Determinants of Autism, McCullough Foundation Paper
When I was a kid kids with autism were very rare. Today almost 20% of kids are somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum. This is an horrific growth in an affliction that deprive tens of millions of people of their full potential to live their best life. The fact that it's increased exponentially over recent decades shows that it's caused by some environmental factor that is exponentially increasing. No pathogen, genetic trait, or similar, more traditional vector can be the cause. Something that's increasing in frequency as autism is must be what is causing autism.
In Mccullough Foundation Report - Determinants of Autism Specturm Disorder many different possible causes are compared, and for the first time vaccines have been included in the potential causes. The Supplemental material (data, charts, images, and etc) is also available for free download in PDF format.
Nic Hulscher, an epidemiologist who has lately become widely known for his ability to say it like it is without protecting funding sources, sponsors, or simply parroting propaganda, points out that this is the first time vaccines have actually been compared to other potential causes of autism. That fact alone should alert you to what the most likely causes of autism are, and enable you to understand why preachers of the faith in vaccines make statements like 'We don't know what causes autism, but it's not vaccines.'
Folks that have kids, or paid attention to the discussion of vaccine safety in recent years will not be surprised to know that the kid with their hand in the cookie jar is shown to be strongly associated with cookies missing from the jar. The strongest deternminant of autism is vaccination.
"Combination and early-timed routine childhood vaccination constitutes the most significant modifiable risk factor for ASD."
That quote from the Conclusion of the McCullough Foundation paper, says it all. The one thing that has increased it's impact on American kids at the same rate autism has afflicted them is vaccination.
Have a read at the above links. It's free, and the data is all publicly available, unlike the papers published by vaccine myth preachers that never compare autism and vaccines. Lying by omission is still lying, and we've been lied to for a long time. This is why vaccine manufacturers demanded immunity for adverse events from the Fed.gov. This is why the PREP Act shields them from liability, because they are causing autism. Here's the receipts.
Nope, nope and nope. Why is this such a persistent myth? Is it because once people have heard it it sounds legit and they just have confirmation bias? Because the original study was totally debunked and totally dodgy, no matter how you look at it.
This sentence doesn't show causality at all! There's so many other reasons, not least because it's diagnosed more frequently. We’re getting much better at identifying, defining, and reporting it. Also, there's the ASD... Before only the most severe cases were identified. Now we have a spectrum. I teach tons of high functioning autistic and Asperger's kids. And definitely have known many prior to official diagnosis, including friends.
We could also argue that over time woman have kids much later.
Anyway it's a contentious topic..m you'll never accept my view but it drives me nuts that this link is still believed when there's so many other correlations that aren't 'more autism diagnosis' MUST mean it's vaccines.
I do appreciate you piping up. I'll point out right away I can't learn anything I don't already know if folks don't set me straight when I'm wrong. However, the McCullough Foundation study points out that incidence of autism has risen >32k% since 1970, and 26% of those cases are not merely 'on the spectrum', but severe autism. This clearly isn't just increased awareness, but is an environmental factor that has similarly increased in impact.
My statement to that effect doesn't prove - or claim - what environmental factor that is. The McCullough Foundation report does, however.
In the study they look at different possible determinants, and the one that is statistically most impactful is vaccinations. They don't claim it is the only one. You seem to have given great consideration to the matter, and having a read at the study itself might convince you that the other determinants you mention have been properly considered. You, just like me, can't learn anything you don't already know unless you have an open enough mind to actually look at the data that's been reviewed and assess for yourself the rigor of the research that is reported - and if you see that it's lacking in some way, you can provide salient criticism beyond mere assumptions and possibilities that could, maybe, might matter, by stating shortcomings specific to the research in question.
If they're wrong, I'd sure like to know how they went wrong.
Thanks!
Yes, you are dead right - one should engage with counter arguments, which is why I'm here and why I so strongly voiced my viewpoint.
From what I know about this report, firstly, what raises huge red flags for me is that Wakefield is involved and he's the one who published dodgy 'studies' which set the whole thing off. A lot of the info in that study was falsified, and from what I understand, this report has ignored tons of peer reviewed data and journals that have been held to strict standards - ie a case of cherry picking. And Maccallough et all were known to soard disinformation around covid 19 etc too, so even if I did credit the study, if be worried about vested interest here and would like to see studies produced by less biased people.
So there's a LOT of red flags here that make me scoff at these claims... Sorry, I'm not at all dismissing YOU, but I'm very, very dubious about this report. People blindly believe things that are esp used by so called science that hasn't been undertaken with proper measures.
