MORE Shocking Revelations about Childhood Shots

The game is up.

BS”D

Here are two very powerful articles just published in the last couple of days.

It is important to note that Dr. Peter McCullough MD is the most highly cited doctor in his specialty and was a “regular” pro-vaccine doctor for decades, until the falsehoods he saw being promoted around the covid shots prompted him to take a hard look at standard vaccines. He has completely changed his stance after investigating the data.

Occurrence of Convulsions and Death After DTP Childhood Vaccination

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH May 27

When the CDC ACIP Panel added the unsafe, ineffective, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to the routine pediatric childhood schedule without full FDA licensure and with no assurances on long-term safety, the entire schedule was called into question from the perspectives of clinical indication, medical necessity, safety, and efficacy. Is it possible, since the release of older vaccines, that the medical community and CDC ACIP panel ignored solid data and safety concerns with established vaccines? I was participating in the Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee deliberations in the Arizona Senate building, when a paper published over 20 years ago was presented on the whole cell diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTaP). The results were astonishing.

Geier and Geier published a massive study and one of the first of its kind at the time, using the CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. The hypothesis was that febrile convulsions were more likely to occur with combined vaccine products, that in some cases it would lead to death. Here is what they did: “The incidence rates calculated in this study are based on the estimates by the CDC of the number of doses administered during the study period: 121,954,137 doses of whole-cell DTP; 54,611,651 doses of acellular DTP (DTaP); and 9,335,142 doses of DT were administered. The background rate of development of convulsions by children is based on the estimates of the 1991 report by the Institute of Medicine of 0.2 per million children per day.”

Geier DA, Geier MR. An analysis of the occurrence of convulsions and death after childhood vaccination. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2002;12(1):71-8. doi: 10.1080/15376510209167937. PMID: 20597817.

They found more cases (occurrence/million) of febrile seizures and death after whole-cell DTP, DTaP, DT alone, in a descending, nonlinear graded fashion, and the risks were in a tight temporal relationship. This is concerning because of the associations between post-vaccine febrile seizures and childhood/adult epilepsy requiring medications and with the development of neuropsychiatric conditions including autism.

In summary, no vaccine is perfectly safe. Combining multiple products into single shots increases the reactogenicity and the risk of a catastrophic outcome. As parents and doctors begin to make more discerning choices they may consider going to less complex products, spreading them out, and giving them at later ages.

Alternatively, some parents and doctors may choose for a child to “go natural” or completely unvaccinated, which has the best overall outcomes in contemporary studies at this time. Diphtheria and pertussis are easily treated with antibiotics, so prompt recognition and treatment if such a rare infection occurs is always an option for parents. Tetanus is avoided with good wound care and antibiotics for deep tissue lacerations and puncture wounds.

(Dr. McCullough’s references are in his original article. Link below.)

Occurrence of Convulsions and Death After DTP Childhood Vaccination

Here is the second article. This one is by Steve Kirsch. I want to note that Mr. Kirsch was a regular pro-vax guy all his life, until recently. He even took the covid shots. It was only when he saw bad things happening to people he knew, that he started digging. Finding out the truth about the covid shots led to detective work about the childhood vaccines.

I couldn’t include all of Steve’s article because of space constraints. The link to the original is included underneath.

Key paper showing "no link between vaccines and autism" is fatally flawed

I offered Professor Anders Hviid $25,000 if he would defend his autism study and supply us with the underlying data he used so we can validate it. He blocked me! What is he so afraid of? The truth?

By Steve Kirsch May 29

A key author of the most widely cited study showing there is no link between vaccines and autism refused to supply the data, answer my questions about data integrity, and otherwise defend his paper. Even a $25,000 prize didn’t make a difference. Instead, he asked how to block me and then did so. Why would an honest scientist be afraid of scrutiny? They wouldn’t. They would be tripping all over themselves to show their study was legitimate and that I am wrong.

Executive summary

At the suggestion of anti-anti-vaxxer David Gorski, I threw down the gauntlet and challenged Professor Anders Hviid, one of the key authors of the most important study that falsely claims that there is no link between vaccines and autism, to supply the underlying data and debate a group of scientists who disagree with his paper. I even offered him a $25,000 prize if he could defend his study. A mutually agreeable neutral panel would judge the discussion.

He ignored my offer and asked his followers on Twitter how to block me.

This is not how an honest scientist would react. I’ve listed some very uncomfortable questions below that he simply cannot answer in writing or in a live discussion. So he can’t make the silly excuse that debates must be in writing. Certainly Yale Professor Jason Abaluck debated us on video when challenged his study. No problem for him. Is Professor Hviid any more special than Professor Abaluck? Nope. No chance.

Real scientists don’t run for cover when their work is challenged by credible scientists. They defend their studies like Professor Abaluck did. I commend him for that.

I pointed out that the data they used in their study was flawed. Any honest scientist would say “Thank you! We will retract our paper.” Anders did the opposite. He ignored me and asked how to block me. Only someone who is corrupt would do that.

So now, here is the evidence for the world to see. Honest scientists do not behave this way when shown they are wrong.

Andrew Wakefield was right: vaccines cause autism.

Introduction

Professor Anders Hviid and his colleagues published a paper A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism in 2002 in NEJM that has been widely cited by others (over 1,000 other papers) as strong evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism.

Hviid and his colleagues chose a study design that was designed to look credible but obscure any signal. So when they found no signal they could claim victory, that there was “no association.”

But the real meaning of what they found is that “the study design we choose is unable to find a signal.” That can either mean:

1. The methodology was inappropriate to find a signal

2. The data was corrupted

3. There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal

4. There is no signal

In Hviid’s case, the first three were true.

