Over 300 pages of evidence from the CDC show that vaccines cause autism

Recently, I received a treasure trove of documents from a source inside the CDC showing they've known for over 20 years that Wakefield was right: vaccines cause autism.

Executive summary

I recently received a treasure trove of electronic documents from deep inside the CDC. These documents have never been made publicly available.

The documents include voice-recordings, emails, hand-written notes, diagrams, and data.

The often repeated claim that “vaccines don’t cause autism” is quite simply inconsistent with this evidence which can be authenticated.

I am working with Trevor Fitzgibbon to pitch this to all the mainstream media so that I’m not talking to an echo chamber with this data. It is much better if we can get the blue-pilled media to red-pill their peers; it’s unlikely to happen any other way.

This is a huge scandal and our kids having been paying the price for decades all because the CDC doesn’t want to publicly admit they were wrong

I spoke with a top journalist at Inside Edition who thought that it’s one of the biggest stories of the decade. He said he would try to interest his friends at 60 Minutes and other outlets in viewing the data (the story is too big for IE).

I will keep you apprised.

The documents can be authenticated by people inside and outside the CDC.

I’ve sent the documents to others on our side (just in case something happens to me).

Brian Hooker analyzed the CDC autism study data from the DeStefano paper; the evidence I received confirms what he found

The Hooker paper is published in the scientific peer-reviewed literature and is simply an analysis of the data that the CDC officials told CDC scientist William Thompson to destroy.

Look at the last row. The OR and p-value. We are done. Nobody has pointed out a calculation mistake in this paper. It passed two rounds of peer-review at TWO different medical journals!!

See the 3.86 odds ratio in the last row? See the .005 p-value? Those are damning. There is no way to explain such large effect sizes.

This is why Coleen Boyle ordered Thompson to destroy the subgroup data showing the high OR value: because they couldn’t make the signal go away so they made the data go away.

Also, the evidence I obtained shows that Coleen Boyle would have flatly refused to testify in Congress about the matter had US Congressman Bill Posey been able to follow through on his desire to have a hearing. Why would she do that if they weren’t hiding anything? Unfortunately, Posey was ordered by his peers in Congress to nix the investigation to protect the drug companies. That’s why it never happened.

OR= 3.86 with a p-value of .005 is an absolute train wreck.

It means that most of the autism in that subgroup is caused by vaccines.

There is no other viable explanation of the data.

If the MMR shots are safe with respect to autism, all the OR values in the table above should all be very close to 1 (and the p-values should be >0.10) because these are measure of the timing of the MMR shot (not the timing of the autism diagnosis) which has to be IRRELEVANT if the shots are safe.

How did the CDC respond to Thompson’s allegations that his boss Coleen Boyle illegally ordered him to destroy the subgroup analysis documents linking the MMR vaccine and autism?

The CDC did an internal investigation and talked to the people in the room where the incident happened. Four of them said it didn’t happen and that Thompson fabricated the whole story. The CDC internal investigation determined they were right because it was 4 against 1. That’s it.

But my evidence chest shows that all the evidence is consistent with his narrative about being ordered to trash the data they didn’t like.

And the DeStefano paper itself is evidence because the 3.86 odds ratio in the data should have been disclosed in the paper.

In science, you are not allowed to do a subgroup analysis, find a signal, and then not mention it in the paper. If you think the signal is false, you then need to provide the data showing it is false. You can’t unwind the video tape, destroy the evidence, and pretend it didn’t happen… that is unethical. You have to keep going down the rabbit hole. That’s how science works. It is illegal to destroy government data. And you never destroy any study data prior to publication of your study. That is unprecedented. Why would they do that? They did it to hide the signal because they couldn’t hide it through statistical manipulation.

Nobody can explain the pediatrician temporal data: the CDC switched topics when asked by a pediatrician to explain the data she observed

Pediatrician “L” (she didn’t want her named used until after she goes through her records EMR records manually to confirm her estimates) estimates around 180 kids in her practice had rapid onset autism. Of those, she believes the majority happened within 2 week after a vaccination visit. She never thought about looking at the actual data so it could be close to 100% of the cases. EMR systems don’t track this, so you have to manually look at each case individually. She told me would do that.

There is no way to explain these numbers if vaccines don’t trigger autism.

When she confronted the CDC and asked them “So how do you explain why autism cases are so likely to happen just after vaccination if vaccines don’t cause autism?” they just switch topics and point to what the peer-reviewed studies showed and avoid answering the question. Real scientists never switch topics when asked to explain data. Science is about the search for truth, not dismissing data you don’t like.

But Dr. L is hardly alone.

Pediatrician Doug Hulstedt did track the case history of all his incoming patients with autism. He has seen over 180 autistic kids in his 35 year career as a pediatrician. He is highly rated by his patients for his medical care.