It's easy enough to find flaws in the study online ,- I'm not a scientist nor a data analyst and I definitely don't have time nor even inclination to read it in a less than cursory way (totally get you might find this approach flawed also 😜) but from what I've read, there's a helluva lot debatable about this report that shows it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
My big issue is people being misled by biased reports and taking them as gospel.
Respectfully, always.
I have to assume you didn't read that study either, but only what you were told about by people paid by pharmaceutical companies to lie about, just as they lied about the Covid jabs, and are lying about this now.
You shall know them by their fruits. Anytime you want to know the actual truth you only have to read the actual research. Until then, you may continue to be misled.
That was my starting point. I think you're misled, you think I'm misled, and never the twain shall meet.
I definitely think we need to be vigilant against vaccines and very cautious, but that does not mean all vaccines, as many have done a world of good for humanity, and I don't think I am misled here. You only have to see the impact of NOT vaccinating kids and them getting measles etc to see that. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we have got, and I don't think they cause autism and are yet to see proof otherwise. This certainly isn't it.
And I did read that study, and read this one too. Certainly, if people are paid by pharmaceutical companies to say anything I wouldn't listen to them either, but there's plenty of rigorously independent scientific studies - actual research as you say - that people ignore because they believe what they want to believe.
That was my starting point, as I had been taught from birth. But then I saw this:
Amongst the diseases charted is scarlet fever, for which there is no, and has never been a, vaccine. Also, the early 'vaccination' for smallpox absolutely did not save any lives, and if you read the literature from that time this will be obvious. The reason for that is all they did to 'vaccinate' people was to take a sample of pus from infected animals and introduce that - with all and sundry infectious pathogens - into subjects. Unsurprisingly, this caused many illnesses and deaths, far from reducing impact of disease. What is apparent from the chart is that, while vaccines were introduced at various times, diseases all reduced in impact simultaneously, including smallpox and scarlet fever. If you look closely at the smallpox data, it shows that the worst outbreak occurred after the most stringent mandate was imposed. Smallpox vaccination made the disease much worse!
I learned I was wrong, and when an honest man learns he is wrong, he either ceases to be wrong or ceases to be honest. Because this information made me look into the literature, I changed my mind. Today I regret ever allowing any vaccinations to be imposed on my sons.
That is why I provide the data, the actual factual information, rather than claims of them with immense profit motives to fool us into believing, as we've been told, that vaccines of any kind or stripe, ever have done anyone any good. The studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children all show that vaccinated children have ~2.5x higher all causes mortality. The data tells the truth. The profiteers and their minions do not. We cannot ascertain that without looking at the data, which requires reading the studies.
That show any benefit from vaccines? I haven't seen them, and I look. Please provide links to any such information that you are aware of. If I am wrong, I very much want to know it so that I can change my mind and become right. I am happy that you have looked at the studies I have linked. Whether you are in agreement with them or not, you at least haven't treated the data like a cultist warding off heretical dogma, as many do. This makes me happy for you, and glad you make decisions based on information you ascertain for yourself, rather than just doing as you're told. Whether we agree about this or that today is a minor thing, because honest people that look at the same information will at least make rational decisions based on their interpretation of that information, and will see the value in having the freedom to themselves make their own decisions based on their own investigation - which means they do not support censoring that information or mandatory medical interventions that would deprive them of their right to choose for themselves.
These are far more important than whether we agree about the impact of vaccines, because they are what differentiate sovereigns from chattel.
When I was a child I literally was taken to a measles party by my parents, so that I would catch measles at the appropriate age to suffer only a mild fever and a few days of relative misery. I also got the mumps and chicken pox, also relatively mild and no more than a few days discomfort, from which almost no children suffered more or died in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The hype about measles today is pure BS. I have not only seen the impact of measles, but personally lived it.
I am living proof of my claims.
totally get the concern, esp when you quote that line about early combo vaccinnes being the biggest modifiable risk.
But correlation isn't causation, and the jump to nearly 20 percent looks inflated from changes in diagnosis and awareness over time, not a single driver.
Large cohort studies that control for timing, dose, and confounders repeatedly find no causal link, and ecological charts are definately prone to spurious patterns.
I appreciate you sharing the report, just think slow here and keep an open ledger mindset, not a verdict :)
You make some good points, and this one study isn't probative. However, many studies are shown to have been performed specifically to repudiate accusations that vaccines are actually a major cause of autism spectrum disorders, funded by pharmaceutical corporations, or even ghostwritten and simply signed by researchers paid for their panache to gild the Big Pharma lily. The more complexity in the adjustments, the greater opportunity availed the adjusters to tailor results to their funders' purposes.
