had been put on steroids which also suppress the immune system. She was 6 years old, so surely any primary immunodeficiency would have manifested itself long ago. Moreover, the most common cause of ATYPICAL community acquired pneumonia is mycoplasma while the most common cause of general community acquired pneumonia is Strep pneumoniae.
Atypical pneumonia because it’s not the kind a generally healthy person would get. Primary immunodeficiencies would manifest earlier, but those are not the only kinds of immunodeficiencies. If the cause was the steroids, then the treatment is what caused the problem, not the measles.
Exactly, the mis-treatment is what caused her demise. And you are correct, the word ‘atypical’ is commonly used because mycoplasma pneumonia is not the typical pneumonia that causes accumulation of inflammatory cells and fluid in the airspaces (alveoli), but rather causes inflammation of the framework (interstitium) surrounding the airspaces. It is also sometimes called ‘walking’ pneumonia in healthy adults and manifests as a cough without production of sputum.
JB, please help! I live in Ontario, Canada where vaccines are MANDATORY for all public and private school children😞 I’m pressured by my doctor to vaccinate my 12 month old! My doctor told me to look at the diseases and not the ingredients. What should I do?! And where can I learn about these diseases that we vaccinate for? Thank you thank you🙏❤️❤️
Thanks for your input JB! But what if I don’t have the means for it?😞 Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with everyone here, I bet it has saved some lives❤️🙏
That's a really personal decision I'd say treat every vaccine like its own surgery and do the research on risk vs benefit. There are obvious vaccines to avoid like Hep B (unless the mom is hep b positive) and varicella (they don't even give in the UK) but for the rest you need to do the work, I'm not a doctor just a dad
I did not have my children vaccinated. I began researching in 2005.
My children will turn 20 and 17 in June. They have no chronic disease nor do they take any medications. Healthy and happy! My son did have an allergy to eggs and dairy (i believe that was due to his Cesarean birth and limited breast milk during the first year of his life) which I cured through gut biome healing and removal of all inflammatory foods. Do not let a doctor force any medications on your children that are known and proven to harm. You are his mother, his protector.
The book Dissolving Illusions addresses the falling rates of mortality from "vaccine preventable diseases" as well as other diseases which were never vaccinated for, coinciding with increasing access to clean food, water (sanitation and plumbing), air, and basic medical care that is not counterproductive (vitamin therapy, IV fluids, etc.), i.e. what living in a modern society looks like.
Fascinating that the book lists access to clean food, water and air as key factors. These have been available for millennia. Yet life expectancy wasn't great in 1,000 years ago.
The number of people killed by pirates has decreased as the earth's temperature has risen. This doesn't prove that global warming will eradicate piracy. If you think vaccines have nothing to do with decreasing mortality, I would be curious to know if you would expose your children to Smallpox, Measles and Polio. Admittedly, Smallpox would be a challenge...as vaccines eradicated the disease.
If you vax, there will be damage whether you see it right away or years later. Bodies react and tolerate them differently. Out of my 3 kids, 2 are partial vaxxed and 1 had none, the unvaxxed has never been sick except a rare cold and she is 20 yrs old.
In 2019 our pediatricians office refused to care for their unvaxxed children anymore so we never went back but didn't need to because she never got sick or even needed antibiotics. We only went to get a school checkup once a year. They make their money on vaxxes and sickness they create so no loss for them when they stopped treating the unvaxxed.
Take care. I thought I posted this on your comment but posting again just in case...
We are always at risk for something but measles and mumps rarely kill and not normal healthy kids. My husband survived mumps just fine as a child and he was vaxxed for it. He survived encephalitis too which is caused by parasites. He also used to get MRSA often after a bad injurious accident at work, and the last time he got MRSA, the antibiotics did not heal it and he physically (side effects) couldn't do another round so we used colloidal silver and tumeric in semi-large doses. It cured him and never came back... no side effects.
Since then, I found that MMS is the best and safest for everything and have been using it for years for many things like cleaning my veggies, mouthwash, insect bites, itchy areas, put in dog water (dog is 9 with white teeth never needed cleaned), my cat never got crystals in his euethra again, for everything every day. I gradually started using it as I was afraid, but it is amazing. Google lies about it and no wonder since big pharma would lose $$$$$.
BTW it also cured a man I shared it with who had an incurable blood infection, said he had months to live, and was on all sorts of meds. He learned about it and 1 year later he is off all meds and showed me his documented medical records of improvement.
There is quite a bit of talk that it can lessen or cure autism on youtube if they didn't remove it.
I have to agree with Mr. Handley, at whatever it takes to make it work. I know it's not easy. I've been a single mom, I get it; but if there are no exemptions in your area, please don't let them poison your child. I would also add fire your doctor. Stay way from MDs, period, unless your child breaks a bone or other "mechanical" issues. Lie if you're asked if they're "up to date" on vaccines. It's a persistent myth that a pediatrician is necessary for our children's health. As for further info, "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries is an excellent, detailed summary of the so-called diseases that are vaccinated against. It's very eye-opening.
There has NEVER been a parent that regrets NOT vaccinating, yet millions of us regret having done so. You are in a position that we envy, You can prevent destroying your child's health and save yourself and your child a lifetime of heartache. If only I could go back....
If you haven't already, you could read "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries. It explains the history of the diseases. "Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth" edited by Zoey O'Toole and Mary Holland basically explains how vaccine safety and efficacy studies are manipulated. "The Vaccine Friendly Plan" by pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas also discusses the risk vs. benefit of the (U.S.) childhood vaccine schedule. I believe he ultimately followed the data he collected, and his conscience, and no longer recommends vaccinating. Journalist Sharyl Attkisson has a Substack and one of her many articles discusses risk vs. benefit of vaccines. I also recommend reading everything that JB Handley has ever written. I have a 27 year old daughter with Asperger's Syndrome and a 25 year old son with Level 3/Profound/non-verbal Autism. If I could go back in time, I would move heaven and earth to homeschool my children. There are so many more low-cost and free resources now then there were in the early 2000's.
Lisa❤️🥺 I’m so sorry to hear this about your children🥺 Thank you so much for your time in sharing all these resources with me, I truly appreciate it❤️🙏
There have always been autistic children, largely due to genetic factors, but genetic factors alone cannot explain the explosion of cases. One only has to look back to realize that it also cannot all be explained by increased diagnosis or widening of diagnostic criteria.
Ok….so look at the diseases. How are they transmitted? Some of them are STDs (hep B and HPV)…..your baby doesn’t need those.
How common are they? Some of them haven’t been seen for 45 years (polio and diphtheria). Your baby doesn’t need those. Some of them (tetanus) you are more likely to get hit by meteor than get tetanus.
How bad is the disease (usually)? Chicken pox and roto-virus are pretty mild most of the time. You risk more with the vaccine than the disease.
How effective is the vaccine against it. The mumps vaccine is a known fraud. The pertussis vaccine is quite ineffective in general and is very ineffective in the most high risk catagory (tiny babies). Your best bet with pertussis is to stay out of daycares.
So what are you left with….a meningitis vaccine that is about as dangerous to get the vaccine as to not as meningitis is rare. And a pneumonia vaccine that works ok against the strains it has in it, but pneumonia is very complicated and often has nothing to do with those strains.
The measles vaccine does work, but it is lumped in with a vaccine that doesn’t work and one that was made off the life of children killed in the womb for the vaccine.
Hi Lina. You might find some peace knowing that the options for illness management aren’t only vaccinate or don’t vaccinate. There’s a whole world of amazing natural herbs that boost the immune system and are helpful for recovering from symptoms. One problem in our society is that people aren’t aware of that so they think vaccination is the only option. I think you’ll find if you spend some time studying herbs, teas, and supplements like Vitamin C, Zinc, etc, you might feel less fear around getting sick.
I live in Ontario. I went to city hall and paid for an exemption. My independent school no longer pressured me.
HOWEVER! The moment my children’s doctor was alone with them at 12 & 13 years old (I thought they might want to develop a relationship for future private issues and so arranged a solo appointment for them) she vaccinated them. My kids knew they had an exemption and why but felt pressured. I had not been clear with the doctor’s office and didn’t know vaccines were on the table at this appointment.
Tanja, just reading back to your comment now and I forgot to respond about the doctor who unknowingly vaccinated your children. Wow. This is not right what they did. They didn’t respect your wishes and even went as far as going behind your back to vaccinate your children. It’s such malpractice as a medical professional😟
Thank you so much for your reply Tanja❤️! I just moved to Ontario less than a year ago. I’m originally from NS where vaccines are not mandatory in schools. My baby is a year old now and I’ve been pressured by everyone to vaccinate because daycares and schools all require them apparently😣🥺😔…Tanja, can you please share what the process was like to get the exemption? Thank you so much🙏❤️❤️
Yup! I got married at City Hall so on our wedding day while paying for the license and ceremony I simply asked for the vaccine exemption paperwork (and paid for it of course). No questions asked! It may be called a religious exemption or conscientious exemption. You got this!
Thanks so much for the information Tanja!❤️🙏🙏 I never knew these existed, it seems like the only choices I hear are make a fake vaccine document or join a religious group…😬! Thanks again and have a nice summer❤️🫶
Without the benefit of these remarkable studies, I chose not to vaccinate my children: I did this over 50 years ago. I applaud these authors for taking these studies on, fully knowing what they were up against.
However, my one failing was the tetanus shot. My husband wanted our six children to have all the vaccinations, but I refused. Yet any time an incident occurred… You all know the story… A rusty nail…That particular child would get a tetanus shot. ( In my opinion, none of the vaccinations are safe, but I now think the TBD shot is the worst.) These arguments almost meant the end of our marriage, over and over, and I gave in for This One shot because “Measles and mumps didn’t scare me, but, as we all have been told, lockjaw means death.”
For Americans to fully wake up, we need more studies, real studies, honest studies, not funded by big Pharma. We need to stop vaccinating our children..Full Stop. End of Story.
Oh, and I was lucky. The tetanus shot was just tetanus. In 2012 you could no longer get the tetanus by itself. You had to do the DPT. And interestingly, enough, all of my children had pertussis and it was a two week long soree (party, haha) because it went from one to the next and now they’re all immune for life.
Fortunately they survived the DPT. The acellular pertussis in the TDaP in use now may increase lifetime susceptibility to the disease. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30793754/
“Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”
Just the fact that over the last forty years, this particular suite of products has been…
Lionized Incessantly
AND
Made Liability-Free
AND
Mandated
…hints with as much subtlety as a high-speed car crash about:
1. what is likely to be true about the total impact of their use; and
2. why vested interests have spent so much public-health-industrial-complex treasure on gate-keeping discussion on the topic with censorship, and fending off critical path research with funding and publishing embargoes.
As the old Sesame Street bit went: “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong, can you tell which one is not like the other, before I finish this song.”
🧪 What the Science Says (2024–2025 data included):
✅ Vaccines are safe and effective.
The overwhelming consensus from thousands of studies worldwide is that:
Vaccines do not cause autism.
The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.
The risk of severe side effects is extremely low — typically less than 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1 million doses for serious adverse events.
🔬 Key Studies:
2019 Danish Study: Followed over 650,000 children for more than a decade. Found no link between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism.
2021 CDC & WHO Meta-Review: Assessed over 160 studies, confirmed that vaccines prevent millions of deaths and that the serious side effects are “exceedingly rare.”
2023 UK Study: Compared vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children; vaccinated children had lower rates of hospitalization, no increase in neurodevelopmental issues, and were less likely to die from infectious diseases.
⚖️ Risk: Vaccine vs. No Vaccine
Risk TypeVaccinated ChildrenUnvaccinated ChildrenSevere side effects~1 in 100,000–1 millionNo vaccine side effects, but exposed to diseaseHospitalization riskSignificantly reducedUp to 10× higher (e.g., for measles, whooping cough)Death from preventable diseaseNear zeroMeasles: ~1–2 in 1,000; Polio: paralysis in ~1%Long-term complicationsExtremely rare (e.g., allergic reaction)Common from diseases: deafness, brain damage, paralysis
➡️ Conclusion: It’s significantly riskier to go without vaccines than to receive them.
🧨 What About VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)?
Anti-vaccine activists like Handley often cite VAERS data to claim vaccines are unsafe.
But: VAERS is self-reported, unverified, and explicitly warns that reports do not prove causation.
Example: One famous VAERS report claimed a person turned into the Incredible Hulk after a vaccine — which was obviously false, but still logged.
🧠 Misinformation vs. Science
Handley's views have been widely debunked by the CDC, WHO, FDA, and major medical journals.
His claims are not supported by peer-reviewed science, and in many cases, misinterpret or selectively cherry-pick data.
Even organizations that previously published his work (like certain autism-focused advocacy groups) have since distanced themselves due to the lack of scientific backing.
🛡️ Final Verdict:
J.B. Handley’s claims do not hold up to current scientific scrutiny. Vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective. Not vaccinating children puts them at significantly greater risk of disease, hospitalization, and even death.
Scientific scrutiny is manipulated. It isn't even science and I know our country has conducted horrible experiments on people over the the years even Bill Clinton admitted it.
My observations…
I have grown kids and stopped vaccinating in 2004. When my oldest was 5, she got seriously ill and was paralyzed with pain in crital condition right after she started kindergarten and we never found out what it was but now looking back, I wonder if it was after her wellness visit to vax to start school? She made it through but some time after that she had a seizure out of the blue and never again but I wonder if that was after a doctor's visit. I didn't suspect so…
My youngest born in 2004 did not get any vaccines. She never stayed home sick from school and rarely got a cold. I don't recall her even getting a fever or needing antibiotics. Maybe once?
Back in 2018, my pediactric office started refusing to treat unvaxxed children so we never went back and got her wellness checkup with a chiropractor. That was only thing we went to the doctor for anyway.
They make you fear and dependent on needing them but the need us.
