After examining 1.2 million children over a 20 year period, it did NOT find that kids who received more jabs and more aluminum had a higher risk of injury.
I'm tired of hearing what is NOT causing the extreme rise in autism. TELL US WHAT **IS** CAUSING IT!
& isn't not merely increased diagnosis. More people are suffering with severe autism, being nonverbal - surely something that wasn't simply undiagnosed in the past.
Me thinks it's not a particular vaxx or a single substance that's causing it rather the combination of vaxxes and the interaction of other exogenous factors.
If that's the case we may never know its cause because there's simply to many confounders.
What i do know for sure is that the explosion of autism, celiacs disease, etc. happened after GenX, when we progressively went from 5-7 core vaccines to over 70 in 40 years.
I also know that 13 people in my extended family have had zero vaxxes and zero cases of autism or other maladies.
You may be right that it's a combo of factors, but I refuse to believe that we can't come up with some better hypothesis & try to do some studies!
& I'm very tired of the deliberate, irrational conflation between those who WANT ANSWERS with those who claim it's the vaccines. Too many seem to say, "It's not the vaxes, so just STFU." Huh?! That makes no sense.
Telling us what does NOT cause it doesn't mean we should all stop searching for answers.
Playing devils advocate a bit, but wouldn't that just as easily point to a genetic link as it would a vax link? Are there similar lack of issues among the Mennonites? From my understanding, they are less likely to be vaccinated as well. One of the important details MSM was withholding was the fact that the recent measles outbreak was mostly among the Mennonite community in Texas where many are not vaxxed from my understanding. Do they have lower rates of Autism as well? Do they actually have lower rates or are they just less likely to be diagnosed?
First many of us were sent next door to catch the measles as the Brady Bunch clip below shows. Yes the mennonite and Amish both have almost no Autism at all.
But again, is it environmental or genetic? Both are fairly insular. Wonder what the rates are among the Amish that leave the community and live out in the world? That's actually fascinating. There are multiple ways someone could go with this.
Remember, they told you that immunity from prior infection did not work, that only the injection works to Stop the Covid. Thats why they did not test you for previous infection before they forced you to pick between your job or another injection.
Do you believe it was genetics that prevent Covid from leaving the Amish with almost no deaths while they passed the cup at Church?
Do you believe that the AMish have some genetic gift that prevents them from even needing ANY vaccines?
If true I would imagine that the Amish would be of great curiosity for people that believe in Science right?
Science, its observable, repeatable and predictable
We already KNOW the causes, which is the toxic effect on the neural tissues. And we know it's directly correlated with the amount (kids who have multiple vaccine shots at once are more likely to have a bad reaction than those who space them out) and with the maturity of the nervous system (kids who delay vaccination, even by a couple of months, are less likely to have adverse outcomes; kids who are born premature and vaccinated early are especially likely to have a bad reaction).
If you think we "may never know", you've succumbed to pro-vaxx propaganda.
My sentiments exactly. My younger daughter was born in 1973. She got just a very few more vaxes than I did in 1945. When did all these others get added? How can anyone possibly deny that overwhelming an infant's immune system with multiple vaccines in one day, then rinse and repeat every 3-4 months, would not cause any number of neurological and physiological injuries??!
False. Except in exceptionally rare cases, despite tens of billions of dollars searching the genome, virtually no replicable genes for autism have been found. Key word: replicable. As false positives are statistically highly likely to be found when searching the genome as the researchers have done.
It is disturbed and redirected genetic (DNA) problems acquired after being born, not during conception. That is what makes it hard to study. DNA fragments getting interposed during development. That is what needs to be studied. You are right, it is not inherited.
I read several years ago where an abnormally high percentage of kids with autism have gastrointestinal issues as well. Some posit that changes in diet can help/improve the "symptoms" of autism. My daughter who is "on the spectrum" has some issues such as lactose intolerance as well as bowel movement issues. These seem to have a genetic link as my wife has the same issues but lesser and her mother has the BM issues but not the lactose intolerance.
I agree with you—it’s a combination of factors. Each vaccine needs to disclose each ingredient and then each ingredient and combinations of such need to be studied in order to discover the cause. In the meantime, staying away from pharmaceuticals as much as possible is my mantra.
It is likely a single factor and a lot camouflage to obscure that factor. I suspect that single factor is human fetal DNA fragments which are in many vaccines but were not before ~1990, but have been increasing since then. These autistic kids have miss-programmed brains and DNA is the programming language.
I totally agree. I feel like no one is really trying that hard to figure this out. I have an adopted daughter who at 18 months was saying "Hi Daddy" when I came into the room and other things (I have video) and from about 2.5 to today (almost 8) only speaks randomly and in seeming third-person, essentially non-verbal, and is not fully potty trained (she was using the kiddy potty at 2). She has an entire class of kids like her at her school and there are several other classes like that in the county and many kids like her jammed into regular classes. It seems like this (adapting to the numbers of kids in many ways) has become the racket. No need to find the cause, treatment, mitigate, or cure, just pay thousands of people to be glorified baby-sitters to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of kids.
Ktrip — I’d love to get your thoughts on if vaccines were involved between 18 months and the regression.
In this article I posted below, plenty of parents have commented saying their children were normal — then regressed. Showing signs of vaccine injury, which gets confused for autism.
I will read but here are my raw thoughts first so you have them unadulterated. Before that some additional background, she is my adopted daughter, but her mother is a friend, and we all live together (long story). She knows who the father is (long story). When she received a vaccination around 18 months, she was "out of it" for days. But she bounced back it seemed. When she was "out of it" her behavior was similar to the way it became. She didn't speak. She was lethargic. She acted like someone punched her in the stomach and she had lost her spirit. But it seemed like she recovered, largely, but it was not that long after that she began regressing. There have been improvements but it is a slow go. It was very stark. She used to count to 20 and say the alphabet in the car on the way to daycare when she was 16 months. She was so advanced it seemed that it made my mother worry that my nephew and God son who is the same age, was behind or suffering from some malady. He turned out to be OK.
Is it the shear number of vaccines? Is it something in them? Is it vaccine quality? How often do they test these vaccines, especially the imported ones. I ask because I am on blood pressure medicine and for a period my doctor changed the prescription because they found carcinogens in a version made in China. Is China sending us "their best stuff" like they did COVID? Also, toys coming from China are showing up with lead paint. Is some of this negligent or worse, intentional?
But yes, the story is like so many others, which is why the vaccine is the main culprit. The blacking out is the sign of the damage and even though the ‘recover’ it’s only the beginning.
Thank you. Excellent reference. I'm cancelling Berenson also. How can someone be very brave then such a coward. He calls Ivermectin celery but refuses to debate Pierre Kory on effectiveness for COVID. That tweet is unbelievable. Is Berenson a heavy drinker or why would any normal person say that. There is something not mentally right with him despite his general intelligence.
It is a batch of bad vaccines. Bad as in evil. We never used to use aborted fetal tissue culture to make the vaccines. That started in the early and mid 90's with varivax (chicken pox) and MMR, the R component. Then came hep A vaccine. Abortion is immoral and that process has lead to these vaccines and now likely the bad problem of autism.
That is something I wonder as well or inconsistent manufacturing standards. That is why I suggested it could a China or overseas manufacturing issue. A dirty little secret is all of this off-shoring is cheaper not just because of cheap labor but also lack of oversight, quality control etc. I cannot even tell how many times I have noticed it personally in all kinds of products. That is why I avoid knock-off products made in China in general. But how would any of us know with a vaccine especially if no one is even allowed to suggest bad vaccines might be a cause or contributing factor. And you are racist if you suggest inferior Chinese products of any kind. They have found lead paint on or in Chinese and other foreign made toys. If one has a two year old that chews on stuff, they could be lead poisoned and you wouldn't even know about it unless you insisted they be tested for lead paint poisoning.
“Hazard ratios were adjusted for sex, calendar year and season of birth, preterm birth, birthweight, number of visits to the general practitioner before age 2 y, maternal age at delivery, maternal place of birth, maternal smoking during pregnancy, maternal health conditions, maternal prescription drug use during pregnancy, and parental household income.”
