Is there a hidden link? Vaccines, Autism, and the data they won’t discuss

What if everything you’ve been told about vaccines and autism is only half the story?

In this explosive episode, Dr. Ryan Partovi, JD, NMD, MIFHI, and Mrs. Madi Partovi dive deep into the evidence mainstream medicine avoids, exploring the dramatic rise in autism rates and the parallel expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule. They break down the science, examine the controversial studies, and expose conflicts of interest that have kept crucial questions off the table for decades.

With personal stories, a rigorous look at the data, and a call for open scientific debate, this episode challenges listeners to reconsider what they know about vaccine safety and autism. Whether you’re a parent, a healthcare professional, or simply someone who wants the truth, you can’t afford to miss this conversation.

The stakes are high- children’s health and public trust hang in the balance. Listen now to discover why this information matters more than ever.

Super Important Facts from the Episode

• Autism rates have soared from 1 in 10,000 a few decades ago to 1 in 31 children today- a rise that far exceeds what can be explained by better diagnosis alone.
• The expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule closely tracks the increase in autism rates, with children now receiving up to 74 shots by age 18, compared to just 12 in 1986.
• Key vaccine ingredients, such as mercury-based preservatives and aluminum adjuvants, have well-documented neurotoxic effects, and some animal studies show these can induce autism-like symptoms.
• Major vaccine safety studies often use “active” placebos (containing aluminum or other vaccines), not true inert placebos, and are influenced by conflicts of interest within regulatory agencies.

Don’t just take our word for it-listen, question, and decide for yourself. Hit subscribe, share this episode with someone who cares about children’s health, and join the conversation. The truth deserves to be heard.

We love hearing from you! Do you have questions or want to suggest a future podcast topic? Email us today at office@drpartovi.com — your input helps us create content that serves you best.

Visit Our Website- Aspen Wellness Institute

The contents of this podcast are for educational purposes only and do not constitute medical advice. Talk to your medical professional before starting any new treatment.

Don’t forget to subscribe for more enriching discussions, and leave a review if you loved the episode!

Transcript

Is there a hidden link? Vaccines, Autism, and the data they won’t discuss.


Welcome & Abstract
---

[00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of The Partovi Effect. My name is Mrs. Madi Partovi. And I'm Dr. Ryan Partovi. And we are heading right into vaccination and the autism epidemic. We're going to revisit the evidence. And before that, I just wanted to share some stories about our sons.

No, I know. I was driving Ryan to soccer one day, and then there was a homeless man with his dog on the side of the road. And, we had these grass fed beef sticks. They're like 10 grams of protein. But my mind was just like, oh, it's not enough. That's lame. That's, nah, don't do it.

And then in an instant, Ryan was mommy beef stick.

It's like he handed me the beef stick and I gave it to the gentleman [00:01:00] and on the drive to soccer. I was just so moved that our son would make that choice so quickly. Like, what is there for me to give to this man who needs something. And he's been packing food for the poor.

I think that kind of development growing on the inside and having it show up in the world, like on the court when he sees something, it's just so extraordinary. And I was very moved by that. You have tissues over there, by the way. Yes. Andspeaking of soccer. I asked him after school one day, how was soccer shots?

Did you enjoy it? He goes, no, I didn't enjoy it, mama. And he told me about all the things that he was frustrated by and, teammates that he wanted to play with. But, They didn't end up on his team. And then [00:02:00] I was just, it's rolling around in my head and I said, son, I just got something for myself.

You don't have to enjoy it. Like you can engage in this activity and you can go through the frustration and you can talk it out and you can work as a team and you can negotiate and you can, figure out what it is like to be a team player. And that is a huge benefit. And he nodded his head and he said, yes, mama.

Yeah. So that's good. What I got for myself as a mom. Well, I always enjoyed school. I didn't enjoy the repetition of school, but I enjoyed learning. I still do. And I always wanted a school for my kids that they really enjoyed and looked forward to going to.

I spent years and we've toured 14 different schools and I learned a lot about [00:03:00] pedagogy. for those who don't know is like the way things are taught in school there's a lot of different types of pedagogy out there. There's the majority, which was called traditional pedagogy, which is basically your public schools and your traditional private schools.

But then outside of those, there's a lot of other things, and we'll talk about that I'm sure in another episode. Butmy big grand plan was like, let's get him at a school where he's just loving it. And what I have now come to after the journey that we've been on is not so much that he's got to love school to the point where he's like excited to go or wanting to go, but more like that.

Who he gets to be there and who he is when he comes home is someone that I'm looking forward to spending time with. Which is not the same thing, right? It's not the same thing to say, oh, is my child looking forward to going to school? They do. They just think it's the best thing ever. [00:04:00] That's great if that's your kid, wonderful.

Like, good on you. But there's some kids and our oldest is definitely one of them that's just like, no, I'd really prefer to stay home. And he's been very consistent with that from the time he was three to now the time he's seven. So for the last four years, he's been very consistent that I'd rather stay home.

But we have definitely seen how different schools have an effect on how he shows up when he is at home and when he's with us. And that to me has been fascinating and ultimately is now well, yeah, ideally, have a school that your kid loves to go to, but if that's not an option, then look at like how the school is affecting him and altering him and, nurturing him or not, or her, obviously.

Yeah. So I got that from myself and my own mothering, but to me, this is an example of that. That's why I, just to link those two together. Absolutely. What you're describing is absolutely an example of like, Hey, he [00:05:00] doesn't have to love every minute of it, but like if you don't enjoy something while you're doing it, there's something wrong and absolutely not.

Yeah. You develop that, the grit and the growth on the inside andthis constant mastery of interpersonal development, and knowing yourself and developing yourself and how that shows up, in the world. And it was a really beautiful thing.

Well, yeah he got that too. Good. Yeah. And I really think there's a pendulum here, and that's actually what I'm noticing in this whole conversation. Overarching, like, when our parents were kids, there was like this expectation that you would go through life. Things would be not fun. You'd get a job that frankly wasn't terribly fun.

Like, you'd just do that because it's what you needed to do to support your family. And that was like what you did. It was to make money and then we grew up, I think at a time where it was like, no, you should pursue your passion. Do what you [00:06:00] love. no matter what, just have fun with life and whatever you do should be something that you just are always having a good time doing.

And I, no career can live up to that. Like, even a career that you truly do love, can live up to that ultra high bar, but it's like the pendulum going whoosh, all the way on the opposite direction. And then I think what we're doing now is finding this middle ground ideally, where it's like, no, yeah, pick something 'cause it's your passion, but then recognize that there's gonna be parts of it in practice that are gonna be challenging and that you're gonna have to, put some effort into, it's not all gonna be like smooth sailing.

I'm just gonna show up and they're gonna give me a paycheck. Or, people are just gonna come, come through the door and I don't have to do anything, but, hang the shingle out. Right. I think that is, just a more of a realistic view of life and also like optimistic and realistic.

It's what's possible, but also like Yeah. [00:07:00] What's possible, but also you're gonna have to work at it. Yeah. Just like his soccer season, right. He had multiple times where he said, I don't wanna do this anymore. Yeah. And then I was walking off the field as a family and I said no, he's gonna stay in it until he gets his breakthrough.

And yeah he has grown tremendously. Yeah. On the inside, just working through his perfectionism and his expectations, that go unfulfilled. Yeah. So it's well, and I think he actually really got a glimpse. Perhaps I would say this last game where he was goalie for only the first half.

And in the second half, this coach said, well, let's have him play out because he's not played out all season. And he plays it well when he's out on the field in practice, so why not have him try it? And I said to him, I said, I created it for him. I said, this is just gonna be fun.

Just go do your best and forget the rest. Don't worry about it. And just go [00:08:00] out there and try to score some goals. And if you do great, and if you don't, great. and he really did. He went out there, he played for the whole second half, and actually no, he did go out for maybe a tiny bit, but they constantly are rotating the kids through at this age.

But yeah, he totally just left that game. Even though they didn't win, left the game in a totally different mindset, I think, than he maybe had before. I think he had an appreciation for the challenges of the fielders, right? Because, before it's easy, it's easy to sit back in the goal and be frustrated with oneself and frustrated with the fact that the ball got passed, six other people before it got to you.

But when you're one of those people, you realize the dynamic, and so he got to see that, which was fun. And here's what I have to say about emotional regulation, right? many people think that emotional regulation is always staying calm, right? Is always showing up calm.

But I really think it's an opportunity to work through the whole spectrum of [00:09:00] emotions. Not any one of those emotions being bad. Frustration, anger, resignation and yeah and rage to, to work those through, to like, to feel it in your body, to let it out and to communicate it in a way that doesn't hurt yourself or another person.

And then to come back to calm. So there's no bypassing and no gaslighting yourself that you get to get an opportunity to move through those. Yeah. So we're, that's what we're training him to do. Yeah. No, absolutely. I think there's such a tendency as a parent to be like, oh no, they're upset. Oh, no, they're sad.

Oh, no. And medicate, they're angry. Treat, or, some cad, let's go get ice cream. Let's, like, how do I deal with this? Like, oh my gosh, I can't deal with this. Yeah, I'll be quiet. Right? Yeah. Right. No, that's definitely your mom's approach, but yeah.

Well, we love you, mom, but yeah, noit's the, to be quiet, so it's settle [00:10:00] down, make him be quiet, it's like, okay, how can I make this other human being be quiet, good luck. Yes. But I was, what's interesting is the needs are often simple, right?

It's, core needs food, usually protein sleep, love, occasionally the child is constipated and needs to go have a bowel movement. Yes. That's pretty much, it, I would say, if you're giving them the proper nutrients, the proper amount of love, the proper, nutrition and the proper sleep, kids are great.

Yeah. That's been my experience. Yes. Can I move on to our wonderful little three-year-old? You may. Absolutely. Eventually, we're gonna get to the autism of a vaccination Conversation Promises. So that he had this almost obsession about the Dr. Jekyll and Mr.

Hyde song. the Broadway one called Confrontation. Much to my chagrin.

Well, he [00:11:00] asked you what your favorite exactly age appropriate, but what your favorite bad guy song was. And he was listening. He committed to memory, and then he committed it to his soul. And he was always singing, I Live Inside You Forever. So if you know the song, there's this part where so he asked me, mommy, I just wanna listen to the Hide part.

And I told him, and that these are the lyrics from the song. But son, there's no separating Jekyll from Hyde, and without a blink of an eye, he says, mommy, but me, close my eyes and you disappear.

Oh, my head is just so pleased. All did my 3-year-old just crush me on wordplay. Yeah. Yeah. That's basically what happened there. Yes. Yeah. Oh my gosh. And oh I've got it. The other morning he [00:12:00] was very frustrated and fussing because he was very impatient about something. And so I was hearing this fussing from the other side of the house, and all of a sudden it went quiet.

I was curious. So I walked into the room and there was our 7-year-old teaching, our 3-year-old how to do deep belly breaths. And he was, he's showing him the hand postures and how you sit and he, the 3-year-old was John Luke was actually doing it, engaging in it, and it was working.

Yeah. It was so beautiful. And then, the last few mornings, I just, I love being a mom. He, John Luke woke up and he was in his alpha wave haze. Right. Half awake, half asleep. he just comes in to the bathroom where I was and he said, mommy, we love you. And he just went about doing his own thing.

He's definitely got that cookie [00:13:00] monster, feel to his language still. He is, he's in the cookie monster. Yes. And I intentionally don't correct him right now 'cause I know it won't last long. No, fair enough. But he is always expressing his love for me. Yeah. Mommy. It is very sweet. Me like you so much.

Yeah. He'll just like put his hand on your face. I know. Yeah. I want to stay home forever and play with you forever.

And then, about five minutes later, mommy, I'm ready to go to school. Well, and that's, to get back to the earlier conversation that goes to show you that every child is different, right. Because that one is, truly does enjoy going to school. Yeah. And then when I pick him up, the first thing he says, mommy, we miss you so much.

I have a surprise for you. And it's usually something, like some piece of foliage, like a flower or a leaf. And I usually keep them. I tell [00:14:00] him I'm gonna keep this in my pocket and whenever I reach into my pocket and feel it, I'm gonna think of you. Mommy, that's sweet. He knows.

Just to witness his full self-expression and his expression of love it's just really extraordinary and really touching to me. So that's a little snippet of my life as a mom. Beautiful. Alright. 


Introduction
---

Let's move in. Okay. Let's do it. So you wanna start out by giving us the

introduction or the abstract again, Vaccination and the autism epidemic. Revisiting the evidence autism spectrum disorder, a SD has risen from a rare condition a few decades ago to a common developmental disorder. Today this paper [00:15:00] rigorously examines the hypothesis that the expansion of the childhood vaccination program and the cumulative exposure to its neurotoxic and immunotoxic ingredients is a major driver of the autism epidemic.

We review historical trends showing a parallel between the increasing vaccine schedule and climbing autism prevalence. And we explore the biological plausibility of a vaccine induced contribution to a SD through in-depth analysis of vaccine components such as mercury based preservatives and aluminum adjuvants, and their potential neuro immune effects.

We identify flaws in many vaccine safety studies, including the use of non inert placebos and other design limitations, and discuss conflicts of interest that may have compromised research integrity in this field. notably, we revisit the [00:16:00] 2014 CDC whistleblower revelations suggesting data omissions in a key vaccine autism study.

Additional clues from biomedical treatments for autism, including evidence of improvements when underlying toxic and immune abnormalities are addressed, provide further support for a causal link. While alternative explanations for the rise in autism, genetic drift or diagnostic changes are considered, they appear insufficient to explain the magnitude and timing of the increase taken together.

The evidence assembled herein makes a compelling case that our aggressive vaccine program warrants critical reevaluation as a contributing factor in a SD. We conclude with recommendations for future research and policy [00:17:00] reforms to ensure vaccine safety and restore public trust with the ultimate goal of protecting children's health while preserving the benefits of immunization.

And I just wanna say something real quick because, it's been in the news recently that Robert F. Kennedy, junior Secretary Kennedy our new HHS secretary has said that we're gonna know at least some if not all, of the causes of autism by September. And people are wondering like, how is he gonna do that?

Well, stay tuned and I will answer that question at the end. I think the answer will start to emerge as we go through the research and the timeline and all the evidence. But I think that I will, if you remind me at the end, I'll circle back to that and really make it very clear. Okay. Any questions before we get started?

Yeah. Well, autism used to be one in 10,000. it's actually one in 31 now. So when this was [00:18:00] written which was a few weeks ago when we first announced this, the CDC has just announced that the prevalence is now one in 31 children Okay.

In the United States. So if vaccines have nothing to do with it, then what does Well, that is a good question. And I think that it's definitely the, in many ways the subject of our investigation here. Autism spectrum disorder, a lot of people call it a SD I'm not crazy about that.

I'm just gonna say autism has become increasingly prevalent in recent decades. And that does, I think, form the basis of this whole debate about the causes, right? If you look at it in the 1980s, one in 10,000 children, as you mentioned, were diagnosed with autism. Now it's diagnosed in roughly one out of 36 children.

This, all this comes from the CDC, it's non-controversial. So the surge in autism diagnoses, far outpaces population growth, improved awareness which indicates that there's some kind of [00:19:00] environmental factor at play. It can't be, we're, and we'll talk more about this as we go along, but it can't just be, oh, we're diagnosing it more, or, we're more aware of it or that kind of thing.

It's, this is, there's something environmental that's going on that is causing this. So during the same period that the autism rates have climbed, the routine childhood vaccination schedule expanded dramatically, which exposed infants to many more vaccine doses and ingredients than in earlier generations.

So it's not just the, antigen that they're getting exposed to, the viral or bacterial antigen. In fact, I think we've had some people argue about, how good those studies are. That's not really my intention and certainly not our intention. I think in this presentation, this paper was really not to necessarily pick apart, the studies that have looked at, say, the MMR vaccine or, the T DAP vaccine, and is that linked to autism?

It's really to look at the overall [00:20:00] program of 74 vaccinations over the course of 18 years and climbing. 'cause now we've got the Covid vaccine added in there, at least three doses madness. But anyway is the program of vaccination ultimately what's leading to this increased risk of autism and what could be that mechanism?

So as we've seen this schedule expand dramatically we've seen also at the same time infants obviously getting exposed to more vaccine doses and more ingredients than in earlier generations. And so that temporal overlap has led not just parents, but also researchers to question whether aspects of the immunization program, particularly, again, this cumulative exposure to certain vaccine components that are probably things that are consistent between most, if not all of the vaccines could be contributing to this rise in autism.

So public health authorities, mainstream medical organizations have largely [00:21:00] dismissed this vaccine autism connection. I think that, goes without saying almost, but it's worth repeating. Just so people understand. I'm not, trying to gaslight anybody. I get that You hear probably, the long discredited link between vaccine and autism on an almost daily basis, especially if you're listening to health news like I do.

But those claims basically point to a collection of epidemiological studies that appear to show no association. They're often attributing the spike of autism to broader diagnostic criteria, better recognition. They emphasize hypothetical genetic causes, which, with autism, like with most genetic diseases, it's not like, oh, you have this gene, you're going to have it.

It's, oh, you have this gene, you're more likely to have it. And so the question is, what are the environmental factors that interact with those genetic causes that are gonna lead to the development of the syndrome? Critics argue that many of the existing studies were not designed to detect the specific type of harm vaccines may cause, and that potential [00:22:00] conflicts of interest called to question the impartiality of the official research on this issue.

Moreover, a growing body of biomedical evidence from toxicology, immunology and clinical observations suggest biological mechanisms by which vaccines could trigger neurodevelopmental damage in susceptible children. And that point of susceptible children is really crucial. We're not really looking at all of the different effects potentially of vaccines or vaccine ingredients.

We're really focusing on autism because that's a question that not only is very common in the media right now, but that we have gotten from our friends, Right. It's the way the question is asked. And I get that. And that's why we're taking this look.

So these concerns could easily be dismissed as coincidence or debunked myths as long as we have these unanswered questions about vaccine safety science that are dangling. So in this paper which I will be posting on substack at some point, it's not quite there yet, but we're gonna take a narrative driven, scientifically rigorous look [00:23:00] at the evidence linking the vaccine program to the autism epidemic.

We'll begin by reviewing the historical background and epidemiological data, including this striking correlation, which I can't wait to show you guys the graph between the expansion of the vaccine schedule and autism's rise. Next we're gonna delve into the key vaccine ingredients of concern such as mercury and aluminum compounds, as well as the likely mechanisms by which these might induce neurodevelopmental harm, establishing the biological plausibility for a causal role in autism.

We then address the mainstream counterarguments in detail, examining potential flaws in the foundational vaccine safety studies, highlighting issues of study design and placebo use. Spoiler alert, they don't actually use real placebos and considering the impact of financial conflicts of interest on research outcomes, which I think is like the dominant issue of our time in terms of [00:24:00] science in general and medicine in particular.

Is just how much market forces have corrupted scientific investigation. Within this context, we revisit the revelations of A CDC whistleblower who alleged data manipulation and a pivotal autism study underscoring the need for transparency and integrity and vaccine science. My guess is that whatever that CDC whistleblower knew is likely to come out by September.

We also discuss clues from treatment, empirical improvements in some autistic children via biomedical interventions, targeting toxins and immune dysfunction, the kind of things we do in our practice which provide additional support for an environmentally triggered MO model of autism. So after weighing alternative explanations for the autism increase against the vaccine hypothesis, we'll be outlining future research directions, policy reforms needed to put this debate to bed.

The goal really is not just [00:25:00] to investigate it, but really to say, well, okay, if in fact there is a case, it needs to be as airtight as possible, that cumulative vaccination exposure has been a major driver of the autism epidemic. So we can then chart forth a path to improve vaccine safety by understanding what is it about the vaccines that is actually contributing to autism.

And then that's gonna help us alter the vaccine formulations to protect children's neurodevelopment. So when we're doing this, we'll be integrating evidence from epidemiology, biology, firsthand accounts, et cetera to create this clear and compelling reassessment of this controversy that really contains profound public health implications.