Initially I saw the virulence of the propaganda push for the injections. But over time I started wondering how sound the whole premise of inducing the immune system's ability to fight a disease by exposing it to a micro-hit of the disease. It sounds so plausible, logical, but my doubts persisted. I only got 2 vaccines that I remember, in the late '50s, & I've been mostly free of health challenges. My sister's 2 daughters, though - one has turbo cancer now from the recent injection, & a grandchild is autistic. The odds of that happening in the natural course of things is infinitesimal. Then I started reading Sasha Latypova here on Substack. The whole vaccine 'industry' is an ongoing scam. But few want to consider that possibility.
Refer to my initial post! Do what you want but not getting your children vaccinated is only increasing their chances of adverse disease ramifications to those very children. Remember the easiest person to fool is yourself, be relentless in your pursuit for truth.
Today my vaxxed up 74 yo mother in law is in town staying with us and she takes so many meds that my husband asked her if it was breakfast. On the other hand, my older unvaxxed 81 yo mother is also here with us and she only takes a blood pressure pill.
My MIL got lupus after a flu shot 10 years ago and after the covid shot, she has a plethora of issues.
I have seen the same thing Over and over. They don't protect and only harm.
Wow, you really believe vaccines are benign & not a bioweapon. All the evidence points to the latter. Vaccines came along soon after the eugenics movement became respectable. Not a coincidence.
I say the same to you. Just do your research. Peer reviewed studies across the globe make this an easy one. Just correlate vaccine use - non-use, demographics and deaths and the evidence is patently clear - vaccines save lives.
Cases to support:
Covid: A comprehensive study utilizing data from seven Vaccine Safety Datalink sites in the U.S. analyzed non–COVID-19 mortality rates among recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines. After adjusting for factors such as age, sex, and race/ethnicity, the study found that vaccinated individuals had significantly lower non–COVID-19 mortality rates compared to unvaccinated individuals. For instance, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for non–COVID-19 mortality after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.30–0.33), indicating a 69% reduction in risk. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8553028/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Measles: Rural Bangladesh: A longitudinal study in rural Bangladesh found that measles vaccination led to a 46% reduction in mortality among children aged 9–60 months. This effect was especially pronounced among children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, indicating that vaccination can help reduce health disparities .
Global Perspective: An analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys encompassing approximately 1 million children across 62 countries revealed that complete vaccination coverage (including measles, BCG, DPT, polio, and maternal tetanus vaccines) was associated with a 27% reduction in under-five mortality compared to areas with no vaccination coverage .
Smallpox: Denmark Study: A Danish cohort study following individuals born between 1965 and 1976 found that those who received both smallpox (vaccinia) and BCG (tuberculosis) vaccines had a 46% lower risk of death from natural causes compared to unvaccinated individuals. This suggests that these vaccines may confer broader health benefits beyond their target diseases . https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5837789/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Influenze: Hospitalization Rates: Compared to White adults, influenza hospitalization rates were nearly 80% higher among Black adults, 30% higher among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults, and 20% higher among Hispanic adults.
AJMC
Vaccination Coverage: During the 2021–2022 season, flu vaccination coverage was 54% among White adults, but only 42% among Black adults, 38% among Hispanic adults, and 41% among AI/AN adults.
I conclude many of you are not willing to do the work to find the truth. If you are I've given recommendation to several books that will help you understand big data, and critically think - a prerequisite in today's age of infinite information where half-truths are a dime a dozen. You must put in the work to avoid being fooled.
Without propaganda, fake stats, and fear mongering through 'trusted' sources like doctors CDC news virus movies etc, people would be much more skeptical.
Because of all the globe and NASA propaganda I started looking into flat earth and it is compelling.
Our true history has been manipulated to control us.
I didn't want to even consider it myself... until I looked and saw enough compelling evidence.
Watch 1969 moon landing and you will know that's not real and they talked to the president from the moon on a landline with no time delay. Sure they did.
If they lie about that, nothing they say can be trusted.
Genesis 1 explains when God created the earth He divided waters. There is no space. He put the sun moon and stars inside the firmament for us. Not in space.
If you believe the Bible then there it is. If not, that is what they want. They want to keep us from God and we are just another planet spinning around the sun, and we are nothing special. The heliocentric solar system model is sun worship. Helios is a sun god. 🌞
I can see you're a special kind of.... I like this quote from Carl Sagan. “Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe.”
So to move forward get back to me when you've read this book, it will help you understand a few things: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
and here is video series that will also enlighten you:
- In 1825, over 20% of infants died at birth, and nearly half of children didn’t survive past age 10.
- By 1925, medical advances had cut those numbers significantly.
- Today, thanks to modern healthcare, both rates are very low.
Vaccines alone likely saved ~10–25% of the children who would have died in 1825 — tens of millions globally over 200 years and hundreds of thousands in the U.S.
Here is a list of Vaccines that have had the biggest impact on child survival in the U.S.:
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTaP)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
Polio
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Rotavirus
Hepatitis B and A
Influenza (for children under 5)
Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV)
Science is real! there is a great book 'misbehaving' by Richard Thaler and the books by Daniel Kahneman that would be beneficial in helping you understand information, increase your critical thinking and decision making.
I appreciate your reply. However, the 1825 stats are probably made up like most history, but there are advances that have prevented loss. For instance, mothers can survive C-sections now.
Did children die from sickness or inury? Antibiotics helped IMO rather than vaccines.
As far as vaccines, many sicknesses were in decline because of cleanliness and medical advances, not necessarily vaccines.
When I started teaching in the 90s, the odds of autism were like 1/150ish and now they are 1/31???? I personally have known at least 3 people over the years who had normal babies and as soon as they got their 18mo shots, went from engaging to blankness. I also met a father (20+yrs ago) whose child died from mercury poisoning after routine vaccination. He told me he had an autopsy and shared https://www.vacinfo.org which is when I questioned them. Now they claim to remove the mercury? Like they didn't know it was deadly toxic before?
Cancer rates and allergies are much much greater as well. Schools no longer use peanut butter, but they used to.
My niece has 2 boys under 3 and they both are up to date with vax, but they both have severe allergies to food and both are covered in "eczema" all over their arms and hands from what I saw.
Believe the science and trust the eugenisists like Gates if you want. I have seen what they have done in Africa and India and money talks....
Here's a few reasons why Dissolving illusions does not hold up:
Selective Use of Data: The book emphasizes mortality rates while often neglecting morbidity data. This approach overlooks the significant suffering and complications caused by diseases, even when death rates declined. For instance, before the measles vaccine, the U.S. experienced approximately 48,000 hospitalizations and 4,000 cases of measles encephalitis annually, leading to severe complications like blindness and neurological damage. VACCINESWORKBLOG.WORDPRESS.COM
Misinterpretation of Historical Context: While it's true that improvements in public health infrastructure contributed to declining mortality rates, the introduction of vaccines further accelerated the reduction of both morbidity and mortality. The book's narrative downplays this synergistic effect.
Promotion of Unproven Treatments: The authors advocate for alternatives like high-dose vitamin C therapy for diseases such as tetanus and pertussis. These claims lack robust scientific evidence and are not supported by mainstream medical research.
Conflation of Correlation and Causation: The book often presents temporal associations between improved living conditions and declining disease rates as evidence against vaccine efficacy, without adequately addressing the multifactorial nature of public health advancements.
It seems that you are spending time repeating talking points rather than reading the book yourself. I'd encourage you to actually read it in its entirety, as well as studying all the citations of interest prior to commenting on it. Blogs written by folks who would argue no matter what evidence is presented are not credible sources.
It’s 3am. I can’t sleep. Again. And I’m reading through this anti-vax propaganda piece that’s masquerading as “scientific truth,” and honestly? I feel sick.
Because what this movement is doing isn’t just spreading misinformation—it’s destroying the opportunity for legitimate, evidence-based vaccine skepticism. The kind that could actually help families like mine. Instead, they’ve turned the entire conversation into a marketplace of fear. And people like JB Handley? They’re getting rich by monetizing the grief, guilt, and confusion of exhausted, sleep-deprived parents like me.
Let’s talk about what this post doesn’t tell you—because that’s where the real manipulation lives:
⸻
What They Leave Out (But You Deserve to Know):
• Mawson’s study, which this post leans heavily on, was published in a journal so obscure it’s not even indexed in PubMed. It was originally pulled for ethical violations and then quietly republished in a pay-to-play journal. It wasn’t peer-reviewed in any legitimate way. And the sample? Self-selected homeschoolers, many of whom were already anti-vax—meaning the bias was baked in from the start.
• The Hooker and Miller study used medical records from a single pediatric practice that caters to vaccine-hesitant families. That’s like running a climate study by interviewing only flat-earthers. There’s no control group. No randomization. Just cherry-picked data from an echo chamber.
• That “ninefold risk” of special education from the Hep B vaccine? The sample was 46 vaccinated boys vs. 7 unvaccinated. That’s not statistically meaningful. That’s a coin toss dressed up in a lab coat.
• None of these studies have been replicated or included in systematic reviews. Meanwhile, there are dozens of large-scale, high-quality studies from around the world—Japan, Denmark, the U.S.—involving millions of children that show no link between vaccines and autism. And if even one of these fringe studies had found something solid, we’d see it reflected in the broader scientific literature. We don’t.
• And let’s not ignore this: JB Handley isn’t a doctor, a scientist, or an immunologist. He’s a former private equity guy. He’s made money off fear—selling books, pushing documentaries like Spellers, and now raking it in on Substack while emotionally manipulating parents who just want answers.
⸻
So no, this isn’t brave truth-telling. This is yellow journalism 2.0—clicks, cash, and conspiracy vibes.
And what makes me angriest is that this kind of garbage makes it nearly impossible to raise real, thoughtful questions about the vaccine schedule, adjuvants, or long-term outcomes. Because the conversation’s been hijacked by snake oil salesmen in lab coat cosplay.
If you’re a parent like me, wide awake at 3am trying to understand your child’s suffering—you deserve real science. Not someone exploiting your pain to sell a narrative (and a product).
You didn’t fail your child. And you don’t owe these people your belief just because they sound confident. Confidence isn’t credibility. And outrage isn’t evidence.
This movement isn’t about truth. It’s about profit.
And if you’ve got even a shred of self-awareness left after reading these “studies,” you’ll see it
The reason studies questioning the current vaccine products and schedules aren't published in the big journals is because they pull them purposely and, in addition, grant monies are not given to studies that may cast vaccines in a bad light.
I respect your desire, as the parent of an autistic child, to get honest information, but it may require confronting things that are difficult to confront. I never would have believed any of the things coming out now about big pharma, the medical complex, etc., if I hadn't had my own severe health issues that I had to solve on my own. If you find yourself facing life or death you have two choices: believe what you are told and accept your fate or go on your own quest for knowledge. If you choose the latter, it's a tough road - just ask anyone who's been there - and on that journey you discover uncomfortable truths about the current medical system that you must confront to get well.
I wish you the strength to take the more difficult road.
hang on I think we're dealing with an AI bot here :'( Tim Lee is just a bot. Paste its replies into an AI detector.
You don’t have a legitimate argument or any facts - so you attack how those facts are presented because you literally have nothing .
Come with facts not emotion or ad hominems it just exposes how weak your position is
I just read all your comments going down and I see you using every single trick in the propaganda book. If anyone is curious, look up "propaganda techniques" and read the descriptions of each technique. They are all here in this guy's comments. I came across a few people exactly like you, "Tim Lee" on medical chat boards in 2021. I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT certain that you are paid to do this. You may even buy your own phony "let's be reasonable, people" persona, like a method actor, but deep down you know that you are a very, very, very bad person. Get out of here.
Calling someone a “very bad person” because they disagreed with you—and backed it up with facts—is exactly the kind of emotional deflection people fall into when they’ve run out of arguments. Let’s be honest: that’s not how good people behave.
Good people admit when they don’t have a solid argument. They reassess. They grow.
Bad people lash out, insult others, and throw around wild accusations because they’re too emotionally fragile—or too intellectually lazy—to think like adults.
But it doesn’t stop there. Bad people also amplify misinformation without fact-checking it, just like they don’t fact-check their own beliefs. They treat speculation as certainty, memes as data, and anecdotes as airtight evidence—all while acting like they’re the ones bravely seeking the truth.
And here’s the kicker: this isn’t harmless. It’s not just internet debate. Spreading vaccine misinformation has led to real, measurable harm. A study by the Brown School of Public Health estimated that over 300,000 COVID deaths in the U.S. were avoidable, primarily due to vaccine hesitancy—fueled by the exact kind of rhetoric you’re defending.
So no—you don’t get to stand on a moral high ground while pushing ideas that have literally helped kill people. That blood isn’t on my hands. It’s on the people who were too arrogant, too paranoid, or too lazy to fact-check their own garbage before spreading it. I’m not a “pharma shill”—I just read.
And that’s where Dunning-Kruger syndrome comes in. It’s a cognitive bias where people with the least knowledge overestimate their expertise, because they lack the very awareness needed to recognize their own ignorance. Anti-vaxxers are a textbook case: convinced they’ve uncovered “the truth” after watching a YouTube video, while ignoring the work of people who’ve studied immunology, virology, and statistics for decades.
I’ve presented facts. I’ve clarified misconceptions. I’ve broken down complex issues in plain language. If that feels threatening, maybe ask yourself why. Because yelling “pharma bot” and calling me evil isn’t an argument—it’s just deflection.
You’re free to believe what you want. But when your whole playbook is name-calling, conspiracy, and refusing to engage with evidence, the issue isn’t my “persona”—it’s that your worldview collapses under the weight of basic logic.
If you actually cared about truth, you’d welcome challenges. But instead, you attack the people pointing out holes in your thinking. That’s not courage. That’s cowardice in a tinfoil hat.
Virology is a pseudo science. No controls, no isolated/purified virus or virion, not possible to culture in vitro, no evidence of transmission.
No scientific evidence, just a hypothetical construct conveniently used to instil fear in people, extract wealth for big pharma and its stakeholders and further perpetuate medical deception.
