TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. I do not deny that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with vaccines. We have thoroughly debunked any association between autism and these vaccines. Robert, it is nearly consensus in the scientific community that there's no link there. To deny a mountain of scientific evidence, which has already taught us that the combination of measles, mumps, rubella, or MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, Vimerosal, an ethylmercury containing preservative that wasn't a number of vaccines doesn't cause autism, and that too many vaccines given too soon, if you will, doesn't also cause autism. We know that the schedule is safe. Are there peer reviewed scientific reports that indicate a link between No. Between vaccines and autism? No. Not only is there not a peer reviewed work, this is probably the most studied public health issue involving children. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. The Institutes of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control have repeatedly investigated this. Vaccines do not cause autism. We don't need more research. At some point, enough is enough. It's fine to continue to collect data, but at some point, you have to take note for an answer. We're not sure what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Mountains of evidence. No, you know, this has been looked at extensively. Nothing's been more studied in the world than this connection between vaccines and autism. We'd heard it. We've heard it for decades. You know, actually almost a century now, if you want to get into it. This has been the battle cry of the pharmaceutical industry and every shill that works for them. But whether you know it or not all the way back in 2020 for those of you that were watching then we actually disproved this myth right then. Debunked it with a lawsuit where we went at the CDC and said really if the head of your page on the CDC website says vaccines plural meaning all vaccines do not cause us to do we have that original website. This is what it said: vaccines do not cause autism. There it is. All vaccines doesn't say one of them or two of them all vaccines by the plural s at the end of vaccines. If vaccines do not cause autism will you please provide us with all of the evidence and studies that show that vaccines don't cause autism. Send us that evidence. Well they didn't and we sued them and we went to court. Back in 2020, we won the case. Here it looks like in the document. They gave us the list. It's actually 20 studies. 20 total studies make up the entire list of what they look to when they say that these childhood vaccines, the five, and the cumulative effects of them given in the first six months of life, do not cause autism. The first one is an MMR study. The second one an MMR and a DTaP study. The next ones are MMR, these four are MMR and Thimerosal studies. Then the next all the way through to 20 are all just Thimerosal studies. Lastly, we have one antigen study. Of the 20 studies, the first MMR studies are not in the first six months of life; Thimerosal studies show none of the vaccines in the first six months of life had Thimerosal. There was only one study relevant to the first six months of life, the IOM review of the DTaP vaccine, and it said there are no studies that prove or disprove the association with autism. Therefore, that was the only one that was relevant to the first six months of life, and it proved that they had no answers. And so for everyone that's ever sent Mountain of Evidence, that's been a lie. We won in court. It's a lie. You can take that to the bank. And actually just months after winning that lawsuit, that was in May, by August they pulled down the statement vaccines do not cause autism. We celebrated it but five months later it went back up and we've been stuck there with this propaganda statement that have no basis in science up until last night when this happened to the website. Let's see the new page. Here it is. It now says autism and vaccines and right under that it has the key points. So we read those key points. The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism, meaning those vaccines in the first six months of life. Meaning the IOM lawsuit that proved that. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links. It does have an explanatory statement I want to read right now. It says this about why you will still see it with an asterisk the header vaccines do not cause autism has not been completely removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website. Apparently, this was that backroom deal that was made with Senator Cassidy, of course, when Robert Kennedy Jr. was up there. But now you can see on the page it is clear we are making the statement or it's being made by the CDC that this is not a scientific statement and so ultimately this is a massive change. I tweeted out about it today and to every parent of an autistic child that's been out there. For every one of you that did interviews, whether in the film Vaxxed or when we toured the nation and for everyone that's ever been gaslit, the days of gaslighting are over. We are now moving into science-based, evidence-based statements on the CDC website. It's a beautiful day.

The speaker claims that the evidence around vaccines and autism in the U.S. consists of two flawed and fraudulent CDC studies. One study allegedly showed a statistically significant effect of the MMR vaccine, with 67% more boys receiving the vaccine on time being diagnosed with autism compared to those who waited until age three. The speaker says a whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, came forward with this information in 2013 and 2014. The speaker also alleges that the Verstraten study in 2003 is flawed and fraudulent, accusing them of cherry-picking information from the Vaccine Safety Datalink. The speaker asserts there is a significant gap in the science around vaccines and autism, stating that safety cannot be determined by looking at one vaccine or component in isolation.