And I think we'll see that as we go on. Yeah, so anything else you wanna pop in at this point and say, or ask or, yeah. So why is it even dangerous misinformation to [00:26:00] even ask that whether injecting infants with dozens of shots might be contributing to this epidemic? Yeah, that's a really good question.

I think that I. Touched on that already a little bit, but I'll just say that to reemphasize that the way that it's contextualized as dangerous misinformation is primarily an industry talking point, right? It's the idea that, oh, well this is dangerous because it could be leading to, children potentially dying from not getting vaccinated from these communicable diseases.

Most of which have a very low incident fatality rate. We're talking, 0.01% or less. But yeah, I think that to me if you characterize something as dangerous [00:27:00] misinformation, then it's easier to dismiss it. Right? And I think that's why it's important that we have such an airtight case here.

Does that make sense? It does. Thank you. Okay. But did you have any questions? I do. 


Historical Background
---

So autism rates began to spike at the exact moment that the vaccine schedule expanded or exploded. How is that not worth investigating? Like why hasn't it been investigated in depth thus far?

Yeah. Well, I think it is worth investigating and we're about to do it. Autism was first described by Leo Canner in 1943, and there were only a handful of cases noted in the medical literature at that time. For several decades, it remained a rare diagnosis. So through the 1970s and eighties prevalence estimates ranged in orderof a few cases per 10,000 children.

Starting in the 1990s, however, autism rates began a steep [00:28:00] ascent, The rise was well documented by the early two thousands. By 2007, the US CDC reported autism prevalence of one in 150 children for birth year 1994, which further climbed to one in 68 by the 2010 birth cohort. The estimate of one in 36 for the 2012 birth year reflected a roughly 200 fold increase in autism diagnosis since the early 1980s.

And we've seen now they're coming out saying one in 31 is the updated number. And I'm not sure which birth year that represents, but I'm sure we'll know soon. So again, there's been expanded diagnostic criteria, greater awareness. I'm not denying that's contributed to higher reported cases, but those factors alone cannot explain such an enormous increase.

That's absurd. People claiming that need to have their heads examined. Careful analysis have estimated the majority of the [00:29:00] rise on an order of 75 to 80% represents a real increase in autism incidents, not just an artifact. this comes from the study I'll read you the name of the study.

A comparison of temporal trends in the United States. Autism prevalence to trends in suspected environmental factors by Cynthia Nevison in Environmental Health published in 2014. In other words, more children truly have autism today than a few decades ago. So that really points back to the idea that new environmental triggers must be involved in the pathogenesis, the cause of autism.


Autism Rates vs. Vaccine Schedule Expansion
---

So over that same timeframe, the US Childhood Immunization schedule has grown a lot more intensive. In the early eighties, infants received just a handful of vaccines. It was the T dap, it was actually called the [00:30:00] DTP back then. Diptheria, tetanus, pertussis polio, MMR, measles, maybe one or two others.

But by 1995, you had new vaccines for hemophilus, influenza Type B, which is the HIV vaccine. It's also called hib. Hepatitis B has been added for all infants, and we can, that's continued to grow through the two thousands with now we've got the chickenpox vaccine, which we've talked a little bit about that before about how it's caused the shingles rates to go shoot up since we've had the chickenpox vaccine.

'cause adults are no longer getting that booster of immunity against the virus that causes chickenpox. So it ends up coming back out and causing shingles as adults, the Pneumococcal vaccine, the rotavirus vaccine, hepatitis A vaccine, as well as annual flu shots and the covid vaccine now.

So as a result, the number of vaccine doses given to an average child by age two roughly tripled from the early eighties to the two thousands. For example, [00:31:00] a baby born in 1983 might have received around eight to 10 inoculations total by age two. Baby in 2010 could receive around 25 to 30 injections by the same age, some of which are gonna be combination shots protecting against multiple diseases.

So if you count each disease specific immunization, the 2013 schedule effectively included vaccination against 14 different illnesses. That's of course debatable about how effective that is, but, I'm sure we'll get to that eventually. But that's not today's topic by age 18 months. 

So 14 different antigen exposures by 18 months. And then figure one, which I'm about to show you, illustrates the timeline of expanding vaccine schedule alongside autism prevalence data. So I'm going to display our figure one, and for those who are not watching on YouTube, feel free [00:32:00] to go to YouTube to see this.

So with figure one, we're seeing the autism prevalence which is plotted as, one in X number of children, and that's gonna be the blue line. And then versus the number of vaccine doses in the routine schedule, which is the orange line. And you can see that, we've 10 to the fourth powers.

This is the one in 10,000 number. And then now we're one in 30, one in 36 is where this is. You can see how that's gone up and it's literally tracked the cumulative vaccine doses by age five pretty much perfectly. And both of course have really increased dramatically since the early eighties.

These are based on CDC surveillance estimates. Vaccine doses are based on the recommended immunization schedule for a child through age five and each year. This just is giving you a [00:33:00] clear indication of the trend. And this doesn't establish causation, right? We're not there yet, but it's showing that there's a strong correlation, which means, hey, there's something worth investigating here.

So

the parallel upward trajectories of vaccine dosing and autism diagnoses are pretty apparent by that graph. And of course, like I said, correlation doesn't prove causation, but in its essential clue that is worth investigation and some scrutiny. In 2004 the Institute of Medicine Immunization Safety Review noted that the autism rise coincided with expanded immunizations.

But of course, nonetheless concluded that existing studies did not support a causal Many officials attributed the correlation to coincidence, given that both vaccination and autism awareness were increasing for other reasons. But subsequent analysis strengthened the argument that the [00:34:00] correlation is not merely spurious.

Notably, an environmental epidemiology study by Nevison, which I cited earlier, examined numerous potential environmental contributors to the autism surge and found that most had trends that diverged from autism. So she looked at other environmental factors and found that, well, these don't really track along with autism as well as vaccination.

For example, leaded gasoline, certain pesticides actually decreased in use from the nineties to the two thousands, and therefore could be ruled out as primary drivers of rising autism. In contrast, one factor stood out for its positive correlation with autism rates, the increased cumulative exposure to aluminum adjuvanted vaccines in early childhood.

And again, an adjuvant is basically a toxin that is put in there to stimulate the immune response. In fact, researchers have shown that this correlation [00:35:00] satisfies many of the classical Bradford Hill criteria for inferring causality, including the strength of the association and the temporality, how closely the timing matches.

So taken together with that sheer magnitude of the concurrent trendsit's elevating the vaccine hypothesis from just a casual observation to a serious contender, which I think is why there's been as much talk about it as there has in terms of explaining, where did this epidemic come from?

Another study that looked at the correlations was a study by, I don't how would you pronounce this? Sneha? She etal this was in 2018 in the Journal of Inorganic biochemistry, probably one of the few that would actually publish something like this. So the question is exposure.

The title rather, is exposure to aluminum adjuvants associated with Social Impairments in Mice, a pilot study. And one of the things that they note is that [00:36:00] the correlations satisfied eight out of nine hill criteria for causality. For those who know about the Bradford Hill criteria for causality, that's pretty dang good.

eight out of nine. So historically concerns about vaccines and autism began to gain public attention in the late nineties, which you mentioned. To some degree we've probably, most people have heard about the 1998 paper by the British gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues.

Which of course was controversial later, retracted under duress. It's a whole fascinating story, which actually Nicole Shanahan and the guy that they had picked to lead CDC, that ultimately didn't have enough votes to get confirmed, he ended up they did an interview, and in that he sets the record straight on Andrew Wakefield.

And then I was listening to Joe [00:37:00] Rogan and Dr. Humphreys, and she also mentioned that she knows Andrew Wakefield, and she said, he is basically been dragged through the coals by pharma. He'd had several studies that were published and he was a well-respected guy.

And then this one study, right as he was about to publish another study, they retracted this study that came out in 1998 where he reported on a series of children who developed GI gastrointestinal abnormalities and then also autistic like symptoms, regressive developmental characteristics after the MMR vaccine.

The authors of that study hypothesized a connection between the MMR vaccine, intestinal inflammation and autism. So again, that study highly controversial, eventually retracted. It ignited a wave of parental reports and further investigations into possible vaccine autism link.

And around that time in the United States, suspicions fell [00:38:00] on thiol, a mercury based preservative that was used in several infant vaccines through the 1990s in 1999. And this is really how Bobby Kennedy got into the vaccine space because there were several parents who basically approached him.

Mothers predominantly saying, I think that the mercury in the vaccines has caused my child's illness. I have a question about thy Marisol. Okay. If it was safe, then why did they quietly remove it, from the vaccines? Yeah, that's a good question. I think that they did that primarily just as a sort of CYA to some degree.

I think that they were trying to protect themselves from possible liability because they knew that mercury's a neurotoxin. I think that as they claim that it was as a precaution that in 1999, the US health agencies and vaccine manufacturers agreed to phase th Marisol out of most childhood vaccines, except the [00:39:00] flu shot.

The flu shot still has the mercury in it. And as Dr. Odomo likes to say, most people are better off with the flu than the flu shot. So I would stick to that. I have another question. Why would a study be retracted? Like what would Yeah. Well, in this case, it was several years after.

I think it was something like it wasn't retracted, it was retracted. I wanna say it had been at least five years, possibly seven or eight after this was published that it was retracted. And it is. Not typical for a study to be out that long and then ultimately be retracted. it's usually retracted within, oh, somebody finds something wrong with it, and it's within like two, three months, maybe a year that it would get retracted.

So it's pretty atypical for somebody, years later to come back and say, well, we're gonna, have this retract. But apparently what Dr. Humphreys was saying on Rogan was that it was retracted after so much time because they got to his co-author [00:40:00] and basically by they, pharma, it was either pharma or it was the public health authorities, which againbasically work for pharma.

Public health when it started was really great. And I think that she talks about that in that and makes some really good points. And I recommend that interview to anybody who hasn't already seen it. But she talks about how public health was really about like, cleaning up the streets, making sure we had clean water, making sure there wasn't horse poop and dog poop and every other kind of poop and like, just laying around everywhere, which is really how the conditions were for like the vast majority of human history.

And so public health, making sure that we had basic nutrition, clean water, these are things which really account for 85 to 90% of the reduction in disease prevalence over the course of the last, a hundred, 150 years. And so public health had a really good start, but then they went down this path of like, well, now we're just all about vaccines and pushing [00:41:00] vaccines.

Which I think is really unfortunate because I think that there's a lot of things that public health could look into around optimizing the terrain of the individual that would really support immunity, support overall wellbeing and the immune response such that people have very, self-limited courses of these diseases.

Especially these viral illnesses of childhood, which, for many, I would say the vast majority of people are just that they're self-limiting infections. Maybe you get a viral ex anthem, like we talked about with measles. But that's pretty much it. Assuming you know your nutrients, you're replete with the nutrients that your body needs to fight off the infection and not overreact to it.

So much of the mortality from viral illness comes from an overreaction of the immune response, which is driven by a lot of things. I think in our current biu, a lot of it is like the pesticides and the [00:42:00] immunotoxicity from vaccines and also the nutrient deficiencies from our ultra processed diet high insulin levels from the ultra processed food.

I feel like there's one other thing I'm not remembering right now, but there's definitely quite a few different things that contribute to our increased risk from infection. Obesity is one, obviously, and there's more childhood obesity and being overweight, and that's very tied insulin resistance.

So you see all that and it's like, well, yeah, okay that's what we need to be targeting. Right? Not necessarily the, let's get another vaccine, which is gonna further contribute to the immunotoxicity and lifetime risk of autoimmune diseases and very possibly autism as we're about to discover.

So we talked about th Marisol. We talked about how they phase th Marisol out of most childhood vaccines except for the flu shots due to those safety concerns. And of course [00:43:00] that speculation about that mercury exposure and infancy might be contributing to the neural developmental disorders.

However, and this is what's fascinating to me, autism rates continue to climb in the two thousands, even after thy Marisol was removed from routine pediatric vaccines, which is why skeptics said, see, we were right. All along vaccines are exonerated. There's, this is a nothing burger, right? There's nothing to see here.

And what this simplistic conclusion overlooked is that there are other vaccine related factors not just the MMR but also aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. The what they replaced the mercury with was just as toxic. the presence of the aluminum was obviously not affected by the removal of the thiol, which is the mercury.

And so the hypothesis that I would put forward is it's like, well, you've taken one heavy metal and replaced it with another heavy metal, both of which are highly neurotoxic. you'd expect to see the same continued climb if that's the case. And that's what we've seen.

So this [00:44:00] timeline of events, first you have the MMR, being a cause for concern potentially in the late nineties. Then you have Marisol getting removed, and then now we adding the aluminum. It reflects like a shifting hypothesis, which is like, okay, so maybe it's not any one of these things.

It's like this cumulative exposure to neurotoxic compounds rather than like, oh, you're just moving the goalpost, which is like the obvious, pushback. You're gonna hear from skeptics. They'll say, oh, and by that people who are not skeptical of vaccines, but people who are skeptical of the relationship between vaccination and autism, they're gonna say, oh, you're moving the goalpost.

And but that's really not, if you're looking at a cumulative toxic burden model, then you're not actually moving the goalpost at all. And so researchers, I think were really refining their focus on which components ultimately, and maybe it's like a group or a cluster of components of the ever-growing vaccine schedule that is ultimately underlying that [00:45:00] association with autism.

So through the two thousands and the 2000 tens, the United States Government Commission studies, medical establishment repeatedly assured us there's no link. While at the same time, you saw tens of thousands of parents continuing to report drastic regression in their children following an immunization, following a dose of a vaccine.

And that disconnect has persisted and actually grown sharper, especially after 2004 when the Institute of Medicine issued that report firmly rejecting the causal relationship and essentially closing the door on further federal research into vaccines and autism. So they were like, Nope, we're done. And.

As we continue, we're gonna start to see how the core pieces of this puzzle, specifically, which biological mechanisms could explain how vaccines could induce autism, why the official studies might have missed or obscured that effect, and whether there's evidence of bias or data suppression in the [00:46:00] vaccine research enterprise.

So by revisiting this evidence with an open but critical mind, we're gonna determine whether the dismissal of this vaccine autism hypothesis was truly justified, or if instead, vaccination has been an unrecognized contributor to one of the greatest childhood public health crises of our time. I have a question.

Sure. 21 years ago when they closed the door, that door is still closed. Well, I think it's opening now that we've got Bobby Kennedy in there, he's saying, no, we're gonna reopen this door. The door is not closed. Okay. But yeah, Institute of Medicine, for probably, you're right, like for 20 years, the door has been closed on the federal level.

They weren't even investigating it anymore. I think a lot can happen in 20 years. Well, we've seen that the incidence of autism is basically doubled. Right, right, right. If we look at yeah, I'm just gonna go up and see it. as of the, publication, it was one in 36in the [00:47:00] 2010 birth cohort.

It's one in 68. That's, you know what, it's been 15 years, and now it's doubled. It's more than doubled actually, if it's one in 2 31. And that's just been in the last 15 years. Yeah, it just continues to go up and up and up. Yeah. So I want you to go or answer why the autism curve matches, the vaccine schedule so closely.

Like more than any other environmental factor. Yeah. Well, I think we're gonna get to that here. I think that the question of autism rates alongside that vaccine schedule expansion is a really important part of this picture and really difficult to ignore once you see it. Right. Because it reflects that raw epidemiological data and we see that expansion.

And this is worth really delving into it, really getting [00:48:00] granular on, because autism diagnoses rising exponentially in the late 1980s, which of course was, we saw the Vaccine Liability Act, and I forget exactly the name of it off the top of my head right now, but it's the act that basically the one that says, you can't sue us even if something goes terribly wrong.

Exactly. So that was past the 1986. And then you saw autism rates really start to skyrocket, just take off at, in 19 89, 3 years later, which is when you would've started to see the effects of those in the increased vaccine schedule, which followed after 1986. They said, oh, great, well, we don't have to worry about safety anymore.

We'll just start recommending a lot more vaccines. And you see this, even my own sister had asthma and an autoimmune condition. She was part of the after 1986 crew, and my brother and I really, didn't have those issues. And they're actually typically more common in men. So especially the asthma than boys.

But yeah, I'm not [00:49:00] saying, there's, there was also evidence that she got exposed to some styrene and stuff like that. But I think that, it's interesting to look at how we would see the explosion that happened with the immunization schedule, both in the number of vaccines and the frequency of doses given to infants and young children.

And that it really did it increased dramatically. In fact I believe Children's Health Defense has a it's kind a, they have a little bit of a graph and I wanna show it real quick. I wasn't planning on doing this, but do you see it?

Yeah. It's so funny. The only way to find this is if you go to Children's Health Defense and you actually search their website because Google won't find [00:50:00] it for you. That's how heavily censored this information is pretty fascinating, right?

Yeah. This is the only way you actually have to physically, manually search for this information because otherwise you're not gonna find it. And you have to manually put in their site, children's health defense.org and then look at the schedule. So this to me, is a pretty compelling illustration of what we're talking about here.

1986, when the law was passed, 12 total shots. This is from, birth through 18 years. that's more accurate. 'cause we're looking at two months old, that kind of thing. So 12 shots, a total of 25 antigens, eight diseases vaccinated against, this is 19 86, 20 19, of course, pre covid, 54 shots.

It's now up to 74, by the way. 70 antigens, I think [00:51:00] that's now over a hundred. And then 16 diseases. So this is just, in the, 33 years between these two time points. And that's a good illustration of what we're talking about here. Look at all those flu shots. My goodness.

One flu shot a year. And the mortality from the flu shot in children is just not very high, especially if they're using elderberry right away, which is what they should be doing. If your child has a fever of 102 or above and they've got body aches, they should be on elderberry pretty high dose, and why not?

Right? In our practice, we do two teaspoons every two hours for the first couple days, and then, once the fevers come down and they're feeling better, we do two teaspoons every four hours until well but that's, for kids that are probably 12 and up for younger kids, you can just do one [00:52:00] teaspoon.

All right. Little sidetrack there, but I just wanted to show you have this congruence of the two trends that we saw. Also back in figure one. It's really striking and it's been noted by both proponents and skeptics of the vaccine connection. So by 2013, a child following the CDC guidelines would receive approximately 28 injections of 10 different vaccines.

so we saw that by 2019 it was even more. Right? But this is actually, by 2013, a child following guidelines would receive approximately 28 injections of 10 different vaccines by age two. Okay. By age two. So some vaccines are obviously given in multiple doses, that's why it doesn't exactly line up as compared to three to four vaccines in the early eighties.

So again, this is just looking at the [00:53:00] 30, basically around 30 years later, we have increased the amount of injections, increased the total number of vaccines dramatically, and the rise in autism diagnoses during that interval was on the order of a hundred, over a hundred fold from, we estimated in 1980.

About 0.01% of children would get diagnosed two by 2018, 2% of children will be diagnosed with autism. So that's, again, not proof of causation, but we have to keep it in mind because it's very consistent with our hypothesis and suggests that if the vaccines are contributing, they would have a pretty large impact.

Wait, so if it's not vaccines then what new exposure started in the late eighties could explain a 200 fold rise, right. In autism? Well, exactly, and that is what a lot of people will answer by pointing [00:54:00] to other factors. They'll say, oh, improved awareness, diagnostic broadening.

And yes, those have obviously increased the autism counts. But using both California and national data, Neveson, who we talked about before, separated the trend out into portions that were attributable to the diagnostic changes versus the true rise. And she concluded that roughly 75 to 80% of the increase from the late eighties to early two thousands represented a real increase in autism occurrence beyond what better identification could possibly explain.

In other words, even after we adjust for the non causal factors, autism truly becomes far more common in that timeframe. 

So again, what that leads us back to is a much greater likelihood of environmental costs versus any other [00:55:00] cause. And her analysis really compared autism, not just to vaccines, but to numerous environmental variables.