Viral pandemics are convenient fear based tools used for control and manipulation purposes and mask the real cause of illness and death.
"And that’s where Dunning-Kruger syndrome comes in. It’s a cognitive bias where people with the least knowledge overestimate their expertise, because they lack the very awareness needed to recognize their own ignorance. Anti-vaxxers are a textbook case: convinced they’ve uncovered “the truth” after watching a YouTube video, while ignoring the work of people who’ve studied immunology, virology, and statistics for decades."
You really think the anti-vaxxers have no argument and don't know how to research?
There is an overwhelming amount of credible data that should at the very least call into question the entire pro-vax message which is almost exclusively funded by big pharma and no this is NOT a conspiracy theory.
And you talk about JB Handly supposably getting rich, while big pharma makes billions from vaccines, and pays handsomely to the msm, regulators, doctors and scientist. This is all known documented fact!!!
Vaccines are a multi billion dollar business and even with liability shields, big pharma is estimated to be on the hook for over a hundred billion in global compensation if a vaccine/autism connection is confirmed. And this is just autism alone. So its almost comical that you mention someone else's financial motive.
Youtube and to some extend even google heavily censors anti-vax arguments.
“we want to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better. This is a concern that is shared at the highest level (and I mean highest) level of the wh” Attoney General Andrew Bailey, a leaked email to
And all these highly esteemed scientists your trust so much, usually work for or are connected to big pharma and are known to manipulate data for their benefit or that of their employer. Again this is KNOWN, documented FACT!!!!
And not welcoming challenge are you kidding? Its the pro-vax side that resist any challenge to thier belief or dismiss it as a conspiracy.
Ie the FACT that the death rate for most infectious diseases for which we have a vaccine were declining long before vaccines by as much as 97% is ignored! Instead we keep hearing about how we're all gonna die without vaccines.
The FACT that herd immunity has never been proven and some of the largest outbreaks for measles, sp, polio and more, have happened in over 95% vaccinated populations, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
The FACT that the "debunking" of the autism/vaccines connection was done almost exclusively by studies funded by big pharma, the same people known to manipulate data and hid negative results, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy. Though this is a well known documented fact!
The FACT that many INDEPENDANT studies have shown a connection and that multiple court cases have concluded that the vaccine was the cause of the child's autism and awarded compensation is ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
The FACT that big pharma enjoy a massive amount of influence over regulators, medical schools, medical journals the msn and more, and is able to block or censor most negative vaccine info is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy.
And the FACT that doctors are heavily censored from expressing any concern about vaccines is also ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
I could go on,
And btw, people have offered to challenge the pro-vax message on huge podcasts like Joe Rogan, even lay people, but the esteemed scientists you trust so much have refused and no I don't mean just the covid vaccine.
So do NOT tell me anti-vaxxers don't welcome challenge. You have no idea what you're talking about!
Btw, I've been reaching this since before I ever heard of youtube.
You write like AI. "And here's the kicker". "But it doesn't stop there". "Let's be honest".
"And that’s where Dunning-Kruger syndrome comes in. It’s a cognitive bias where people with the least knowledge overestimate their expertise, because they lack the very awareness needed to recognize their own ignorance. Anti-vaxxers are a textbook case: convinced they’ve uncovered “the truth” after watching a YouTube video, while ignoring the work of people who’ve studied immunology, virology, and statistics for decades."
You really think the anti-vaxxers have no argument and don't know how to research?
There is an overwhelming amount of credible data that should at the very least call into question the entire pro-vax message which is almost exclusively funded by big pharma and no this is NOT a conspiracy theory.
And you talk about JB Handly supposably getting rich, while big pharma makes billions from vaccines, and pays handsomely to the msm, regulators, doctors and scientist. This is all known documented fact!!!
Vaccines are a multi billion dollar business and even with liability shields, big pharma is estimated to be on the hook for over a hundred billion in global compensation if a vaccine/autism connection is confirmed. And this is just autism alone. So its almost comical that you mention someone else's financial motive.
Youtube and to some extend even google heavily censors anti-vax arguments.
“we want to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better. This is a concern that is shared at the highest level (and I mean highest) level of the wh” Attoney General Andrew Bailey, a leaked email to
And all these highly esteemed scientists your trust so much, usually work for or are connected to big pharma and are known to manipulate data for their benefit or that of their employer. Again this is KNOWN, documented FACT!!!!
And not welcoming challenge are you kidding? Its the pro-vax side that resist any challenge to thier belief or dismiss it as a conspiracy.
Ie the FACT that the death rate for most infectious diseases for which we have a vaccine were declining long before vaccines by as much as 97% is ignored! Instead we keep hearing about how we're all gonna die without vaccines.
The FACT that herd immunity has never been proven and some of the largest outbreaks for measles, sp, polio and more, have happened in over 95% vaccinated populations, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
The FACT that the "debunking" of the autism/vaccines connection was done almost exclusively by studies funded by big pharma, the same people known to manipulate data and hid negative results, is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy. Though this is a well known documented fact!
The FACT that many INDEPENDANT studies have shown a connection and that multiple court cases have concluded that the vaccine was the cause of the child's autism and awarded compensation is ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
The FACT that big pharma enjoy a massive amount of influence over regulators, medical schools, medical journals the msn and more, and is able to block or censor most negative vaccine info is ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy.
And the FACT that doctors are heavily censored from expressing any concern about vaccines is also ignored or dismissed as conspiracy.
I could go on,
And btw, people have offered to challenge the pro-vax message on huge podcasts like Joe Rogan, even lay people, but the esteemed scientists you trust so much have refused and no I don't mean just the covid vaccine.
So do NOT tell me anti-vaxxers don't welcome challenge. You have no idea what you're talking about!
Btw, I've been reaching this since before I ever heard of youtube.
You wouldn't be able to discern a fact if it hit you in the nuts with a sledge hammer. See, you are disproportionately active on here pushing for the poison shots because you A) psychologically invested yourself into this belief as a covidian during the scamdemic and desperately seek to justify it as a sunk cost fallacy no matter how demonstrably fucking wrong you are B) work in industries that developed this particular product, so you seek to justify it to yourself and the rest of society (even without necessarily being an outright paid shill) or C) you are in fact, a paid shill or D) all of the above
So just to recap: because I disagree with you, your response is to accuse me of being psychologically broken, financially invested, or literally part of a shadowy plot?
That’s not an argument — it’s a reflex. And it usually comes from people who haven’t actually looked at the data themselves. If you had, you’d be presenting something concrete — studies, evidence, expert consensus — not just insults and conspiracy buzzwords.
Calling people “paid shills” or “covidians” doesn’t make you sound informed. It makes you sound like someone who’s never had their views tested outside an echo chamber.
If truth is really your goal, then let’s talk facts. But if the only move you’ve got is accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being part of a global psyop, you’re not arguing — you’re just flailing
nice projection retard
Heather, I hold a similar view re vaccines, including the unlawfully mandated mRNA gene therapy injections without valid informed consent. I received adverse events from a coerced jab and know many people who were seriously harmed from them.
RFK Jr has good reason to introduce gold standard placebo controlled trials for these dangerous products. In the 1980`s there was 1 in 10,000 people with autism.
In 1986 big pHarma was granted exemption from liability for their poorly tested and ineffective profit driven products and since then the childhood vaccine schedule has expanded significantly. This appears to run parallel to the explosion in autism which now stands at 1 in 31. This is the real health epidemic and RFK Jr is the only one that has taken steps to determine the reasons why.
Jabs appear to be the most likely reason but there may be other factors such harmful flouride waste products included in our drinking water, toxic dyes in our foods and pesticides.
Regardless, why would anyone resist trying to find the cause/s of such a serious problem.
Yes, completely agree. Your question couldn't be more telling: "Why would anyone resist trying to find the cause/s of such a serious problem?"
The gold standard has been in effect for decades. We don’t take vaccines that were placebo tested and then run them again. It’s unethical and endangers children.
If you think it endangers children to push the unproven, ineffective, and poisonous mRNA shots you're a fucking idiot
So once again, we’re seeing the usual anti-vax playbook: misquoted data, wildly misleading stats, and arguments built on gut feelings instead of verified facts. People repeating things that feel true because they haven’t taken the time to actually fact-check their own theories. The level of critical thinking failure here is exhausting.
Let’s walk through the latest example:
• The mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. They don’t alter DNA, they don’t integrate into your genome, and the mRNA degrades rapidly after doing its job. This isn’t debatable—it’s basic cell biology.
• The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act didn’t give Big Pharma a free pass. It created a compensation system because the threat of lawsuits was making vaccines unavailable—especially for kids. Vaccines are still heavily regulated and monitored. That narrative has been twisted into conspiracy gold, but it doesn’t hold up.
• The “1 in 10,000 autism” figure from the 1980s is constantly thrown around, but it’s junk without context. Diagnostic criteria have changed radically. We now recognize a broad spectrum of presentations that were totally overlooked or misdiagnosed before. Of course rates look higher—we’re finally diagnosing people who were previously invisible.
• RFK Jr. isn’t a scientific authority. He’s a lawyer-turned-political figure who’s built a brand on amplifying fear and distrust. His demand for placebo-controlled trials on vaccines ignores the fact that withholding vaccines from children just to satisfy skeptics is not just unethical—it’s dangerous.
You ask, “Why resist finding the cause of autism?”
No one is resisting that. What we are resisting is bad science, flawed reasoning, and weaponized ignorance that hijacks legitimate concern for ideological crusades.
And seriously—at this point, is anyone here capable of forming an accurate hypothesis? Or is it just an endless stream of conspiracies, misinfo, and incorrect facts that collapse under five minutes of scrutiny?
You can’t claim to be searching for truth if you refuse to engage with any of it the second it contradicts your narrative.
We can—and should—ask tough questions. But if you’re going to do that, bring your A-game. Because so far, it’s been nothing but logical shortcuts, cherry-picked outrage, and arguments that wouldn’t pass a high school debate team.
You are so ideologically programmed as to believe centralized consolidated institutions can someone be anything resembling neutral. Fact #1 there is no such thing as neutral human actors and fact#2 Centralization makes corruption risk exponentially worse as can be seen in agriculture, finance and central banking, education and so on not just in the medical field fact#3 the compulsory support of institutions by government parasites removes almost all accountability
And if you think the genetic code injections have fuck all benefit to real health, your one of the biggest fucking idiots in society
You are NOT the parent of an autistic child. Writing comments like this is how you earn money.
I wish. The truth is, I’m actually losing my job because I’m really sick and dealing with multiple chronic illnesses—all while raising a child with severe autism.
This isn’t how I make money. This is me speaking from lived experience, exhaustion, and the constant pressure of trying to survive and advocate for my family at the same time. If anything, engaging in these conversations costs me energy I barely have—but I still do it, because I care about the truth.
So no, I’m not profiting from this. I’m just trying to bring clarity where misinformation is doing real harm
A lot of this would be solved by a huge, systematic study of unvaxxed vs. vaxxed 18 year olds and comparing health outcomes. Especially with the insane levels of vaccinations required in children. Yet no one wants to do this. Why?
Let me ask you this. Where are the "peer reviewed" studies that show the current vaccine schedule is superior to thirty years ago?
I’m all for rigorous studies—especially those that challenge assumptions and dig deeper into long-term health outcomes. But the idea that “no one wants to do a vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study” just doesn’t hold up. The issue isn’t some shadowy refusal—it’s ethics and design feasibility. You can’t ethically randomize children into a “no vaccine” group—it would never pass an ethics board. So we’re left with observational studies, which have been done, but they’re messy and full of confounding factors like socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and education. That makes it hard to extract clean, definitive conclusions—which doesn’t mean the data’s useless, but it does mean it’s not the silver bullet anti-vaxxers want it to be.
That said, I absolutely support more studies—especially for vulnerable subgroups. We need research that’s specifically designed to pick up what broad population studies might miss. Subsets matter. Long-term nuance matters. But that kind of research needs to be done properly—with solid methodology, transparency, and no predetermined agenda.
And here’s the critical point that gets missed over and over: a lack of evidence is not evidence of a cover-up. Sometimes, the study hasn’t been done yet because it’s hard to design, hard to fund, or hard to do ethically—not because “they” are hiding something. This is one of the most common and embarrassing logical failures in anti-vax circles: treating every gap in the data as proof of conspiracy. It’s lazy reasoning, and frankly, it makes you look like someone who can’t think critically.
As for comparing the current vaccine schedule to that of 30 years ago: sure, it’s a fair question. But you’re not going to find a single peer-reviewed paper comparing two entire schedules head-to-head, because that’s a massive, complex task involving countless variables. What you can find are studies of each vaccine’s safety and efficacy, which is how the current schedule got built in the first place. It evolves based on data.
So yes—ask for better research. Demand more transparency. Push for long-term, granular studies. But don’t fall into the trap of assuming that what hasn’t been studied (or what hasn’t confirmed your suspicion) must be part of some nefarious plot. That’s not skepticism—it’s narrative addiction. And it’s doing real damage to people trying to have serious conversations about vaccine safety
You bring up a ton of roadblocks to getting the gold standard type scientific study you demand as any sort of evidence of anything. Yet because "it's too hard," people continue to jab their babies 72 times before they're 18 on the word of people who say "it's too hard" to prove their products are safe. You can't have it both ways.
Once again—poorly researched and poor logic. Are there any anti-vaxxers here who haven’t based their conclusions on misinformation or emotionally satisfying narratives they were too lazy—or too confident—to fact-check before making life-altering decisions?
Because so far, between all of you, not a single actual argument has been presented. No controlled data. No scientific analysis. No coherent engagement with any of the studies I mentioned. Just anecdotes, vibes, and tone policing.
And now we’re back to the classic talking point: “You can’t prove vaccines are safe because there’s no gold standard RCT!”
Let me explain—for the hundredth time.