When I asked Harvard Professor of Epidemiology Martin Kulldorff why he thinks vaccines don’t cause autism, this is the paper he cites because it is “gold standard data.”

Nope. No sir. It was proven the data was unreliable.

This key paper, that is relied on by over 1,000 other papers, is deeply flawed because:

1. they never looked at the best metrics designed to find a signal

2. because the underlying data was later found to be inaccurate

3. because it overstates his conclusion. The study didn’t prove there is no link. It just proved that the methodology he used to try to find a signal was flawed as noted in the Letters section of his article. In short, the paper shows that the authors didn’t find a signal. They didn’t find a signal because 1) they didn’t look for the most obvious way to find the signal, 2) the data was flawed, and 3) the methods they did use were not sensitive enough

4. There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal

5. The conflicts of interest were never disclosed

In short, just because you didn’t find a signal doesn’t mean there is no signal. It just means you couldn’t find one.

I had some questions but Hviid wouldn’t answer any of them

Professor Hviid refuses to show us the underlying data or defend his study. Even after I offered him a $25,000 incentive to do so.

I wanted to ask Professor Hviid some questions about his study such as:

1. Can we see the data? Why not? Why is it a secret? Could it be that you are hiding something?

2. Wouldn’t this paper showing the underlying data you used is flawed invalidate your results? If not, why not? Why didn’t you retract your study when you learned this?

3. Why didn’t you look at autism diagnoses relative to the time of MMR vaccination in your study? This would be the most sensitive measure. I found that diagnoses in the week after MMR vaccination is 5X greater than the week before vaccination. What did you find when you looked at that? Is that why you are hiding the data from us?

4. How can you explain this 1998 paper in Pediatrics that shows a very clear link between vaccines and ASD? How can brain injury be vaccine dependent? How can there be a spike at 8/9 days after the measles vaccine only? How do you explain why that is statistically significant and no spike for the mumps and rubella vaccine? Why does the pertussis vaccine have a shorter time to symptoms (less than 7 days)? Doesn’t the fact that different vaccines (even though given at the same ages) have a dramatically different side effect profile mean the vaccines cause brain injury? If not, what is the more likely explanation?

5. Why didn't you and your co-authors reveal your clear conflicts of interest?

6. Why didn't they talk in the paper about the changing of the autism reporting rules in Denmark.

7. Why would the CDC go to Denmark to do an autism study? They have 100% reported data in Medicare.

8. Why did you ignore my request to supply the underlying data?

9. Who else validated the data after the paper came out?

10. Why was this method really the best way to detect causality? Why not look at the time the parent first noticed the autism relative to the nearest date of vaccination? If vaccination is not causal, this will be a flat line.

11. Why did you seek to block me when I started asking questions about your paper? Is that what someone with nothing to hide does?

12. Can you comment on this presentation regarding the conflicts of interest?

13. I gave you an opportunity to comment on this article and provide corrections before I published it. Did you find anything wrong? If so, why didn’t you say anything?

14. Shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that one of the co-authors, Poul Thorsen, M.D, is wanted by the US DOJ for fraud? He’s on the MOST WANTED list. And how is it that they can’t extradite him? I have a lot of questions I’d like to ask about how much you knew about this and what role he played in the research and why he’s on the MOST WANTED list.

In short, his paper isn’t trustable and he’s acting in an evasive manner by refusing to supply the data or answer any questions.

My challenge

Here’s the challenge I posted on Twitter:

If he’s telling the truth, he has nothing to lose and he’d be famous for showing the world that I’m wrong about vaccines causing autism.

How did he react to my challenge? By asking his followers how to block me!

Since Anders refuses to supply the underlying data for his paper, refuses to answer any questions about his paper, and cannot explain what is wrong with the other papers, he loses the challenge.

He has literally thrown in the towel and admitted defeat.

How bad is the study that over 1,000 papers are relying on? REALLY bad.

It failed all 7 elements of a sound hypothesis:

For further reading

You can contact John Stone who writes Age of Autism who has a lot more info on Anders.

I was sent so much information on these guys I could spend the next month or two writing about it.

An opportunity for you to take action

If you’d like to write to Professor Hviid to let him know what you think, here is his contact info.

Also, I hear he’s looking for a big rock to hide under so if you have any suggestions, you can include that as well.

If you want to be creative, you could ship him a big rock with instructions on how to hide under it.

Summary

Professor Anders Hviid, a key author of what is arguably the most cited paper claiming vaccines don’t cause autism, has refused to defend his work, answer any of my questions, or supply me with the underlying data used in his study.

He knows if he did any of this, he would be discredited.

His paper is wrong and should be retracted. The underlying data is flawed and he has refused to acknowledge that. He never even did the subgroup analysis looking for the odds of an autism diagnosis 14 days before the shot vs. 14 days after the shot.

He has conflicts of interest that were not disclosed in his paper.

When a scientist runs away from legitimate questions and data requests like this, it generally means only one thing: the study is deeply flawed.

Is there any credible scientist who will defend this deeply flawed study? I think not.

So maybe it is time for the over 1,000 papers who relied on this flawed paper to note that in their studies? And maybe it’s time for some brave scientists to finally acknowledge the truth that vaccines can cause autism?

For every day we delay, another 1,000 kids will develop autism from vaccines. They should all be stopped. Now. Our kids will be healthier. We have a large medical practice over 25 years of health records comparing unvaccinated kids vs. vaccinated kids that proves this. There are simply too many studies that were done by honest brokers with no agenda that confirm the dangers of vaccination.

Proof: author of #1 paper showing no link between vaccines and autism is corrupt