She looked at air pollution, maternal age, chemical exposures. The most relevant risk factors. most of those didn't show any correlation with autism. In fact, a lot of 'em, as we said before, declined over time. So you had lead pollution, pesticides turned out not really as great of an association as you'd hope or as you might think, but the exceptions were the few factors that increased in lockstep with autism.

And among those, the cumulative aluminum adjuvant exposure from vaccines stood out, as did the use of certain persistent organic pollutants in herbicides introduced to the 1990. So it's not the only possible thing that's increasing the rates, but it's one of a very short list. So those findings led credence to this idea that something about the changing vaccine [00:56:00] program may have been a driving force behind the autism epidemic.

And it's important, yes, obviously, as we've said, that correlation alone cannot establish causality, but it can help us generate a hypothesis that are then evaluated with further data on mechanisms, which we're about to get to. And specificity in the case of vaccine and autism hypothesis is that the increased vaccine exposure, especially to particular ingredients, is an environmental trigger for autism in a subset of children.

That doesn't mean that there's no effects on other children, but it means that only in a certain subset of children is autism gonna be the result of this exposure. So if that hypothesis is true, one would expect to see exactly what we do see, right? Autism rates rising as vaccine doses increase. And one would also predict that the groups of children who received more vaccines earlier in life may have higher autism risk [00:57:00] than those who received fewer or later, which is exactly the pattern we observe.

one would look for biological evidence that the vaccine components, this is the next step, right? Have the capacity to cause the neural damage consistent with autism. And that's what we have to see.

We have to see that plausible mechanism, which we're gonna get to next. The temporal association becomes one piece of a much larger puzzle then by itself. This upward march of the two curves is suggestive, right? If we combine it with the toxicological data, the clinical evidence, it becomes compelling.

And as noted by the researchers we mentioned before in the vaccine, autism correlation, not just the United States, but in multiple countries, satisfies eight of nine of the Bradford Hill criteria, which is what is used in epidemiology to infer causation. And so these are [00:58:00] things like coherence with laboratory science, temporality, the things that we're talking about.

In fact, experimental findings, which we're about to get to actually demonstrate that the more aluminum containing vaccines young animals receive. the more profound the neurodevelopmental harm observed, which of course aligns with all these epidemiological correlations that we've discussed.

So in summary, looking at the correlation, the expansion of the vaccine schedule, the surge in autism diagnoses occurred in the same era, affected the same birth cohorts. this strong correlation and the lack of similarly correlated alternatives warrants serious consideration, dismissing it as outright coincidence is scientifically unsatisfying, especially given the high stakes.

And these are high stakes, no doubt about it. 


Vaccine Components of Interest & Theoretical Mechanisms
---

The logical next step is to examine whether there are known biological mechanisms by which the vaccines or specific ingredients [00:59:00] therein could possibly be causing or contributing to autism in some children. And if we can find those mechanisms, if they exist and they're supported by evidence, the case for causation is greatly strengthened.

So let's talk about vaccine components of interest and theoretical mechanisms. If the vaccines are to blame even partially for the development of autism, how might they be doing it? Vaccination obviously is not a single entity. And I think that's one of the things that we have to really emphasize.

It's a broad exposure, including many different pharmaceutical ingredients and immune stimulants. So researchers who consider this vaccine autism link typically focus on two types of mechanisms, either direct neurotoxicity of vaccine ingredients, especially those containing heavy metals or chemicals that can affect brain development, or immune mediated damage where the vaccination is triggering an abnormal immune [01:00:00] response, inflammation, autoimmunity, immune overstimulation that secondarily harms the developing brain.

And I think it's very plausible that either or both of those could be involved here. I wouldn't rule either out yet. And as we've said here these are not mutually exclusive. You could absolutely have both. In fact, they could be synergistic to some degree because some vaccine ingredients like the adjuvants are specifically designed to provoke strong immune activation, which in turn can have neurological effects.

I have a 7-year-old new patient coming on board and his family suspects that it's very plausible because of the temporality of, hey, he had a flu shot, which containing and he never had a flu shot before and then suddenly he started having seizures shortly thereafter.

Is that definite For sure. The temporality is suspicious, I would say. And there's [01:01:00] certainly a mechanism that we're about to get to looking at the thiol. So we're gonna talk about thiol, we're gonna talk about aluminum and looking at the biological plausibility in contributing to autism.

All right. Now we're gonna talk about is a mercury derivative and a neurotoxic preservative, in addition to being an immune stimulating adjuvant. Th is an organic mercury compound. It's 49% ethyl mercury by weight that was used allegedly as a preservative.

But we know that it also has an adjuvant effect in the sense that anytime you have something that's toxic, it's gonna recruit the immune system to come and check it out and deal with it. And it was used in many childhood vaccines from the 1930s all the way through to the 

In fact, mercury used to be used as a treatment for certain conditions back in the 1930s, but that's a whole [01:02:00] nother podcast. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin, so even low levels of mercury methylmercury from maternal fish consumption prenatally are associated with neurodevelopmental deficits.

In the 1990s, as the number of infant vaccines increased, there started to be some concerns around the cumulative mercury dose from th Marisol containing vaccines might over time exceed federal safety limits for infant exposure. as a precautionary move the manufacturers remove from most United States pediatric vaccines by 2001, with the exception of the flu vaccine.

And, this provided a natural experiment. So if were the major cause of autism, rates should have decreased in birth cohorts after it was removed. Several epidemiologic studies in Denmark, Canada California and elsewhere reported no decrease in autism after it was phased out, which of course has been cited as evidence against the Vaccine Autism [01:03:00] Hypothesis.

However, critics point out that autism rates continue to increase even faster after 2001, suggesting that removing one ingredient did not eliminate the risk, possibly because other factors like the growing number of aluminum adjuvanted vaccines maintained or worsened the overall risk. It's also possible that Mercury contributed to autism in the 1990s and early two thousands, but its effects was masked by the introduction of new vaccines or by diagnostic lags.

So in other words. It could be that the effect was basically you, it's hard to see the effect because at the same time as it's eliminated, new vaccines also get introduced. So you're getting increased toxicity, but in a different way and from a different source, the aluminum versus the mercury, or there's also just the simple possibility that it takes time for the diagnosis to be made [01:04:00] after, the mercury was injected.

And so because of that, you may not see the result until several years later. Th Marisol exposure in utero and infancy remains a concern. Maternal flu shots definitely still contain th Marisol. Infant flu vaccines also still often contain mercury, meaning that, even to this day, some babies are still continuing to receive ethyl mercury in those flu shots.

Lab evidence supports Mercury's ability to cause autism-like damage. in 2004, study by Mary Horne and her colleagues at Columbia University demonstrated that autoimmune prone mouse strains injected with thi Marisol. this is basically, a mouse that is prone to developing autoimmune disease, which obviously many of us are prone to developing autoimmune diseases as well.

That when they were injected with Marisol at vaccine level doses exhibited autism relevant neurobehavioral abnormalities, whereas the mice [01:05:00] not predisposed to autoimmunity did not. And this study, which is titled Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Marisol, or Mouse Strain Dependent was published in2004 in the journal molecular Psychiatry.

The susceptible mice show developmental delays reduced social exploratory behavior and neuropathological changes in the brain. So this experiment is interesting because it highlights an important concept, which is that genetic susceptibility alters the effects of mercury. It points to the idea that there's only a subset of children, perhaps those with.

Challenges detoxifying, mercury, maybe mitochondrial dysfunction or immune susceptibilities, particular sensitivities might regress into autism after mercury exposure. Other children may not. And that [01:06:00] aligns with the observation that not every child vaccinated with mercury containing shots becomes autistic, obviously.

Mechanistically that ethyl mercury from the vaccines can accumulate in the brain as inorganic mercury. Don't believe the height that people who say, oh, ethyl mercury is totally safe. That's not true. It there, that's in reference to the idea that it basically goes into the brain fast. It doesn't hang around in the blood the way Methylmercury does.

But when they've looked at brains cadaver brains, they find the ethylmercury, they're like, oh, there it is in the brain tissue. The whole claim that, oh, ethylmercury is fine because we don't see it in the blood, it is like, where is it then? So definitely that ethylmercury can accumulate in the brain as inorganic mercury disrupt the biochemical processes.

Depletes glutathione, which is their body's main chelating agent antioxidant. And one of the ways that our body helps get rid of mercury it induces oxidative stress. It can kill neurons, literally directly kill neurons and [01:07:00] glial cells at sufficient concentrations. There's a great video that the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has where they show under a microscope a nerve cells, when they get exposed to mercury, what happens.

And they're looking at it more from like a fillings perspective. 'cause the silver fillings will have mercury in them as well, and it turns out that they actually like off gas or put off a little bit of mercury over time, continuously. And it also turns out that, that mercury is neurotoxic.

So in infants who of course are much more susceptible because their blood-brain barrier and immune system are really immature, you get amplified effects. Mercury is also gonna be able to synergize with other toxins.

There's studies that are suggesting that Mercury plus aluminum together is more neurotoxic than either one alone. So we're looking at multiplicative [01:08:00] effects versus just an additive effect. And we think that maybe because aluminum can actually enhance mercury uptake into organs. So that's a great segue to looking at aluminum.

Any questions before we do that? Aluminum. I know that it was band in iv nutrition for infants. Why are we still injecting babies with aluminum at months two four and six? These tiny babies? Yeah. And 12 and 15. Yeah, it's a good question. And the justification is that it's heightening the immune system response to the viral or bacterial antigen that you're giving that in the vaccine.

And certainly after thy Marisol was removed and we still saw the autism rates continue to increase attention increasingly turned to the aluminum. [01:09:00] And its use as an adjuvant and, almost all of the childhood vaccines, if not all of them. I'm pretty sure that it is adjuvants. We've talked about how they heighten the immune system's response to the viral or bacterial antigen. Aluminum salts like aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate are the most common adjuvants that are used in childhood vaccines. And as you mentioned, babies today receive aluminum adjuvanted vaccines at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 15 months of age.

It's included in the vaccines per Hepatitis B diptheria, tetanus attenuated pertussis or DTaP, the HIV or hip vaccine, which is hemophilus, influenza B pneumococcus, and others. The total aluminum load in the first year of life from vaccine can exceed four milligrams, which is a dose that.

Many toxicologists and neuroscientists argue is unsafe for vulnerable, developing nervous systems. And you can look at at the [01:10:00] data from that there's a study in the journal Immunologic Research from 2013, aluminum in the central nervous system, toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants and autoimmunity by Shaw et al.

And let's see, also, oh no. Okay, so

aluminum has also been recognized as a neurotoxin in other contexts. So for instance, chronic aluminum exposure has been linked to cognitive impairment and is implicated in dialysis encephalopathy and even Alzheimer's disease, which is where I first heard about aluminum's neurotoxic effect because this was probably before I was even in school.

I remember my mother telling me that, oh, we have to stop using aluminum foil and stop using uncoated aluminum pots and pans to cook anything acidic in, or frankly, we don't cook in them at all [01:11:00] anymore. because basically the aluminum is reacting with the acid and it's going into the food and that has been linked to Alzheimer's.

The neurotoxic effect of aluminum is not a new idea. But the route of exposure in vaccines, this intramuscular injection is different from, dietary. When you ingest it dietarily you at least have a shot of protecting and minimizing the absorption when you directly inject it.

You're having aluminum nanoparticles that are gonna persist in the body, that are gonna travel around. And there was research by RK Giardi and his colleagues in France that found that aluminum adjuvant injected into the muscle can be taken up by immune cells, particularly macrophages transported via the bloodstream or lymphatic system.

And eventually accumulate in the brain where they incite inflammation or impair neural function. So why are we pretending that it's still inert [01:12:00] when it clearly passes into the brain and causes inflammation? Yeah, it's a good question. I think that's really part of what we're looking at here is why are we still doing what we're doing given that we have evidence that actually this is a neurotoxic thing.

It's taken up in the bloodstream or the lymph and eventually can accumulate in the brain. And I think that is the fundamental question that you're asking. I think that the typical pushback that I have seen and I forget whether we get to this, so I'm gonna go ahead and talk about it briefly, is they say, well, okay, so the levels of aluminum that they're getting from a dose of vaccine on that particular day may exceed safety limits.

But if we take that aluminum and we include all the other aluminum that they're getting exposed to for the year, and we extend it over the course of the year, then the average exposure for the year is not significantly elevated. The problem with that [01:13:00] analysis is that toxicity doesn't work that way.

Toxicity is not like, well, we're gonna tally up your toxic burden for the year and then at the end of the year you're gonna pay the IRS, your toxic burden for the year. It's like, no, if the level goes high at any particular point, then the body has to deal with it and it can have toxic effects.

It was a 2013 review of aluminum and which I mentioned previously of the central nervous system that concluded that aluminum has clear negative impacts on neurodevelopment and noted a significant correlation between the number of aluminum containing vaccines and autism rates across countries.

The authors also pointed out that many features of aluminum induced neurotoxicity overlap with those seen in autism and proposed that aluminum's propensity to trigger immune activation could lead to brain inflammation or autoimmunity in genetically susceptible children. [01:14:00] We have empirical studies supporting these concerns.

For example in another group at the, there was a team at the University of British Columbia that performed a pilot experiment where young mice were injected with aluminum adjuvant at doses and timing analogous to the infant vaccine schedule. And the aluminum exposed mice showed the social behavior deficits, anomalies and social interaction tests compared to the ones that were injected with saline.

Yeah. A lot of those peer reviewed studies on mice showing that, aluminum triggers social deficit were labeled as misinformation. Like why? Yeah. Well, why do you think, I want your science brain to tell me what you think? Well, I think it's because that the, their findings I can tell you in my passionate, and I'll come from being a mom, that loves my boys, but I'm gonna keep it cool.

Okay. Right. No, fair enough. [01:15:00] I think that anytime the findings of a study cast doubt or contradict the narrative, that is the narrative that supports the profits of big corporations. There is inevitable pushback. And one of the prime tools in the toolkit that's used is, oh, this is misinformation.

I'm a critically thinking mom with grit. how powerful that is. like on forest, if all mothers, constituted themselves as that. Yeah. I mentioned this study beforein the journal of inorganic chemistry 2018. In this study.

they found these behavioral changes in the mice including reduced social interest, altered social novelty response. these are all reminiscent of core autism symptoms. this a really important study because it's the [01:16:00] first direct evidence in an animal model that aluminum adjuvant alone without any specific virus or antigen could impair neuro development in ways that mimic autism in the mice, 

it compliments the earlier work by Shaw et al from 2013 which found that neonatal mice given multiple aluminum adjuvanted vaccines developed significant motor neuron degeneration and neurological damage consistent with Gulf War syndrome, which is another illness linked to aluminum adjuvants.

So collectively, these studies make it biologically plausible that routine exposure to aluminum adjuvants as occurs in vaccinated infants could contribute to neurodevelopmental harm. the mechanism by which aluminum is thought induce autism involves chronic brain inflammation.

these aluminum particles can activate the innate immune system, for example, [01:17:00] stimulating inflammasome and microglia, which is basically the brain's resident immune cells that are designed to protect the brain from infection. You can get persistent activation of these microglia as well as astroglia in brains of individuals with autism.

In fact, that's been documented as well. The study I would reference you to is from the Annals of Neurology, 2005 January, neuroglial activation and neuroinflammation in the brain of patients with autism. Vargas et al were the authors. So this study that Vargas Etal published in 2005, found an active neuroinflammatory process in autistic brain tissue characterized by widespread microglial activation and elevated inflammatory cytokines in the cerebral spinal fluid.

So these authors suggested that the innate neuro immune reactions are playing a pathogenic [01:18:00] role in autism. So neuroinflammation, neurotox immunotoxicity is playing a pathogenic role in autism. Again, begs the question, what could be driving this chronic brain inflammation in autistic children? And one potential driver is repeated immune activation During critical periods of early brain development, we know that vaccines are intended to activate the immune system so that we generate antibodies.

And while that immune stimulation is usually transient, the cumulative effect of many vaccines in a short span, especially those containing strong adjuvants, could conceivably tip some infants into a state of immune overdrive. And I think frankly, we see this, there's a study that I don't have cited here, but I remember reading it when I was in school.

It came out of, I believe, Switzerland showing that it was comparing children who had received the typical schedule versus ones who had not, that those who had received the vaccine schedule had significantly higher rates of [01:19:00] asthma, autoimmunity atopic conditions like eczema, which are all associated with immune overdrive.

Right? So this is just basically the way you have to think about, this is like the model of autism that's starting to emerge as of this 2018 study is like, autism is like asthma of the brain, right? It's an oversimplification, right? But it's like an immune overdrive targeting the brain cells.

And this is sometimes referred to as the immune overload hypothesis. The idea that you get this immature nervous and immune system of certain children that just can't handle the barrage of. Insults from these current vaccine schedule without adverse consequences. And we get supporting evidence from this hypothesis from the field of maternal immune activation because it's well established actually in both [01:20:00] human epidemiology and animal models that infections in a mother during pregnancy, which cause a surge of inflammatory cytokines molecular messengers can increase the risk of autism in her offspring.

It is well established in both human epidemiology and animal models that infections in a mother during pregnancy can increase the risk of autism in her offspring In these cases, it's not the pathogen per se, but actually the mother's immune response that disrupts the fetal brain development.

So a good analogy here would be that similarly, the postnatal immune activation, so after birth immune activation from the vaccines may have a similar effect in that early period after birth when the brain is undergoing rapid synaptogenesis and growth. So it's growing, forming new synapses [01:21:00] and would be equally or at least maybe not equally, but also highly susceptible to inflammation.

So beyond mercury and aluminum, there are other vaccine components and aspects of the vaccine schedule that have been proposed as potentially contributing to autism. One of those is the combination of multiple vaccines given together potential interactions among ingredients. The practice of vaccinating during times of vulnerability, for example, when a child has an underlying infection or mitochondrial impairment, are all definitely factors to consider.

I've heard stories of basically people being told, oh, it's fine that they have a runny nose or it's fine that they were sick, two days ago. No, it's not. You should wait at least two weeks is what the guidelines say. So the live virus MMR vaccine, doesn't have mercury or aluminum, but it has been a focal point of concern because there have been some significant case reports of regression [01:22:00] after the MMR around age one.

So some people have hypothesized, and this is consistent again with Wakefield's earlier work that the MMR could trigger like a chronic subclinical measles infection in the gut because it is a live virus vaccine. So it contains a live virus, which means it can revert back to measles, but it may not be strong enough of a version of measles to actually cause the measles, but it could create an infection in the gut or an autoimmune reaction that then ultimately affects the brain.

So this is more of like a cutting edge idea that I would say there's not as much evidence for, but it's interesting because it's worth noting because of the fact that it has that brain inflammation and loss of acquired skills, which often happens when you have encephalopathy, inflammation of the [01:23:00] protective covering of the brain 

Incorrect encephalopathy is when you actually have brain inflammation. And this is well known to have occurred, not commonly, but rarely after measles infection and also after the measles vaccine. And there have been some cases in the vaccine injury courts that they have acknowledged that vaccines precipitated autism-like conditions in children with underlying medical vulnerabilities.

So the famous case is one of Hannah Pauling, I remember when this case happened 'cause it was a big deal. This was a child where they were able to actually, the parents, I think the father was a doctor I wanna say. And he was able to do the, very boutique expensive.

We have to send your stuff all the way to France and do this testing to, to find out you have it. Because I don't even think we do this testing in the United States. At least we didn't back when this case was going on. So this child, Hannah polling [01:24:00] had a mitochondrial disorder, and at the same time as having this mitochondrial disorder regressed into autism after a series of vaccines.

And when they looked at her genetics, they saw the mitochondrial disorder that ultimately the confluence of the mitochondria disorder, the series of vaccinations and the timing, the temporality resulted in the federal government, the justice department, which is actually the one that's defending against the parents.