A randomized controlled trial where we intentionally withhold vaccines from one group of children to compare long-term outcomes isn’t avoided because “it’s too hard.” It’s avoided because it would be grossly unethical. You can’t deliberately leave kids vulnerable to preventable diseases like measles or meningitis just to satisfy someone’s suspicion. That’s not a “roadblock.” That’s called not running human experiments on children.
But that doesn’t mean vaccines aren’t studied. They are—extensively. We have massive observational studies, cohort studies, vaccine injury monitoring systems, retrospective analyses, and decades of post-marketing surveillance—across millions of children, in multiple countries, with independent oversight. The data exists. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t say what you want.
What you’re calling a “lack of proof” is really just “not the specific kind of proof I demand while rejecting all other forms of evidence.”
If your position was actually grounded in evidence, you wouldn’t need to avoid the argument—you’d be making one. But when the entire stance relies on mocking sources, dismissing science, and shifting the goalposts every time you’re cornered, it’s not truth-seeking. It’s just intellectual laziness pretending to be courage.
What are you even talking about? It would NOT be unethical to withhold vaccines from children. THAT (not injecting children with known toxins in a soup of various other things that they'll likely develop immune reactions to because of their relationship with said known toxins), actually would be "called not running human experiments on children". No one said "vaccines aren't studied". And "tone policing"? YOU are the only person here I've seen doing that. You don't need to "explain--for the hundredth time" because we already understand everything you are saying better than you do. You are out of your depth, man. You said "The data exists. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t say what you want." LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Up above you said "If you’re a parent like me, wide awake at 3am trying to understand your child’s suffering—you deserve real science. Not someone exploiting your pain to sell a narrative (and a product). You didn’t fail your child." Well, if you DO have an autistic child, and I'd bet my HOUSE you don't, you failed your child and you are failing your child hard now, being such a malignant narcissist that you will double, triple, quadruple down and ignore everything in the world that might even hint that you made some human errors. You also said above "And you don’t owe these people your belief just because they sound confident. Confidence isn’t credibility. And outrage isn’t evidence." YOUR confidence, outrage, etc is PHONY, and we here are not gullible. Quit talking down to us and go look for a more ethical way to earn a living than defending (other) pharma sociopaths.
Wow. The amount of projection packed into this one comment is almost impressive.
Let me start with the facts: Yes, it is unethical to withhold a proven medical intervention from children in a randomized controlled trial when we already have overwhelming evidence that the intervention prevents serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths. That’s not just my opinion—that’s established research ethics. You can look it up in any legitimate bioethics text or IRB guideline. That’s why we don’t randomly assign kids to “no seatbelt” groups or withhold insulin from diabetics for the sake of a placebo trial. It’s not because we’re scared to test—it’s because we already have the answers, and to pretend otherwise would be negligent and cruel.
You claim you “understand everything I’m saying better than I do,” but nothing in your comment reflects that. Instead, you’ve resorted to personal attacks, assumptions about my child, and accusations that are as cruel as they are baseless. That’s not the behavior of someone confident in their position—it’s the lashing out of someone unwilling to confront the weakness in their own argument.
And just so we’re clear: I do have an autistic child. You don’t need to believe me, but fabricating a narrative in which I don’t—just because you can’t stomach that someone in my position doesn’t share your views—is pure delusion. That level of hostility toward someone you’ve never met is exactly what people mean when they talk about misinformation being driven by rage and insecurity, not evidence.
You’ve written paragraphs about who you think I am, but you haven’t engaged with a single piece of data I’ve referenced. Instead, you’ve tried to dismiss everything with insults and armchair psychoanalysis. That’s not debate. That’s emotional flailing.
I’m not here to win you over. I’m here to make sure other people reading this thread see the difference between genuine skepticism and unhinged conspiracy thinking. Between people asking tough questions and people screaming abuse at anyone who doesn’t validate their worldview.
So if you’re still convinced I’m some pharma-paid narcissist with no child and no integrity, that’s your fantasy to keep. But the rest of us will keep working with facts, evidence, and ethics—no matter how loudly you yell
the fact that you repeat the term 'misinformation' probably means you are some kind of agent provocateur, which by the way it has been openly admitted that intelligence agencies use their own agents and bot farms to push various narratives on the public. And the term ''misinformation' is particularly a rhetorical tactic of 5th generation warfare, so you are either a shill or a useful idiot
the irony of calling me a “useful idiot” while accusing me of being an agent just because I used the word “misinformation.” That word doesn’t magically prove someone is a shill — it just means false or misleading info is being spread, intentionally or not.
Yes, intelligence agencies do push narratives — that’s well-documented. But pointing that out doesn’t automatically make every disagreement part of some covert op. That’s how critical thinking collapses into conspiracy spiraling: when every challenge to a belief gets dismissed as infiltration.
If your default response to disagreement is, “You must be a government agent,” maybe take a step back and ask yourself whether your beliefs can hold up under scrutiny — or if the paranoia is doing the thinking for you
Ok, pharma bot shill. Eff off.
Ah yes, the classic fallback: “pharma bot shill.” The moment someone presents actual evidence or asks you to make a coherent argument, suddenly they must be part of some global conspiracy.
This is exactly what people do when they run out of facts and critical thinking—they replace reason with paranoia. I’m not paid by pharma. I’m just not allergic to logic. Try it sometime—it’s free- idiot
IT's either that or you are a useful idiot. The genetic code injections caused countless deaths and varying severities of injuries UNECESSARILY that even the regime itself basically admits. And oh yes presume that conspiracy REALISM implies that we must believe that thousands and thousand of people are all individually plotting together, instead of the REALITY of compartmentalization and the fact that various actors with disproportionate influence over the compulsion of the state leverage its control systems to align incentives for various social engineering schemes. Nice strawman moron
Great detailed responses! I screenshotted many of them and will be reading these studies. You earned a follower!
yet this is done with every other medicine. You are so full of shit you make the sewer system look sanitary by comparison
Thank you for your well reasoned response. One thing I suggest, given the dearth of data for the reasons you mentioned, is to look up autism rates by race/ethnicity, and vaccination rates by same. It looks like vaccination is not causing autism.
Thank you for the respectful tone—I really appreciate that.
You’re absolutely right that population-level data like vaccination rates by race/ethnicity is a useful reference point. But I think it’s important to clarify that the most credible skepticism around vaccines and autism doesn’t claim that vaccines broadly cause autism across all populations. That theory has been thoroughly investigated and debunked, and I fully accept that.
The open question some of us are raising—particularly those of us with children who experienced late-onset regression or have no known genetic explanation—is whether a small subgroup of vulnerable children may react differently due to unique environmental or biological factors. That’s a very different inquiry, and one that population-level data simply isn’t designed to detect.
Population studies are excellent for broad patterns, but they often lack the resolution to identify rare or subgroup-specific phenomena—especially when those subgroups haven’t been clearly defined yet. That’s why targeted research is important and why I’m not advocating for throwing out the existing data, but for adding to it in a more nuanced way.
Thanks again for engaging in good faith—conversations like this are how we move forward.
One more question -- if all the studies to prove the ultimate safety of these products are too difficult to design and carry out, then why are we supposed to believe the results of these other scientific studies "debunking" damages from the vaccines?
This is a false equivalence—and it’s based on a misunderstanding of how scientific research actually works.
No one said studies proving vaccine safety are “too hard to do.” What’s off the table are randomized controlled trials that would require knowingly withholding vaccines from one group of children and giving them to another just to observe who gets sick or dies. That’s not “too hard”—it’s unethical. You don’t need to run a morally indefensible experiment to study something responsibly.
And guess what? Vaccine safety is studied—extensively. We use massive cohort studies, case-control studies, retrospective analyses, and global surveillance systems like VAERS, VSD, and AusVaxSafety. These methods are used across all areas of medicine—not just vaccines—and they allow us to draw strong conclusions without deliberately harming anyone.
So your question—“why believe studies that debunk vaccine injury if we can’t run the perfect trial?”—misses the point. These studies aren’t perfect because no study is, but they’re based on real-world data from millions of children, across decades, and they’re constantly updated. When an actual signal of harm appears, systems catch it and policies change—just look at the rotavirus vaccine withdrawal in the ’90s or the restrictions on AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.
But here’s the part that’s honestly more frustrating than the misinformation itself:
If you want to be a vaccine skeptic—fine. Seriously. Ask tough questions. Push for better safety monitoring. That’s fair.
But at least do the work to understand the issue and make credible arguments. Because right now, 99% of anti-vaxxers are just parroting talking points built on emotional reasoning, cherry-picked anecdotes, misinterpreted studies, or straight-up nonsense. And the fact that so many of you seem completely unashamed of how sloppy the reasoning is? That’s the real problem.
You’re calling me the “anti-truther” while engaging in outright delusion. That’s not critical thinking. That’s tribalism wrapped in self-righteousness.
So yeah—be skeptical. But don’t confuse contrarianism with insight. You don’t get extra points for “going against the mainstream” if you’re just doing it with garbage logic and zero accountability.
Relating to autism but not vaccines, I thought you might like this article:https://voyagela.com/interview/meet-sharmila-quenimherr-integrated-therapy-solutions-west-los-angeles/. My children have not been diagnosed with autism, but I sought out this woman (and a few others) when I suspected my son had a learning disability) and I interviewed her about a method she practices called INPP. I ended up employing a different Occupational Therapist who also uses INPP, and was amazed at the results. INPP (Sally Goddard) doesn't claim to "cure autism" but seems to be able to help people with different kinds of neurological problems. Helped my son begin writing and reading well, and helped my daughter with sensory issues. This woman's son was at age 8 nonverbal and not toilet-trained, and was told there was nothing more that could be done for him. She sought out different treatments (pretty sure it included INPP) and he went to college, speaking and using restrooms and everything, but still autistic.). Might want to contact her and/or Sally Goddard (but I think Sharmila knows more techniques that helped.)
Could you say something about what that method entails in practice? I didn’t really get it from the article.
this reads like AI.
The facts are the facts don’t sidestep the arguments.
The reality is anti vaxxer arguments are fuelled by misinformation, poor reasoning and vague cartooon conspiracies.
The worst part - they destroy legitimate vaccine skepticism.
"Misinformation" says the paid misinformant.
you are an anti - truther
If “anti-truther” just means “someone who doesn’t blindly accept whatever sounds dramatic and emotionally satisfying,” then sure—guilty.
But truth isn’t a team sport. It’s not something you win by repeating it louder or labeling anyone who disagrees. If you actually care about the truth, you should welcome scrutiny—not run from it every time your beliefs are questioned
Still reads like AI.
The truth is still the truth, no matter who says it. But people who can’t handle being wrong often attack the person speaking it, because facing reality is more painful than staying in denial. In the end, it’s comfort over truth-regardless of the consequences. And let’s be honest: that usually comes down to a mix of low integrity and a below-average IQ
Cite the studies you like please
I know right, he's either a bot or using AI to make his replies. The emotional arguments really rub me the wrong way too.
Ironic, isn’t it? I get accused of being a bot for using logic instead of emotion—then in the same breath, emotional arguments are dismissed as “rubbing you the wrong way,” even when I’m speaking from lived experience as a parent. So which is it?
Maybe the issue isn’t how I’m responding—it’s that I’m not saying what you want to hear.
Calling reasoned replies “AI” doesn’t make the facts disappear. It just shows how quickly anything that challenges your narrative gets deflected.
And what’s even more telling? Between all of you, not a single actual argument has been presented. No data. No controlled analysis. No response to the studies I referenced. Just anecdotes, tone policing, and vague “just look around you” vibes.
What does that tell you?
If your position were grounded in truth, you’d be engaging with the evidence—not dodging it. But when the entire stance relies on dismissing sources, mocking dissent, and repeating emotionally charged soundbites, it’s not skepticism anymore. It’s a belief system with no accountability.
If the evidence were strong, you’d be making an argument—not avoiding
The article that hosts all these comments provides a good deal of evidence.
You tell us we should dismiss all that evidence for all the reasons same we know we should pay extremely close attention to that evidence.
* "JB Handley isn’t a doctor, a scientist, or an immunologist." EXACTLY--he's a super smart guy driven to do brave and dangerous work out of tremendous love for his child.
*"Mawson’s study, which this post leans heavily on, was published in a journal so obscure...." EXACTLY--the journals run by people who care about nothing more than money wouldn't touch it, and this lends it more credence, not less.
*"None of these studies have been replicated or included in systematic reviews." See my previous point.
And on, and on, and on.
I’ve already addressed all of this in a previous comment—and refuted it point by point.
Instead of responding to the counterarguments, you’re just repeating the exact same talking points as if no one said anything. That’s not a conversation. That’s avoidance.
• JB Handley’s lack of medical or scientific training wasn’t dismissed out of bias—it was highlighted because he presents himself as a credible authority while relying on flawed reasoning and cherry-picked data. That matters.
• Mawson’s study being published in a fringe, non-peer-reviewed journal isn’t proof of censorship—it’s proof it couldn’t survive real peer review. That was already explained in detail.
• And no, a study being excluded from systematic reviews isn’t suspicious—it’s standard when the study fails to meet minimum scientific quality thresholds. Again: already explained.
Repeating bad arguments after they’ve been debunked doesn’t strengthen your position—it weakens it. It shows you’re not engaging in good faith, just looking to reassert a belief you’ve already emotionally committed to.
If you’re going to continue arguing these points, at least respond to the refutations—don’t just hit copy/paste on the original claim and pretend I didn’t already dismantle it.
Every comment you make is just more time you get to bill to big pharma. I don't get paid for this. Hence the difference in the amount of time and energy we are willing to put into arguing. I'm done with you. I hope you find someone else to argue with so you can clock more hours and buy that sailboat you have your heart set on.
I'm not trying to manipulate people’s emotions, I'm just stating how I feel, not the same.
Em dashes.
Wall of text.
Lol.