From the substack critique...
Kids under 24 months of age receiving more aluminum-containing vaccine on their way to being sick due to aluminum are effectively removed by this statistical maneuver. The study authors do not provide any justification for adjusting for these particular variables and do not show the results of alternative models. They cherry-picked the model that gave the result they desired.
For people who think autism isn’t increasing, they need to talk to public school personnel. My son was one of the first (verbal, but difficulty in speaking/language comprehension) in his elementary school in the late 90’s. I ran into his lunch lady about 5 years later and she said there had been an explosion of kids needing increased services at the school. These studies are smokescreens to a degree. I used to keep up on them and they never addressed the impact on the individual. There was a study done at King’s College in London over 10 yrs ago. It was involving the swine flu vaccine-not sure which adjuvant they used. They mapped out the dna of the participants
prior to administration of the vaccine, then checked blood values for some length of time (they didn’t specify what they were checking) and participant’s health complaints. Apparently they found that people with similar dna types had similar reactions to the vaccines. Their conclusion was that your dna determines how well you do with vaccines. In my opinion this is the type of study we should be replicating on a large scale. Another study that might prove or disprove the role of the hepatitis B vaccines’s role would be to go back and see what the rate of diagnosed autism has been for children born in the year 2000 when the vaccine was taken off the market to remove the mercury. Personally I doubt we will ever see either of these types of studies because if there ever was admitted proof that vaccines caused any developmental harm, the lawsuits would be astronomical. By the way, after testimony on its safety on Capital Hill in 1999, it was agreed by all of the health agencies that the vaccine would be removed from the market to take out the mercury and then rolled back to be started at 2-6 months. It was never rolled back and there was never an explanation as to why. The dishonesty we saw with the Covid shots is not new.
@mb- some kids are just plain asshats like their parents who file for SSI on the behalf of said asshat kids and get monthly checks they use for hair and nails. I know people who have done it.
There is a compelling case that it's not the type or ingredients of a vaccine that cause autism, but rather the number of pain events ie, jabs. This would support the theory that more vaccines overall (as in the US) would mean more autism. It also aligns with a lot of research that points to the harms of multiple vaccines administered during a single visit.
Because of this I've heard of some parents (who believe in the efficacy of vaccines) to minimize pain events by giving simultaneous injections in each arm, and numbing the areas well beforehand, to minimize the pain of injection.
I don't know how much other evidence there is for this, but it's interesting to contemplate and makes sense. The pain of a surprise needle, let alone consecutive needles, while in the arms of a consenting caregiver, is likely a serious trauma for a child's psyche.
people who are truly intellectually limited get painted with the $h!t brown foot wide brush of "Autism" to satisfy the DSM 5 lame excessively broad spectrum.
And those who are higher functioning Autism Spectrum legitimately, Savants if you want to use that overgeneralized term, are the future of humanity, if they aren't wiped out by true recklessly emotional impulsively sadistic Leftists first...
I know. Increased autism is often explained away as merely increased diagnosis and NOT an actual increase in cases, which is why I proactively addressed that in my original post.
"are the future of humanity"
Sounds like you're saying those with high-functioning autism are SUPERIOR and this is a DESIRABLE thing?
"if they aren't wiped out by true recklessly emotional impulsively sadistic Leftists first"
Wow, lots to unpack here. First, it seems that it's more right-wingers who want to figure out the cause. Democrat politicians were criticizing the "MAHA" movement, practically implying that efforts to uncover the causes were equivalent to eugenics!!
Moving on from the right/ left issue, autism is a **disorder**. Sure, plenty are "highly functioning" but if we could wave a magic wand & cure their autism, wouldn't that be a good thing??? Would NOT having autism make them less intelligent??? I don't know, but I doubt it!
We didn't have much autism when I was growing up. We just had "weird kids", and you didn't see them as much at social activities or trying to go to college. The most obvious answer is usually closest to the truth.
Your tweet this morning on this topic was so gratuitously cruel and flippant I unfollowed you on X and cancelled my paid UT subscription. Not that it matters to you. If you haven’t been through this with your own children consider yourself lucky and stop beating up on already terrorized parents who have. Cheap cheap shot by a writer for whom I had great respect.
yeah, telling moms who notice symptoms of autism after a check-up where vaccines were administered to their child to stop noticing that + also stop relying on their maternal instincts
...and instead - to rely on data commissioned by the danish government bureau that oversees the vaccines they distribute
...is not the way i would rally support for a supposedly truth-seeking health blog!
Sorry to hear your thoughts on this. There definitely is a connection between vaccines and autism — I’ve covered that tremendously on my stack and just commented on it as well.
@Franklin- maybe the only common cause is the exaggerated amount of vaccines within a short period of time forcing the kids' immune systems to go into overdrive causing damage. You know, like the Moderna shots did to my husband.
Hi Kitty, one thing I want to call out is that just as drugs have side effects, vaccines to have side effects. Vaccine induced encephalitis is a side effect of vaccine — and the National Vaccine Injury pays out claims to those who suffer such effects.
I use that info because it shows that there is a clear link to vaccines and not necessarily just bombarding the system, even though that is logically as well
Wow. Yes, parents should make data driven decisions about vaccines. But the first half of your tweet is incredibly unkind to the parents of autistic children. I'm not one of those parents, but I do volunteer from time to time with a special needs ministry, and I see the burdens those parents already carry. Alex, you should apologize without delay.
(Editing because my writing is sloppy today! Not for content.)
I hadn't seen the tweet in question until someone posted it downthread - I already had a disgusting taste in my mouth from some of his other tweets today, but hadn't read through his full feed yet. That tweet is DISGUSTING and 100% not okay. Like you, I'm unfollowing on X and cancelling, and hope many other do too. Alex crossed a line.
When Alex finally said he'd consider looking into the schedule, I felt hopeful that he might approach the issue with the same rigor and thought as he did the covid vax. But it's clear that he can't bring himself to do it. Although he'll listen to anecdotes from people when it comes to the Covid vaccine, he won't if it's about the childhood schedule. Why?
Maybe Alex played Russian roulette and won. Doesn't mean the next people in line being handed the gun were so lucky. To then tell the people after him who got shot in the head that it was their own fault? JFC. I'm STAGGERED at his audacity - how can anyone so blatantly crap on the reality of so many in such a crass, thoughtful, holier-than-thou way?
I wonder if besides Alex's kids' intelligence, height, humor and athleticism, if they have any of the lesser-known "side effects" of vaccination that Alex might not even consider issues. Alex seems to think autism is the only thing people worry about. Autoimmune issues count, no? Asthma, allergies, frequent ear infections, predilection to illness, etc etc. If not, if they're literally the model of health and always have been, then good for him and them. I mean - anyone who gambles and wins can consider themselves lucky. But it's folly to claim that because you won, no one else lost.
Tx! I reposted in the main thread a little more articulately - & messaged it as my cancellation reason, including that I knew my $5/month wouldn't dent his wallet but, see ya. I hope he lost a lot of subscribers yesterday.
Wow, thanks for pointing this out. I couldn’t believe he would give this study that excluded kids developing autism within 24 months or having immune issues in skin (all do!) any credit. Now that I see the tweet combined with his stuff on Ivermectin AND cannabis I will cancel my subscription.
I saw AB do the same thing with ConVid and the shots-- Against, then for, then more firmly against the death shots. You catch more readers this way, maybe? Hmmm... Talk about "problematic..." This iteration of Planet Earth is more resembling "Brave New World" than "1984." The difference? People LIKE their enslavement to The System in "Brave New World." After all, cooperating or working entirely within it's dictates pays the bills, with money in the bank at the end of the month ;-)
Not that I need to explain - but this substack drop hit my inbox *after* i unsubscribed. When I glanced at it I didn’t see the gratuitous snark that I saw in his tweet this morning. Thought some people not on X and reading this SS might like to know.