It's literally, I don't know if you realize this, but like the taxpayer funded justice department fights against the parents who are trying to get compensation for their child's vaccine injury. And so literally it's the Justice Department's job to try to prove that your child is not vaccine injured.

I don't know if you know that, but that's pretty wild. But they had to concede, even in this case, that the vaccines aggravated at underlying encephalopathy, which then [01:25:00] manifested as autism. This case I think, pretty strongly suggests that there's identifiable subpopulations, for example, like children with mitochondrial dysfunction, children with chronic immune deficiencies, genetic mutations and detoxification pathways who are at special risk for neurodevelopmental injury from vaccines.

And frankly, other sources as well. But for purposes of this conversation, vaccines would definitely be on that list. And these are not gonna be picked up in broad population studies that treat children as, oh, all children are basically the same, which I've always thought that's wild.

That how would you test for that though? Like, as a mom, if you wanted to follow an intelligent vaccination schedule, delayed and checked titers, could you actually test for this underlying mitochondrial dysfunction and others, et cetera? [01:26:00] Well, there, yeah. It's an interesting question.

With regard to the. Mitochondrial disorders. Like I said, there's a series of tests, I forget the name of the lab in France where you gotta send off blood, all the way to France and get them to do the evaluation because you're not looking at like the child's DNA, you're looking at their mitochondrial DNA, which is like a really specialized testing that, that they only do at this lab in France.

That's something that at our pediatric clinic, when I was in school that we offered to patients, but it's not a routine lab. It's not a lab that even most pediatricians would have any idea about. So that's what you have to realize is like, this is highly specialized and there's a lot of autism specialists who probably don't even know about it.

Okay. Thank you. So what about other tests? Well, there's looking at, for example, aluminum, and we'll get into this in a minuteIn terms of clues for [01:27:00] treatment we're almost there, but I would say that you can look at, for example, aluminum levels in red blood cells.

You can look at aluminum levels in the hairthe urine. You can see how the body's dealing with it. We know, for example, that aluminum levels in the hair and the urine of children with autism seem to be higher, which is an indication that their body is potentially exposed to a higher level of those things vis-a-vis, children who don't have and that, I think there's this conception that like, oh, vaccines are all basically the same.


PICK BACK UP HERE 
---

They're all standardized and made perfectly identical to each other. And it's like, no, they're not. Absolutely not. there's, first of all, there's no incentive for them to do that because again if they mess up a batch, it's like, oh, well, if those kids have a problem, they can take it to the vaccine court.

There's literally no, there's no way that vaccine companies get hit if they make a batch and let it go out to the market that has got 2, 3, 4 times the proper amount. And you really [01:28:00] think that the FDA is checking every single batch? they can't, no, they don't have the resources.

My point in asking is that the accessibility to these tests, even if parents wanted to do it, is, well, these tests aren't covered by insurance. Any insurance, yeah. To look at RBC aluminum or No, because again, the conventional medical establishment decides, literally every single insurance company has a conventional medical doctor deciding what tests get covered and what tests don't.

And if the FDA has not approved a particular relationship between a particular lab test and some sort of diagnosis or some sort of treatment response, then typically that test is not gonna be covered by insurance. And, that's the case for all of these tests predominantly.

If you have a true vaccine reaction, sometimes we can tie it to a particular ingredient and sometimes we can test for those and get them covered by insurance. And we do that in our, patients who've had a [01:29:00] vaccine reaction or think that they've had a vaccine reaction. we have a panel we use in our practice where we look at every single vaccine ingredient that we can test for in the blood and in the urine and see, okay, what are the levels in this child or in this person do they have an allergy to the protein that's in this particular vaccine.

And there's some vaccines that have egg protein in them. And I believe there's some sort of collagen protein of some kind in one of them, or, yeah, I mean there's definitely I'd have to pull up the macro that I've created for vaccine. Basically to evaluate a patient to see if they're eligible for a vaccine exemption.

We have to actually show in the lab work in the state of California, it's very strict. We have to show proof that there is an actual reaction immunologically that can be detected in the blood. [01:30:00] It's not just, oh, I had this vaccine and I had a reaction and so now I don't want to get any vaccines, or I don't want to get that vaccine even.

And you have to show in the blood that yes, there is a persistentIgE level reaction to that particular ingredient that's causing the susceptibility to that particular vaccine. It's a very, I would say, burdensome and overly strict law. But I understand that there's a lot of fear and we're gonna get to this at the very end.

But there's a lot of fear around what if, we just let people not be vaccinated. Like what would happen to society? Like we'd all get, if we drop below that herd immunity level and how horrible that would be and mortality would just skyrocket, right? So that's the concern and I think that it's worth taking a look at.

But I think that you might be surprised by what the result there is. Alright. So we talked about how the broad [01:31:00] population studies that treat children as all the same are not gonna pick up these signals. And also that the mechanism of synergistic toxicity. So multiple hits.

You've got a genetic predisposition plus exposure to vaccine mercury, plus an immune activation from an illness or an adjuvant, the aluminum coming in, and the Dr. Walter Crean, who was one of my mentors in med school, would always say think of toxicity like a barrel.

And, if there's constantly toxins dripping in this barrel, eventually if you don't let the spigot out at the end, the barrel's gonna start overflowing and that's when you get symptoms. So all of these toxic exposures combine to push the child over the threshold into autism. And just to recap, looking at the biologically plausible mechanisms that exist, linking vaccines to autism pathophysiology include number one, heavy metals like the mercury and the [01:32:00] aluminum present in the vaccines that are very capable of neurotoxic and immunotoxic effects consistent with findings in autism.

So that's oxidative stress, microglial activation, impaired synapse formation. Number three, the activation of immune system by the vaccines while typically safe in isolation. And again, I would say safe in quotes. 'cause we can take a look at some other non autism related effects of vaccine and immunotoxicity and overactivation could become harmful if amplified or repeated excessively in susceptible individuals.

So that's the key piece. There is number four, susceptible individuals. And that results in that perfect storm scenario in which a child with these subtle vulnerabilities is then exposed to a series of immunological and toxic challenges early in life leads to the neuroinflammation and the developmental regression.

So vaccines by design deliver [01:33:00] these immune challenges frequently in the first years of life. So from that standpoint, it is entirely feasible that the vaccination program, again, not any one particular vaccine, but the vaccination program, particularly the cumulative exposure to ingredients like aluminum and the frequency and the timing of these immunizations has been a driving factor in the emergence of the autism on a truly epidemic scale.


Clues from Treatment (Biomedical Evidence Supporting Causation)
---

And so next we're gonna investigate whether the studies and the data that are typically cited against this hypothesis actually invalidate it, or whether the methodological issues and biases have led to a premature dismissal of a real causal relationship. You mean we're gonna move into biomedical evidence, supporting causation.

Right. Okay. And looking at, ultimately, I would say pushing back on some of the ways in which the establishment [01:34:00] typically tries to dismiss or discredit what we've just discussed. Okay. And with really the brass tacks, the hard data, which is, hey if we treat people, we treat these kids in ways that are consistent with this hypothesis, we see improvement.

And why would that be if this was all nothing? Yeah. And that's something nobody wants to talk about because, the establishment narrative is like, oh, there's no treatment that can help autism. That's, well, there is, there are some things that have shown, have helped some kids recover, like mitochondrial support, detox and Well, and you'd expect that in someone with mitochondrial dysfunction, right?

yes. So doesn't that point to that toxins play a role? Exactly. If vaccination induced factors are indeed contributing to autism, we would expect to find evidence of that in how these children respond to the biomedical treatments. And in recent years, lots of families and [01:35:00] clinicians have pursued interventions targeting the underlying biology of autism.

And that includes, as you mentioned, detoxification of heavy metals, particularly mercury and aluminum reduction of neuroinflammation supplementation for metabolic deficiencies. And remarkably, and this is the thing that again, most people don't know about, and I think that for the most part, the establishment doesn't want to deal with.

There are documented cases and even some clinical studies where children with autism showed improvement when these underlying issues were addressed, which again, provides clues that those issues were the issues driving the development of the symptoms to begin with. And those observations of improvement align with this vaccine hypothesis.

So if autism symptoms lessen, when toxins are removed, when immune dysfunction is normalized, it suggests that these factors, the toxins and the immune [01:36:00] dysregulation were part of the causal chain and that the vaccines were a major source of early toxic and immune disturbances in those children.

One striking clue from this phenomenon is often termed the fever effect. Have you ever heard of the fever effect in this context? No. So this is when, parents and doctors see that certain children with autism experience a temporary improvement, cognition and social engagement when they have a fever.

That's right. So some parents have reported that their kids wake up, when they have a fever. If autism is just a genetic. Brain wiring issue then. there's no such thing as genetic epidemics, right? And we've seen that there's a true epidemic. We've seen by over two orders of magnitude the incidences of autism has increased in the last [01:37:00] 45 years.

And we've also seen that maximum 25% of that could be attributed to improved diagnostic surveillance, increased awareness better, criteria, broader criteria, et cetera. So why, then, if autism is just a genetic brain wiring issue, then why are these It's not though.

That's my point. That's absurd. 

that flies in the face of everything that we know. Because there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic. Do you understand that? There's no genetic, like, oh, we're suddenly, everyone's genes are messed up. That takes that, that would take thousands of years, not, 45. So here's what's cool about the fever effect. There was a prospective study published in pediatrics in 2007 and I'll give you the name of the study. Behaviors Associated With Fever in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders is the name of the study.

Authors current et al C-U-R-R-A-N formerly [01:38:00] confirmed this fever effect. So about 80% of the autistic children in this study showed fewer aberrant behaviors and increased alertness during a fever with these improvements, unfortunately fading after the fever resolved. this suggests though, that modulating the immune system, 'cause fever is a systemic immune activation, can transiently alter neurological function in autism.

So you may ask yourself, well, hold on. If neuroinflammation is the problem, why would more inflammation from systemic immune activation help? Well, maybe it's not. Maybe the fever is helping against the way I explain this to my patients is that there's two modes that the immune system predominantly is in th one and th two, TH one.

is against viruses and cancer. TH two is allergies and bacteria. So we would think if it's like, hey, if allergies and bacteria are, and where most of us hang out, and there is evidence in [01:39:00] fact that the current vaccination program actually does bias us toward hanging out more in this th two response, which is part of why we get the increased allergies and eczema and autoimmunity and atop and all that.

Then why is it that getting an infection? Well, a lot of, most of the childhood infections that you're gonna be getting will be viruses. So it's basically your, the immune system is not just increasing its activity, it's switching, from TH two over to TH one to fight off the virus. So basically, in order to do that, th two calms down.

So you have a calming of the allergies response and the bacterial response, which is why some people get a bacterial infection, like that poor girl who passed away, not actually from measles, but they blamed it on measles. She had mycoplasma pneumonia, which is a bacterial secondary infection. Because what can happen is immunity against bacteria is temporarily reduced during a viral infection.

But it would make [01:40:00] sense because also so is the allergic response, so is autoimmune response because the body's shifting to TH one, so that can transiently alter that neurologic function and autism because the inflammation that is driving it decreases while the immune system switches to TH one and goes after the virus.

And researchers speculate that the fever may actually enhance certain neurotransmitters altered inflammatory cytokines like I just mentioned, and temporarily improve that neural connectivity. Then the question becomes, okay, but how does this relate to vaccines?

And the answer is this, the fever effect demonstrates that autism symptoms are not static or purely structural, which gets to your point, they can be influenced by the immune state of the child. And it points to that there is an ongoing inflammatory process or an immune imbalance that is at the core of autism in these kids.

And it's precisely that kind of process that an [01:41:00] adverse vaccine reaction might trigger chronically. So in other words, if immune related intervention fever can improve autism symptoms, it stands to reason that an immune related hit like an adverse immune immunization response could worsen or potentially even cause the symptoms to develop.

Does that make sense? Yes. I'm letting it sink in. Yeah. Well, and I think that how that happens is, again, probably that shift from TH two over to th one. But you can see how if you have the vaccine that has been shown to induce more of that th two response, getting a bunch of them one after the other, could bias the immune system in favor of that th two response, which we believe is most likely.

The response that is just, again, based on the way the fever effect happens and the way that we know that [01:42:00] autoimmunity and eczema and atop p and all these things are all th two responses, that seems like that would logically be what's driving this. So another insight along this vein comes from looking at the metabolic, are you ready for me to keep going?

Yeah. Checking in. Yeah. Looking at the metabolic and toxicologic profiles of children with autism. So multiple studies have found that autistic individuals have marked oxidative stress and impairments in detoxification pathways. For example, autistic children tend to have significantly lower levels of glutathione, which I mentioned is the body's number one chelating agent master antioxidants and helps to detoxify mercury.

Autistic children tend to have significantly lower levels of glutathione, which is the body's number one chelating agent, especially for mercury master antioxidant compared to neurotypical children. And glutathione is crucial. And this is actually you can look [01:43:00] at the study in the Journal of Pharmac Pharmacological Research, April, 2021.

The impact of glutathione, metabolism and autism spectrum disorder. It's Bjork etal I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. So glutathione is crucial not just for mercury detoxification, but also neutralizing reactive oxygen species clearing other heavy metals. And a deficiency in glutathione renders child more susceptible to harm from mercury, aluminum and many other toxins.

So in this study, they found a glutathione deficit of 20 to 40% as measured in plasma in autism. And I just wanna make sure I'm citing the correct study. Do I am. Okay, great. So that finding dovetails with our vaccine hypothesis [01:44:00] because the inability to effectively clear injected metals then leads to their accumulation and prolonged neurotoxic effects.

Furthermore, these impairments are not merely interesting laboratory findings, curiosities. They have been targeted therapeutically, not just, in our practice, but also in some studies. So in one randomized trial one group of researchers gave autistic children a nutritional supplement designed to boost glutathione.

Predominantly cysteine is the, main precursor. It's one of, I think, three precursors of glutathione. Usually we give that as in acetylcysteine. This particular study gave it as cystine rich whey protein for three months. And what they found was that the children that were treated with this cysteine supplementation had significant increases in [01:45:00] both the intracellular glutathione levels as well as improvements in adaptive behavior and socialization scores compared to the placebo.

And I'll give you the information for this study. So this study is called Improving Antioxidant Capacity in Children with Autism, A randomized Double-Blind Control Study with Cystine Rich Whey Protein. Lead author is Anna Maria caste. and this was published in September of 2021 in I believe it is Frontiers and Psychiatry the Child and adolescent psychiatry section.

Okay. So put another way improving this, the child's antioxidant capacity and detoxification status led to measurable gains in their autism related behaviors. I would say this is powerful indication that oxidative [01:46:00] stress and toxic accumulation are an integral part to this disorders.

Expression and detoxification treatments provide additional anecdotes. some of the physicians, including ones that I have worked with, have used, as you mentioned, chelation therapy which is basically pharmaceutical agents that bind heavy metals and help the body eliminate them in children with autism spectrum who are found to have high heavy metal burdens.

So first you have to test them to find out if they have heavy metal burdens. If they do, we do appropriate chelation treatment. We haven't really seen clinical, randomized controlled trials yet of chelation and autism because. There's some controversy. People worry about safety concerns.

If you're careful with dosing, and I find most of that to be a red herring because I've used chelation a lot over the years, and I was trained by, one of the world's experts at the time, Dr. Walter Gron in, environmental medicine. if you're careful with the [01:47:00] dosing and you calculate it based on weight, which is, it must be weight-based dosing, we've seen and I've seen clinically, and there, also case reports out there of autistic children who experienced cognitive and behavioral improvements following careful chelation protocols that lowered their body burden of mercury and or lead.

We haven't really talked about lead, that can be also neurotoxic, not as typically. So that one is associated more with like Parkinsonism and Parkinson's, like symptoms, especially in older people. Who knows, maybe it has a similar effect as mercury in the developing brain.

I don't know that we have a whole lot of evidence of that, but it's possible. One case study involved a child with autism who had elevated urinary mercury after a year of chelation therapy. This child showed dramatic improvements in communication learning, and aswe saw that as the mercury excretion levels normalized.

So this is not proof because [01:48:00] case reports, right? There's, but they're suggestive. They indicate that removing a toxic element, which could have plausibly come from vaccines, at least in part, produces improvement, which implicates that toxin in the disease process. Similarly, dietary interventions that reduce inflammation like, the famous Feinberg, gluten-free, caffeine-free diets that help to heal leaky gut and high dose Omega-3 fatty acids that lower neuroinflammation have helped certain children.

So we see that subgroups of kids with a SD will be benefited by these different forms of therapy, which again, reinforces the idea that inflammation and immune dysregulation are driving autism symptoms in at least some of the children who are having it. So if vaccines. Triggered or exacerbated these inflammatory conditions.

For example, through immune activation events, persistent viral [01:49:00] components, maybe in some of the live attenuated vaccines, then treating the inflammation could then lead to improvement by reversing that vaccine induced pathology. So one more intriguing piece of evidence from this realm is from the realm of autoimmune encephalitis.

So in recent years, doctors have identified a subset of children with autism who test positive for certain brain specific autoantibodies. So these are antibodies that their bodies have produced against their own cells, specifically against the neuronal receptors, certain neuronal receptors and certain proteins that are found in the brain.

And these children sometimes respond to immunotherapies like IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin and or corticosteroids. I had a patient that responded well to what is it called plasmapheresis. [01:50:00] And these treatments tend to reduce that autoimmune activity. They help clean out the overactivation of the immune system by reducing the amount of antibodies that are in the bloodstream.

And what's interesting is in the subset of children, sometimes you will see improvement in, again, notable improvements in autism symptoms. And that points to the idea that autism fundamentally in many, if not most cases, is an autoimmune neurological disease. So how could that relate to vaccine? Tying that back in, we know very well that vaccines can precipitate autoimmune reactions.

And in fact, there's a phenomenon that's been described called autoimmune or autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants or A SIA Asia, right? And that's where you get exposure to vaccine adjuvants like aluminum [01:51:00] triggering autoimmune conditions in predisposed individuals. And that is something that was described and discussed back in the Shaw study that I mentioned

2013 the journal immunologic research aluminum in the central nervous system. If a child developed an autoimmune attack on certain brain proteins as a result of an immune provoking ingredient in the vaccine, the outcome could definitely manifest as an autistic regression. So the success of immunosuppressive therapy in a subset of autistic children with autoimmunity can be seen as like a backwards indicator that excessive immune trigger potentially vaccine most likely played a causal role initially.

So in sum for this section on the clues that treatment is providing us about this causal pathway, [01:52:00] the treatment outcomes in autism are really providing us with these clues to what the causal connections are. The improvements that we've seen with the approaches that target the toxins, target the inflammation, support, the idea that those factors are integral to the development of autism.

And because vaccines are significant early source of both toxins like mercury and aluminum, as well as inflammatory triggers, IIE the intended immune activation, it's very reasonable to draw a line connecting the dots. We see that reducing toxic and immunologic load improves autism symptoms, which implies that increasing that load through intensive vaccination could conversely contribute to inducing the autism symptoms in the first place.

So while we obviously need, I would [01:53:00] argue you may disagree more systemic research. For example, I would like to see large studies looking at precisely calibrated dosed chelation, not just of mercury, but also of aluminum. That would be an interesting study from my perspective. The cumulative clinical anecdotes, small trials align with biomedical improvements

addressing vaccine relevant damage. Treating oxidative stress, immune dysfunction. Remember the glutathione study. Add another layer of evidence which strengthen the link because these clues from treatment, well, they do more than that. They really humanize the discussion. They illustrate that autism is, a medical condition that can sometimes be improved.

And it's not this intractable genetic destiny. And if it's a medical condition, [01:54:00] we have to earnestly investigate all of the medical environmental triggers that set it in motion. Vaccines included. I agree. I'm just gonna put my stamp on that. Okay, good. So why hasn't the CDC oh, why, oh, why hasn't the CDC done?