Not sure what your point is, but if you’re referring to my comment about how easily the anti-vax community is being manipulated, let me clarify: I wasn’t suggesting anti-vaxxers themselves are doing the manipulating. I’m talking about the people feeding you the misinformation—the grifters, bloggers, and influencers who know exactly what to say to keep you hooked. That’s who I was calling out
Except your AI responses have no answer to WHY there has been a >27,000% increase in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses since 1970. Genetics literally cannot even remotely explain it. If you imagine a genetic mutation that somehow has a 100% chance of being passing on to offspring, you'd have, at most, a few dozen cases. And even, in the infinitely small (i.e. non-existent) chance, that the same exact genetic mutation occurred spontaneously in a thousand different carriers, you'd still be nowhere remotely close to a genetic explanation. So, the answer for the >27,000% increase *must* have an environmental explanation. So, where do you begin to look for an answer as at why 1 in 12 boys in California is today diagnosed with ASD. Well, what has changed since 1970? More pesticides/herbicides in our food supply? Check. More radiofrequencies inundating us everyday? Check. More chemicals, many synthetic, included in everyday products like flame retardants and plastics? Check. And more drugs like SSRIs, pain relievers and yes, vaccines (the U.S. has among, if not the, longest vaccine schedule on earth - ~80 childhood vaccine doses compared to about 7 when I was born in the early 80s)? Check. No one is claiming to have all the answers; it's complicated, and it may well be due to a combination of lots of factors. But, what no one has time for is people (or AI bots) like you stifling the righteous search for an answer.
No one’s stifling a righteous search for answers—we want better answers. What we’re pushing back against is when that search gets hijacked by confirmation bias and bad logic masquerading as certainty.
You’re absolutely right that the dramatic rise in autism diagnoses since the 1970s can’t be explained by genetics alone. That’s not controversial—no serious researcher thinks it’s purely genetic. But the leap you’re making—from “not genetic” to “must be vaccines”—is a logical error.
Let’s break it down:
• The 27,000% increase? That number includes massive changes in diagnostic criteria, awareness, school-based services, early screening, and the broadening of what counts as ASD. Autism in the 70s was diagnosed almost exclusively in children with profound intellectual disability. Today, it includes kids who are verbal, highly intelligent, and socially functional but have sensory or communication differences. We’re comparing apples to an orchard.
• Genetic contribution is still real. Twin studies consistently show heritability estimates of 50–90%. That doesn’t mean “caused only by genes,” it means genes create the vulnerability, and something in the environment might pull the trigger—but that’s a far cry from blaming one specific thing like vaccines just because they’re on the list of “stuff that changed.”
• Everything changed since 1970. Diet, parental age, air quality, screen exposure, education standards, antibiotics, acetaminophen use in infants, NICU survival rates, IVF, gut microbiome composition—you name it. Vaccines are one of dozens of changes. And while they’re easy to focus on because they’re high-profile and universal, that doesn’t make them the most plausible culprit.
• Vaccines have been studied more than almost any other environmental factor. Large-scale population studies, meta-analyses, international cohorts—none of them show a causal link to autism. And when a study did claim to show a link (like Wakefield’s 1998 paper), it turned out to be not just flawed but fraudulent, retracted, and discredited by the global scientific community.
Here’s the bottom line:
Yes, the rise in autism diagnoses is real.
Yes, it’s probably not just genetics.
But no—you don’t get to skip over rigorous evidence and latch onto a scapegoat just because it feels emotionally satisfying.
Asking what changed since 1970 is the right question. But scientific inquiry means testing every possibility, not just the ones that already match your suspicion.
That’s not “stifling.”
That’s how science works when it’s done right.
Because we’re finally diagnosing people who are not little white boys who flap their hands. Our diagnostic criteria has expanded, which most of us late diagnosed are extremely grateful for.
probably because despite mountains of data, burden of proof still lay with the pro vax side. And if will forever be there, until they perform a saline placebo study. Which they won't.
I appreciate the intent behind your message, and I don’t doubt for a second that your health journey has pushed you to question a lot—mine has too. But let’s be clear: casting the entire research and publishing system as purposefully silencing any critical study on vaccines is not “the hard road.” It’s an emotionally satisfying narrative that fills in gaps without solid evidence.
In fact, using the conspiratorial brush here reveals the very thing you’re warning against: when you hit a gap in knowledge, instead of remaining agnostic or seeking a methodologically sound explanation, you’ve let your preexisting worldview fill it in. That’s not skepticism. That’s confirmation bias with a hero’s arc.
The truly hard road is the one that forces you to challenge your own assumptions, especially the comforting ones that make you feel like you’ve seen through it all. The hard road isn’t believing “what you’re told,” but it’s also not automatically rejecting it because it came from a white coat or a journal. It’s holding space for complexity—for institutional flaws, yes, but also for evidence that doesn’t always land where you want it to.
And just to clarify, I know your “hard road” comment may have been aimed at someone else in the thread, but since you included a note of support addressed to me personally as a parent—I’m responding from that context. I do appreciate the goodwill behind it.
But if we’re really talking about taking the harder road, it starts by resisting both blind compliance and seductive cynicism—and keeping the spotlight on evidence, not ideology.
Gotta love substack for its intellectual attraction.
https://substack.com/@aleczeck/note/c-109752954
This guy has no idea what he’s talking about - want me to prove it?
Just proceed immediately with your argument.
Tim, I've read many more of your responses on this thread and I agree with much of what you're saying. I'd really like to know, what do YOU think has caused the 27,000% rise in autism since the 70's? What theories do you place the most credence in?
I really appreciate your tone and your willingness to engage in good faith—seriously, it makes a huge difference.
As for the rise in autism diagnoses since the 1970s, I think there’s no single explanation—but a combination of factors that together create what looks like an explosion when, in reality, it’s partly a shift in how we define, detect, and understand autism.
The biggest and most well-supported contributors are:
1. Broader diagnostic criteria: The definition of autism has expanded massively over time. What used to be considered rare and severe is now a spectrum—including high-functioning individuals, sensory processing differences, and social/communication challenges that weren’t previously labeled as ASD.
2. Increased awareness and screening: Parents, teachers, and doctors are looking for signs earlier. In the past, many kids were just seen as “quirky,” “difficult,” or misdiagnosed with intellectual disability, ADHD, or even schizophrenia. Today, they’re more likely to be diagnosed accurately—and earlier.
3. Diagnostic substitution: Studies have shown that many children who would’ve been diagnosed with something else decades ago (like mental retardation or language disorder) are now being diagnosed with autism instead.
That said, I do think environmental factors are worth serious investigation. I just don’t believe vaccines are the strongest candidate based on the evidence we currently have. But there are plausible leads worth exploring:
• Parental age (especially paternal age) is strongly correlated with higher autism risk, and the average age of parents has increased significantly over time.
• Gut microbiome disruption (via antibiotics, diet, C-sections, etc.) is an area of growing research, and could have developmental implications.
• Prenatal exposures—to certain medications, endocrine disruptors, heavy metals, or even chronic inflammation during pregnancy—might be contributing.
• Genetic susceptibility + environmental triggers is likely part of the picture too—this idea that some kids are biologically more vulnerable to environmental insults.
I think the real tragedy is that this conversation keeps getting hijacked by a singular, emotionally charged narrative around vaccines—often pushed with weak evidence or ideological bias—which derails serious research into other potential causes. We lose time, funding, and trust because people get stuck defending bad science instead of investigating new questions.
So yes, I believe the rise is real—but I also believe it’s complex, and it deserves the kind of open-minded, rigorous investigation that sadly gets drowned out by misinformation wars.
I’d be genuinely curious to hear which explanations you find most plausible,
I think it's critical to go back to the definition of words when we're trying to understand a subject and I realized I didn't have a good definition of the word "autism," so I found this one by The American Heritage Dictionary:
"A pervasive developmental disorder characterized by severe deficits in social interaction and communication, by an extremely limited range of activities and interests, and often by the presence of repetitive, stereotyped behaviors.
A mental disorder characterized by inability to engage in normal social interactions and intense self-absorption, and usually accompanied by other symptoms such as language dysfunctions and repetitive behavior.
Behavior showing an abnormal level of absorption with one's own thoughts and disregard for external realities."
I thought about this definition and looked back over all the children I've known and observed over my many years of life and I can honestly say, that for me, the most well-supported contributors to the rise in autism diagnoses are not broader diagnostic criteria and increased awareness and screening. I feel those things could explain a small percentage of the rise in autism, but not be the biggest contributors.
I believe the rise in autism and chronic disease in general is due to all of the factors you mentioned in your comment above - microbiome, endocrine disrupters, medications, diet, pesticides, heavy metals. In addition, I add vaccinations to that mix of factors just mentioned, as another thing the body rejects and views as a poison. Children today receive 70+ vaccines if they adhere to the current schedule, compared to just a few received when I was growing up. Because of their mechanism of action, vaccines can become "the straw that broke the camel's back," whereas the other poisons seem to build up more slowly.
I think one of the main reasons so many "anti-vaxxers" object to vaccines in general is due to the very large numbers of people who have reported very fast decline in health status of infants and children after childhood vaccination appointments. This relatively sudden change in health status was also very widely reported in adults after the Covid shots. It's the suddenness that gets people's attention not the long, slow decline due to the other just as deadly health menaces noted in the last paragraph.
Human bodies were not created to take the toxic onslaught they face today and evolution is a very long process. Because of this fact, many people have decided they will take no more vaccines as a start to recovering their's and their children's health. Then, they know they must undertake the process of eliminating as many of the other toxic factors of modern life as they can. The good news is more and more people are taking up this challenge and there is so much wonderful support from an incredible community of truly health- oriented doctors, scientists and practitioners. It's a wonderful time to be alive and we just need to logically and methodically take the steps to restore health to our bodies.
The human body was not built to take the onslaught of abuse it encounters in today's world and evolution is a long process.
I appreciate that you’re trying to understand this from the ground up—but it’s exactly why we need to clarify what science does and doesn’t say before drawing sweeping conclusions.
First: you’re absolutely right that the world today is full of environmental stressors—endocrine disruptors, pesticides, ultra-processed foods, and more. These are real concerns that are being studied seriously. But you can’t just group vaccines in with that list because they “feel” like one more toxin. That’s not how evidence works.
Vaccines aren’t just another input the body “rejects.” They’re specifically designed to stimulate an immune response in a highly controlled, temporary way—not to accumulate toxicity. They’ve been studied for decades, with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and remain one of the most intensely monitored public health interventions in history. So when we talk about “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” we need actual data showing a causal link—not just timing.
The idea that autism rates have skyrocketed and that diagnostic expansion or awareness only explain a “small percentage” might feel true, but it’s not supported by population-level research. Multiple large-scale reviews have shown that most of the increase in autism diagnoses over the last few decades is due to broader diagnostic criteria, better screening, and increased access to services. That’s not a cover-up—that’s science doing its job: refining definitions and catching what used to be missed.
I understand the temptation to trust our observations—especially when we see kids change suddenly or dramatically. But temporal correlation is not causation. If we used that logic consistently, we’d be blaming teething, airplane rides, or even sleep training for everything from allergies to ADHD. And frankly, I’ve seen far more families experience sudden health crashes from environmental mold exposure or antibiotic disruption of the microbiome than from vaccines—but they don’t always connect those dots because vaccines are a more visible, emotionally charged event.
So yes—let’s take seriously the toxic load our bodies face. Let’s question big food, big pharma, and environmental regulators. But we also need to make sure we’re not lumping everything together just because it feels intuitively “off.” Otherwise we end up ignoring the nuance and throwing out tools—like vaccines—that have saved millions of lives.
Health restoration is a noble goal. But if we want to do it intelligently, we can’t rely on feelings alone. We need to know how to weigh evidence, not just collect anecdotes. Because that’s how progress is made—not by blaming the wrong thing, but by understanding the full picture.
Well, then let me cross "which they won't". I would still be waiting for a saline placebo. By the way, you can dig your teeth into an even deeper conspiracy: that viruses have never been proven to exist. Your searchables would be Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan. Both MDs.
Ah, great—we’ve officially crossed into “viruses don’t exist” territory. I was wondering how long it would take. At this point, we’ve left skepticism behind and landed squarely in epistemological fan fiction.
If you’re still holding out for a saline placebo in vaccine trials, I’d suggest checking the actual data. Several major trials—like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Phase III studies—did use saline controls. Not all trials do, for ethical and logistical reasons, but claiming they “never happen” is just false.
Now, as for your suggestion to “look deeper” into the idea that viruses don’t exist—and pointing to Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan as proof, because they have MDs—here’s the problem: you’ve been fooled by credentials. You’re treating their medical degrees like they magically validate whatever fringe theory they attach themselves to. But having “MD” next to your name doesn’t make you an authority on virology—especially when your arguments completely fall apart under scrutiny.
You’re making the exact kind of appeal to authority you probably accuse others of—just in reverse. You reject mainstream experts but cling to contrarians with the same credentials because they confirm your worldview. That’s not skepticism—that’s bias wearing a lab coat.
And let’s be real: if Kaufman or Cowan had actually disproven the existence of viruses, they wouldn’t be running online echo chambers—they’d be rewriting textbooks and shaking the foundations of biology. But they haven’t. Because they can’t. Because what they’re selling is selectively interpreted nonsense wrapped in credentials, and you’ve mistaken it for insight.
So no, I’m not blindly trusting institutions—but I’m also not mistaking confidence for credibility. If you want to argue science, bring data, not just a guy with an MD and a theory no one in the field takes seriously.
Link the saline placebo studies
MDs mentioned just to humor you. You have a clever way of flipping the rhetoric back around. But you type too much. Last 2 or 3 back and forths before we go back to our own business.
Avoid strawman arguments.
Appreciate the tone—let’s keep it sharp and quick then.
Saline placebo studies? Sure.
• Pfizer Phase III Trial (2020):
Used a saline placebo in a randomized, double-blind design. Check the Methods section.
• Moderna Phase III Trial (2021):
Also used saline as placebo—see the protocol and trial design.
So yeah, not as rare as it’s made out to be.