There is one part of the methodology here that every parent will note as a major flaw: that the tracking ended BEFORE the age of 5. Most pediatricians don't diagnose autism -- they send kids to specialists for that -- and most kids don't ever get tested, examined, or diagnosed with disorders by specialists -- including ADHD and autism -- until AFTER they start school, at 5 or 6! So this is a nonsensical piece of data and doesn't prove anything at all about autism. If the data shows they are equally likely to have asthma or joint diseases or something else that is strictly physiological with aluminum in their bodies, that would not be as likely to be impacted by age. But diagnosis with autism most CERTAINLY is correlated to age and school attendance.
The study tracked the studied adverse events only from age 2 forward—there was no data taken nor statistics done on any diagnoses before age 2:
“We followed children from 2 years of age for study outcome events until 31 December 2020, or until they reached age 5 years, died, or were lost to follow-up, whichever came first.“
The study also, of course, excluded children no longer alive by age 2.
The net result was that all or most adverse events—up to and including death—that occurred close in time to aluminum-containing injections were effectively excluded from the study by its design. Also, the level of cumulative aluminum exposure was frozen at the 2 year mark, preventing the detection of any variation in outcomes by variations in post-age-two exposure levels.
Despite these defects, the outcome for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura was highly suggestive, though slightly below 95% significance.
The supplemental/alternative analyses included one that adjusted the age at the start of monitoring to 14 months (along with capping the exposure data at 14 months). The same flaws are of course present, in that diagnoses that arise close in time to specific exposures to aluminum are excluded by the study design.
Still, the outcome for polymyositis/dermatomyositis was highly suggestive, barely missing 95% significance. (See page 14 of the supplementary material.)
A potentially much more informative study would look at the time-association, if any, of aluminum-containing injections and potential adverse events.
I posted this below, but please look at the rise of Autism diagnosis compared with the fall of mental retardation diagnosis. We work with a specialist who claims this is at least part of it.
Absolutely! I was a nurse in the NYC public school system working in a co-location school (building with more than one school). One of the schools was a 32-seat autism program. At least 1/3 of those kids were not autistic. In my professional opinion (I am a pediatric nurse practitioner) they were what we used to call mildly to moderately retarded. However, there was more money per pupil for a specical ed designation. The program had to fill up all 32 seats to get all the money they wanted.
But did they claim or prove that there was still no impact at all by age 8? Or was it "before age 8", or children whom they followed up to age had not been diagnosed "before age 5"? Or age 10? Or 12? Or 16? Our school district normally won't even test kids for dyslexia or other issues until 2nd grade or higher, which would typically translate to a big spike around 8-9.
Did the study compare children who had been vaccinated to those who were unvaccinated? That's the only real way to know whether vaccines are mostly safe or not.
I'm not anti-vaccine -- I gave my kids most vaccines (I declined a couple.) My daughter has chosen not to vaccinate her son, and I support her decision. Her best friend is spreading out vaccines so her son will have all recommended vaccines (except COVID) by the time he is five, but no more than one at a time. Young parents are questioning, and I think they have every right to question because no vaccine has been tested against a true placebo.
Pediatrician Joel Gator Warsh (not an anti-vaccine activist) had the following to say about this:
The study didn’t ask the most important question - what happens when you compare no aluminum v. some v. more? Instead, kids with zero aluminum exposure were lumped in with “low” exposure - making it impossible to evaluate the true impact of avoiding aluminum altogether. Plus follow-up only went until age 5 - yet many diagnoses (especially autoimmune) often occur after that.
We still need long term, prospective research comparing vaccinated v. unvaccinated children with a proper aluminum gradient.
That diagnosis was "cancelled" a few years ago. It was so overused it became meaningless. It was applied to any child who was at all atypical. It was replaced by a similar trash diagnostic category - "on the spectrum."
I still use Aspergers as it's a better description and honestly less stigmatic than "autism". She is exceedingly high functioning, you wouldn't know except for some quirks. I don't take a lot of heed from the medical associations that did away with gender dysphoria and instead embraced gender affirming care. Same medical associations that recommended the jab for babies.
My point being she wasn't diagnosed until well after the cutoff of the study.
This study is not just far from perfect...it is VERY FAR from perfect!
This study would have been considered to be reasonably good if they chose to compare those children who received a certain number of vaccines with aluminum in them with children who had received none. However, the simple logic of doing this type of comparison was NOT conducted. Instead, the researchers simply chose to do a study with children who received vaccines with aluminum with other children who also received slightly less aluminum.
Ultimately, it was determined that the children who got exposed to less aluminum received only 1 mg less than the others. More specifically, children in the "reduced aluminum" exposure got only around 20% less.
If children have some type of hypersensitivity to aluminum, just having a little less exposure is relatively meaningless. It is almost as though the researchers went out of their way to avoid doing a more clear comparison between vaccinated AND unvaccinated children. This fact alone shows the observant reader what researchers do to cleverly get the results that Big Pharma wants from them.
Critics of this study also noted that study’s authors withdrew from the study children who had aluminum-related chronic illness before 24 months, which meant they removed the kids most likely to show early signs of aluminum-related injury.
This study simply shows how to lie with statstics.
You are correct. It is well established that there are children with mitochondrial insufficiency. Probably a bad term since in a less toxic world their mitochondria would be just fine. They cannot deal with the increasing stress of inflammatory stimulation. It would seem that those who can handle vaccines can do so over a wider range while those who can't were adjusted out of the study.
This is a classic example of a study that is designed to show no effect.
First, the researchers decided to exclude kids under two who expressed the symptoms of aluminum toxicity before the age of two without conducting any secondary analysis of that sub group. In other words what was their aluminum exposure? How do we know that this group didn’t represent the very children who were adversely affected by the variable they were testing?
Second, they excluded over 35,000 children with "too many registered vaccinations containing aluminum". Wouldn’t that be the best group to examine possible toxicity?
Third, the forest plot in your article explains the results of their primary analysis. Look at what they are doing. They are mapping the hazard ratios of all of these symptoms as a function of an additional milligram of aluminum exposure instead of plotting hazard ratios for the least exposed to the most exposed. In other words they are quantifying the risk of small differences of exposure instead of large differences. And because there are a large number of children they can claim that their findings are robust. The researchers further note that "only" 1.2% of the study population had zero aluminum exposure. That was over 15,000 children. What an excellent control group to use against those that were excluded because they received too many registered vaccines. Instead they lump them into a group of about 50 thousand who received less than 1.5 mg in their secondary analyses.
Fourth, note how most of the hazard ratios are centered BELOW one. This means that additional aluminum is associated with LESS of a risk of autoimmune or inflammatory disorders. There is no plausible explanation for this as aluminum is an adjuvant designed to stimulate the immune system.
Many of the conditions have a statistically significant decreased risk! The authors are not proving safety. They are proving that their study is confounded at some level.
This is not mentioned in the discussion. For good reason. How would they explain such a result? Instead they conclude that aluminum exposure poses no risk. They can omit whatever they wish but where was the peer review?? At the very least the reviewers should have demanded that the authors offer an explanation for this unexpected finding.
This study is actually proof that peer review isn’t what we think it is. It is a means to fool the public into accepting invalid conclusions. It begs the question, what was in the minds of these researchers as they designed the study? Did none of them question their approach?
The greater contextual problem is that there are very, very few studies that are designed properly. In other words, a study that compares outcomes between groups of unvaccinated and highly vaccinated children. There is, however, at least one that was done properly.
A study that examined 47,000 children in the Florida Medicaid system completely upends these findings. Instead of diluting the unvaccinated into the mix and excluding those with the largest vaccine load, they did what we would expect them to do: they looked at outcomes in each subgroup. The results were shocking.
A single vaccination visit resulted in a 70% greater chance of and ASD diagnosis. 11 visits resulted in 340% greater risk. These results were statistically significant even though the sample space was 25 times smaller. That means that the danger signal was very strong and it was dose dependent:
I think the most shocking thing here is that Alex didn't catch those blatant flaws. He's so much smarter than that. When I read the description of the study, I kept looking for the control group who had received zero aluminum. Without that, the study is utterly worthless.