Of the 44 kids with “rapid onset” autism, 100% of these cases happened within 14 days after a vaccination of one or more vaccines.

100%.

All Doug did was a medical history by asking for the vaccination records of the kids and the date that the autism was first noticed by the parents.

There is not a single study in the medical literature that looked at kids with rapid onset autism and plotted the date of the vaccine that was most proximate to the event, whether it was before or after. Why is that? Because it would find a huge signal. That’s why the studies never do it.

If vaccines don’t cause autism, there will be an equal number of cases where the “closest vaccine” to the onset data was before vs. after.

This is why these autism studies never find a signal. They always use a methodology which is not sensitive to timing. They never use the more sensitive measure I just describe. And most pediatricians if you ask them their numbers don’t know because they don’t track it. And pretty much all of them refuse to look at what their numbers are.

Pediatric practices where the parents choose not to vaccinate their kids have ZERO autism cases

I know of a large pediatric practice in California. In 25 years, none of the thousands of kids in the practice (nearly all of whom are not vaccinated at all), they haven’t had any cases of autism among the unvaccinated kids. ZERO.

How does the medical community explain that? They don’t.

So if autism was primarily caused by environmental toxins or heredity, then how do we explain this data? All the surrounding pediatric clinics have standard autism rates.

Studies published in the medical literature show odds ratios between 4.2 and 5.0 when comparing fully vaccinated vs. fully unvaccinated kids

How can every study in the peer-reviewed literature that compares fully vaccinated vs. fully unvaccinated kids show very similar odds ratio for autism? Every study. No exceptions. The odds ratio in these studies is over 4. Since 99% of the kids are vaccinated, the population attributable risk (PAR) is 75% or more. In other words, most of the autism cases are being caused by the shots because we have a high ratio and because all five Bradford Hill criteria are satisfied in spades. If there is a higher likelihood explanation for the odds ratio, why isn’t anyone in the world able to show it? The attacks are all hand-waving arguments without any evidentiary support whatsoever, i.e., FUD.

So the precautionary principle of medicine demands that we should presume vaccines cause autism until proven otherwise.

Here are the studies:

Here are the studies that you simply never hear about:

1. Paul Thomas (2020) had 0 autism cases in 561 unvaxxed patients total. For patients who followed the CDC vaccination schedule, there were 15 autism cases in 894 patients. The Fisher exact test p-value is 0.0008 which is stunning. The OR was infinity, with a 95% lower confidence limit of 2.3. See also this excellent article about the study which points out that “unvaccinated children are healthier in several metrics and enjoy 25 times fewer pediatric visits.” The bad guys were able to get the paper retracted by claiming the higher rates of autism among the vaccinated were due to more office visits. The problem with that criticism is that the reason for retraction was later disproven in a subsequent paper!

2. Hooker (2021): 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

3. Mawson (2017): 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)

4. Geier (2013): 2.1 to 3.4 odds ratio in the VSD database depending on age at injection. Higher odds ratio when older. That study, published in the peer-reviewed literature, was done using a two-phase methodology used by the CDC. It showed that the HepB vaccine was strongly associated with autism. They looked at each of the 3 injection times and in all cases the OR was high and the p-value was low! The study has never been retracted. After Brian Hooker found this signal in VSD, his access was immediately revoked by the CDC with no explanation. Nothing like being open to data transparency is there?

5. Garner / Control group (2022): 82 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. “For those with zero exposures to post-birth vaccines, pre-birth vaccines, or the K shot, the total rate of autism in the entire CGS is 0% (0 of 1,024)” Doing an OR calculation relative to my survey of 10,000 children: OR=82 CI:5.1197 to 1315 z statistic: 3.114 Significance level. P = 0.0018. See also the Control Group website.

6. Lyons-Weiler (2022): The study was too small to assess autism risk, but showed better health outcomes among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated in other conditions. See this article which notes that the unvaccinated had better compliance to their wellness checks than the vaccinated which eliminates a common argument that anti-anti-vaxxers use. It says, “the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.”

7. Liz Mumper study: She reduced the incidence of autism in her practice by 6X limiting the vaccines given to kids. How does the medical community explain this? A 6X reduction is huge. She also replicated Paul Thomas’s work.

8. A new study of 50,000 kids (submitted by Tony Mawson for publication but not yet published) shows the same odds ratios for chronic diseases as the Hooker and Mawson studies. The dataset is very large.

9. The Generation Rescue (GR) study that was done on June 26, 2007 showed that vaccinated kids were significantly worse off in every category they looked at. “For less than $200,000, we were able to complete a study that the CDC, with an $8 billion a year budget, has been unable or unwilling to do.” Where is the CDC survey? Nowhere to be found! They simply don’t want to do it. Read the survey and see this article for more information. GR couldn’t tamper with the study or manipulate the results because it was done by a third party survey firm with no conflicts of interest. If the drug companies didn’t like the result, they could have easily commissioned a different polling company. But they didn’t!!! Or maybe they did and simply chose not to publish the results because they were so bad. In any event, the lack of a poll showing the opposite of the GR poll is very very problematic for the “safe and effective” narrative.