And as for the MDs—point taken. But I wasn’t flipping the rhetoric, I was just handing it back in better condition.
Let’s make the last few count.
The proof is in seeing vaccinated and unvaccinated children
The unvaccinated are so much healthier
Thanks—this is exactly the kind of confirmation bias and faulty logic I was talking about. You’ve just perfectly illustrated the classic anti-vax reasoning loop:
“I see unvaccinated kids, and they seem healthier—therefore vaccines must be bad.”
That’s not data. That’s anecdotal observation filtered through expectation. If you believe unvaccinated kids are healthier, you’ll notice every time one doesn’t have a runny nose and ignore every time one ends up hospitalized with a preventable disease.
That’s not science—it’s pattern-seeking with blinders on. And it’s exactly how conspiracy thinking works.
Meanwhile, actual population studies with hundreds of thousands of children—accounting for income, education, and healthcare access—don’t show any mysterious “unvaxxed health advantage.” What they do show is higher rates of hospitalization and preventable illness in unvaccinated kids.
So no, the proof isn’t “in what you’ve seen.” That’s not how proof works. That’s how bias works. Thanks for proving the point.
Said like a true bot! AI Bots cannot "humanize" an argument, Their source of reasoning are strictly the prioritized datasets they are programmed to look at. They don't have the required intelligence nor intuition to make common sense discerning judgements. The problem is that this type of "thinking" is what is promulgated in the fields of education to churn out processing chipmunk humans with barely a an original or creative thought. Leave that task to the "immune" elite!
I admire your patience. Hopefully it benefits at least one person.
Thank you for the detailed fact check - much appreciated (and greatly needed)
I’m sorry but it really looks like you used ChatGPT to read and respond to this post. If you’re going to dispute something, have the dignity to do it yourself.
Oh wait — do you actually have an issue with the facts in my argument, or is it just the way they were delivered?
Because honestly, this kind of comment makes it clear that truth doesn’t seem to be your top priority. If it were, you’d be engaging with the points raised — not dismissing them based on how they were written or whether I used ChatGPT to help with structure and fact-checking.
Yes, I wrote the response. I used ChatGPT to help smooth the flow and triple-check accuracy — because I care about getting things right. That’s something we should all want in a discussion, no matter what side we’re on.
But again, instead of addressing any of the actual content, your response goes straight to tone and personal digs — which unfortunately seems to be a pattern in these conversations. If more people on your side took time to fact-check, reflect, and respond in good faith, these debates could actually go somewhere meaningful.
And just to be clear: I wouldn’t mind if you used ChatGPT too — in fact, I’d welcome it. Because if we’re both striving for clarity and truth, we’re already on better ground than most of what’s out there.
Of course you wouldn't mind if people outsourced their thinking to the ministry of truth.
This is just rhetoric, nothing of substance .
Sounds like the bot needs a good nap
Sounds like you’ve got no actual arguments for your position.
Hey, I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the effort you are putting in to counter the misinformation and exemplify using critical thinking to determine who and what to trust, in a time where that can be challenging for people to figure out.
I sense outrage from you, which makes perfect sense in response to the type of misinformation that has caused harm. Nothing wrong with anger or outrage; it can be a very helpful emotion to drive action. But I also feel that maybe I sense some exhaustion.
If that's the case, I hope you don't get pulled in too much and can find moments to step away from this heavy act of arguing with anti-vaxxers and also not think about it for a time.
This seems important to you and is probably helpful to those reading, so I'm certainly not suggesting stopping. Also I am making assumptions about how much energy you are putting in, but in case it ever does feel too draining, I'd like to send a gentle reminder to stay aware of your well-being and prioritize it when having these arguments. ❤️
That would be sound advice if this guy weren't either:
1. doing this in order to earn a handsome wage, or
2. not a guy at all, but an AI bot
It may help your 3 AM night worries to know I didn't trust it for the reasons you cited. Not all of us blindly follow select group fringe studies without peer review.
"Confidence isn't credibility." Many of us knew that too. RFK just confidently cited statistics on an interview and every one of them is wrong.
Take good care. I know words from a stranger on the internet may not be helpful, but guilt takes a lot of energy. Give yourself a little kindness for being a good enough father trying to make the best decisions for your child.
I appreciate the sentiment , but I’m getting the impression you have the wrong idea about why I’m awake at 3am- it’s not guilt, I have multiple chronic illnesses myself, plus my level 3 son also has deregulated sleep
Being on the computer at 3am is going to make matters worse for you, and any parent of a "level 3 son". Screens (even when turned red) and all sources of bright, flickering (LED, CFL), and "blue" light should be strictly avoided from dinnertime to morning. Of course this only applies to diurnal animals, not AI bots.
lol so what are you supposed to do when you can’t sleep at night?
Is that AI you sonnovabitch? 😅
Yes. And the first study mentioned? "Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect."
The second study? States very clearly the results are from a period when thimerosol was in the vaccine.
Also I’m feeling like kids whose parents are taking them to get vaccines are the ones who are more likely to pursue diagnostic work up for mild or moderate symptoms of NDD that may not immediately affect performance but that’s just me.
Thanks for laying it all out because I read the studies too and was going to write up something like this but now I don’t have to!
Great work. I appreciate how much effort you put into this.
There is also something called intuition and if we are going to get really crazy, the frequency of Truth that you can feel flowing through everything as either resonant to truth or not. I appreciate science to a degree but the real skill I am interested in parenting and life is being able to follow something else that isn’t dependent on something outside of you. I’m sure many parents can relate and will either know because they followed it or know because they recall suppressing that knowing because it ‘didn’t make sense’ based on everything they are told to do. Most likely we all have examples of both. No one needs to be blamed, but we do need to look toward a different way of being and raising children in the future.
I hear what you’re saying, and I actually agree that intuition plays a huge role in parenting. I’ve had plenty of moments where something didn’t “feel right,” and I’ve trusted that instinct over conventional advice — especially when it came to my medically complex child.
But intuition can’t be the only tool in the toolbox — especially when lives are at stake. Intuition is shaped by emotion, bias, past experiences, even trauma. It’s valuable, but it’s not infallible. That’s why we have science: to check our gut against objective reality.
When it comes to things like vaccines or serious health decisions, relying only on a feeling of “resonance” is dangerous — because your intuition might be screaming based on misinformation you didn’t even realise you absorbed.
The tragedy is, anti-vax rhetoric has hijacked people’s genuine desire to protect their kids. It takes something sacred — that parental instinct — and twists it into fear-based certainty, often against mountains of evidence.
So yes, let’s honour intuition. But let’s also have the humility to admit when our instincts might need to be tested, challenged, or clarified by science. The goal isn’t blind obedience to authority — it’s wisdom. And wisdom means knowing when to trust your gut… and when to double-check it
I so appreciate your persistence on this topic. You could have lived in obscurity and accepted your son's damage in private. Thank you for not doing that.
Your ground breaking study is a survey of around 1000 subjects in homeschooled children ....not exactly an unbiased sample.
And kids on Medicaid. Some groups with sample sizes so tiny that they are indicative of absolutely nothing. This is a scientifically illiterate article
I share every single essay that you write.
But do you understand he’s just mislead you?
How so?
Because he’s not showing you the full picture—he’s leaving out the mountain of high-quality studies that directly contradict everything he’s claiming. And the ones he is citing? Many are so weak or methodologically flawed that they’re only taken seriously by fringe anti-vax communities. Some aren’t even considered valid evidence by any credible standard.
So ask yourself: is it more likely that he somehow missed all the most robust, widely-accepted research and just happened to find the most obscure, rejected studies out there? Or does he know exactly what he’s doing—and simply doesn’t care, because fear and misinformation are profitable when you’re targeting people who are overwhelmed, desperate for answers, or just trying to protect their families?
As a parent of a level 3 autistic child, I can tell you—this kind of misinformation doesn’t just muddy the waters. It actively harms people. It makes it harder for genuine skeptics like myself to have real, evidence-based conversations, because now any questioning gets lumped in with this manipulative garbage.
If you want to see the actual evidence behind what I’m saying, refer to my reply to his article. It breaks it all down clearly. Then decide for yourself whether this is someone worth trusting.
Please show me one of the "mountain" of high quality studies between vaxxed and unvaxxed children showing better outcomes for the vaxxed children.
I would also like to see I’m still on the fence with vaccines. So please share so I do not hurt myself.
Tim Lee is an AI Bot. Look at all of his responses: they're AI-generated (i.e. regurgitating the narratives that have programmed AI). Ignore them at your peril.
No im not regurgitating ai narratives im presenting studies, just like the author of this article - except , im presenting high quality studies and giving you the full picture , as opposed to a limited perspective and making sweeping truth claims based on al ost totally irrelevant data, or at the very least using that data in a totally incoherent way, but he knows none of you will actually fact check him because he understands that you all are quite simple , and are desperate for anyone to confirm what you already believe with what looks like rational argumentation to the untrained mind.
So yes - exactly , ignore my arguments at your own peril- or more importantly to your children’s peril, because you clearly do not understand the risks you’re taking.
Also facts are facts - whether they come from ai or they come from your pet dog, so how about engaging with them instead of attacking my character or questing my humanity, it just shows how fragile your position is and that your opinions are not based on truth. Proving all the stereotypes about anti vaxxers true , most people would be embarrassed vs by that, but you seem wholly ignorant of it , just like your ignorant of the mountain of facts that undermine your position.
That ‘tip of the iceberg’ conclusion should tell everyone that your ability to drawn conclusions from zero facts is impressive.
I mean, there’s THIS (poor quality) study! And because it’s hard to get this (poor quality) study published in a high quality scientific peer-reviewed medical journal, it must mean there’s lots more of THESE (low quality) studies.
You’re right Mr. Pants On Fire, there are lots of low quality studies waiting to be manipulated into your low quality opinions.
You think the New England Journal of Medicine would publish a study showing vaccines cause harm? If so, you are living in a dream world. The final study included Medicaid records of 47 thousand people...
That’s odd — if the study with 47,000 Medicaid records is so compelling, why didn’t you cite that in your original essay instead of the much smaller 1,000-participant one?
It looks like you’re trying to retroactively strengthen your point with a study you didn’t originally reference — and hoping no one notices. If the data was that decisive, you would’ve led with it. That you didn’t suggests either the study doesn’t say what you’re implying, or you haven’t actually read it.
And claiming that journals like The New England Journal of Medicine would never publish harm data? That’s simply false. Peer-reviewed journals have absolutely published on adverse effects — including rare vaccine-related risks. That’s how we know about them: because legitimate researchers studied them and published the results transparently.
If you want to argue that the Medicaid records were manipulated or selectively analyzed to push a narrative, that’s a serious accusation — and it requires serious evidence, not just suspicion.
Science advances through open data, reproducible methods, and constant challenge. If you’ve got hard evidence that overturns current consensus, great — submit it, replicate it, and publish it. But brushing off peer-reviewed studies just because you don’t like the outcome isn’t critical thinking. It’s motivated reasoning.
Ah…not into circular reasoning. That was quick!
Find a study that controls for the fact that, 40 years ago, the only kids getting autism diagnosis were the profoundly autistic boys with signficant developmental delays.
Neurodivergence in 2025 is seen as a spectrum disorder, and ASD is being diagnosed in more kids who don't have such a profound handicap. 20-30 years ago these low level ASD diagnosis would likely have been diagnosed with ADHD, Asperges, OCD or other mood disorders.
I think we are very close to finding genetic markers that link all these disorders and it will be possible to have a diagnostic test for ASD in the near future.
And I think what's driving this trend in diagnosis of low level ASD is parents looking for accomadations and supports for their neurodivergent kids in schools.
It also seems very likely that parents who are more compliant with vaccine schedules would also be more likely to seek a medical diagnosis of ASD than parents who were non-compliant with vaccination.
Genetics load the gun and environment pulls the trigger
Absolutely! These studies have been coming out from other countries for quite a while. Anyone who really has done their research on jobs would have come across these studies and as a general role they have consistently shown the same things: un jabbed children have less short and long-term illnesses And immuno deficiency issues than jabbed kids do!
That's largely because uncaccinated children die much earlier than vaccinated children so have less of a chance to develop those illnesses.
source?
If we ignore the overwhelming evidence of child life expectancy with and without vaccines, then we can apply basic logic. Vaccinated children don't die of Smallpox or Measles, nor suffer early death due to comorbities such as Polio. Unvaccinated children do. All other causes of death are vaccine agnostic.
nice source
What sort of source would you like me to link? The peer-reviewed science is in any of the robust scientific journals. The life expectancy statistics are too (and are often linked on health policy websites). The 'children who catch fatal diseases can die from them' stats are, well, I'm not sure anyone has formally done research on that.
Well, idk what country you live in and if they also have an official website where they state numbers of infecions of diseases that are obligatory to report, and how many of these infected people die. In some cases they even state how many of them were unvaccinated.
Looking at these numbers I can tell you that your generalized "unvaccinated children die much earlier" is wrong.
https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/zahlen-und-statistiken/zahlen-zu-infektionskrankheiten/meldepflichtige-infektionskrankheiten---woechentliche-fallzahlen.html
It’s good to see these studies; thanks for sharing them. It seems as if vax status is likely to be compounded with other factors, however, if there is no random assignment to groups? In a society in which most kids are vaccinated (many under coercion of course), it seems likely that unvaccinated kids are different in other ways than just vax - eg parental attention to diet and other environmental matters. It’s hard to tell of course, but studies in which vax status is randomised (not the results of parental volition) - while clearly very difficult to conduct - will provide better evidence.
One of the more fascinating data we need to capture is the unvaccinated younger siblings of kids with autism. Anecdotally, they seem to be incredibly healthy...
Interesting data … since the more obvious confounders are then controlled. I look forward to hearing more of that data.
Factually, they catch Smallpox, Measles, Polio, etc. Some also have Autism.
Anecdotes don't Trump facts, sadly. I say sadly because, anecdotally, none of my friends have died so, anecdotally, we're immortal.
“Anecdotally”???