Alex, I’d love to have you look into “Vaccine Induced Encephalitis.” (VIE) This is where children suffer vaccine injuries. They have been compensated for this.
Note, autism is a psychiatric disorder (DSM diagnosis). VIE is a physiological one (ICD10).
The Danish study only showed children who got aluminum in vaccines, but slightly less aluminum than other children who also got aluminum in vaccines, had the same disease rates as the children who got more aluminum. This does not mean aluminum in vaccines are safe. There was no real control group. The reason given for no control group was that there were too few children who got no vaccines with aluminum.
But some studies have been done which had a real control group - children with no vaccines or vaccines without aluminum or mercury. What about those studies? They seem to show children with no vaccines did better.
Denmark also doesn't allow half the chemicals in their food that the US allows. This needs to be factored in. I'm not sure about how much glyphosate they're using over there, but here in the US, it's significant. This needs to be factored in. Genes can't evolve this quickly, so please, do more research on that aspect. Think about giving this a listen or even reach out to Dr. Toby Rogers and ask more questions. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Sr3OsGqwfnWMfE7bGT30I. You've hit the nail on the head quite often this year in writing, Alex, but I don't think this is one of them. PLEASE, please, please take a minute and sit down with people who have vaccine injured children and LISTEN to them. Not people who have testified in front of congress, but every day people...like those of us who are reading and paying for this writing. Here in PA, we have an organization called PCIC (Pennsylvania Coalition for Informed Consent). My own child was vaccine injured, mildly. I went to a PCIC meeting back in 2021 and for 2 hours I listened to parent after parent tell their story. I think YOU need to do this. Sit. Listen.
"people still died eating 3 tidepods vs 4 tidepods, so we have determined that the tidepods are not the problem and these recent 'tidepod deaths' were likely genetic"
Alex... Can you better explain why you claim this study is "well-designed"?
The first thing I look at is the exclusion criteria. They excluded children with "too many registered vaccinations containing aluminum in the first 2 years of life..." They also excluded children "...because they had the outcome in the first 2 y of life." That summary seemed a little vague, but this wasn't: "We analyzed each outcome separately and included only incident events occurring after age 2 years."
So let's step back... They summarize part of the vaccine schedule as follows: "Since 1997, the Danish childhood vaccination program has offered (that is, not mandated) an aluminum-adsorbed vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated poliovirus, and Hib (DTaP-IPV/Hib) in 3 doses in the first year of life (at 3, 5, and 12 months)."
They then exclude outcomes occurring before age 2. So, if the child is vaccinated at 3, 5, and 12 months - but outcomes happening before 24 months are not included, what about outcomes between 12 and 24 months? Why, again, are these excluded?
Furthermore, why exclude children with "too many registered vaccinations containing aluminum in the first 2 years of life..."?
You reveal your bias here when you call the critics "anti-vaccine." For many critics, the problem is with the schedule. What is "too many... in the first two years of life." The whole point for many critics is that there are too many vaccines given too early in childhood development.
You note critics complain there are no "negative controls" but your reporting is vague on what that means. What we do not see is a comparison against an unvaccinated cohort. We also do not see a cohort vaccinated later in childhood development nor cohorts where different vaccines are given at different times and not together.
Sorry, but you seem to have drawn a straw man version of those who are critical of the study. This is not a "well designed" study if the purpose is to evaluate these vaccines within the proper context of the schedule by which they are administered.
Let's see... 29 injections for U.S. babies by the time they have their first birthday, the first few coming as soon as they leave the womb? I had a total of THREE (3) in all of my childhood (guess when I was born, bwaah-hah hah-haha!)-- Alex: Don'tcha kinda sorta think we are HYPERVACCINATING our children?
Like the similar 2002 "huge Danish study" that found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism? The one led by Poul Thorsen - the Danish researcher who was subsequently indicted in the US on 22 counts of embezzling nearly $1,000,000 of funds earmarked for vax/autism research, and who is now on the HHS Most Wanted List and is hiding out in Denmark? https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/poul-thorsen/ The trial that researchers have been requesting details and raw data on for a couple decades to no avail?
I cannot understand why you seem so unwilling to dig into the childhood schedule with the same zeal with which you dug into Covid shots. Ye who pointed out the MASSIVE cover-up about covid vax safety, ye who understands the depths of pharma corruption, don't seem to want to put the schedule under the same journalistic lens. Why?
I was quite impressed with your X post today in which you seemed to attribute the staggering, unexplained increase in autism over the past 30 years to bad luck and/or "bad genes."
Huh!?? Nothing to see here, folks!
Alex, please posit: why the sudden explosion of bad luck?
Why the explosion of "bad genes"?
WHAT'S THE TIPPING POINT?
Are vaccines the only cause? I doubt it. But how on earth can you be so sure they're not implicated? Where are the controls? The vaxed/unvaxed comparisons?
Your X posts today showed the worst of you.
Watching you act so smug that you played Russian Roulette with your kids and seemingly won because they're smart, funny, athletic and tall - hey, good for you. If they never had any other autoimmune or neurological crap like ADHD, allergies, asthma, ear tubes, tonsil issues, predilection to illness, etc, even better - you won! Congrats!
But that doesn't mean others in line who were handed the same gun won their rounds. And for you to say that if they lost, it's not just the luck of the draw, but likely their own fault for having shitty genes - WTF?
I was really looking forward to you digging into this, but I am unsubscribing and also unfollowing on X. I have no interest in watching you brazenly disparage people and deny their lived experiences, especially without doing a true journalistic deep dive.
I'm tired of hearing what is NOT causing the extreme rise in autism. TELL US WHAT **IS** CAUSING IT!
& isn't not merely increased diagnosis. More people are suffering with severe autism, being nonverbal - surely something that wasn't simply undiagnosed in the past.
Me thinks it's not a particular vaxx or a single substance that's causing it rather the combination of vaxxes and the interaction of other exogenous factors.
If that's the case we may never know its cause because there's simply to many confounders.
What i do know for sure is that the explosion of autism, celiacs disease, etc. happened after GenX, when we progressively went from 5-7 core vaccines to over 70 in 40 years.
I also know that 13 people in my extended family have had zero vaxxes and zero cases of autism or other maladies.
So there's that....
You may be right that it's a combo of factors, but I refuse to believe that we can't come up with some better hypothesis & try to do some studies!
& I'm very tired of the deliberate, irrational conflation between those who WANT ANSWERS with those who claim it's the vaccines. Too many seem to say, "It's not the vaxes, so just STFU." Huh?! That makes no sense.
Telling us what does NOT cause it doesn't mean we should all stop searching for answers.
Study the Amish and get back to me. This should not be this complex
Playing devils advocate a bit, but wouldn't that just as easily point to a genetic link as it would a vax link? Are there similar lack of issues among the Mennonites? From my understanding, they are less likely to be vaccinated as well. One of the important details MSM was withholding was the fact that the recent measles outbreak was mostly among the Mennonite community in Texas where many are not vaxxed from my understanding. Do they have lower rates of Autism as well? Do they actually have lower rates or are they just less likely to be diagnosed?
First many of us were sent next door to catch the measles as the Brady Bunch clip below shows. Yes the mennonite and Amish both have almost no Autism at all.
https://youtube.com/shorts/XowDZ1opc1I?si=GNsIp4bzFzU5mbhb
But again, is it environmental or genetic? Both are fairly insular. Wonder what the rates are among the Amish that leave the community and live out in the world? That's actually fascinating. There are multiple ways someone could go with this.
Remember, they told you that immunity from prior infection did not work, that only the injection works to Stop the Covid. Thats why they did not test you for previous infection before they forced you to pick between your job or another injection.
Do you believe it was genetics that prevent Covid from leaving the Amish with almost no deaths while they passed the cup at Church?
Do you believe that the AMish have some genetic gift that prevents them from even needing ANY vaccines?