I need to justing this out a little bit. Go ahead, go for it. Why haven't they done even one study on the long-term health outcomes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated kids? Like not even one? Yeah. Well that's a great question and I think it points to, we're gonna get into that a little bit here, but I would say it points to that a lot of this debate, I think is not actually about the science, it's about power and money.

Right. And what you have to remember is that the CDC [01:55:00] profits off of vaccines. Because when the CDC Yeah, when they do research that helps to develop a new vaccine, they get a portion of the profits. 'cause then they basically sell that vaccine to the big pharma and then big pharma produces it and sells it, but then they get a percentage of profit.

And not only that, but the actual individuals that were involved in the development of the vaccine technology get a percentage of the profit. It's obviously a huge conflict of interest and it's one of the things that Bobby Kennedy said he's committed to getting rid of because it's like, it's absurd that.

The taxpayers are funding these people's research, and yet is the taxpayer benefiting from well, they, they would say, of course, because now you have this great new vaccine. It's like, okay, but [01:56:00] a how great is it because you have this perverse incentive to tell me that it's great because you're making money if I actually purchase it and get it.

In my view, the question really is does the CDC have any integrity left? And if so, where and how? And I think that's what he's trying to do is rebuild it. But I think that's ultimately the question. why hasn't that study been done?

there's been a study, as I mentioned, looking at allergies, eczema, autoimmunity, atopic conditions. there was one study that looked at vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders and found an association.

And that study was dog piled from every direction and eventually retracted. So I don't even think we discussed it in here because it's one of those things where it's like, again, this is not an issue of science. This is an issue of power and money.

And that's fundamentally what people need to start to think about. And we're about to get into that. But [01:57:00] before we get into that more, 


Addressing Mainstream Counterarguments
---

I think we need to address some of the mainstream counterarguments that people would put forward here at this point. And some of you may already be thinking these things obviously the proposition that vaccines might be driving the autism epidemic runs totally counter to the assertions of most public health authorities.

And we've talked about the way that, there was this institutional creep public health authorities where they went from being about maintaining clean environment, and a healthy food supply to now being the vaccine pushers. In fact, these health agencies often will counter the kind of claims we're making by citing numerous studies and expert reviews that found no evidence of harm from vaccines with respect to autism.

so it is essential to critically examine these mainstream counterarguments. Are the studies truly comprehensive and unbiased? Do they have limitations that might have obscured a real effect? Are there any indications of selective reporting [01:58:00] or conflicts of interest that could have influenced the conclusions?

And finally, are there alternative explanations that better fit the data than the vaccine hypothesis? absolutely we should consider that. So in this section, we're gonna address these questions head on. 'cause we have to be fair and a fair evaluation requires acknowledging what mainstream has gotten right.

For instance, not every early hypothesis panned out. Fair enough. While also scrutinizing the weaknesses in their position. So the first thing, and I know Bobby Kennedy's talked about this a lot, but I think it's worth emphasizing because I think most people don't know it.

And I think they're still shocked to hear it. When I told our cousin Scott about this, he was like, surely not. And he's a very highly intelligent attorney. Successful but he just, he was as shocked, I think as perhaps I was when I first [01:59:00] heard that there's a big roach in the pudding of the vaccine safety studies, which is they're not using a real inert placebo.

A real inert placebo in this case would be like a saline shot, right? Like here we're gonna give you a shot of saline, but they often contain aluminum or even other vaccines. Like how can you really claim safety when you know exactly these placebos, right? The placebos are not actually placebos.

So the off repeated claim is that dozens of studies have shown no link between vaccines and autism. Quantity of studies does not equal quality obviously. And a closer look at the most frequently cited research is gonna show that there's some pretty significant methodological issues. So a lot of these studies were not actually designed to detect nuanced, delayed, or subset specific effects that a vaccine induced autism mechanism would obviously entail.

So first we have to [02:00:00] consider the gold standard of clinical research is the randomized control trial. And given that it should be shocking to everyone listening to this that, no, I repeat, no randomized controlled trial has ever been conducted to specifically evaluate autism outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.

And the reason why is, oh, well we could never do that ethically, it would be so unethical because we would be withholding these highly effective vaccines from children in the trial group that were getting the placebo shots and that would put them at risk for infectious diseases. But if you look at the data comparing randomized controlled trials to observational controlled trials, there have been meta-analyses of observational controlled trials versus randomized controlled trials that have shown repeatedly that [02:01:00] there is no significant difference between their findings.

So if we just observe what's naturally occurring, that's gonna give us data that's just as good as if we create this contrivance of a randomized controlled trial. And that's what study after study comparing these two types of trials have shown us. Alright, so we have to rely on observational studies.

Fair enough. Which, people will claim, oh, those are inherently prone to certain biases and confounders. Look, I.

The meta-analysis that have evaluated these types of trials show repeatedly. There's no significant difference between their findings and randomized controlled trials. When you look at the big picture. The other thing that they're gonna say is, or the other thing I would point out is that the pre-licensure clinical trials for vaccines are not [02:02:00] evaluating neurodevelopmental outcomes years down the line.

These vaccine trials usually follow participants for a few days, maybe a few weeks, looking for any acute adverse events. So autism, which is diagnosed around age two to three, typically is not gonna be observed in these short trial windows. So that means when the new vaccines are approved, they haven't been tested for long-term effects like autism in any formal way.

And any such effects would only be detectable by their nature via post-marketing surveillance or epidemiological studies, which we've already seen, show that there's this crazy takeoff. So there's this issue now of placebo selection, which you mentioned as well in the vaccine trials.

So a foundational principle of a clinical trial is to compare the treatment against an inert, like a saline injection, placebo, to clearly [02:03:00] see the treatment's risk profile. And, mind blowingly, I would say many vaccine trials have used, if not most, have used improper placebos.

So instead of saline, the placebo often contains the adjuvant, such as the aluminum or even a different vaccine. in fact, in every vaccine study I've ever read I'm waiting for somebody to send me one where they actually used a proper placebo, but they either are comparing it against what they call the vehicle, which is the vaccine minus the particular viral or bacterial antigen that they're put in there.

That's unique to that particular vaccine. They call it the vehicle versus. Everything that's also in the vehicle plus the antigen. So they basically have changed one out of potentially half a dozen to a dozen different ingredients, and then called one of them the placebo, and one of 'em the [02:04:00] active agent.

Well, okay, but that's not a real placebo. Right? The other thing they'll do is they'll say, well, we're gonna compare this new vaccine to a previously approved vaccine. And if the side effects are not significantly different, well then it's fine. It's safe and effective, or at least safe, right?

So instead of saline, we've talked about that. It's often either, the vehicle or it's got a different vaccine completely in it. So for example, in Merck's clinical trials for the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, the control groups received injections of the vehicle, the aluminum adjuvant without the viral antigens, plus all the other binders and whatnot rather than a true inert placebo.

And you can, if you want to go read that studythe study is called Reactogenic placebo and the Ethics of Informed Consent and Gardasil, HPV Vaccine Clinical Trials, a case study from [02:05:00] Denmark. And 

This is from the International Journal ofRisk and Safety in Medicine May 31st from 2024. So just last year. And they were basically highlighting the fact that the advertising material for the trial and the informed consent form stated the placebo was saline or an inactive substance, when in fact it contained Merck's proprietary highly reactogenic aluminum adjuvant, which does not appear to have been properly evaluated for safety.

Several trial participants experienced chronic disabling symptoms, including some randomized to the adjuvant placebo group, So that's pretty upsetting, I would say for me anyway. that they weren't informed that it contained aluminum and several of the people receiving the placebo suffered the same types of adverse reactions in the vaccine group, which is exactly what we would expect [02:06:00] if the problem wasn't the actual antigen in the vaccine, but rather the vehicle, what it's put in that is helping it be injected and helping the immune system respond.

So a 2024 analysis of the Gardasil trials concluded that using this reactogenic, or another way of saying immune stimulating placebo violated ethical and scientific norms because it masked the true rate of side effects. And this review found that the trial subjects were misled and the aluminum placebo, quote unquote likely hid vaccine related risks by causing similar reactions in the controls.

And this critique, I've already shown you guys that study, but the critique applies beyond HPV because many pediatric vaccine safety trials also use adjuvant or another vaccine as the comparator. And so the result is you see a smaller difference in the adverse event rates between the [02:07:00] two groups, which makes the vaccine appear as safe as the control.

But the comparison is basically one active product versus another active product. So when it comes to the neurological outcomes in particular, like autism, if the control is not biologically inert, which again, none of these are, it could also potentially contribute to the same neurodevelopmental issues and obscure the vaccines effect.

So basically these trial designs bake in a bias that prevents the detection of problems with the vaccines and the regulators were supposed to be protecting us from this, have permitted this practice. But, independent researchers have argued that aluminum adjuvant should not be used as placebos in clinical trials due to exactly these safety concerns.

Well makes these decisions. Oh yeah. Well, our taxpayer funded. Regulators. But [02:08:00] I would just say that the problem there is again, this, the system has become so captured not only because of what I told you about where NIH and CDC profit off of the development of new vaccines, but also where you have a situation where big pharma, the revolving door of the FDA is a big issue here where basically I think it's 30 to 33% of the the employees at least, prior to a few months ago at the FDA, were people who'd worked for pharma.

And we'd seen a pattern where these people would go work for FDA for a year or two, get whatever drug they were working on approved, and then go right back to leave the FDA, go right back to work for the same pharma company for a raise and a bonus. Yeah. Okay. So beyond trial design, we want to consider the population studies that are often cited.

So these are gonna be, case control studies, cohort studies for those who are into study design. [02:09:00] One famous series is the Danish series by Madson Etal two, 2002 on the MMR and HID etal 2003 on THI Marisol. These get cited a lot, and of course, these studies concluded no link. But then when you, when we reanalyze those there have been several issues that have, critical issues that are problematic.

I'm gonna point out a few of them here. So in the MMR study which is the Madsen at all study, virtually all children in Denmark eventually got the MMR. So the unvaccinated control group was extremely small by age five, and many were just those who delayed vaccination. So the study was actually underpowered to detect any effect if autism onset was merely delayed in some children.

The th Marisol study in Denmark [02:10:00] the HI etal had a more glaring issue. Denmark removed th Marisol in 1992, and indeed, autism rates in the registries initially dropped for a few years, but then changed due to a. Concurrent broadening of diagnostic access. So initially you saw a drop, and then there was a broadening of the diagnostic access.

So you have au outpatient autism cases started being included in the registry counts, whereas before only inpatient diagnoses were. And so this administrative change caused this artificial uptick in recorded autism after 95 in Denmark, which confounded the results. So some analysts have argued that when properly accounting for the change, the Danish data actually showed a decline in autism after thi marisol's removal.

But the way the data was presented made it seem as if the rates went up, supporting the no effect of removing [02:11:00] the thiol narrative. And that illustrates how cohort studies can be heavily influenced by how data is handled and what adjustments are made or not made. If your goal is to show a certain effect or a lack of certain effect, you can massage the data often to do just that.

If your goal, to me the interesting studies, and we, you and I have talked about this before, the interesting studies to me is when it's in the vested interest of the researchers to prove X and what they end up finding is like, not X, right? Or the opposite of X. Then I'm like, oh, that's a good study.

If they go in there looking for X and they find X, then I'm like I'm not super influenced by that study one way or the other because I know how easy it is if you go in looking for X to find X because you can, manipulate and massage the data however you want to, force an outcome.

Or you have studies where literally the results show one thing and the conclusion is like something totally different. [02:12:00] And we've seen that a lot in Covid, where we saw studies looking at Ivermectin and showing that it was effective. And then the conclusion was like, oh, not effective. It's like, okay.

Really interesting how that works. Another common study design has been to compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations for autism rates. And, to me that's interesting, but those. Tend to find no difference or even lower autism in highly vaccinated populations.

And so you may say, well, there you go, open and shut. But here's the problem. Those often fail to control for socioeconomic and healthcare access differences. So what often happens is the areas in communities with lower vaccination rates are also poorer, and they have lower access to the developmental specialists who diagnose autism, which then lead to an undercounting of autism in the less vaccinated group.

So you end up [02:13:00] with,

So another common study design has been to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated populations for autism rates. these are ecological studies they're called, and these tend to find either no difference or even lower autism in the highly vaccinated populations, but they often fail to control for socioeconomic and healthcare access differences.

So for example, areas or communities with lower vaccination rates may also have poor access to high quality nutrition, for example. And we've seen how nutritional status can improve detoxification, can improve the way the body handles not just mercury, but also aluminum and many other things.

And at the same time we've seen more vaccinated populations tend to be wealthier and [02:14:00] with better nutrition. so there may be that confound where the highly vaccinated population may seem to have lower autism rates because they have higher nutrition. But if you were to truly.

Equalize things and look at, for example, in the same socioeconomic group, compare autism the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated. You're gonna get a better sample. But if you're looking at vastly different populations, which is what a lot of these studies are looking at, you're gonna see these other confounders start to affect the outcome.

So a lot of these ecological studies don't adequately adjust for those factors. in addition to that, the true unvaccinated groups are often small, hard to find. And until recently, almost all children in developed countries received at least some vaccines, which made it statistically [02:15:00] challenging to find large enough unvaccinated samples for comparison.

So the studies that have specifically looked at the never vaccinated children. And I mentioned this study before. The pilot study by Mosen Etal in 2017, in fact did report higher rates of autism and developmental delays in vaccinated children than in unvaccinated. But that study, as I mentioned, was highly criticized on methodological grounds and largely ignored by the medical community.

The absence of large, rigorous studies on fully vaccinated versus fully unvaccinated outcomes is actually a glaring gap in the research.

And one would think that to definitively refute the autism link, such a study would be a high priority. It's like, Hey, let's do it. Let's pour money into that. But it's never been properly conducted by public health agencies. And I think actually that's a really good time for me to [02:16:00] mention what I was gonna mention about how I think RFK Junior's gonna do this.

I think what he is gonna do is he's gonna look at the actual now that we've got access to the EHR, the electronic health record systems for the entire country, all the HMOs, the managed care organizations, and we can go in there and actually look okay. this kid got these vaccines, this kid was diagnosed at AU for, or with autism at this point, this many months after these vaccines, these kids don't have vaccine or didn't get the vaccine.

Do they have still have autism? If so, when did they get it? We're gonna start to really be able to get great data, observational data, which again, if looked at properly, is as reliable as a randomized controlled trial. And that's gonna give us the information we need. And we're gonna get real [02:17:00] clear, whether this is actually, what seems like maybe the case, which is that there is this link between the aluminum adjuvants in particular and autism incidents, or whether it's, pesticides or frankly something else that hasn't been considered.

We're gonna get access to all the data. Yeah, but I think that, that fact that's never been properly conducted by public health agencies is a travesty and frankly, just negligent malpractice on their part. But, they don't have any incentive to do that. In fact, they have a lot of disincentives, a lot of disincentives to doing such a study.

Just to sum up this section the blanket statement that science has proven vaccines don't cause autism is gross oversimplification, because many of the cited studies suffered from one or more of the following flaws. Number one, use of active or inappropriate placebos in trials met, which mask the potential adverse [02:18:00] effects.

Number two, short follow-up periods, which were incapable of detecting long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Number three, analyzing broad populations without focusing on the susceptible subgroups. A vaccine could cause autism only in a small fraction of children with a particular, risk factor, whether that be genetic or nutritional or something else.

But a large population study could easily miss those guys if it's not stratified. And so a signal can be washed out by the noise of all these unaffected children, which is why, Looking at genetics alongside, looking at the vaccine data, I think is gonna become really an important part of the conversation moving forward.

At number four, potential data manipulations or selective reporting. We're gonna get to that in a minute. In the CDC whistleblower case number five, insufficient control for confounders and the observational studies or inherent biases and data collection, which gets at things like socioeconomic status and things that are [02:19:00] not not dealt with or frankly, people that are looking to produce a certain outcome.


Conflicts of Interest & Research Integrity
---

Right. And all of these issues mean that really the door absolutely remains wide open on the question of vaccines and autism. The literature that claims to close it is much less definitive than it's often portrayed. And simply put, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Everybody loves to cite that when it's convenient for them, but when it's inconvenient, nobody wants to hear it.

I get that, but I just, I can't say that enough. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when the research tools may not have been finely tuned enough to detect that effect or when the studies were executed, as is usually the case by entities with a stake in the outcome.

Which gets to our next topic, which is the conflicts of interest and research integrity in vaccine science. Conflicts of interest, how is it not a conflict of interest when the CDC both promotes and evaluates the safety of vaccines? [02:20:00] Right. Well, technically FDA is supposed to evaluate safety. CDC helps with the development of certain ones.

NIH helps with the development of certain ones, but yeah, absolutely. CDC promotes FDA approves but, they're all at this point captured organizations by big pharma, big hospital, big insurance, et cetera. How do I love this next line? Science thrives on objectivity and transparency.

It's literally like the opposite of what we just said, right? Yeah. And so when it comes to vaccine safety research, there have been these persistent concerns about conflicts of interest that, that obviously are biasing the findings. Vaccination programs are a cornerstone of public health and. They've become, I think, the obsession of public health and there's enormous financial, institutional interests tied to their success.

So we see both pharmaceutical companies and health agencies with a vested interest in reassuring the public that [02:21:00] vaccines are Safe and effective. Look, I'm not saying, and I don't think you are either, that all research is fraudulent, if you're become aware of the biases in the system, it warrants additional scrutiny of that system in which all this vaccine research has been conducted and published.

Well, if there's nothing to hide, then why are researchers scared of questioning, vaccine safety and Afraid to risk their careers? Yeah, That's a great question. And yeah, it's almost like, I think it's a rhetorical question.

I don't think it's, yeah. That, yeah. Yes. so one area of concern here in terms of conflict of interest is the overlap, between vaccine regulators, policy makers, and industry. U-S-C-D-C and FDA rely on advisory committees like the advisory committee on immunization practices.

And theVRB PAC stands for. Vaccines and regulated biological products, advisory committee, [02:22:00] vaccines and related this points to the fact that vaccines are in a separate category.

They're not in the same category as medications. Drugs, they're considered biologics, and because of that, they don't have to be subjected to true placebo controlled trials. A lot of people don't realize that. And that's the legal justification for that. they basically said, well, we have to create a separate carve out category for them because they're not gonna be able to pass placebo controlled trials.

what does that tell you? That's so wild. the CDC and FDA on these advisory committees to make vaccine recommendations and approvals investigations. In the early by Congress uncovered, many members of these committees had direct financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.

In fact, this2000 congressional report found that members of the FDA and CDC advisory committees often own stock in the very pharmaceutical companies whose vaccines they were evaluating or held patents related to vaccines. if you're interested learning about [02:23:00] this, you can actually look at that.

It's on gov info.gov. You can go find that congressional report and one example, three out of five FDA advisory members voting to approve the rotavirus vaccine, which was later withdrawn for safety issues, had conflict of interest that were waived. So additionally, the CDC Advisory Committee on immunization practices has shown to routinely grant conflict of interest waivers to every member each year, effectively allowing these individuals with financial stakes vaccine developments to participate in discussions and votes on adding those vaccines to the schedule.

So basically it's like, here, I'm gonna vote on whether or not we should add the vaccine, that if we add to the schedule, I'm gonna make more money. I get to vote on that. It's like, yeah, that's just the fact that we allow that is beyond corrupt. You know what's so funny about this? Not actually funny, but [02:24:00] Congress found at the same time that the CDCs committee had no public representatives, so no consumer representatives.

It was composed entirely of academic and medical members, many of whom had industry ties. So there were no like citizens watchdog group members, there were no consumer reports type members nothing like that. No children's health defense representatives, nothing. So systemic conflicts raised the question, were voices or cautionary positions adequately represented when these decisions about vaccine safety science were made?

Probably not. And if designing or interpreting studies to benefit from the vaccines being exonerated, there's this clear incentive. Again, conscious or unconscious. I'm not trying to slander anybody here, but even unconscious bias is real to favor [02:25:00] outcomes that support safety.