🤣😂🤡🤣😂🤡🤣😂🤡🤣😂🤡🤣😂🤡🤣😂🤡
Halfway down this article you will find:
A (hero!) vaccine skeptic doctor refused that money. And what happened when pressed by his medical board to prove that his no-vaccine plan for his adolescent patients was as safe as the CDC schedule? Turns out it was basically 99% less damaging based on every metric he could measure. His license was revoked for his trouble (this one is a must watch if you have yet to see it):
https://tritorch.substack.com/p/autism-pre-conditioning-and-normalization
The Film Rain Man Was Likely Forged to Pre-Program the Populace For the Upcoming Explosion in Vaccine Induced Autism.
1986: Congress Grants Immunity Shield to Vaccine Makers for Venom Injection Damage | Film Rain Man Begins Production
1988: Rain Man Released to Educate, Condition, & Normalize Autism
1986—2025: Number of vaccines administered explodes to 78 - and rising - from birth to two years of age. Autism diagnoses explode right along with them.
Before the film few even knew what the term meant because it was so rare it was seldom reported: https://tritorch.substack.com/p/autism-pre-conditioning-and-normalization
I thought it was 78 vaccines by age 18? You’re saying it’s 78 by age two, is this accurate? If so that’s startling. That would be 3+ vaccines a months for the first 2 years.
You're absolutely right, it is by age 18. And it's 78 doses of vaccines across the spectrum rather than 78 different vaccines. I've updated my information, thank you KT
Tell that to the parents of the two kids who died from measles.
You're very misinformed, measles death rate before the vaccine was roughly 1/15,000
It’s going back up again.
Do your homework… the media says measles. The truth is one died of mycoplasma pneumonia, incorrectly treated. The other, likewise, a misdiagnosis and wrong treatment. The parents allowed independent MDs access to the records. But go ahead and swallow the media lies. Guess you still believe in Iraq’s WMDs or that COVID vaccines prevent infection and transmission
Mycoplasma pneumonia is actually a sign of immune suppression. The child probably had an underlying immune condition, which is precisely the type of person that could die from measles, and which wouldn’t be elegible for the vaccine either. A healthy child will just have a rash and malaise for a few days.
She had been put on steroids which also suppress the immune system. She was 6 years old, so surely any primary immunodeficiency would have manifested itself long ago. Moreover, the most common cause of ATYPICAL community acquired pneumonia is mycoplasma while the most common cause of general community acquired pneumonia is Strep pneumoniae.
Atypical pneumonia because it’s not the kind a generally healthy person would get. Primary immunodeficiencies would manifest earlier, but those are not the only kinds of immunodeficiencies. If the cause was the steroids, then the treatment is what caused the problem, not the measles.
Exactly, the mis-treatment is what caused her demise. And you are correct, the word ‘atypical’ is commonly used because mycoplasma pneumonia is not the typical pneumonia that causes accumulation of inflammatory cells and fluid in the airspaces (alveoli), but rather causes inflammation of the framework (interstitium) surrounding the airspaces. It is also sometimes called ‘walking’ pneumonia in healthy adults and manifests as a cough without production of sputum.
Due to measles 🤦🏼♀️
Those children (as with the Covid situation) did not die FROM measles - they were literally recovered - they died with a positive “test” result.
JB, please help! I live in Ontario, Canada where vaccines are MANDATORY for all public and private school children😞 I’m pressured by my doctor to vaccinate my 12 month old! My doctor told me to look at the diseases and not the ingredients. What should I do?! And where can I learn about these diseases that we vaccinate for? Thank you thank you🙏❤️❤️
Home school
Thanks for your input JB! But what if I don’t have the means for it?😞 Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with everyone here, I bet it has saved some lives❤️🙏
Autism has cost me way more than home schooling would've not sure what to tell you
Thank you JB❤️🙏🙏 Before you go, can you please tell me if we are actually at risk for any of these diseases that we vaccinate for?
That's a really personal decision I'd say treat every vaccine like its own surgery and do the research on risk vs benefit. There are obvious vaccines to avoid like Hep B (unless the mom is hep b positive) and varicella (they don't even give in the UK) but for the rest you need to do the work, I'm not a doctor just a dad
Thank you so much JB🙏❤️❤️ Wishing you and your family all the best❤️
I did not have my children vaccinated. I began researching in 2005.
My children will turn 20 and 17 in June. They have no chronic disease nor do they take any medications. Healthy and happy! My son did have an allergy to eggs and dairy (i believe that was due to his Cesarean birth and limited breast milk during the first year of his life) which I cured through gut biome healing and removal of all inflammatory foods. Do not let a doctor force any medications on your children that are known and proven to harm. You are his mother, his protector.
Thank you so much for your input❤️🙏
Do you have books or resources you recommend? My child has egg, dairy and peanut allergies. I would love her to be healed.
The book Dissolving Illusions addresses the falling rates of mortality from "vaccine preventable diseases" as well as other diseases which were never vaccinated for, coinciding with increasing access to clean food, water (sanitation and plumbing), air, and basic medical care that is not counterproductive (vitamin therapy, IV fluids, etc.), i.e. what living in a modern society looks like.
Fascinating that the book lists access to clean food, water and air as key factors. These have been available for millennia. Yet life expectancy wasn't great in 1,000 years ago.
The number of people killed by pirates has decreased as the earth's temperature has risen. This doesn't prove that global warming will eradicate piracy. If you think vaccines have nothing to do with decreasing mortality, I would be curious to know if you would expose your children to Smallpox, Measles and Polio. Admittedly, Smallpox would be a challenge...as vaccines eradicated the disease.
Thank you so much!
Autism isn’t a disease. Maybe if you were autistic, you’d know that.
Fake the vax document.
If you vax, there will be damage whether you see it right away or years later. Bodies react and tolerate them differently. Out of my 3 kids, 2 are partial vaxxed and 1 had none, the unvaxxed has never been sick except a rare cold and she is 20 yrs old.
In 2019 our pediatricians office refused to care for their unvaxxed children anymore so we never went back but didn't need to because she never got sick or even needed antibiotics. We only went to get a school checkup once a year. They make their money on vaxxes and sickness they create so no loss for them when they stopped treating the unvaxxed.
Thank you so much Dawn❤️🙏🙏 I appreciate your time for sharing your thoughts with me❤️
Take care. I thought I posted this on your comment but posting again just in case...
We are always at risk for something but measles and mumps rarely kill and not normal healthy kids. My husband survived mumps just fine as a child and he was vaxxed for it. He survived encephalitis too which is caused by parasites. He also used to get MRSA often after a bad injurious accident at work, and the last time he got MRSA, the antibiotics did not heal it and he physically (side effects) couldn't do another round so we used colloidal silver and tumeric in semi-large doses. It cured him and never came back... no side effects.
Since then, I found that MMS is the best and safest for everything and have been using it for years for many things like cleaning my veggies, mouthwash, insect bites, itchy areas, put in dog water (dog is 9 with white teeth never needed cleaned), my cat never got crystals in his euethra again, for everything every day. I gradually started using it as I was afraid, but it is amazing. Google lies about it and no wonder since big pharma would lose $$$$$.
BTW it also cured a man I shared it with who had an incurable blood infection, said he had months to live, and was on all sorts of meds. He learned about it and 1 year later he is off all meds and showed me his documented medical records of improvement.
There is quite a bit of talk that it can lessen or cure autism on youtube if they didn't remove it.
Here is some quick info if you are interested.
MMS documentary...
Theuniversalantidote.com
About the man who discovered it and the history behind it.
https://jimhumble.co/
Free pdf bookS...
https://www.jahealthadvocate.com/uploads/2/4/5/9/2459046/mms_health_recovery_guidebook_1_october_2016.pdf
AND
https://educate-yourself.org/cn/Miracle_Mineral_Solution_of_the_21st_Century-Part-1-Archbishop-Jim-Humble-Free-2006-Edition.pdf
How to get it and my trusted source.
https://kvlab.com/chlorine-dioxide-kit-w-hcl-4-fl-oz
Wow. I’m lost for words. Thank you so much for taking all your time to share this information with me Dawn❤️🙏🙏 I wish you all the best❤️
I have to agree with Mr. Handley, at whatever it takes to make it work. I know it's not easy. I've been a single mom, I get it; but if there are no exemptions in your area, please don't let them poison your child. I would also add fire your doctor. Stay way from MDs, period, unless your child breaks a bone or other "mechanical" issues. Lie if you're asked if they're "up to date" on vaccines. It's a persistent myth that a pediatrician is necessary for our children's health. As for further info, "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries is an excellent, detailed summary of the so-called diseases that are vaccinated against. It's very eye-opening.
Thank you so so much Valerie for your input🙏❤️❤️
I might add you can essentially get an executive summary of Dissolving Illusions at their site here:
https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/#charts
You can clearly see that vaccines have essentially virtually nothing to do with the disappearance of a lot of "vaccine-preventable" diseases.
I appreciate your help, thank you so much❤️🙏
Good luck on your parenting journey!
I appreciate your help🥲❤️❤️
Move to a cheaper area?
Default Hell is the cheapest & easiest place to move to! Just saying!
There has NEVER been a parent that regrets NOT vaccinating, yet millions of us regret having done so. You are in a position that we envy, You can prevent destroying your child's health and save yourself and your child a lifetime of heartache. If only I could go back....
Thank you so much Kat❤️🥺 It hasn’t been easy getting to 12 months unvaccinated with so more societal pressure to do so😞 Take care of yourself❤️
Does that include the parents whose children died of preventable diseases? And if, as you claim, it doesn't, what does that say about the parents?
If you haven't already, you could read "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries. It explains the history of the diseases. "Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth" edited by Zoey O'Toole and Mary Holland basically explains how vaccine safety and efficacy studies are manipulated. "The Vaccine Friendly Plan" by pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas also discusses the risk vs. benefit of the (U.S.) childhood vaccine schedule. I believe he ultimately followed the data he collected, and his conscience, and no longer recommends vaccinating. Journalist Sharyl Attkisson has a Substack and one of her many articles discusses risk vs. benefit of vaccines. I also recommend reading everything that JB Handley has ever written. I have a 27 year old daughter with Asperger's Syndrome and a 25 year old son with Level 3/Profound/non-verbal Autism. If I could go back in time, I would move heaven and earth to homeschool my children. There are so many more low-cost and free resources now then there were in the early 2000's.
Lisa❤️🥺 I’m so sorry to hear this about your children🥺 Thank you so much for your time in sharing all these resources with me, I truly appreciate it❤️🙏
How do you explain people with autism who never received vaccines ? Who exist in every economic and global location?
There have always been autistic children, largely due to genetic factors, but genetic factors alone cannot explain the explosion of cases. One only has to look back to realize that it also cannot all be explained by increased diagnosis or widening of diagnostic criteria.
Fabulous books.
You’re a very loving mother, I can tell❤️ I wish you and your children the very best❤️🙏🙏
Wait till September RFK is going to tell us where autism come from
He won’t. The man makes millions of dollars annually peddling his bs.
Ok….so look at the diseases. How are they transmitted? Some of them are STDs (hep B and HPV)…..your baby doesn’t need those.
How common are they? Some of them haven’t been seen for 45 years (polio and diphtheria). Your baby doesn’t need those. Some of them (tetanus) you are more likely to get hit by meteor than get tetanus.
How bad is the disease (usually)? Chicken pox and roto-virus are pretty mild most of the time. You risk more with the vaccine than the disease.
How effective is the vaccine against it. The mumps vaccine is a known fraud. The pertussis vaccine is quite ineffective in general and is very ineffective in the most high risk catagory (tiny babies). Your best bet with pertussis is to stay out of daycares.
So what are you left with….a meningitis vaccine that is about as dangerous to get the vaccine as to not as meningitis is rare. And a pneumonia vaccine that works ok against the strains it has in it, but pneumonia is very complicated and often has nothing to do with those strains.
The measles vaccine does work, but it is lumped in with a vaccine that doesn’t work and one that was made off the life of children killed in the womb for the vaccine.
Do with it what you will.
Thank you so much Christie❤️🙏 I appreciate sharing all your knowledge with me❤️
Hi Lina. You might find some peace knowing that the options for illness management aren’t only vaccinate or don’t vaccinate. There’s a whole world of amazing natural herbs that boost the immune system and are helpful for recovering from symptoms. One problem in our society is that people aren’t aware of that so they think vaccination is the only option. I think you’ll find if you spend some time studying herbs, teas, and supplements like Vitamin C, Zinc, etc, you might feel less fear around getting sick.
Thank you so much Lev! You’re absolutely right!!🥲
I live in Ontario. I went to city hall and paid for an exemption. My independent school no longer pressured me.
HOWEVER! The moment my children’s doctor was alone with them at 12 & 13 years old (I thought they might want to develop a relationship for future private issues and so arranged a solo appointment for them) she vaccinated them. My kids knew they had an exemption and why but felt pressured. I had not been clear with the doctor’s office and didn’t know vaccines were on the table at this appointment.
Tanja, just reading back to your comment now and I forgot to respond about the doctor who unknowingly vaccinated your children. Wow. This is not right what they did. They didn’t respect your wishes and even went as far as going behind your back to vaccinate your children. It’s such malpractice as a medical professional😟
Turns out that if they deem the child capable they can consent quite early. All legal. I cried a lot.
Thank you so much for your reply Tanja❤️! I just moved to Ontario less than a year ago. I’m originally from NS where vaccines are not mandatory in schools. My baby is a year old now and I’ve been pressured by everyone to vaccinate because daycares and schools all require them apparently😣🥺😔…Tanja, can you please share what the process was like to get the exemption? Thank you so much🙏❤️❤️
Yup! I got married at City Hall so on our wedding day while paying for the license and ceremony I simply asked for the vaccine exemption paperwork (and paid for it of course). No questions asked! It may be called a religious exemption or conscientious exemption. You got this!