If true I would imagine that the Amish would be of great curiosity for people that believe in Science right?
Science, its observable, repeatable and predictable
We already KNOW the causes, which is the toxic effect on the neural tissues. And we know it's directly correlated with the amount (kids who have multiple vaccine shots at once are more likely to have a bad reaction than those who space them out) and with the maturity of the nervous system (kids who delay vaccination, even by a couple of months, are less likely to have adverse outcomes; kids who are born premature and vaccinated early are especially likely to have a bad reaction).
If you think we "may never know", you've succumbed to pro-vaxx propaganda.
My sentiments exactly. My younger daughter was born in 1973. She got just a very few more vaxes than I did in 1945. When did all these others get added? How can anyone possibly deny that overwhelming an infant's immune system with multiple vaccines in one day, then rinse and repeat every 3-4 months, would not cause any number of neurological and physiological injuries??!
Autism seems to be acquired genetic changes.
False. Except in exceptionally rare cases, despite tens of billions of dollars searching the genome, virtually no replicable genes for autism have been found. Key word: replicable. As false positives are statistically highly likely to be found when searching the genome as the researchers have done.
It is disturbed and redirected genetic (DNA) problems acquired after being born, not during conception. That is what makes it hard to study. DNA fragments getting interposed during development. That is what needs to be studied. You are right, it is not inherited.
I read several years ago where an abnormally high percentage of kids with autism have gastrointestinal issues as well. Some posit that changes in diet can help/improve the "symptoms" of autism. My daughter who is "on the spectrum" has some issues such as lactose intolerance as well as bowel movement issues. These seem to have a genetic link as my wife has the same issues but lesser and her mother has the BM issues but not the lactose intolerance.
W R O N G! Paging RetardFinder,. we got one
I agree with you—it’s a combination of factors. Each vaccine needs to disclose each ingredient and then each ingredient and combinations of such need to be studied in order to discover the cause. In the meantime, staying away from pharmaceuticals as much as possible is my mantra.
for sure keep your babies and children away from MMR, Varivax and Hep A vaccine. Those are the ones with human fetal DNA fragments.
It is likely a single factor and a lot camouflage to obscure that factor. I suspect that single factor is human fetal DNA fragments which are in many vaccines but were not before ~1990, but have been increasing since then. These autistic kids have miss-programmed brains and DNA is the programming language.
Today I learned. Thank you!
What about the absence of fluoride, which in most countries is not added to the drinking water? https://open.substack.com/pub/popularrationalism/p/the-hard-core-scientific-evidence?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=pbsfr
I totally agree. I feel like no one is really trying that hard to figure this out. I have an adopted daughter who at 18 months was saying "Hi Daddy" when I came into the room and other things (I have video) and from about 2.5 to today (almost 8) only speaks randomly and in seeming third-person, essentially non-verbal, and is not fully potty trained (she was using the kiddy potty at 2). She has an entire class of kids like her at her school and there are several other classes like that in the county and many kids like her jammed into regular classes. It seems like this (adapting to the numbers of kids in many ways) has become the racket. No need to find the cause, treatment, mitigate, or cure, just pay thousands of people to be glorified baby-sitters to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of kids.
Ktrip — I’d love to get your thoughts on if vaccines were involved between 18 months and the regression.
In this article I posted below, plenty of parents have commented saying their children were normal — then regressed. Showing signs of vaccine injury, which gets confused for autism.
Normal kids don’t all of a sudden regress: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-autism-start-calling
I will read but here are my raw thoughts first so you have them unadulterated. Before that some additional background, she is my adopted daughter, but her mother is a friend, and we all live together (long story). She knows who the father is (long story). When she received a vaccination around 18 months, she was "out of it" for days. But she bounced back it seemed. When she was "out of it" her behavior was similar to the way it became. She didn't speak. She was lethargic. She acted like someone punched her in the stomach and she had lost her spirit. But it seemed like she recovered, largely, but it was not that long after that she began regressing. There have been improvements but it is a slow go. It was very stark. She used to count to 20 and say the alphabet in the car on the way to daycare when she was 16 months. She was so advanced it seemed that it made my mother worry that my nephew and God son who is the same age, was behind or suffering from some malady. He turned out to be OK.
Is it the shear number of vaccines? Is it something in them? Is it vaccine quality? How often do they test these vaccines, especially the imported ones. I ask because I am on blood pressure medicine and for a period my doctor changed the prescription because they found carcinogens in a version made in China. Is China sending us "their best stuff" like they did COVID? Also, toys coming from China are showing up with lead paint. Is some of this negligent or worse, intentional?
Thank you for your thoughts. You actually used the exact words I’ve used before: “it’s as if she lost her spirit.” I titled it “autism and the fractured soul” - https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/autism-and-the-fractured-soul-how
But yes, the story is like so many others, which is why the vaccine is the main culprit. The blacking out is the sign of the damage and even though the ‘recover’ it’s only the beginning.
Here’s another parents example that’s similar to yours. Normal, then regressed: https://thetruthunfiltered.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-vaccination-and-autism
Thank you. Excellent reference. I'm cancelling Berenson also. How can someone be very brave then such a coward. He calls Ivermectin celery but refuses to debate Pierre Kory on effectiveness for COVID. That tweet is unbelievable. Is Berenson a heavy drinker or why would any normal person say that. There is something not mentally right with him despite his general intelligence.
I wonder if it's just bad batches of vaccines?
It is a batch of bad vaccines. Bad as in evil. We never used to use aborted fetal tissue culture to make the vaccines. That started in the early and mid 90's with varivax (chicken pox) and MMR, the R component. Then came hep A vaccine. Abortion is immoral and that process has lead to these vaccines and now likely the bad problem of autism.
That is something I wonder as well or inconsistent manufacturing standards. That is why I suggested it could a China or overseas manufacturing issue. A dirty little secret is all of this off-shoring is cheaper not just because of cheap labor but also lack of oversight, quality control etc. I cannot even tell how many times I have noticed it personally in all kinds of products. That is why I avoid knock-off products made in China in general. But how would any of us know with a vaccine especially if no one is even allowed to suggest bad vaccines might be a cause or contributing factor. And you are racist if you suggest inferior Chinese products of any kind. They have found lead paint on or in Chinese and other foreign made toys. If one has a two year old that chews on stuff, they could be lead poisoned and you wouldn't even know about it unless you insisted they be tested for lead paint poisoning.
This substack is a better take on the study IMHO. https://open.substack.com/pub/popularrationalism/p/designed-to-fail-new-study-exonerating
Alex, you need to read this Substack article - it calls the Danish Study to task on a monumental level!
It sounds like he already did.
You should read the substack referenced above.
Just one outtake...
From the Danish study authors...
“Hazard ratios were adjusted for sex, calendar year and season of birth, preterm birth, birthweight, number of visits to the general practitioner before age 2 y, maternal age at delivery, maternal place of birth, maternal smoking during pregnancy, maternal health conditions, maternal prescription drug use during pregnancy, and parental household income.”
From the substack critique...
Kids under 24 months of age receiving more aluminum-containing vaccine on their way to being sick due to aluminum are effectively removed by this statistical maneuver. The study authors do not provide any justification for adjusting for these particular variables and do not show the results of alternative models. They cherry-picked the model that gave the result they desired.
EXACTLY!! And with no negative control group, WTF is the point of the study, except BIAS!
Retrospective studies are never very powerful. It is the prospective blind controlled studies that are needed.