It is claimed that ethical concerns prevent double-blind placebo trials for childhood vaccines already on the schedule that never underwent safety testing. The first step should be honesty about the clinical trial data underlying childhood vaccines. One proposed method involves comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals using existing datasets. If unvaccinated children are equally or less healthy than vaccinated children, this should be published to reassure parents. However, if vaccinated children are less healthy, the claim that these products cannot harm anyone should be reconsidered. It is asserted that comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have been conducted, but not published because they allegedly show that the unvaccinated are healthier. Publishing a study showing vaccinated individuals are healthier would have discredited Robert Kennedy Jr., but the fact that it wasn't published suggests a problem.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

“Day one of birth.” “they get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another six months later.” It’s a “captive audience.” “How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or go out and have unprotected sex or get a blood transfusion from somebody who’s infected?” They claim “mom could have had hepatitis B” and that “mom was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,” so doctors would have known and could have “either treat it or do something about it or maybe prophylax the baby.” They ask, “Why would pediatricians go along with that? … money.” They warn, “If they’re giving infants treatment that the infant doesn’t need that has potentially harmful consequences and they’re doing it for money, then they’re criminals.” “there’s two hepatitis B vaccines that are in use.” They ask, “What the long term the follow-up study on those two hepatitis B vaccines is? No. Four days for one, five days for the other.” “Where’s the longitudinal study?” “They haven’t done it.” “That’s the vaccine industry.”

Hepatitis B is contracted through sexual activity and IV drug use. The speaker believes babies do not need the hepatitis B vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. The speaker states that after Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, the hepatitis B vaccine was moved from being given to teenagers to newborns. The speaker claims the amount of aluminum in the vaccine is five times the adult daily maximum.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the core topics: trial design and safety monitoring, absence of control group, list of reported adverse events, causality vs association, need for placebo-controlled trials, regulatory and review positions (CDC, IOM), and final stance on vaccine safety. - Preserve key factual claims and phrases (e.g., monitoring duration, lack of control group, listed adverse events, causality requirements). - Emphasize any surprising or unique points (no pre-licensure placebo trial, IOM stance on data, final assertion about safety assumptions). - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic chatter; keep a neutral, fact-focused summary. - Translate only if needed; retain precise wording where quoted. - Keep the summary within 378-473 words. Summary: In the discussion about Recombivax HB, the speaker confirms the product and its labeling, noting that Section 6.1 covers pre-licensure clinical trial experience and that safety was monitored after each dose for five days. It is stated that five days is not long enough to detect autoimmune issues or neurological disorders arising after vaccination. The conversation also points out that there is no control group in those trials. Turning to Section 6.2, the nervous system disorders subsection acknowledges reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome and multiple sclerosis, including exacerbation, myelitis including transverse myelitis, seizures and febrile seizures, peripheral neuropathy including Bell’s palsy, muscle weakness, hypothesia, and encephalitis. It is emphasized that these reports are included because they have been reported to authorities as occurring after vaccination, not because they prove the vaccine caused those reactions. To establish causality, a randomized placebo-controlled study would be needed, but none was performed for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure. Without a control group, evaluating whether a phenomenon in the vaccine group is related is not possible. A speaker comments that the broader issue is that such safety placebo trials were not done before licensure; once injuries are observed, they argue that it’s unethical to conduct placebo trials, and doctors may claim there are no studies showing the injuries are caused by the vaccine, leading to an assumption of safety. The discussion then touches on CDC guidance, with a question about agreeing with the recommendation that babies receive hepatitis B on the first day of life. The responder concedes that hepatitis B doesn’t cause encephalitis “in my opinion.” The IOM review is cited as having determined it “couldn’t find science to support a causal determination one way or another.” In the absence of data, the conclusion cited is that “there’s no proof that causation exists,” which is distinguished from saying it doesn’t cause it. The transcript closes with a provocative remark: “Vaccine safety is not based on science and data. And that is the stalemate we find ourselves in.”

The speaker claims that no double-blind, placebo-controlled safety trials have been conducted on any childhood vaccines currently on the market. The speaker states that they have searched for such trials and been unable to find any. According to the speaker, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins allegedly admitted that placebo-controlled safety trials are not performed on childhood vaccines because it would be unethical to test products administered to children. The speaker challenges news agencies to provide evidence of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done prior to licensure for any childhood vaccine, asserting that it doesn't exist.