Thanks so much for the information Tanja!❤️🙏🙏 I never knew these existed, it seems like the only choices I hear are make a fake vaccine document or join a religious group…😬! Thanks again and have a nice summer❤️🫶
Without the benefit of these remarkable studies, I chose not to vaccinate my children: I did this over 50 years ago. I applaud these authors for taking these studies on, fully knowing what they were up against.
However, my one failing was the tetanus shot. My husband wanted our six children to have all the vaccinations, but I refused. Yet any time an incident occurred… You all know the story… A rusty nail…That particular child would get a tetanus shot. ( In my opinion, none of the vaccinations are safe, but I now think the TBD shot is the worst.) These arguments almost meant the end of our marriage, over and over, and I gave in for This One shot because “Measles and mumps didn’t scare me, but, as we all have been told, lockjaw means death.”
For Americans to fully wake up, we need more studies, real studies, honest studies, not funded by big Pharma. We need to stop vaccinating our children..Full Stop. End of Story.
Oh, and I was lucky. The tetanus shot was just tetanus. In 2012 you could no longer get the tetanus by itself. You had to do the DPT. And interestingly, enough, all of my children had pertussis and it was a two week long soree (party, haha) because it went from one to the next and now they’re all immune for life.
Fortunately they survived the DPT. The acellular pertussis in the TDaP in use now may increase lifetime susceptibility to the disease. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30793754/
“Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”
Since my kiddos all had pertussis before they ever got a tetanus shot, are they immune to the “new” pertussis?
Ha! Good question, but yes, they should be. 😁🙆♀️
I didn’t see Mawson January 2025 paper mentioned
Link provided
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/vaccination-and-neurodevelopmental-disorders-a-study-of-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/
You're right! I just added that to the end of the article, thank you
Just another article putting pressure on the dam that is about to burst
Vaccines will still plague us until they repeal The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).
Removing the PREP act would be needed as well.
But there's just too much money wrapped up in the industry. Politicians are scared to touch it. It's like Social Security.
Just the fact that over the last forty years, this particular suite of products has been…
Lionized Incessantly
AND
Made Liability-Free
AND
Mandated
…hints with as much subtlety as a high-speed car crash about:
1. what is likely to be true about the total impact of their use; and
2. why vested interests have spent so much public-health-industrial-complex treasure on gate-keeping discussion on the topic with censorship, and fending off critical path research with funding and publishing embargoes.
As the old Sesame Street bit went: “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong, can you tell which one is not like the other, before I finish this song.”
🧪 What the Science Says (2024–2025 data included):
✅ Vaccines are safe and effective.
The overwhelming consensus from thousands of studies worldwide is that:
Vaccines do not cause autism.
The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.
The risk of severe side effects is extremely low — typically less than 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1 million doses for serious adverse events.
🔬 Key Studies:
2019 Danish Study: Followed over 650,000 children for more than a decade. Found no link between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism.
2021 CDC & WHO Meta-Review: Assessed over 160 studies, confirmed that vaccines prevent millions of deaths and that the serious side effects are “exceedingly rare.”
2023 UK Study: Compared vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children; vaccinated children had lower rates of hospitalization, no increase in neurodevelopmental issues, and were less likely to die from infectious diseases.
⚖️ Risk: Vaccine vs. No Vaccine
Risk TypeVaccinated ChildrenUnvaccinated ChildrenSevere side effects~1 in 100,000–1 millionNo vaccine side effects, but exposed to diseaseHospitalization riskSignificantly reducedUp to 10× higher (e.g., for measles, whooping cough)Death from preventable diseaseNear zeroMeasles: ~1–2 in 1,000; Polio: paralysis in ~1%Long-term complicationsExtremely rare (e.g., allergic reaction)Common from diseases: deafness, brain damage, paralysis
➡️ Conclusion: It’s significantly riskier to go without vaccines than to receive them.
🧨 What About VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)?
Anti-vaccine activists like Handley often cite VAERS data to claim vaccines are unsafe.
But: VAERS is self-reported, unverified, and explicitly warns that reports do not prove causation.
Example: One famous VAERS report claimed a person turned into the Incredible Hulk after a vaccine — which was obviously false, but still logged.
🧠 Misinformation vs. Science
Handley's views have been widely debunked by the CDC, WHO, FDA, and major medical journals.
His claims are not supported by peer-reviewed science, and in many cases, misinterpret or selectively cherry-pick data.
Even organizations that previously published his work (like certain autism-focused advocacy groups) have since distanced themselves due to the lack of scientific backing.
🛡️ Final Verdict:
J.B. Handley’s claims do not hold up to current scientific scrutiny. Vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective. Not vaccinating children puts them at significantly greater risk of disease, hospitalization, and even death.
Scientific scrutiny is manipulated. It isn't even science and I know our country has conducted horrible experiments on people over the the years even Bill Clinton admitted it.
My observations…
I have grown kids and stopped vaccinating in 2004. When my oldest was 5, she got seriously ill and was paralyzed with pain in crital condition right after she started kindergarten and we never found out what it was but now looking back, I wonder if it was after her wellness visit to vax to start school? She made it through but some time after that she had a seizure out of the blue and never again but I wonder if that was after a doctor's visit. I didn't suspect so…
My youngest born in 2004 did not get any vaccines. She never stayed home sick from school and rarely got a cold. I don't recall her even getting a fever or needing antibiotics. Maybe once?
Back in 2018, my pediactric office started refusing to treat unvaxxed children so we never went back and got her wellness checkup with a chiropractor. That was only thing we went to the doctor for anyway.
They make you fear and dependent on needing them but the need us.
Initially I saw the virulence of the propaganda push for the injections. But over time I started wondering how sound the whole premise of inducing the immune system's ability to fight a disease by exposing it to a micro-hit of the disease. It sounds so plausible, logical, but my doubts persisted. I only got 2 vaccines that I remember, in the late '50s, & I've been mostly free of health challenges. My sister's 2 daughters, though - one has turbo cancer now from the recent injection, & a grandchild is autistic. The odds of that happening in the natural course of things is infinitesimal. Then I started reading Sasha Latypova here on Substack. The whole vaccine 'industry' is an ongoing scam. But few want to consider that possibility.
Refer to my initial post! Do what you want but not getting your children vaccinated is only increasing their chances of adverse disease ramifications to those very children. Remember the easiest person to fool is yourself, be relentless in your pursuit for truth.
Today my vaxxed up 74 yo mother in law is in town staying with us and she takes so many meds that my husband asked her if it was breakfast. On the other hand, my older unvaxxed 81 yo mother is also here with us and she only takes a blood pressure pill.
My MIL got lupus after a flu shot 10 years ago and after the covid shot, she has a plethora of issues.
I have seen the same thing Over and over. They don't protect and only harm.
It is better not to vax.
Wow, you really believe vaccines are benign & not a bioweapon. All the evidence points to the latter. Vaccines came along soon after the eugenics movement became respectable. Not a coincidence.
I say the same to you. Just do your research. Peer reviewed studies across the globe make this an easy one. Just correlate vaccine use - non-use, demographics and deaths and the evidence is patently clear - vaccines save lives.
Cases to support:
Covid: A comprehensive study utilizing data from seven Vaccine Safety Datalink sites in the U.S. analyzed non–COVID-19 mortality rates among recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines. After adjusting for factors such as age, sex, and race/ethnicity, the study found that vaccinated individuals had significantly lower non–COVID-19 mortality rates compared to unvaccinated individuals. For instance, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for non–COVID-19 mortality after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.30–0.33), indicating a 69% reduction in risk. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8553028/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Covid: A modeling study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases estimated the global impact of COVID-19 vaccination up to December 8, 2021. The study concluded that vaccination significantly reduced COVID-19 mortality worldwide, with the most substantial effects observed in countries with higher vaccination coverage. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2822%2900320-6/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Measles: Rural Bangladesh: A longitudinal study in rural Bangladesh found that measles vaccination led to a 46% reduction in mortality among children aged 9–60 months. This effect was especially pronounced among children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, indicating that vaccination can help reduce health disparities .
Johns Hopkins Public Health
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2208557/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Global Perspective: An analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys encompassing approximately 1 million children across 62 countries revealed that complete vaccination coverage (including measles, BCG, DPT, polio, and maternal tetanus vaccines) was associated with a 27% reduction in under-five mortality compared to areas with no vaccination coverage .
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26453618/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Smallpox: Denmark Study: A Danish cohort study following individuals born between 1965 and 1976 found that those who received both smallpox (vaccinia) and BCG (tuberculosis) vaccines had a 46% lower risk of death from natural causes compared to unvaccinated individuals. This suggests that these vaccines may confer broader health benefits beyond their target diseases . https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5837789/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Influenze: Hospitalization Rates: Compared to White adults, influenza hospitalization rates were nearly 80% higher among Black adults, 30% higher among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults, and 20% higher among Hispanic adults.
AJMC
Vaccination Coverage: During the 2021–2022 season, flu vaccination coverage was 54% among White adults, but only 42% among Black adults, 38% among Hispanic adults, and 41% among AI/AN adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/flu-inequities/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I conclude many of you are not willing to do the work to find the truth. If you are I've given recommendation to several books that will help you understand big data, and critically think - a prerequisite in today's age of infinite information where half-truths are a dime a dozen. You must put in the work to avoid being fooled.
Without propaganda, fake stats, and fear mongering through 'trusted' sources like doctors CDC news virus movies etc, people would be much more skeptical.
Because of all the globe and NASA propaganda I started looking into flat earth and it is compelling.
Our true history has been manipulated to control us.
Flat Earth, Hmmmm, bold decision - Good luck with that!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/02/23/mad-mike-hughes-dead/
I didn't want to even consider it myself... until I looked and saw enough compelling evidence.
Watch 1969 moon landing and you will know that's not real and they talked to the president from the moon on a landline with no time delay. Sure they did.
If they lie about that, nothing they say can be trusted.
Genesis 1 explains when God created the earth He divided waters. There is no space. He put the sun moon and stars inside the firmament for us. Not in space.
If you believe the Bible then there it is. If not, that is what they want. They want to keep us from God and we are just another planet spinning around the sun, and we are nothing special. The heliocentric solar system model is sun worship. Helios is a sun god. 🌞
There are too many coincidences IMO.
Think outside the matrix box they created for us.
I can see you're a special kind of.... I like this quote from Carl Sagan. “Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe.”
So to move forward get back to me when you've read this book, it will help you understand a few things: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
and here is video series that will also enlighten you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H860bGkD0Bs
- In 1825, over 20% of infants died at birth, and nearly half of children didn’t survive past age 10.
- By 1925, medical advances had cut those numbers significantly.
- Today, thanks to modern healthcare, both rates are very low.
Vaccines alone likely saved ~10–25% of the children who would have died in 1825 — tens of millions globally over 200 years and hundreds of thousands in the U.S.
Here is a list of Vaccines that have had the biggest impact on child survival in the U.S.:
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTaP)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
Polio
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Rotavirus
Hepatitis B and A
Influenza (for children under 5)
Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV)
Science is real! there is a great book 'misbehaving' by Richard Thaler and the books by Daniel Kahneman that would be beneficial in helping you understand information, increase your critical thinking and decision making.
I appreciate your reply. However, the 1825 stats are probably made up like most history, but there are advances that have prevented loss. For instance, mothers can survive C-sections now.
Did children die from sickness or inury? Antibiotics helped IMO rather than vaccines.
As far as vaccines, many sicknesses were in decline because of cleanliness and medical advances, not necessarily vaccines.
When I started teaching in the 90s, the odds of autism were like 1/150ish and now they are 1/31???? I personally have known at least 3 people over the years who had normal babies and as soon as they got their 18mo shots, went from engaging to blankness. I also met a father (20+yrs ago) whose child died from mercury poisoning after routine vaccination. He told me he had an autopsy and shared https://www.vacinfo.org which is when I questioned them. Now they claim to remove the mercury? Like they didn't know it was deadly toxic before?
Cancer rates and allergies are much much greater as well. Schools no longer use peanut butter, but they used to.
My niece has 2 boys under 3 and they both are up to date with vax, but they both have severe allergies to food and both are covered in "eczema" all over their arms and hands from what I saw.
Believe the science and trust the eugenisists like Gates if you want. I have seen what they have done in Africa and India and money talks....
Ok , pharma shill bot.
Better yet, "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries.
Here's a few reasons why Dissolving illusions does not hold up:
Selective Use of Data: The book emphasizes mortality rates while often neglecting morbidity data. This approach overlooks the significant suffering and complications caused by diseases, even when death rates declined. For instance, before the measles vaccine, the U.S. experienced approximately 48,000 hospitalizations and 4,000 cases of measles encephalitis annually, leading to severe complications like blindness and neurological damage. VACCINESWORKBLOG.WORDPRESS.COM
Misinterpretation of Historical Context: While it's true that improvements in public health infrastructure contributed to declining mortality rates, the introduction of vaccines further accelerated the reduction of both morbidity and mortality. The book's narrative downplays this synergistic effect.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wrong-about-polio-a-review-of-suzanne-humphries-md-and-roman-bystrianyks-dissolving-illusions-part-1-the-long-version/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Promotion of Unproven Treatments: The authors advocate for alternatives like high-dose vitamin C therapy for diseases such as tetanus and pertussis. These claims lack robust scientific evidence and are not supported by mainstream medical research.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/dissolving-illusions-lies-cover-ups-vaccines-cola/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Conflation of Correlation and Causation: The book often presents temporal associations between improved living conditions and declining disease rates as evidence against vaccine efficacy, without adequately addressing the multifactorial nature of public health advancements.
It seems that you are spending time repeating talking points rather than reading the book yourself. I'd encourage you to actually read it in its entirety, as well as studying all the citations of interest prior to commenting on it. Blogs written by folks who would argue no matter what evidence is presented are not credible sources.
By outside people who have no skin in the game for pass/ fail on the research? But if course you’ll rebutted with they’re all in it together 😂
They are all in it. You don't get positions and promoted unless you follow orders.