For people who think autism isn’t increasing, they need to talk to public school personnel. My son was one of the first (verbal, but difficulty in speaking/language comprehension) in his elementary school in the late 90’s. I ran into his lunch lady about 5 years later and she said there had been an explosion of kids needing increased services at the school. These studies are smokescreens to a degree. I used to keep up on them and they never addressed the impact on the individual. There was a study done at King’s College in London over 10 yrs ago. It was involving the swine flu vaccine-not sure which adjuvant they used. They mapped out the dna of the participants
prior to administration of the vaccine, then checked blood values for some length of time (they didn’t specify what they were checking) and participant’s health complaints. Apparently they found that people with similar dna types had similar reactions to the vaccines. Their conclusion was that your dna determines how well you do with vaccines. In my opinion this is the type of study we should be replicating on a large scale. Another study that might prove or disprove the role of the hepatitis B vaccines’s role would be to go back and see what the rate of diagnosed autism has been for children born in the year 2000 when the vaccine was taken off the market to remove the mercury. Personally I doubt we will ever see either of these types of studies because if there ever was admitted proof that vaccines caused any developmental harm, the lawsuits would be astronomical. By the way, after testimony on its safety on Capital Hill in 1999, it was agreed by all of the health agencies that the vaccine would be removed from the market to take out the mercury and then rolled back to be started at 2-6 months. It was never rolled back and there was never an explanation as to why. The dishonesty we saw with the Covid shots is not new.
@mb- some kids are just plain asshats like their parents who file for SSI on the behalf of said asshat kids and get monthly checks they use for hair and nails. I know people who have done it.
There is a compelling case that it's not the type or ingredients of a vaccine that cause autism, but rather the number of pain events ie, jabs. This would support the theory that more vaccines overall (as in the US) would mean more autism. It also aligns with a lot of research that points to the harms of multiple vaccines administered during a single visit.
Because of this I've heard of some parents (who believe in the efficacy of vaccines) to minimize pain events by giving simultaneous injections in each arm, and numbing the areas well beforehand, to minimize the pain of injection.
I don't know how much other evidence there is for this, but it's interesting to contemplate and makes sense. The pain of a surprise needle, let alone consecutive needles, while in the arms of a consenting caregiver, is likely a serious trauma for a child's psyche.
It is a developmental computer (brain) programming problem.
I think it is the next step of evolution: get rid of reckless emotion and impulse reactions?!…
what?
Are you saying AUTISM itself "gets rid of reckless emotion and impulse reactions"
people who are truly intellectually limited get painted with the $h!t brown foot wide brush of "Autism" to satisfy the DSM 5 lame excessively broad spectrum.
And those who are higher functioning Autism Spectrum legitimately, Savants if you want to use that overgeneralized term, are the future of humanity, if they aren't wiped out by true recklessly emotional impulsively sadistic Leftists first...
"painted with the $h!t brown foot wide brush"
I know. Increased autism is often explained away as merely increased diagnosis and NOT an actual increase in cases, which is why I proactively addressed that in my original post.
"are the future of humanity"
Sounds like you're saying those with high-functioning autism are SUPERIOR and this is a DESIRABLE thing?
"if they aren't wiped out by true recklessly emotional impulsively sadistic Leftists first"
Wow, lots to unpack here. First, it seems that it's more right-wingers who want to figure out the cause. Democrat politicians were criticizing the "MAHA" movement, practically implying that efforts to uncover the causes were equivalent to eugenics!!
Moving on from the right/ left issue, autism is a **disorder**. Sure, plenty are "highly functioning" but if we could wave a magic wand & cure their autism, wouldn't that be a good thing??? Would NOT having autism make them less intelligent??? I don't know, but I doubt it!
Big Pharma too busy covering up WHAT is causing it.
We didn't have much autism when I was growing up. We just had "weird kids", and you didn't see them as much at social activities or trying to go to college. The most obvious answer is usually closest to the truth.
Your tweet this morning on this topic was so gratuitously cruel and flippant I unfollowed you on X and cancelled my paid UT subscription. Not that it matters to you. If you haven’t been through this with your own children consider yourself lucky and stop beating up on already terrorized parents who have. Cheap cheap shot by a writer for whom I had great respect.
Wow — I just saw the tweet. That tone is crazy: https://x.com/alexberenson/status/1947300595812995326?s=46
Wasn’t it?? Hard to read anything of his after that, and I have truly appreciated AB’s writing.
Agreed. Very very tone deaf — as if millions of parents are lying about their normal children all of a sudden regressing.
And THEN blaming it on the parents. Never would’ve expected that.
I just keep saying, "I'm revolted." I just can't believe he said that. It's disgusting.
yeah, telling moms who notice symptoms of autism after a check-up where vaccines were administered to their child to stop noticing that + also stop relying on their maternal instincts
...and instead - to rely on data commissioned by the danish government bureau that oversees the vaccines they distribute
...is not the way i would rally support for a supposedly truth-seeking health blog!
That's ABHORRENT. I am cancelling my subscription and unfollowing. What an absolutely disgusting thing to say.
Stunning tone!
Stunted tone?
Sorry to hear your thoughts on this. There definitely is a connection between vaccines and autism — I’ve covered that tremendously on my stack and just commented on it as well.
There definitely is a link. Unsure why Alex avoids this: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-autism-start-calling
@Franklin- maybe the only common cause is the exaggerated amount of vaccines within a short period of time forcing the kids' immune systems to go into overdrive causing damage. You know, like the Moderna shots did to my husband.
Hi Kitty, one thing I want to call out is that just as drugs have side effects, vaccines to have side effects. Vaccine induced encephalitis is a side effect of vaccine — and the National Vaccine Injury pays out claims to those who suffer such effects.
I use that info because it shows that there is a clear link to vaccines and not necessarily just bombarding the system, even though that is logically as well
Wow. Yes, parents should make data driven decisions about vaccines. But the first half of your tweet is incredibly unkind to the parents of autistic children. I'm not one of those parents, but I do volunteer from time to time with a special needs ministry, and I see the burdens those parents already carry. Alex, you should apologize without delay.
He will never, ever apologize. If we know one thing about Alex, it's that once he digs in, he doubles down.
Me too!!! Sounds like a paid Pharma shill, instead of one seeking truth.
(Editing because my writing is sloppy today! Not for content.)
I hadn't seen the tweet in question until someone posted it downthread - I already had a disgusting taste in my mouth from some of his other tweets today, but hadn't read through his full feed yet. That tweet is DISGUSTING and 100% not okay. Like you, I'm unfollowing on X and cancelling, and hope many other do too. Alex crossed a line.
When Alex finally said he'd consider looking into the schedule, I felt hopeful that he might approach the issue with the same rigor and thought as he did the covid vax. But it's clear that he can't bring himself to do it. Although he'll listen to anecdotes from people when it comes to the Covid vaccine, he won't if it's about the childhood schedule. Why?
Maybe Alex played Russian roulette and won. Doesn't mean the next people in line being handed the gun were so lucky. To then tell the people after him who got shot in the head that it was their own fault? JFC. I'm STAGGERED at his audacity - how can anyone so blatantly crap on the reality of so many in such a crass, thoughtful, holier-than-thou way?
I wonder if besides Alex's kids' intelligence, height, humor and athleticism, if they have any of the lesser-known "side effects" of vaccination that Alex might not even consider issues. Alex seems to think autism is the only thing people worry about. Autoimmune issues count, no? Asthma, allergies, frequent ear infections, predilection to illness, etc etc. If not, if they're literally the model of health and always have been, then good for him and them. I mean - anyone who gambles and wins can consider themselves lucky. But it's folly to claim that because you won, no one else lost.
I'm revolted.
Well stated.
Tx! I reposted in the main thread a little more articulately - & messaged it as my cancellation reason, including that I knew my $5/month wouldn't dent his wallet but, see ya. I hope he lost a lot of subscribers yesterday.
Sorry. It was an awful series of tweets. Done.
Yeah, I don’t read AB’s evil twin on X — in fact I quit using X after the election altogether. Don’t miss it.
Wow, thanks for pointing this out. I couldn’t believe he would give this study that excluded kids developing autism within 24 months or having immune issues in skin (all do!) any credit. Now that I see the tweet combined with his stuff on Ivermectin AND cannabis I will cancel my subscription.
I saw AB do the same thing with ConVid and the shots-- Against, then for, then more firmly against the death shots. You catch more readers this way, maybe? Hmmm... Talk about "problematic..." This iteration of Planet Earth is more resembling "Brave New World" than "1984." The difference? People LIKE their enslavement to The System in "Brave New World." After all, cooperating or working entirely within it's dictates pays the bills, with money in the bank at the end of the month ;-)
I'm so sorry.