None of the 72 vaccines for children have been tested against a placebo. The speaker sued HHS in 2016 to find placebo studies for vaccines, but none were found. The safety testing for the polio vaccine was only 48 hours, while the hepatitis b vaccines were tested for 4-5 days. This means that any adverse events occurring after that time period were not considered. Without placebo testing, the risk profile of current vaccines is unknown, and it cannot be determined if vaccines cause more harm than good. The speaker questions the ethics of mandating medical products with unknown risks for children.

The speaker claims epidemiological studies are easily manipulated and that proper studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are lacking, except for a CDC study in 1999. This CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, allegedly compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. The speaker asserts the study found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism in vaccinated children, which "shocked" researchers. The speaker alleges the CDC then kept the study secret and manipulated it through five iterations to bury the link.

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes between these two groups is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. A study by the control group with over 1,000 unvaccinated people also revealed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. Despite promises, the CDC has never conducted a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has been able to prove otherwise.

The speaker claims that the CDC commissioned six epidemiological studies using fraudulent techniques, instead of comparing health outcomes between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. This study allegedly found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism among vaccinated children. The speaker states that the CDC kept the study secret and manipulated it to bury the link by removing older children and stratifying the data. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

Autism is caused by vaccines, according to the speaker. The CDC's VirTrak study from 1989 showed a 1350% elevated risk for autism among children who received the hepatitis B vaccine in their first 30 days. A series of 13 studies were allegedly done by people paid by the CDC to create the illusion that vaccines don't cause autism. The chief scientist, Paul Thornsen, is a fugitive wanted by Interpol for stealing millions from the CDC that he claimed to use for the study. His study is considered fraudulent but has not been retracted. The speaker claims there are hundreds of studies linking autism and neurological injuries to vaccines, citing a book with 1,400 references and over 400 studies. The speaker believes the CDC is a dishonest organization owned by the pharmaceutical industry and promotes propaganda that vaccines don't cause autism.

The documentary follows a growing concern: the rise of chronic illness and neurodevelopmental disorders in American children, with speakers outlining striking statistics, personal stories, and contested science around vaccines. Key facts and patterns: - A shift from decades ago to today: more than forty percent of American children now have at least one chronic health condition; estimates cited include that over fifty-four percent of kids have a chronic disease, up from twelve point eight percent in the 1980s. One speaker emphasizes that in forty years there has been “the greatest decline in human health ever recorded.” - Autism rates have surged: just a few decades ago, one in ten thousand children had autism; today, one in thirty-one. Other listed conditions include ADD/ADHD, tics/Tourette’s, narcolepsy, sleep disorders, IBS, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s), eczema, asthma, seizures, and various neurological issues. - The central question raised: what is causing this epidemic of chronic illness in kids? The film argues that rapid increases in incidence cannot be explained by genetic change alone, which would take generations. Story and study arc: - The narrative centers on a scientist who was willing to conduct a study into vaccine safety and vaccine injury, but who faced career-risking consequences when attempting to publish or disseminate results. - The film’s narrator and investigators say they compiled hidden-camera testimonies, interviews, and raw stories from parents whose children experienced serious adverse events after vaccines (eczema, seizures, chronic GI issues, sleep apnea, language loss, autonomic and neurological symptoms, and death in some cases). Stories include a child who lost language after vaccination, triplets who regressed into severe autism after their pneumococcal shot, and families describing chronic, ongoing medical crises following vaccines. - The film frames a broader debate: vaccines are safe and effective, with extensive global use and long-standing public health endorsement. Yet it argues that the vaccine safety narrative lacks certain types of trials, particularly double-blind placebo-controlled trials for childhood vaccines. It claims that, in some cases, no such trials exist prior to licensure, and that post-licensure safety surveillance is limited or incomplete. Vaccine safety testing and regulatory claims: - The film argues that none of the 72 vaccine doses on the childhood schedule has ever been subjected to a pre-licensure double-blind placebo-controlled trial, which is presented as the gold standard of safety testing. It asserts that safety assessments and post-licensure surveillance often rely on observational data rather than randomized trials. - A critical example is the hepatitis B vaccine (Recombivax HB): the FDA-approved trial cited shows safety monitoring for only five days after each dose, with no placebo control. The film argues this is insufficient to detect autoimmune or neurodevelopmental issues that could emerge years later. - Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a leading vaccine expert, is interviewed regarding whether five days of safety monitoring captures potential autoimmune or neurological adverse events; the dialogue suggests concern about the adequacy of such safety windows and controls. - The documentary presents the notion that the absence of a placebo-controlled vaccine safety trial is used to argue safety, while retrospective studies and unblinded cohort analyses hints at potential signals that would merit more rigorous testing. Henry Ford Health System and the “vaccinated vs unvaccinated” study: - Dell and others pursue a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study using Henry Ford Health System data, with the aim of comparing health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They argue that this kind of retrospective cohort study can reveal safety signals when randomized trials are unavailable. - The study reportedly found that vaccination exposure was associated with higher risks of several chronic conditions, including asthma, atopic diseases, autoimmune diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, Guillain-Barré syndrome), and neurodevelopmental disorders. They summarize that by ten years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health condition versus 17% of unvaccinated children; overall, two to four times higher risks across several categories were reported, with notable differences in neurodevelopmental outcomes. - The study reportedly found zero chronic conditions in the unvaccinated group for several categories, though the vaccinated group showed higher incidence in many categories. Autism did not reach statistical significance in this study due to small numbers. The presenters emphasize that retrospective studies have limitations (confounding, follow-up length, healthcare-seeking behavior), but argue that the signal deserves publication and replication. - The Henry Ford study reportedly faced professional and institutional barriers: a threat of defamation, failed attempts to publish, and internal resistance. The documentary showcases a dinner meeting where Dr. Marcus Zervos expresses willingness to publish but ultimately faces career risk, leading to discussions about “Galileo moments” and whether data should be released despite pushback. Industry and public health responses: - The film juxtaposes the public health consensus—vaccines save lives, the schedule is well tested, and billions of people have been studied—with dissenting voices from physicians, scientists, and parents who argue that independent, large-scale vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated analyses are necessary to truly assess safety outcomes. - It includes testimonials from doctors who faced professional pushback after expressing concerns about broader vaccine safety questions or demonstrating adverse effects in patient populations. - The documentary frames a call to replicate the retrospective study in other large health systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente, Harvard Pilgrim, CDC’s VSD) to determine whether the Henry Ford findings hold across populations, and whether impaired health outcomes correlate with the breadth of vaccination exposure. Conclusion and call to action: - The film asserts that if the data are valid, this would constitute a sea-change in our understanding of off-target and nonspecific effects of vaccination and would necessitate reconsidering how the vaccination program is designed and implemented. - Viewers are urged to consider the evidence, demand replication, and reflect on the moral and ethical implications of vaccine safety research, balancing public health benefits with potential risks, and exploring alternate strategies to protect child health.