Another example, we talked about the revolving door between government agencies and vaccine manufacturers. High level officials responsible for vaccine programs have later taken up very lucrative positions in the vaccine industry. A particular case notable Dr. Julie Gerberding, who served as CDC director from 2002 to 2009, which was during the period where the CDC was vehemently denying any vaccine autism link.

And then in 2010, when she was retired, she was hired as the president of the vaccine division at Merck, which was one of the largest vaccine producers. While Dr. Gerber's expertise obviously made her an asset to Merck the, how does that look? Right? The concern is that as CDC head, she had oversight on studies like the CDCs own MMR autism studies.

That, and including [02:26:00] also the Gardasil studies, which was a Merck product that if they found problems with Merck's vaccines would've been bad for Merck. So the intertwining of the careers and the finances can subtly influence an entire culture of research where confirming the status quo is rewarded and bucking.

It is totally, a recipe for getting blacklisted. If I were in charge today, it would be like, if you've worked for big pharma, you don't get to come to work for the FDA, the CDC, the NIH. What about if you have worked for the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, you don't get to go work for big pharma afterwards.

That should be the rule period. And I think that the fact that we don't have that firewall between the private industry and the regulatories creates this cronyism, which is just it's not only unjustly, enriching. These [02:27:00] big pharma corporations, it's also damaging our society's health and our children's health.

So go ahead, you were gonna ask a question? Yeah, does that apply the other way to, like that Pfizer Patrizia, it's a former top FDA official now their Chief Medical Officer. Yeah. Yeah. No, this is the same thing as what happened with Gerberding and Merck, but this is a more recent thing.

You're saying this happened February 24th, 2025. So this year yeah, it's the same phenomenon. So you might say, okay, but what does this have to do with the research? Well, the financial conflicts also extend to the academic research. Much of the epidemiological work that dismissed the vaccine Autism link was conducted or funded by institutions with direct stakes in the vaccines.


The CDC Whistleblower
---

For instance, some of the prominent [02:28:00] studies were done by the immunization safety office at CDC, which again, is essentially like the defendant investigating itself. If it were finding that these vaccines were unsafe, then they basically would be finding that they hadn't done their job.

So how many people in doing an internal audit of themselves are gonna find, oh yeah, no, I didn't do my job. Like, that's nuts. Why would anybody think that they're gonna find anything other than, oh, safe and effective. others were funded by pharmaceutical company grants to academic authors.

It's like, oh, here, professor at, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, whatever, please, here's, $2 million. Please study and find out whether or not our vaccine links to autism. But, if you want another 20 million after that, you better find a doesn't. It's the implicit thing implied in that medical journals themselves.

Often, I would say especially the top tier ones, often rely on advertising and reprint purchases, which is where the pharmaceutical company goes and takes around and gives [02:29:00] to the doctors. And the pharmaceutical company has to purchase those from the journal.

But that's one of the ways the journal makes money. And obviously they don't want to piss off the pharmaceutical industry by publishing studies that are contrary to what they want. Again, it creates this whole realm of bias in what gets published. And we've seen incidences where researchers with, findings that were contrary to the narrative struggle to get their papers accepted in mainstream journals.


Future Research Directions
---

The vitamin D researchers that went on the Dark Horse podcast with Brett Weinstein and said, Hey, we found that Vitamin D was really helpful and effective as an immune support, especially during Covid, but in other respiratory viruses as well. And then we tried to get our study published in one of the top five journals and they all said, well, we can keep your study, but you just have to change the conclusion.

You can't say that the vitamin D was beneficial. You have to say that [02:30:00] it wasn't, the results weren't statistically significant or the result was, nebulous or ambiguous. And to their credit they said, well, we're gonna go to a second tier journal and get it published there because we're not gonna change the outcome to be negative against vitamin D when we know that Vitamin D was actually really helpful in the study.

This is the challenge, is they refused to publish their study as long as it had something. And they told them, they said, look, we cannot publish anything positive about a natural intervention in this journal anymore. We don't do that. Because that's not who pays for our, who pays our bills.

And there's even been studies, cases where researchers will find that their results get mischaracterized in the official report that gets issued by the group. So the influence of pharmaceutical companies on research agendas is pretty well known at this point. And obviously vaccines are, no exception.

If anything, they're probably more subject to that because it's an area where they're not subject to liability. And so then that leads to the question of like, okay, have there been any large [02:31:00] scale studies of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children for autism risk that have been funded by a neutral body with no pre-committed position?

And the answer is to date, No. We're, I think that Bobby Kennedy's working on it, but you, the organizations that you would expect to fund such a study like the NIH, the CDC, they've already publicly taken a position. Their position is that vaccines do not cause autism, which means that they're already coming with the answer already at the front.

They have this now confirmation bias in terms of determining how the studies are conducted, which analyses are pursued and which ones aren't. And it's a huge glaring hole in the research that they've never done a large scale study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children looking at autism risk of one versus the other.

It's just, it's what, like, really? But it's true. the study has never been done. So a [02:32:00] position limits any possibility. Possibility, absolutely. Yeah. Where there's a conflict of interest, sometimes there's also suppression of inconvenient data. And I think the most prominent, we've talked a lot about the CDC whistleblower, but not really said who it was and what's the story?

So this, Dr. William Thompson, correct? Yeah. And this is really one of the most prominent illustrations of the corruption and the whole vaccine autism saga was Dr. William Thompson as the infamous CDC whistleblower. And basically this is we're, we'll get to this in a little bit, even more detail in a minute, but the short story is senior CDC scientists came forward in 2014 and said that his team omitted significant results linking early MMR vaccination to autism in a subset of children.

And that omission was deliberate. And you can find that again, gov info.gov. You can see the report in Congress directly on the gov info.gov website as a congressional hearing on research and [02:33:00] scientific integrity. Part of the data that was destroyed showed a three times increase in autism risk in black boys after the MR.

And why has no one been held accountable? Well, I think that they're gonna have to really launch a true investigation, not just on a correctional level, but the problem is with these entities, Congress can come in and slap their wrist, but there has to be someone in the organization in CDC basically going in and saying, Hey, we're gonna go and root this information out.

Which was one of my concerns with the fact that they basically put a career bureaucrat, no offense to her in charge of the CDC, because I just don't see how she's gonna be the one to do this. And honestly, I hope that her appointment is temporary while they look for somebody that's more qualified that's actually gonna go after this information and find it.

Because the fact of the matter [02:34:00] is that Dr. Thompson alleged that his co-authors, he and his co-authors destroyed data to cover up that link. So I don't know if that data is still out there anywhere. He's a senior scientist, Dr. William Thompson. And he says they covered up deliberately a link to autism.

So why hasn't Congress investigated? Well, they did, but their investigation only can call people, they testified, and the reality of the matter is that there's tremendous press pushback and pressure not to come forward, because, hey, if you come forward, your career's over.

Right? So I wonder where he is now, what he is. It's a good question. I, we'll see if we get to it here. This kind of thing is obviously scientific malfeasance of the highest order. And it certainly, in my view, and I think probably in anyone Saint's view, casts a huge shadow over the integrity of the entire field of vaccine safety research.[02:35:00] 

Because again, the CDC is the lead actor in that research. This is literally what they should be doing. This is one of their core functions. And even if we, for a moment set aside the outright fraud, the structure of the vaccine research creates a lot of subtle pressures. Researchers often fear that publishing anything that supports a vaccine autism link will get them labeled as anti-vax and destroy their reputation and ruin their chances of ever getting funding again.

All you need to do is look at, the key example, which is what happened with Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which again, regardless of the merits or, and he was a well regarded, respected gastroenterologist, regardless of the merits or the flaws of his work, he was vilified, he was stripped of his medical license.

His career was over. And that kind of spectacle is designed to silence people. It's meant to be a cautionary tale that kind of looms in [02:36:00] the minds of other scientists and physicians. So then they self-censor. And we've seen this in a lot of areas. We saw this during Covid, where the scientific community, self-censored, oh, well, we're just gonna investigate other things.

We're not even gonna take a look at this anymore. And so then as a result, studies that could potentially reveal problems are just not conducted. Or if they are, they're kept quiet, they're kept silent, or maybe they're not even reported on. So another conflict to consider is that the vaccines are obviously, this is the underlying thing of the whole conversation.

Vaccines are one of the pharmaceutical industries, fastest growing sectors. We're talking about billions of dollars in annual revenues, virtually guaranteed market uptake because they're often mandated or heavily promoted by the governments. They're using our taxpayer funds to create these vaccines, and then they're profiting off of 'em, and then they're using our taxpayer funds to promote [02:37:00] them to us so that the pharmaceutical companies make more money.

Explain to me how this makes any sense. What a cesspool. Yeah. Pharmaceutical companies supposedly, no. Well they do. They have a legal duty to the shareholders to maximize their profits. They don't care about your health. And that duty to maximize profit clashes with their idea of like, oh, they're gonna be completely transparent about product risks.

Which, what company is completely transparent about product risks? Very few. And we have documented history across various pharmaceuticals. Finfin, Vioxx, Ritalin, thalidomide, just to name a few of companies minimizing or hiding adverse findings to protect their products. Look, what makes you think that the companies that hid the cardiotoxicity of Finfin and Vioxx are going to suddenly discover God and ethics and morality when it comes to the product?

[02:38:00] That is where product liability is completely waived under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which is the name by the way, that I couldn't remember earlier, and that's the one that created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. what kind of cognitive dissonance is required for people to think that in the one product where they have less financial incentive to rigorously investigate long-term side effects because they don't face lawsuits for defects and design and only the government does via the compensation program, which we the taxpayers pay for.

That entire dynamic is completely bankrupt. why would anyone trust safety science given this circumstance? Why would anyone have a baseline expectation that vaccines would be safe much less effective in this kind of a regulatory environment?

in light of these issues, public health [02:39:00] officials assuring us that science is settled is not nearly as reassuring as maybe they intended to be because the public is waking up. We're increasingly aware that these experts have major conflicts. The consensus is manufactured.

There's a long history of other public health errors from the tobacco safety denials to opioid prescription safety assurances. Covid reminds us that the conflicts of interest can delay recognition of harm for years or decades. And that's key to keep in mind because vaccines given their societal importance have to be held to the highest standard of scientific integrity.

But this confluence of the pharmaceutical industry interests public health, institutional commitments, career incentives has resulted in this defensive research paradigm, which is more focused on defending vaccines [02:40:00] than on objectively evaluating. And so to fully, truly resolve this question, we need independent investigations that are free of any of these entanglements.

And as we're about to see as we delve deep with Dr. William Thompson, when one insider did attempt to bring data irregularities to light, his experience highlights just how much the existing system is invested in one side of the narrative. Alright, CDC, whistleblower. You ready? Yes. So one of the most illuminating and troubling events in the vaccine autism controversy was the revelation in 2014 that a senior CDC scientist, Dr.

William W. Thompson, had become a whistleblower. Dr. Thompson, a PhD research epidemiologist, had co-authored some of CDCs major studies aimed at disproving a link between vaccine and autism, [02:41:00] including a 2004 study in the journal pediatrics on the timing of MMR vaccination and autism incidents in August of 20 20 14.

So 10 years later, Dr. Thompson through his attorney, released a public statement that sent shockwaves through the scientific community. In his statement, he confessed, I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal, pediatrics unquote, that omitted information he said, suggested a link between early MMR vaccination and autism in a subset of children, specifically African American boys who received the MMR before 36 months of age.

The background to this whistleblower moment is dramatic. Dr. Thompson had reportedly been haunted for a decade by the coverup of findings in the 2004 study. [02:42:00] And according to his accounts, which were later documented in statements read before the US Congress by representative Bill Posey, the CDC study initially found a significant two to threefold increased risk of autism in African American boys who got the MMR on the recommended schedule by 18 or 24 months compared to those who received it.

Later. Upon discovering this, the team of researchers, which included Dr. Frank De Stefano, a leading CDC vaccine safety official held meetings to discuss the problem, Dr. Thompson alleges that in September 2002, the team decided to change the study protocol and exclude children who didn't have a Georgia birth certificate, which had the effect of eliminating a large chunk of the black cohort from analysis.

So by applying this unwarranted data exclusion, the statistically [02:43:00] significant association diminished. Furthermore, Dr. Thompson reported his co, he and his co-authors convened a meeting where they brought a big garbage can into the room and threw out printouts of data analysis that showed the heightened risk.

Thompson sensing this was improper, obviously kept copies of all the documents and files effectively stashing evidence that otherwise would've been destroyed. In his words, I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the pediatrics paper. So obviously, his allegations are truly extraordinary.

They imply scientific misconduct. I don't think they imply, they demonstrate scientific misconduct aimed at concealing evidence of harm from a vaccine. They validate many parents' fears that data have been manipulated to prop up safety conclusions. So after his statement became public representative Posey took the house floor in 2015, pleaded for an official [02:44:00] investigation entering Dr.

Thompson's documented statements into the congressional record. To date, however, there has been no federal investigation. Oh wow. The CDC has largely stonewalled the issue, and Thompson still employed at the CDC has not spoken publicly beyond his lawyer mediated statement. The mainstream media gave surprisingly little coverage to this bombshell story, and when it did, it often downplayed the implications or framed it as just fuel for anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists.

So from a scientific perspective, what this whistleblower saga tells us is that at least one major study that is often cited as evidence against the vaccine autism link is simply not reliable. The 2004 pediatric study by DiStefano at all has been referenced repeatedly to claim MMR is proven not to cause autism unquote.

Now we know that the raw data in that study did show [02:45:00] correlation in a particular subgroup and that correlation was hidden. One might argue, and I think skeptics of this whole conversation would argue, oh, it's only one subgroup, African American males.

But think about what that means. If MMR vaccination can trigger autism in certain groups. So again, somewhat people with specific genetic backgrounds or maybe those who received it on time versus late, that's still a causal connection. It doesn't have to be the majority of cases to be real. The notion that vaccines might cause autism only in susceptible individuals is entirely plausible and in line with the concept of gene environment interactions.

So the whistleblower data suggests just that a susceptible population was affected, but rather than investigate that further, the data was just dropped. And that is scientific malpractice any way you look at it. But especially if your goal is to seek the truth, [02:46:00] which is supposedly the whole goal of science.

We have to address what the critics say. So critics point out that the re-analysis by Brian Hooker, which is the scientist to whom Thompson leaked some of the data was republished in 2014. Okay? They wanted to get it out there, but then of course was immediately retracted due to controversies over its statistical approach.

This is what always happens, right? It's like, oh, this study is very inconvenient, so let's put a lot of financial pressure on the journal so that they'll retract it. Now,

hooker's reanalysis, which reported that black boys give MMR before age three were 3.4 times more likely to develop autism was retracted because he used a cohort technique on a case controlled dataset, which is, again, contentious perhaps, but not fraudulent error, and because of undisclosed conflicts.

So hooker is a known vaccine safety advocate. Well, okay, [02:47:00] well who else did you expect is gonna do that? Who's gonna risk their career and their neck doing the study? Doing the reanalysis, of course it's gonna be somebody who's a known vaccine safety advocate. It's, this is like a ridiculous pushback in my view.

The retraction ultimately did not, however, invalidate the core observation. It was just a procedural process thing. So the underlying CDC data, which Thompson safeguarded remain and could be reanalyzed properly according to, whatever methodology you wanna use by independent researchers, if the CDC were to grant access to it, unfortunately they have not released all the data or allowed independent verification of the original results even after the whistleblower revelations.

we need transparency. My hope is that we will get it soon got my concerns about the new CDC director. But if she really wants to prove that she's on the side of the people, then [02:48:00] she'll release the data. She'll open the books and let other scientists scrutinize the data and see what the data show.

And I highly suspect part of what's going on here and why RFK Junior is so confident that we're gonna have stuff figured out by September, is that. He knows that this data is here and he knows that we can go get it and we can reanalyze it and publish an official unbiased reanalysis from the CDC and using all the data because he doesn't care about pharma and their financial interests.

He's proven that over and over again when he sued them in court on behalf of his plaintiffs and won. So 

Dr. Thompson also co-authored some other influential papers, including a 2007 study on thy Marisol exposure and neuropsychological outcomes, which concluded mostly no significant issues.

But he has hinted that there were discussions and some irregularities in that [02:49:00] study as well. But the MMR 2004 case is the one that he provided clear evidence for. So it raises this unsettling idea that the body of vaccine safety literature could contain other instances where inconvenient findings were just swept under the rug.

And to me, this whole CDC whistleblower episode really just underscores why independent replication of these studies is crucial. We have an admission on the record that one of the pillars of the no link between vaccines and autism evidence was false. In a just scientific world, this would trigger a wave of confirmatory studies.

For instance, you'd see similar MMR timing analyses and other data sets, like the vaccine safety data link, which is again, what I think RFK junior's up to between now and September, or even looking at other countries, data [02:50:00] focusing on race and other subgroups. But to date, there's been no such effort, at least none public.

Instead, we've seen this event of the whistleblower just totally ignored in scientific discourse, the CDC D'S reputation, the broader vaccination program were presumably, I would say, being protected by not engaging with the whistleblower claims. So as not to, give any air or daylight is actually the word I was thinking of, to anything that might, encourage vaccine hesitancy or give air to the claims of the anti-vaxxers.

Right? I don't think anybody is really, I don't understand why anybody should be pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. Fundamentally, it's like, why aren't you just like pro the truth, pro like safety, pro protecting kids as much as possible without, like damaging their [02:51:00] long-term health? Can't we just be pro those things and then like, go where the evidence leads us?

To me, that's my mindset. So for purposes of our investigation, this Thompson affair really serves as a proof of concept that the data relevant to vaccines and autism have been manipulated by authorities in the past. And it validates the frank, reasonability, that it's reasonable to be skeptical toward these blanket assurances of safety, because if one key study had data admitted others very likely could have as well.

And it shows that even within CDC, there was internal concern that the agency was not being transparent, to quote Dr. Thompson, I assumed it was illegal and would violate the freedom of Information Act. So I kept copies unquote, the implications for trust in public health are significant. It suggests that the very organization that taxpayers pay for to investigate [02:52:00] vaccine safety at some point, chose to protect the vaccine program's reputation over our children's health when the two were in a parent conflict. So the call here ultimately is to do science properly.

Dr. Thompson's actions should be a kick in the pants to all of us that we need to revisit the earlier studies with independent eyes, with fresh eyes, and they need to be replicated. And it's notable that Dr. Thompson, again, who says he's still pro-vaccine, he believes in immunization. But again, what's in it that matters?

Right? I think we can all be pro the concept of immunity, right? Of course. We want children to gain immunity and survive. That's something I think we could all agree on. The question is what's the best way to do that? And if [02:53:00] it's through vaccines, what ingredients are compatible with long-term health and which ones frankly may not be aluminum?

It's really interesting to me that even though he claims to be pro-vaccine that he nonetheless felt morally compelled to come forward about this issue and come clean. And it really shows you that you can still support vaccination as a concept and, public health as a concept and prevention as a concept, and still acknowledge specific issues, specific risks in specific subsets and populations.

That's not a mutually exclusive position. And ultimately what concerned Dr. Thompson was scientific integrity and frankly, that should concern all of us. And true vaccine safety is only gonna be achieved when we fully acknowledge and understand any link not just to autism, but [02:54:00] frankly to any other diseases.

All of the potential risks, benefits, trade-offs, payoffs adverse outcomes. And we see the. Totality of the picture and can make reasonable rational decisions, choices for our family, our child in specific, for with regard to each vaccine, each disease, and frankly, hopefully as a society develop safer.

'cause you're never gonna have something that's truly a hundred percent safe for everyone, but safer vaccination regimens, not when we hide or dismiss these adverse outcomes and the lakes that, that, are I would say emerging congealing, what would you say? Both becoming a parent becoming Yes.