Yikes!
https://open.substack.com/pub/vigilantfox/p/calls-grow-for-journal-to-retract?r=17kkm5&utm_medium=ios
Of course this study was flawed & corrected. Time for Alex to post & push the updates!!!
Umm, you are so outraged and yet so committed to comment after unsubscribing…
Mr Berenson, at the risk of my comment disappearing with Absolutely Moronic here, poof AM’s reply to the trashing!?…
Not that I need to explain - but this substack drop hit my inbox *after* i unsubscribed. When I glanced at it I didn’t see the gratuitous snark that I saw in his tweet this morning. Thought some people not on X and reading this SS might like to know.
I only got on X a few months ago and I swear AB gets meaner and meaner.
Why are you posting a link to this exact post, here in the comments?
I meant to post this. https://open.substack.com/pub/popularrationalism/p/designed-to-fail-new-study-exonerating
Thank you!
Copy pasta error
There is one part of the methodology here that every parent will note as a major flaw: that the tracking ended BEFORE the age of 5. Most pediatricians don't diagnose autism -- they send kids to specialists for that -- and most kids don't ever get tested, examined, or diagnosed with disorders by specialists -- including ADHD and autism -- until AFTER they start school, at 5 or 6! So this is a nonsensical piece of data and doesn't prove anything at all about autism. If the data shows they are equally likely to have asthma or joint diseases or something else that is strictly physiological with aluminum in their bodies, that would not be as likely to be impacted by age. But diagnosis with autism most CERTAINLY is correlated to age and school attendance.
The results were the same when they extended the dataset to age 8.
The study tracked the studied adverse events only from age 2 forward—there was no data taken nor statistics done on any diagnoses before age 2:
“We followed children from 2 years of age for study outcome events until 31 December 2020, or until they reached age 5 years, died, or were lost to follow-up, whichever came first.“
The study also, of course, excluded children no longer alive by age 2.
The net result was that all or most adverse events—up to and including death—that occurred close in time to aluminum-containing injections were effectively excluded from the study by its design. Also, the level of cumulative aluminum exposure was frozen at the 2 year mark, preventing the detection of any variation in outcomes by variations in post-age-two exposure levels.
Despite these defects, the outcome for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura was highly suggestive, though slightly below 95% significance.
The supplemental/alternative analyses included one that adjusted the age at the start of monitoring to 14 months (along with capping the exposure data at 14 months). The same flaws are of course present, in that diagnoses that arise close in time to specific exposures to aluminum are excluded by the study design.
Still, the outcome for polymyositis/dermatomyositis was highly suggestive, barely missing 95% significance. (See page 14 of the supplementary material.)
A potentially much more informative study would look at the time-association, if any, of aluminum-containing injections and potential adverse events.
I posted this below, but please look at the rise of Autism diagnosis compared with the fall of mental retardation diagnosis. We work with a specialist who claims this is at least part of it.
Absolutely! I was a nurse in the NYC public school system working in a co-location school (building with more than one school). One of the schools was a 32-seat autism program. At least 1/3 of those kids were not autistic. In my professional opinion (I am a pediatric nurse practitioner) they were what we used to call mildly to moderately retarded. However, there was more money per pupil for a specical ed designation. The program had to fill up all 32 seats to get all the money they wanted.
But did they claim or prove that there was still no impact at all by age 8? Or was it "before age 8", or children whom they followed up to age had not been diagnosed "before age 5"? Or age 10? Or 12? Or 16? Our school district normally won't even test kids for dyslexia or other issues until 2nd grade or higher, which would typically translate to a big spike around 8-9.
Finding out what doesn't cause autism is a little help.
Did the study compare children who had been vaccinated to those who were unvaccinated? That's the only real way to know whether vaccines are mostly safe or not.
I'm not anti-vaccine -- I gave my kids most vaccines (I declined a couple.) My daughter has chosen not to vaccinate her son, and I support her decision. Her best friend is spreading out vaccines so her son will have all recommended vaccines (except COVID) by the time he is five, but no more than one at a time. Young parents are questioning, and I think they have every right to question because no vaccine has been tested against a true placebo.
Pediatrician Joel Gator Warsh (not an anti-vaccine activist) had the following to say about this:
The study didn’t ask the most important question - what happens when you compare no aluminum v. some v. more? Instead, kids with zero aluminum exposure were lumped in with “low” exposure - making it impossible to evaluate the true impact of avoiding aluminum altogether. Plus follow-up only went until age 5 - yet many diagnoses (especially autoimmune) often occur after that.
We still need long term, prospective research comparing vaccinated v. unvaccinated children with a proper aluminum gradient.
My step daughter wasn't diagnosed with Aspergers until she was 10.
That diagnosis was "cancelled" a few years ago. It was so overused it became meaningless. It was applied to any child who was at all atypical. It was replaced by a similar trash diagnostic category - "on the spectrum."
I still use Aspergers as it's a better description and honestly less stigmatic than "autism". She is exceedingly high functioning, you wouldn't know except for some quirks. I don't take a lot of heed from the medical associations that did away with gender dysphoria and instead embraced gender affirming care. Same medical associations that recommended the jab for babies.
My point being she wasn't diagnosed until well after the cutoff of the study.
That was my point: maybe she's just "quirky" (atypical). There is a very wide range of "normal" in human beings.
Not debating whether my kid was misdiagnosed. Reinforcing that cutting off the study at 5 made it worthless.
This study is not just far from perfect...it is VERY FAR from perfect!
This study would have been considered to be reasonably good if they chose to compare those children who received a certain number of vaccines with aluminum in them with children who had received none. However, the simple logic of doing this type of comparison was NOT conducted. Instead, the researchers simply chose to do a study with children who received vaccines with aluminum with other children who also received slightly less aluminum.
Ultimately, it was determined that the children who got exposed to less aluminum received only 1 mg less than the others. More specifically, children in the "reduced aluminum" exposure got only around 20% less.
If children have some type of hypersensitivity to aluminum, just having a little less exposure is relatively meaningless. It is almost as though the researchers went out of their way to avoid doing a more clear comparison between vaccinated AND unvaccinated children. This fact alone shows the observant reader what researchers do to cleverly get the results that Big Pharma wants from them.
Critics of this study also noted that study’s authors withdrew from the study children who had aluminum-related chronic illness before 24 months, which meant they removed the kids most likely to show early signs of aluminum-related injury.
This study simply shows how to lie with statstics.
well stated!
You are correct. It is well established that there are children with mitochondrial insufficiency. Probably a bad term since in a less toxic world their mitochondria would be just fine. They cannot deal with the increasing stress of inflammatory stimulation. It would seem that those who can handle vaccines can do so over a wider range while those who can't were adjusted out of the study.
This is a classic example of a study that is designed to show no effect.
First, the researchers decided to exclude kids under two who expressed the symptoms of aluminum toxicity before the age of two without conducting any secondary analysis of that sub group. In other words what was their aluminum exposure? How do we know that this group didn’t represent the very children who were adversely affected by the variable they were testing?
Second, they excluded over 35,000 children with "too many registered vaccinations containing aluminum". Wouldn’t that be the best group to examine possible toxicity?
Third, the forest plot in your article explains the results of their primary analysis. Look at what they are doing. They are mapping the hazard ratios of all of these symptoms as a function of an additional milligram of aluminum exposure instead of plotting hazard ratios for the least exposed to the most exposed. In other words they are quantifying the risk of small differences of exposure instead of large differences. And because there are a large number of children they can claim that their findings are robust. The researchers further note that "only" 1.2% of the study population had zero aluminum exposure. That was over 15,000 children. What an excellent control group to use against those that were excluded because they received too many registered vaccines. Instead they lump them into a group of about 50 thousand who received less than 1.5 mg in their secondary analyses.