There is a failure on behalf of the other side to cite a single study that shows the opposite of what these studies show, e.g., that the fully vaccinated are either as healthy or healthier than the fully unvaccinated.

I independently found a very similar odds ratio when I surveyed 10,000 parents: “tell me about your kids”

Anyone can replicate the parent survey I did. You’ll get the same results. But nobody is willing to look.

I asked 10,000 parents to tell me about their kids and listed a huge range of chronic diseases including two negative controls to validate the results.

Here are the results. The source data is available for anyone to analyze. Only one brave math professor (Hal Switkay) did just that and validated my results and methods.

The OR on the negative controls (birth defect and genetic defect) were .9 and 1.0 respectively.

For autism, I got an odds ratio of 4.5 which is midway with the values found studies I cited above (Hooker (2021) found 5.03 and Mawson’s 2017 study found 4.2).

Here’s the summary table of the ORs.

Note how vaccination makes all chronic diseases worse (numbers are all >1), a result consistent with the studies cited above:

Odds ratios in my parent survey. The more vaccinated you were, the more likely you are to have these conditions. Fully vaccinated kids were 4.5X likely to be diagnosed with autism than their unvaccinated peers.

The autism studies published in the literature were designed to NOT find a signal. When errors were pointed out, the authors refuse to respond to the criticism. That is not what honest scientists do.

We can show how each and every one of the papers brought forward by vaccine proponents are flawed. Pick the best one and let’s chat about it!

For example, there are 164 papers listed in this Michael Simpson article which he claims is proof that there is no association between vaccines and autism. He asserts that the single best paper is a 2014 meta-analysis by Taylor et al., “Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies” (you can see a proof of the article here without a fee) which analyzes 10 studies (5 of each type), including Madsen (2002), Hviid (2003), DeStefano (2004), Andrews (2004), Smeeth (2004), and Verstraeten (2003).

The problem of course is that all of these papers were debunked in the SafeMinds analysis.

The best studies were the cohort studies and one of the cohort studies was judged to be “high risk.” The other four cohort studies were described in the SafeMinds analysis. For the case-control studies, the two largest ones in the study were also described in the SafeMinds analysis.

So the best of the best of their best studies were debunked. These meta-analyses are only as good as the underlying papers.

Can we talk in detail about the top 3 papers in each group? They don’t want to talk about it in a public forum. They never do. How are we supposed to resolve our differences if the other side won’t engage in a civil dialog with anyone who disagrees with them?

Professor Hviid, a co-author of the most referenced paper showing no link (the Madsen study), refused to answer any questions about his paper. Why do they refuse to respond to legitimate questions that have been raised?

You can’t prove the null hypothesis

Every scientist knows you can never prove the null hypothesis.

In plain English, you can’t prove that there is no link. You can only claim “the studies we’ve done haven’t found a link.”

That is what they should be saying if they were semi-honest. But of course this is wrong. They simply avoid studies in the peer reviewed literature showing the opposite.

The people who claim there is no evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that vaccines cause autism are simply lying to you and the press is just repeating what they’ve heard

The bottom line here is that the press is always lying when they say vaccines don’t cause autism because you can never prove a negative (per the previous section).

When people make that statement, they have to ignore the papers in the peer review literature, doctor data, and parent stories (which they can’t explain away in aggregate because they are consistent with doctor reports).

At best they could say: “The studies we choose to believe didn’t found a signal; the studies we decided not to believe found a HUGE signal. But we chose not to believe those other studies because everyone knows vaccines don’t cause autism.” See the circular reasoning here?

But there isn’t any DATA that should cause people not to “believe” the studies that did show the connection. They just don’t believe those studies because they come to a different conclusion and not because they actually found a legitimate flaw in the studies.

The press ignores those studies because they are told to by the “experts.” This works perfectly because most journalists defer to experts they trust and will not invest the time to listening to both sides explain the data and coming to their own conclusion. They go right to believing the “expert” with the highest credentials.

Why don’t I just release the evidence to Tucker, Rogan, etc.

Because I want a mainstream media source to cover the story and interview the CDC employees who will authenticate the evidence. They are unlikely do that if the story is already covered by someone else.

AI interpretation of my evidence

Believe it or not, finding an honest epidemiologist is really hard these days.

So…. all the data is being fed into a neutral LLM for analysis.

It will be very interesting to see the outcome.

Expert analysis of the data

James Lyons-Weiler is an expert on autism. He agrees that the studies designed to find an association were actually designed to not find an association.

Here is his take on my article:

Summary

Will anyone in the mainstream media touch this story? We’re about to find out.