Very in your face. Yeah. So I'm gonna, I'm gonna revisit this question and I'm going to emphasize it [02:55:00] because I really want an answer. So if it isn't from vaccines, then what new exposures explains the massive sudden autism surge. Yeah. So this is a good time to look at alternative explanations that have been put forth to explain the autism epidemic, because we have to weigh those against our vaccine hypothesis.

Are they sufficient to account for the observed patterns and the evidence? So we'll consider now a few of the main alternatives. Genetics, we've already talked about that, but we'll revisit a little bit. Diagnostic changes, again, we've talked about a little bit, but we'll revisit it more detail and then other environmental toxins and we'll explain their relative explanatory power, what their, how they could explain or not.

This the epidemic and of autism. So we know with regard to genetics that autism has a significant genetic component. what [02:56:00] that means is that certain genes can predispose you, can give you an increased risk of developing autism. We look at twin studies and we can sit, twin studies, look at heritability, how diseases are passed on from parent to child.

And they definitely suggest that genetics play a role in autism susceptibility, significant Scientists have identified. In the past decade hundreds of different gene variants, which have some degree of association with autism, including certain rare mutations with high impact.

So these are gonna be things like me, P two, shank three, CHD eight. where, one particular gene may have a very significant impact. there's also, hundreds of variants that are very common with small effects, we expect to see some synergistic effects between some of these small effects from common variants that could overall increase risk.

But could we [02:57:00] explain the autism epidemic as simply the result of more people with autism genes having children or maybe some new mutations? the reality of the matter is, as I mentioned before, pure genetics alone really struggles to explain how this sudden 20 fold increase in a disorder within a generation.

Within two or three generations we've seen 200 fold increase, right? In terms of there's been two orders of magnitude, actually more than two orders of magnitude of a increase in terms of the prevalence. You're just not gonna see that so quickly. Human gene pools don't shift that fast. The timeline is way too short for a genetic epidemic. Moreover, if genes were the driving force, one would not expect this steep birth year. Specific curves that we see. Genetic changes typically manifest gradually, unless [02:58:00] there's some strong selection or new mutagenesis, which again, would itself point to an environmental trigger.

And so it's true. As many people will say that increased paternal age has been associated with higher autism risk. So older fathers accumulate more mutations in their sperm. and it's also true that average parental ages have risen slightly over the decades. But again, this is a modest trend.

It's estimated to account for only a small fraction of autism increase. Maybe 10 to 20% maximum. So there was an analysis done. Looking at this was the study is, this is again, oh, this is back in Nesn in environmental health from September, 2014, a comparison of temporal trends in the United States, autism prevalence to trends in suspected environmental factors.

So in her analysis, she found that if you combine older, [02:59:00] paternal age, preterm birth, and other perinatal factors together, you're still gonna get less than 20%. It's gonna be somewhere between 10 and 20, maybe even not quite that point. Yeah. So it's nowhere near enough to describe this takeoff.

So really the key thing to understand about genetics and autism is genetics set the stage. There are predisposition, but it's the environmental factors. It's the environmental changes that are needed to trigger an epidemic. Number two, broaden diagnostic criteria and awareness is the other big one that gets trotted out a lot.

So definitely the definition of autism has expanded since the 1980s. Nobody's questioning that. The diagnosis involved from infantile autism, which was a narrow, very severe definition. What doctor or what RFK junior calls full-blown autism. Which is not a technical term, but that's what he calls it.

And now we have this much broader autism spectrum and they've brought Asperger's [03:00:00] in, which is a milder form really characterized by, autism, but with a really high iq. And then there's also PDDN os, which basically is looking at that there's some sort of developmental disorder but not necessarily it's not a specified disorder.

So a lot of people with developmental disorders that are pervasive, which is what pd DD stands, pervasive Developmental disorder N os. It's like, well, we don't really know what this is. It seems to be a developmental disorder. Doesn't quite fit, but we're gonna lump it in. So you see those now being included by the 1990s and two thousands pediatricians and parents were also more aware of autism, which led to more cases being recognized that may have been missed or labeled differently in decades past.

So these factors definitely have contributed to the numbers, but again, careful research indicates they cannot fully account for the magnitude of the increase. CDC D'S own data as well as population studies show even in recent birth [03:01:00] cohorts where diagnostic criteria were stable, again, autism prevalence keeps rising.

So notably after the DSM five changes in 2013, which actually narrowed the criteria slightly by merging Asperger's into autism spectrum disorder, autism rates did not drop. They continued their upward climb hitting one in 36 by 2020. 

So just to be clear here, what happened is that with the changes in the DSM five in 2013, which narrowed the overall even though we had Asperger's merged into autism spectrum, the overall criteria was much stricter, I should say. So even though it was under one umbrella, it came with a much tighter criteria for getting into that umbrella.

And what they expected to see was [03:02:00] actually a reduction in autism rates, but they didn't drop, actually continued their upward climb hitting one in 36 by 2020. And we're now hearing 2025 numbers are one in 31. So this has literally been reported in the last 24 hours. This suggests that this increased awareness and diagnostic substitution, kids who may previously have been diagnosed with intellectual disability or other developmental disorders now being labeled autistic were factors maybe earlier.

But now much of that effect has plateaued. And researchers like Nesen, again, have used methods to quantify this diagnostic artifact. So by comparing historical records, current reporting methods, she's estimated that about one fifth to maybe up to one quarter of the rise could be due to the artifacts.

So again, maximum 25% of the increase could be due to these artifacts. So 20 to 25% leaving the majority, [03:03:00] 75 to 80% as real actual increases, absolute increases in the prevalence of autism. In plain terms, better counting doesn't explain why so many more kids need special services and exhibit autistic behaviors today versus 30 years ago.

Alright. So I think to me the most interesting one here is the other environmental toxins and environmental factors. To be fair, autism likely results from a combination of genetic susceptibility and probably multiple environmental triggers. So besides vaccines, various and environmental exposures have been investigated.

Some have plausible links including prenatal factors like maternal infections, we already talked about that there's definitely association there. Certain medications like valproate, if the mother is taking valproic acid which is usually a treatment for, 

I wanna say epilepsy seizures. Yep, I'm right. Okay. And [03:04:00] so if the mother's taking Val chemical exposures, so air pollution, particulate matter, pesticides, heavy metals, lead, mercury from fish, nutritional factors maternal folate levels and so on. So a lot of prenatal factors, which we've identified that increased risk of autism is associated with.

So each of these may contribute to some degree, and none are mutually exclusive with the vaccine hypothesis. So it could be multifactorial, and I think it very likely, almost certainly is. But a strong environmental candidate has to show this temporal trend that matches autism's trend. Like we saw that strong correlation at the beginning.

So for example, leaded gasoline usage correlated with neurodevelopmental arm in the past, but primarily with like Parkinsonism, interestingly enough. But by the 1990s, lead exposure in children plummeted due to unleaded gasoline and removal of lead paint. So if lead were a main driver, you would've [03:05:00] expected autism rates to, level off at least.

But the opposite is what's happened. So organ phosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos were common in the seventies to nineties, so 1970s to 1990s, but many have been phased down, which again, wouldn't match, wouldn't correlate with that. Sustained, continued increase. On the other hand, some chemicals did increase in use in the eighties to two thousands, such as your PBDE flame retardants, which were widely used in furniture until they were banned around 2004.

Glyphosate herbicide, which increased with GMO crops since the mid 1990s. And these have been noted as possible contributors alongside vaccines. Do you know they use flame retardant chemicals in clothing? It's not the same. I'm pretty sure they're not the same ones that are banned the ones.

Okay. But I'm sure that they are not great for you. Right. But yeah, so these have been [03:06:00] noted as possible contributors alongside vaccines. And if you're interested in that study, again, that's back in the NESIN study. Looking at the temporal associations between these different components.

Glyphosate exposure, for instance, rose in the food supply and the environment, and has been hypothetically linked to gut microbiome changes relevant to autism. glyphosate, which is the main ingredient in Roundup, and an Agent Orange could be a factor in autism as well, especially for certain kids PBDE, which again, emphasizes the importance of, organic, as much as possible, if not exclusively, especially in kids and especially in kids with health problems.

Pesticides are much more of a problem for children than they are for adults as a general rule, because they have smaller bodies and a little bit of a dose can affect them a lot worse. So these PPEs accumulate in tumor tissue and they can act as endocrine disruptors, which, hormone disruptors affecting brain development.

So it's possible that all of these different environmental [03:07:00] insults collectively create this perfect storm. And in fact, what Neveen's analysis found is that the top three correlated environmental trends with autism were aluminum from vaccines, PBDEs and glyphosate. So obviously this doesn't exonerate vaccines, it implicates them as one of the few key drivers.

I would love it if we could get rid of these pbds and frankly, glyphosate based pesticides as well. Frankly, all pesticides that are synthetic and, either chlorinated or what do you call it? Wow, I'm obviously getting to the end of my mental rope here. Can't believe I'm having a brain blank on this. Chlorinate pesticide, pcb stylized organophosphates. Okay, I just had to say it in the order that I normally say it. Organophosphate pesticides. I'd love to get rid of all that stuff, but realistically I think it's gonna take a little more time and [03:08:00] we're working on it, but I think that the question in my mind is, what should we then do about the vaccine question?

And, we're about to get to that, but. There's an one more alternative viewpoint that I think is worth mentioning, and that's that natural infections or the overall increase in immune system challenges could be responsible. But in the late 20th century, we saw infectious diseases in young children generally decline, again, due at least in part probably vaccines.

And we don't really see epidemics of measles or mumps causing autism surges. If anything, fewer early childhood infections. Again, thanks to some degree vaccines, but also I think probably largely to hygiene. And it's a, we're seeing fewer is the trend. So some research proposed the opposite.

They think, well, maybe because we have reduced exposure to microbes, the hygiene hypothesis, if you've heard of that could be affecting the immune system development and causing this hyper reactivity in the immune system. [03:09:00] I think that's actually somewhat reasonable and that could also have an impact on neurodevelopment, especially neuro immuno development.

And that one's a fascinating idea, but again, it doesn't negate the vaccine issue because just because you have a lack of certain infections that could then predispose you to autoimmune issues that could relate to autism doesn't mean that the vaccines couldn't be an effective, it's actually sets up the vaccines to have a negative effect on neurodevelopment because we know that vaccines in someone who's susceptible, can increase the risk of developing new autoimmune issues.

But, it's hard to quantify the effect that the hygiene hypothesis could be having. It doesn't directly match the timeline either because developed countries had declining infant infections throughout the 20th century, but we don't see this explosion in autism until the late 1980s. So it's gotta be something more specific that changed around that time in particular.

So given all these [03:10:00] considerations, the vaccine hypothesis really stands out and its ability to tick those multiple boxes. You've got a major environmental change that coincides with the rise that can plausibly cause the type of biological derangement we've seen in autism. And we've looked at the mechanism in detail.

It's supported by numerous converging signs. We have the mechanistic toxicology, the individual cases, alternative explanations, while each possibly contributes a piece, none of them have demonstrated an ability to singularly explain the bulk of observations. and those key observations are that, again, the rises too fast For genetics alone, genetics may load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger.

Number two, diagnostic factors have influence, but analysis show a real large increase remains after we account for them. Number three, other toxins like lead air pollution, et cetera, were either flat or decreasing during key periods of [03:11:00] autism's rise. So other toxins like lead air pollution, et cetera, were either flat or decreasing during key periods of autism's increase, making them unlikely primary drivers.

And then some newer factors like PBDEs, flame retardants and glyphosate do parallel the autism trends and might be co-factors. Notably, they could even interact with vaccines as I was mentioning before. So you could have a toxin weakens the immune system or the blood brain barrier makes a child more susceptible to vaccine injury or vice versa.

So unlike vaccines, these factors were not universal exposures. Not every child was heavily exposed to PBD or glyphosate, whereas essentially, the vast majority, if not almost every child was vaccinated. So that universality and consistency in timing doses at 2, 4, 6 months, et cetera, explains why you would get [03:12:00] that autism onset at that particular time window and gives vaccines that unique footprint as this population-wide phenomenon.

We also have to look briefly at geographic patterns. So if vaccines are a major, cause we might expect higher autism rates in regions with higher vaccine coverage, or earlier adoption of expanded schedules. And to some extent, this has been observed developed. Countries with the most aggressive vaccine programs have higher documented autism rates than developing countries with fewer vaccines.

Of course the skeptics are gonna say, well, but under diagnosis in poor regions is a confounding variable. Fair enough. But within the United States, there was an analysis by the Safe Mines organization in 2004 that did find a correlation between state's early vaccine uptake, like Hepatitis B vaccine at birth policies and subsequent autism rates in those state school systems [03:13:00] internationally.

A notable case would be to look at Japan. So Japan suspended the MMR in 1993 due to safety issues with Thera strain mumps component. And had several years with no MMR usage. And the studies showed that autism rates in Japan did not fall after they stopped the MMR, which is again, often cited against the vaccine link, but Japan replaced the MMR with single vaccines.

Rather than MMR, it was like you got your measles and your mumps and your rubella. So it's actually three different doses of adjuvant, three different doses of fillers and binders and everything else. And Lord knows what's in some of that stuff. So continue to highly vaccinate their population.

So the overall changes in diagnostic criteria were happening at the same time. You get one vaccine removed in isolation, not necessarily gonna show a big effect if you've, you're added three to fill [03:14:00] in, especially if the issue is the overall dose of the aluminum over time. It mirrors the thiol removal in the United States, they remove one toxin, others remain.

Autism keep rising because the amount, the number of vaccines keep increasing. So the true test would be a population with like, no vaccination versus one with full vaccination, prospectively studied, basically asking parents, do you plan on vaccinating or no? Yes. Okay, we're gonna follow you.

Put you in this group. No. Okay, we're gonna follow you and put you in this other group, the establishment's gonna say, well, that's not ethically feasible on a large scale. But, my comment would be there are smaller natural environments like homeschooled unvaccinated groups versus the general population.

And frankly, those natural experiments consistently find lower rates of autism and other disorders in the unvaccinated groups according to surveys of those communities. Now, people are gonna say, oh, surveys are surveys. They're not [03:15:00] dispositive. Fair enough. But at least if you're seeing those kinds of surveys, I would say, why not do a real study that seems like we should probably do a real study on that.

All of this being said the key point here is there's no alternative hypothesis that has the breadth of evidence aligning with it as the vaccine hypothesis does. Genetic predispositions are real, but they've been around what changed in the environment that caused this huge explosion.

The expansion of the vaccine schedule stands out as frankly, the significant change that affected millions of children starting in the late eighties and nineties when autism rates inflicted upwards. And the fact that multiple analyses identified vaccine related variables like aluminum among the only factors correlating with autism across time is telling.

Now, I especially want to emphasize that previous study we talked about in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 2018, looking at aluminum adjuvants. [03:16:00] That's she etal, which is, they're the ones that basically said, look, eight out of nine of the Hill criteria have been met

for causation. So I'm obviously a fan of that study because I think it's probably the most telling study and it's still relatively new, it's only seven years ago. Autism is definitely multifactorial. I would say I'm about 99% sure that autism is multifactorial.

Definitely it's multifactorial because it's like genetic plus environment, right? Genetic susceptibility plus environmental trigger, but probably more than one environmental trigger too. And it strongly suggests though that the vaccines are the key piece of the causation puzzle.

So just to conclude this section, look, while [03:17:00] genetic and alternative environmental explanations each address part of the story, none on their own can explain the timing, the magnitude, and the biologically specific findings of the autism epidemic. On the other hand, the hypothesis that we're putting forward, that vaccines through their ingredients and their immune effects, their immunotoxicity are the major driver is supported by the convergence of epidemiological clues, mechanistic evidence, and the inability of these other factors to fully account for what we've observed.

So rather than viewing the vaccine hypothesis as the fringe idea that's been ruled out, it frankly should be considered the leading hypothesis that fits the data at least as well as, if not better than any other Vaccine skeptics are often labeled anti-science when they're actually the ones, asking for real scientific studies.

Yeah, look, and I think the key point here to emphasize is that we're not [03:18:00] denying in any way that autism is a complex condition with many contributors. We're just recognizing that among those contributors, the vaccination program is the most prominent one that has so far been identified.

Okay. So we've got a few future research directions to take a look at and then a conclusion, which I'm gonna request that you read. Yeah. So future research directions. Did you have any questions before we get started looking at future research directions? Well, in the beginning I asked why, but really this is a call for, the governmental agencies that exist to conduct that study.

That the study that would settle this debate, a proper vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparison. Right? Yeah. And I think the challenge that I would have is that. What governmental agency or organization at this [03:19:00] point would I trust to conduct that study? And that's the biggest problem I have with it, is right now because of Covid, I feel like the C-D-C-N-I-H-W-H-O, certainly the FDA, gimme a break.

I don't trust those guys anymore. And I think that they're working to try to reestablish trust. I like some of the people that they picked, but I have to see, the proof is gonna be in the pudding and well, in the least, who's responsible for taking a look at the 1980s adjuvants that we're still using to inject children with.

Right, right. Yeah. Which we know, some kids are more vulnerable to. Absolutely. So here's looking at the future research directions, given that vaccines are indeed [03:20:00] implicated in the autism epidemic, it then becomes imperative to chart a path forward to further explore the connection, establish, certainty beyond all reasonable doubt.

And then I think most importantly, to make the practice of immunization as safe as possible. So what are some certain areas where we could benefit in terms of, boning up the case with some further rigorous investigation? And then also, what steps could we take to reduce potential risks while preserving the presumed benefits of disease prevention?

And we will address the efficacy of vaccines, not just in terms of preventing disease, but also in terms of long-term health outcomes, especially all cause mortality in a future episode. We've already got that one planned, but that's not what we're about right now. Right now we're just looking at vaccines, vaccination, and autism.

Assuming that vaccination as [03:21:00] a practice can be salvaged, how might we best go about that below our key future research? Yeah. So we're gonna talk about future research and policy directions that we believe are Worth pursuing. Number one, that we have to get independent, as you said, vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies.

We need a comprehensive, we need multiple, I would say comprehensive, large scale epidemiological studies comparing health outcomes, all health outcomes, not just autism spectrum, but all health outcomes in fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated. And, but most importantly, I think fully vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated children would be enormously informative.

And when it says partially vaccinated, what I would be interested to see is like, what about in kids who only get one dose of each vaccine versus the ones who get the recommended three versus completely unvaccinated? I would love to see those three [03:22:00] groups explored and followed over time.

And my comment about people who say it's unethical to do a prospective study on kids that are unvaccinated. I have two comments about that. First of all, there's some parents that are just not gonna be willing to vaccinate their kids, period. No matter what you say or do. Why not just use them?

Number one. Number two if you only need 95% for herd immunity, which is the vaunted claim of the vaccine experts, Paula Offit and his ilk what's wrong with 5%? Let's have, even if it's only 5%, let's do a 5% study looking at, 5% of the population up to 5% unvaccinated to 95% vaccinated.

And we'll see, we'll do a longitudinal comparison. I think you can get the data you need from retrospective analysis, but, so obviously these studies would need to be conducted by researchers free of conflict of interest with robust controls for [03:23:00] confounders. Looking at things like socioeconomic status, nutritional status, et cetera.

If. No one is willing to do randomized controlled trials. Then well controlled observational studies that leverage populations, as I just mentioned, that delay or Fargo vaccines for, any number of different reasons should definitely be undertaken. And whether it's the NIH or a consortium of international agencies that could fund such research.

To finally answer that question, do unvaccinated children have lower rates of autism and other chronic conditions than their fully vaccinated peers? And what is the differential, if any, in other words, are these surveys correct? Smaller studies and surveys have hinted at differences, but the definitive study would be huge and it would carry weight in either substantiating or refuting the vaccination autism link.