The specific claim that 'changes in diagnosis' is behind a misleading change in disease incidence falls particularly flat, and the increase of >32k% in ASD since 1970 in America can't be hand waved away because 26% of those cases are severe, not merely 'on the spectrum'. While I haven't seen much study of the geographic differential between highly vaccinated countries and those less so, the roaring silence regarding jurisdictional differences in both being highly correlated suggests that strongly supports the exponential expansion of the childhood vaccination schedule after US law shielded vaccine manufacturers from liability as causal of the exponential expansion of ASD disease in American children.
'First do no harm' is the central component of the Hippocratic Oath, and that requires attention to correlation of adverse events to medical interventions, even when probative evidence isn't in hand. Because the pharmaceutical industry profits from chronic disease, there is a massive profit motive to cause chronic disease, such as allergies, autoimmune disorders, and ASD, that the only wall defending the population from are doctors, pharmacists, and medical providers - particularly now that government has indemnified manufacturers from liability for adverse effects of vaccines.
One of the most disappointing and, frankly, disgusting revelations during the last 5 years is just how the avarice of medical providers has undercut the Hippocratic Oath, and turned many doctors and pharmacists into Pez dispensers for the bonuses pharmaceutical companies pay out for jabbing up their patients. The flagrant censorship, deletion of reports, and cancellation of reporters, particularly some of the most highly productive experts in their fields, such as Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, Zev Zelenko, Cary Mullis, and many, many more isn't at all the result of increasing awareness, or changing diagnosis. It is desperation to prevent awareness of exponential increase in neurodevelopmental disease that follows exponential increase in vaccination.
This isn't the only study that points to vaccination as the primary controllable vector of neurodevelopmental disease. It's just the only one to compare all determinants, including vaccination. Jon Fleetwood today published '107 Studies Link Vaccines to Autism, Other Brain Disorders: McCullough Foundation Meta-Analysis' at the above link. Many studies have looked at vaccination and ASD and found not just correlation, but causation. The fact that incidence of neurodevelopmental disease is dose dependent is considered evidence of causation, and the more we are jabbed, the more we are harmed.
That's of the 136 studies considered, 80% of them found that vaccines contributed to ASD.
But Fleetwood also points out that there have been studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children.
In the recently leaked Henry Ford study that the author stated he couldn't publish because it would end his career, the comparative risk of many neurodevelopmental disorders between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts couldn't be calculated - because there were NO EXAMPLES in the unvaccinated, at all.
So, one metastudy isn't probative. The marshaling of government censorship, the corporate media complex, pharmaceutical company funded medical associations, scientific journals, and etc, isn't probative either.
Together they not only demonstrate causation, but criminal conspiracy to profit from disease and death inflicted intentionally with malice aforethought, which is demonstrated by the prior indemnification of manufacturers for liability before the exponential expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule caused the crippling explosion of neurodevelopmental disease, and particularly ASD. The censorship and cancellation of the best researchers and doctors in these fields that raised the alarm demonstrates that industry well knows it isn't merely changing diagnoses and greater awareness of disease that is behind the 70,000% (700x) increase in ASD since the 1950s, and along with the fraudulent papers ghostwritten and signed by avaricious monsters profiteering from their positions, is probative of malevolent and intentional infliction of chronic disease for profit.
Thanks for making me point that out.
Dear @valued-customer !
Are you claiming that vaccinations are part of the cause of the rise in autism?
I remember historical records showing that vaccinations contributed to increasing human life expectancy!
Vaccination has played a crucial role in reducing smallpox.
But, I've seen people die from vaccinations!
So, I thought vaccinations could introduce new diseases to humans!
Nothing created by humans is perfect!
Your argument will be rejected in the world I live in!
Thank you for advice!
I am posting a report from researchers that have refused to be cowed by being censored, by having their licenses pulled, by losing their jobs and careers, and have published the data that shows vaccinations are the primary cause of ASD.
This is false. Clean water, better medical care, sewer systems, good food, these things - not vaccines - have reduced and eliminated many diseases, such as smallpox, diptheria, and scarlet fever, which happened before vaccines for the latter diseases ever were introduced. Early smallpox 'vaccination' was merely infecting people with pus. That saved no one, and caused many illnesses and deaths. Scarlet fever declined with all the other diseases, but there has never been, and still is no vaccine for it.
Thanks!
Update: @valued-customer, I paid out 0.457 HIVE and 0.053 HBD to reward 3 comments in this discussion thread.