Fourth, note how most of the hazard ratios are centered BELOW one. This means that additional aluminum is associated with LESS of a risk of autoimmune or inflammatory disorders. There is no plausible explanation for this as aluminum is an adjuvant designed to stimulate the immune system.
Many of the conditions have a statistically significant decreased risk! The authors are not proving safety. They are proving that their study is confounded at some level.
This is not mentioned in the discussion. For good reason. How would they explain such a result? Instead they conclude that aluminum exposure poses no risk. They can omit whatever they wish but where was the peer review?? At the very least the reviewers should have demanded that the authors offer an explanation for this unexpected finding.
This study is actually proof that peer review isn’t what we think it is. It is a means to fool the public into accepting invalid conclusions. It begs the question, what was in the minds of these researchers as they designed the study? Did none of them question their approach?
The greater contextual problem is that there are very, very few studies that are designed properly. In other words, a study that compares outcomes between groups of unvaccinated and highly vaccinated children. There is, however, at least one that was done properly.
A study that examined 47,000 children in the Florida Medicaid system completely upends these findings. Instead of diluting the unvaccinated into the mix and excluding those with the largest vaccine load, they did what we would expect them to do: they looked at outcomes in each subgroup. The results were shocking.
A single vaccination visit resulted in a 70% greater chance of and ASD diagnosis. 11 visits resulted in 340% greater risk. These results were statistically significant even though the sample space was 25 times smaller. That means that the danger signal was very strong and it was dose dependent:
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/vaccination-and-neurodevelopmental-disorders-a-study-of-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/
I think the most shocking thing here is that Alex didn't catch those blatant flaws. He's so much smarter than that. When I read the description of the study, I kept looking for the control group who had received zero aluminum. Without that, the study is utterly worthless.
Very disappointed.
Alex, I’d love to have you look into “Vaccine Induced Encephalitis.” (VIE) This is where children suffer vaccine injuries. They have been compensated for this.
Note, autism is a psychiatric disorder (DSM diagnosis). VIE is a physiological one (ICD10).
VIE is what gets mistaken for Autism and this is what should be investigated: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-autism-start-calling
The Danish study only showed children who got aluminum in vaccines, but slightly less aluminum than other children who also got aluminum in vaccines, had the same disease rates as the children who got more aluminum. This does not mean aluminum in vaccines are safe. There was no real control group. The reason given for no control group was that there were too few children who got no vaccines with aluminum.
But some studies have been done which had a real control group - children with no vaccines or vaccines without aluminum or mercury. What about those studies? They seem to show children with no vaccines did better.
Denmark also doesn't allow half the chemicals in their food that the US allows. This needs to be factored in. I'm not sure about how much glyphosate they're using over there, but here in the US, it's significant. This needs to be factored in. Genes can't evolve this quickly, so please, do more research on that aspect. Think about giving this a listen or even reach out to Dr. Toby Rogers and ask more questions. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Sr3OsGqwfnWMfE7bGT30I. You've hit the nail on the head quite often this year in writing, Alex, but I don't think this is one of them. PLEASE, please, please take a minute and sit down with people who have vaccine injured children and LISTEN to them. Not people who have testified in front of congress, but every day people...like those of us who are reading and paying for this writing. Here in PA, we have an organization called PCIC (Pennsylvania Coalition for Informed Consent). My own child was vaccine injured, mildly. I went to a PCIC meeting back in 2021 and for 2 hours I listened to parent after parent tell their story. I think YOU need to do this. Sit. Listen.
Alex, You should respond to this critique. Seems important. https://unrestrainedinquiry.substack.com/p/study-touts-no-link-between-aluminum
Yes, Alex, you MUST read this.
Give it up Alex, we have over 200 research studies that show va$$ines cause autism!!
Danish study tested children who took va$$ine against children who took a different va$$ine.
Both va$$ines had high amounts of aluminum.
Huh? how is that gold standard? A study needs a pure saline placebo for testing to be accurate.
"people still died eating 3 tidepods vs 4 tidepods, so we have determined that the tidepods are not the problem and these recent 'tidepod deaths' were likely genetic"
"also, we would like to thank the tide corporation for sponsoring our research"
@Jessica- did you forget how to spell vaccine?
i think you did.
Alex... Can you better explain why you claim this study is "well-designed"?
The first thing I look at is the exclusion criteria. They excluded children with "too many registered vaccinations containing aluminum in the first 2 years of life..." They also excluded children "...because they had the outcome in the first 2 y of life." That summary seemed a little vague, but this wasn't: "We analyzed each outcome separately and included only incident events occurring after age 2 years."
So let's step back... They summarize part of the vaccine schedule as follows: "Since 1997, the Danish childhood vaccination program has offered (that is, not mandated) an aluminum-adsorbed vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated poliovirus, and Hib (DTaP-IPV/Hib) in 3 doses in the first year of life (at 3, 5, and 12 months)."
They then exclude outcomes occurring before age 2. So, if the child is vaccinated at 3, 5, and 12 months - but outcomes happening before 24 months are not included, what about outcomes between 12 and 24 months? Why, again, are these excluded?
Furthermore, why exclude children with "too many registered vaccinations containing aluminum in the first 2 years of life..."?
You reveal your bias here when you call the critics "anti-vaccine." For many critics, the problem is with the schedule. What is "too many... in the first two years of life." The whole point for many critics is that there are too many vaccines given too early in childhood development.
You note critics complain there are no "negative controls" but your reporting is vague on what that means. What we do not see is a comparison against an unvaccinated cohort. We also do not see a cohort vaccinated later in childhood development nor cohorts where different vaccines are given at different times and not together.
Sorry, but you seem to have drawn a straw man version of those who are critical of the study. This is not a "well designed" study if the purpose is to evaluate these vaccines within the proper context of the schedule by which they are administered.
Please do better.
What I'm seeing is that, by the age of 24 months, the damage is done, and additional doses don't make it worse.
Big whoop.
Let's see... 29 injections for U.S. babies by the time they have their first birthday, the first few coming as soon as they leave the womb? I had a total of THREE (3) in all of my childhood (guess when I was born, bwaah-hah hah-haha!)-- Alex: Don'tcha kinda sorta think we are HYPERVACCINATING our children?
Like the similar 2002 "huge Danish study" that found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism? The one led by Poul Thorsen - the Danish researcher who was subsequently indicted in the US on 22 counts of embezzling nearly $1,000,000 of funds earmarked for vax/autism research, and who is now on the HHS Most Wanted List and is hiding out in Denmark? https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/poul-thorsen/ The trial that researchers have been requesting details and raw data on for a couple decades to no avail?
Sure Alex, I believe anything they say.
I cannot understand why you seem so unwilling to dig into the childhood schedule with the same zeal with which you dug into Covid shots. Ye who pointed out the MASSIVE cover-up about covid vax safety, ye who understands the depths of pharma corruption, don't seem to want to put the schedule under the same journalistic lens. Why?
I was quite impressed with your X post today in which you seemed to attribute the staggering, unexplained increase in autism over the past 30 years to bad luck and/or "bad genes."
Huh!?? Nothing to see here, folks!
Alex, please posit: why the sudden explosion of bad luck?
Why the explosion of "bad genes"?
WHAT'S THE TIPPING POINT?
Are vaccines the only cause? I doubt it. But how on earth can you be so sure they're not implicated? Where are the controls? The vaxed/unvaxed comparisons?
Your X posts today showed the worst of you.
Watching you act so smug that you played Russian Roulette with your kids and seemingly won because they're smart, funny, athletic and tall - hey, good for you. If they never had any other autoimmune or neurological crap like ADHD, allergies, asthma, ear tubes, tonsil issues, predilection to illness, etc, even better - you won! Congrats!
But that doesn't mean others in line who were handed the same gun won their rounds. And for you to say that if they lost, it's not just the luck of the draw, but likely their own fault for having shitty genes - WTF?
I was really looking forward to you digging into this, but I am unsubscribing and also unfollowing on X. I have no interest in watching you brazenly disparage people and deny their lived experiences, especially without doing a true journalistic deep dive.