PICK UP HERE 
---

Again, not looking at any particular vaccine, but looking at the entire program of [03:24:00] vaccination is the key. Number two, replicating and verifying the past study results. So in light of the CDC whistleblower revelations, we need to replicate the 2004 MMR timing study using independent data sets. other major studies that have influenced policy, like the Danish studies that get cited every week, need to be reexamined with raw data reanalysis by independent statisticians that have no connection to big pharma.

All data from prior vaccine safety studies should be made publicly available for transparency and to allow fresh analyses with, of course sensitive information de-identified as usual, because ultimately it's only through replication that we can restore trust in the findings. And if we find an effect like the MMR autism subgroup risk certain patient populations, maybe African American boys is real, then independent scientists will find it when they're analyzing similar data.

If it's not found, then that [03:25:00] should also be published and, would help to put the issue to rest. The point is no study is gonna be considered the final word unless it's been independently reproduced. And I would add to that and had its data set published which is not always done, but really should be done, I think in the era of transparency in science.

Also we need mechanistic studies on vaccine ingredients. We have a lot, but we need more. this is again, less about proving the link with autism and more about how do we develop safer vaccination. We need more lab research to understand how vaccine components lead to neurodevelopmental changes.

Animal models are valuable. We need, more studies in mice. Primates, would it be even better? Receiving that standard infant vaccine schedule versus unvaccinated controls would help illuminate the biological differences in brain development behavior, immune activation, and toxin accumulation. For example, the study in [03:26:00] mice showed social behavioral changes after the aluminum adjuvants were administered at the same doses as human, kids received larger confirmatory animal studies would strengthen that causal inference. Why aren't they being done? Well, we've talked about that too, but we need examination of the mechanisms at a cellular level.

Looking at the microglial activation, looking at the cytokine profiles in brain tissue after vaccination to help understand which ingredients are okay, and which ingredients we need to pull out and replace. Research on the pharmacokinetics of these vaccine ingredients and infants.

How do these aluminum distributed in the body are they crossing the blood barrier In what amounts how long do they persist? These questions need to be answered. To fill in all the gaps in our understanding. We need to be doing autopsies. MRI studies brains of individuals exposed to high [03:27:00] vaccine loads versus not.

Vaccinated may be insightful. Certainly the autopsies I would expect would be, and so looking for aluminum deposits, immune activation markers in the brain tissue. Again, we've already seen some of that. But I, it would be good to see more of it looking at biomarkers of susceptibility. Again, we've talked about how only a subset of children are vulnerable to vaccine-induced neurodevelopmental harm.

So research should focus on identifying the biomarkers to help predict which children are at risk. So these could be genetic. So polymorphisms and genomes related probably to detoxification, immune regulation, brain development. And frankly, some of those probably are the genes that we know already predisposed to autism metabolic profiles like low glutathione, mitochondrial dysfunction indicators or preexisting neuroinflammation signs.

We could follow, we could do a study following babies with mitochondrial DNA variants or [03:28:00] already elevated cytokine levels and then monitor their response to vaccines or no vaccines and looking for any regression or developmental divergence compared to people with like low or normal levels of neuroinflammation.

I personally feel like that study would be unethical because I would never wanna give a vaccine to a child that had high levels of neuroinflammation. But if we can, if we can really refine that high risk profile, then we can identify the children who are at highest risk for vaccine reactions.

And then at the very least, modify the vaccine schedule or use other preventive measures such as, pretreatment with anti-inflammatories or antioxidant therapies, before and after vaccination, which is something that naturopathically we're trained to do. We do that in patients whose parents want them to be vaccinated, but like, Hey, I wanna minimize the risk.

FL C-C-I-M-A used you remember [03:29:00] the FL CC I prevent protocol for vaccine, reducing the risk of vaccine injury using Ivermectin and some of the other FL CCC protocol. I think n-acetylcysteine, glutathione, brolin, that kind of stuff, before and after the vaccine dose to help reduce the risk of a vaccine reaction.

That was, I think before we just straight up were like, Hey, stop getting boosted. Stop getting the vaccine, which is where we are now. We need to improve vaccine formulations, obviously, I think that's a big take home from this whole presentation. Vaccine manufacturers need to invest and they need to be incentivized to invest in developing formulations that do not rely on neurotoxic components.

Alternative preservatives to replace th Marisol entirely, not just in childhood vaccines, but also in flu shots for pregnant women. And children also need to be Marisol free. Finding an engineering safer adjuvants that are not neurotoxic [03:30:00] should be an obvious priority. So ones that effectively boost immune response without distributing to the brain or causing chronic inflammation.

And, frankly, there is some promising research on adjuvants like detoxified endotoxins, squalene emulsions that may prove safer than aluminum. But what's the incentive for the manufacturers to switch to these newer, probably more expensive adjuvant technologies when they're immune to liability?

Hint, there is in fact, it's actually a reverse incentive. They're incentivized to keep using the aluminum. And so if we're gonna fix the situation, we have to eliminate their liability waiver. We've got to reverse that vaccine act of 1986. I think that would go out of any one thing we could do.

That's probably the one thing that would make the most progress on this front. That would be fantastic by September. Yeah. There you [03:31:00] go. So reducing the overall antigen load per visit. This is something that a lot of parents are already doing, but spreading vaccines out rather than multiple simultaneous injections with multiple simultaneous antigens.

We could at least test that for safety benefits. It may or may not actually make much of a difference because again, with each additional dose you're getting more adjuvant, more of the rest of the vehicle, which is where we think a lot of the problem probably lies. So is it really better to take an MR and separate it out into three different vaccines?

Eh, I don't think there's really much evidence of that. The goal in investigating it though would be to maintain or improve the efficacy of vaccines. Which again, we will look at in a future episode. But while we're minimizing the collateral damage to developing nervous system obviously we need to reevaluate in the meantime, the whole immunization schedule.

We need to look to see whether adjusting the timing, the clustering of certain [03:32:00] vaccines alters some of these outcomes. So if the evidence shows, in fact this MMR, there's a risk at 12 to 15 months in certain groups, maybe if we give it a little bit later when the blood-brain barrier is more mature, while maybe being careful to watch for measles risk, maybe giving a drop of vitamin A every couple weeks spacing out vaccines more instead of, giving so many at one appointment.

As long as we're using safer adjuvants not like putting aluminum in every single one, or in frankly any of them that could allow the infant's immune system to recover more between immune simulations. Some countries are already using a slightly delayed or spaced out schedule compared to the United States, and they're not seeing any significant increased risk in disease.

So we could do trials or observational studies looking at spaced out schedule versus the current schedule and seeing whether there's a difference in autism outcomes. And ultimately flexibility and personalization might be key. One of the [03:33:00] things that we do in our practice is we support parents who want to do what we call intelligent vaccination, which is the idea of like, Hey, rather than follow some predetermined cookie cutter schedule, we're gonna just say maybe take one dose and then, wait a year and check titers.

And if titers still look good, then we don't need a booster, right? And the fact of the matter is if you look at the data on this, 85% of kids have immunity after the first dose, the second dose of the vaccine gets you to about 90, 95% depending on the vaccine. And the third dose gets you to, again, 95 to 99%, again, depending on the vaccine.

So 85% of kids only need one dose to get immunity, at least the kind of immunity that the vaccine provides. And I think that's given that we're looking at the toxic effects of these [03:34:00] adjuvants and the things that go along with the antigen over time accumulating. And so that the more doses is what's causing the rise in risk.

If we could give one dose and then test to see, hey, is he immune? Is she immune? Yes. Okay, then let's forego the rest of the doses. That in and of itself very likely would reduce the risk of autism and without any perceivable increase in risk from infection. Again, assuming these are highly effective vaccines, which is an assumption but assuming that, would it be better to be flexible and personalize for the individual child?

Especially if you have a child that's showing any indication of developmental delay or immune hypersensitivity or immune overactivation, they either need to pause vaccines entirely or need to use a different schedule or like we talked about the intelligent vaccination, temporary halt is, until [03:35:00] things even out and go back to normal under medical guidance rather than this one size fits all schedule, I think is an essential adjustment that we could make immediately.

And we could certainly test those and that's something I think would be valuable. But enhanced monitoring and surveillance. we've talked about VES in the past. Other passive surveillance systems have limitations. Mostly underreporting, we need better active surveillance for developmental outcomes.

Integrating vaccination records with early intervention and education records in a privacy conscious way, which is again, what I think that they're doing right now could help flag if we see clusters of autism cases occurring associated with certain vaccine lots, which is again, something that we haven't talked about yet.

But the idea thatyou could have certain lots that have, maybe they overdosed the aluminum in that lot and that's why that group of kids that got that lot may have developed autism and others didn't. And so you can't see it over the broad picture.

But maybe if you were looking at tying all this data together, looking at specific [03:36:00] lots, timing combinations of vaccines and so that's why this vaccine safety data link. Which exists, but that no one has been able to access to actually look at the data. and it's a link between CD, C and the health organizations.

We could use that much more extensively to monitor neurodevelopmental outcomes and their association with vaccines. And we haven't done it yet, and I think they're probably in the midst of doing it right now. A dedicated long-term cohort study following children from birth with detailed data on vaccinations, exposures, developmental assessments would be tremendously valuable.

But again, we can look at this retrospectively. We can do it right now, which is why I think it's essentially the idea of pharmaco vigilance and vaccines expanding to include developmental endpoints, not just immediate acute reactions. We've talked a little bit about addressing conflict of interest.

We have to make structural changes. We need I think an independent vaccine safety [03:37:00] commission, which some policy makers have suggested in the past that's separate from and whose only goal is, to basically evaluate the safety of vaccines. They're not involved in promoting vaccines, they're not involved in anything other than safety.

And they could then contract studies to independent academic centers. The problem is most academic centers have financial ties to vaccine makers these days. Pretty much big pharma is in every major medical center, every major academic center. It's hard to imagine in 2025 a university that's not taking a drop of big pharma money, but if they exist, then obviously those should be the ones doing the safety testing.

Making sure that, this independent Vaccine Safety Commission would have representation from all the stakeholders, including, parents of vaccine injured children and unbiased scientists that, are [03:38:00] literally have never worked for pharma and have basically committed in writing, legally never to work for big pharma as a condition of their employment.

And I think rules to enforce that on a federal level makes sense to enforce conflict of interests. Not just disclosures, but just to prevent them from being able to be part of any kind of advisory committee. I don't think there should be these exceptions being constantly granted. I don't think anybody with stock or patents in vaccine companies should be able to vote on the recommendations.

About vaccines. I don't think that, we need to also have an independent oversight looking at the vaccine injury compensation program, which is gone from basically, being fairly generous in rewarding parents with compensation to being basically, putting so many barriers now in between parents and [03:39:00] compensation, that they've collected so much money that the federal government has then taken that money and put it towards other things.

Yeah if autism is being dismissed out of hand by the vaccine injury court, which I suspected it is, that needs to be reconsidered. Obviously in light of this, of the evidence that we presented. And I think other emerging evidence that is likely to come out in the next six to nine months if we looking at therapeutic and preventive strategies other than vaccines, if we accept that vaccines could trigger autism in some people, then we need to also explore ways to mitigate that risk and practice.

So we need to look at administering certain supplements, nutraceuticals like vitamin D, which helps modulate the immune response. how does vitamin D status affect the risk of vaccine injury? Nobody knows the answer to that. I would imagine low vitamin D isn't particularly good in terms of reducing your risk of vaccine injury.

[03:40:00] How does glutathione in acetyl cysteine support detoxification around vaccination reduce or affect adverse outcomes? We could do some small studies, some trials to see if using that integrative approach, giving an antioxidant protocol to infants that are committed to receiving the vaccines results in fewer developmental issues.

In addition screening babies for red flags, like the biomarkers we've talked about above of inflammation, and then providing them with protective interventions or maybe an alternative schedule is something we should be studying. And why not? So the safest vaccine schedule ultimately is gonna be one that is tailored to the individual health and risk factors of each child.

That would be a concept of pilot, right? Yeah. Yeah. Really what we're talking about here is personalized vaccinology. And that's really, if the vaccines turn out to be something that are truly effective and are truly reducing the risk of death in the population, [03:41:00] then personalized vaccinology to me is the obvious, wave of the future.

That's a big if and like I said, we'll get to that in a future episode. But for now I think that we'll leave you with the idea of personalized vaccinology be to me the only way to do vaccine administration at the end of the day more expensive. Sure.

But, is a child's brain worth the cost? Yes. Transparent public dialogue, future research has to be accompanied with honest public dialogue. The idea where we can just have these blanket statements like, oh, vaccines are completely safe for everyone, has definitely hindered scientific progress.

We have to be able to discuss risk openly without fear of causing undue panic. And as evidence accumulates, we need to be able to communicate and to receive nuanced findings. For example, ingredient X and vaccines may pose y risk, which we are addressing by doing Z is gonna maintain public trust a lot [03:42:00] better than sweeping issues under the rug until a whistleblower exposes them.

And then trying to sweep that under the rug too. Again, engaging with the autism community, listening to parental reports, treating them as real valid pieces of the puzzle, rather than just dismissing them, oh, this person's a crank, this person's an anti-vaxxer. That's horrib patronizing.

It was just a coincidence. Yeah. Actually treating parents as reliable reporters, valid pieces of the puzzle, rather than dismissing them, is going to improve the relevance and the focus, frankly, of future studies. So in moving forward with these research directions, it's really important to emphasize that improving vaccine safety is in everyone's interests.

And, we're not talking about abolishing vaccines, we're talking about refining them, refining the policies around them so we can prevent infectious disease, safeguard children's neurodevelopment and in an optimal way. And [03:43:00] to me, if we can truly optimize the safeties vaccines and customize the actual administration of them based on the risk factors of the child, we can eventually lead to this ideal scenario where we see the autism rates come down because we've identified and eliminated all the preventable environmental triggers by reformulating the vaccines, altering the schedule appropriately, especially on the individual level in the children that have the higher risk genetically of autism just as we've eliminated many infectious diseases.

Achieving that is gonna require some courage, some openness. We have to investigate unpopular questions. We have to be committed to following the science wherever it leads and the recommendations that we've just reviewed provide a roadmap for how we might get there. All right. Here we are at the conclusion.


Future Research Directions
---

You ready? Yes, I am. [03:44:00] The evidence amassed in this paper leads to a conclusion that challenges orthodox views. The routine childhood vaccination program as expanded in late 20th century appears to be a major contributing factor in the autism epidemic. This conclusion is not drawn lightly, but emerges from a synthesis of historical trends, toxicological data, immunological insights, and revealing gaps and biases in the existing literature.

Autisms rise from a rare disorder to a common developmental disability correlates in time with the surge in vaccine exposure in early childhood. Biological plausibility for causation is strong. We've identified specific ingredients like th, Marisol and aluminum and [03:45:00] mechanisms, chronic brain inflammation and autoimmunity by which vaccines can alter neurodevelopment.

Supported by both animal and human studies, we've seen that the mainstream studies often cited to dismiss a link are upon closer scrutiny, insufficient to rule out harm susceptible subgroups, or were potentially compromised by conflicts of interest and even data manipulation as the CDC demonstrates

meanwhile, converging clues such as the improvements in some autistic children's symptoms when medical interventions address toxicity or immune dysregulation point back to environmental triggers consistent with vaccine related injury, like heavy metals immune activationmaking the [03:46:00] strongest case possible for the vaccine autism Hypothesis, we have not ignored alternative explanations.

Rather, we've shown that those alternatives are insufficient on their own. Genes alone cannot explain a 200 fold increase in a decade. Changes in diagnosis cannot explain why the increase persists in recent cohorts, other environmental factors while contributing. Do not match the ubiquity and timing of vaccine exposures.

razor the principle that the simplest explanation is likely correct, would suggest that a profound change in children's early exposures. In this case, an aggressive immunization schedule is logically implicated in a profound change in health outcomes, an explosion of neurodevelopmental disorders.[03:47:00] 

Importantly, none of this means that vaccines are the sole cause of autism, nor that every autistic child's condition stems from vaccines. Autism is a heterogeneous spectrum with multiple pathways. What the evidence does indicate is that vaccines have been a significant driver at the population level one that has gone under recognized due to a variety of social and scientific pressures.

The implications of accepting this conclusion are far reaching. It calls for urgent action to reform how we approach vaccination. We can and must find a way to protect children from infectious diseases without trading off their neurological health. the recommendations outlined from improved research and surveillance [03:48:00] to adjusting vaccine formulas and schedules provide a roadmap toward a safer future.

Implementing these changes will require integrity and openness from our public health institutions. It will require admitting that we may have made mistakes in dismissing parents' concerns, and that some children have indeed been adversely affected by vaccines. That admission, coupled with concrete steps to reduce risks would ultimately strengthen public trust, not weaken it.

Some critics worry that. Acknowledging any link between vaccines and autism could lead to decreased vaccination rates, and resurgence of diseases. But ignoring a problem has its own costs. We've been witnessing an epidemic of [03:49:00] autism and related developmental disorders that carry enormous societal and personal costs.

The way forward is not to maintain an untenable absolutist position, but to confront the issue head on and fix it. Medical science has advanced tremendously. We should be able to devise immunization strategies that are both effective and avoid triggering neurodevelopmental harm. One hopeful aspect is that unlike fixed genetic conditions, environmental contributions to autism are preventable.

If excessive or improperly delivered vaccine exposures are causing autism in some children, then by modifying those exposures, we could prevent those cases of autism. [03:50:00] Even if vaccines account for only say a portion of autism cases, preventing that portion could spare tens of thousands of children

and families from a lifelong disability.

The stakes for getting this right are enormous. This is not about casting blame. It's about using scientific knowledge to improve children's health outcomes on all fronts.

[03:51:00] In conclusion, the weight of evidence reviewed here favors a paradigm shift. Autism is, at least in part, an iatrogenic. Medical treatment induced disorder with the childhood vaccination program as a key trigger in a subset of vulnerable children. This realization should prompt both humility and determination.

Humility that our well-intentioned public health efforts may have had unintended consequences and determination to apply all the tools of science to rectify the situation. By embracing a rigorous, honest examination of vaccine safety and by making thoughtful changes, we have the opportunity to halt or reverse the autism [03:52:00] epidemic.

We owe it to the current generation of children

and future generations to act on the evidence to reform what needs reforming and to ensure that the tools of prevention we employ do not themselves become sources of harm.

It is time for an autism safety reboot of the vaccination program, one that retains the undeniable benefits of vaccines while fully addressing their risks. The findings in this paper make a compelling indeed near airtight case that such action is urgently needed. [03:53:00] Science when done correctly is self-correcting the story of vaccination and autism should become a success story of science, scientific self-correction, where initial complacency and denial give way to enlightenment and innovation resulting in safer vaccines, healthier children, and ultimately the vindication of concerned parents.

through the prevention of autism cases that would otherwise have occurred. The chapter of vaccination and the autism epidemic is not yet closed, but with continued research and reform guided by the evidence reviewed here, we can hope to bring [03:54:00] it to a responsible and positive conclusion.

Great. Thank you, Benny. So I know that we said that we were gonna talk about the what about infant mortality? 'cause that was a question that we got when we announced this topic, and that's a separate it is thing. Yeah, I think I think this is a good place to pause and we can actually address that as part of our next episode.

Yeah. Because that's not gonna take nearly as long. No. Okay. All right. Well, anything else you wanna say about this or, no, I'm complete. I think I need to go for a walk or punch a pillow or lift some heavy weights. Yeah. Or go sing a song. Yeah, I get that. 


Closing Remarks and Next Steps
---

Well, thank you for joining us on this week's episode of the Partovi Effect.

I know it's been a bit of a doozy. But, we needed to really go deep and go [03:55:00] broad, both because this is a topic, which of course there's a lot of, frankly, both diss and misinformation about. And if we're gonna separate the wheat from the chaff, we had to do it in this broad, comprehensive, deep way.

So thank you for your time and attention, your engagement, your participation in this conversation. I'm Dr. Ryan Partovi. And I am Mrs. Madi Partovi be Well,