Big problem with trusting the science is not the science part, it's who's behind the science part, primarily in the area of vaccines for children. Normally, when you study a drug, you compare it with a placebo, so that way you can truly test the side effects on something, but that is not how they test children's vaccines. This so called placebo control is not really a true placebo control because it's not inert. It's an active vaccine with something called an adjuvant. The big one that they've been using for a long time is aluminum. My question is, how can you really truly test the safety and effectiveness of something if you're looking at the relative safety of an active vaccine to another active vaccine with adjuvants. That just muddies the water to this whole safe and effective claim that you keep hearing over and over and over.

Mainstream media claims that the link between autism and vaccines has been debunked through studies. However, these studies only examined the MMR vaccine and thimerosal. The Institute of Medicine stated that vaccines administered during the first six months of life have never been studied for a link to autism. The vaccines given in the first six months include DTaP, hep B, and pneumococcal. The only vaccine studied was DTaP, and the study showed a link to autism. However, the Institute of Medicine discounted the study because it was based on the CDC's VAERS system, which they deemed too unreliable for studying vaccine injury. They stated that the CDC's only surveillance system is inadequate for conducting reliable studies.

A PDF crowdsourced document that I believe CNN put out was sent to me by a New York Times reporter researching me, citing 200 different studies on vaccines that supposedly used placebo. I spoke with Dr. Joel Worsch, a pediatrician with an MS in epidemiology who wrote a book and is credible, neutral, and honest, and he says we don't know. There's not enough data to know. He breaks it down: the vast majority of these studies are not on the CDC schedule; many used active comparables, not inert placebo. After filtering, 25% of these studies pertain to vaccines on the schedule. Of those, inert placebo is used in about 5% of items. Longitudinal safety studies are zero; perhaps one or two were prelicensing. Journalists do their job: I spoke to doctor Joe; here's what I found. Cognitive dissidence is described as insecurity about flaws in the party.

"The myth of vaccines that, a, they are safe and, b, they are necessary and that they eradicated childhood disease, that is a myth." "They've never been tested for safety." "There are no placebo controlled trials." "They always put in the control group the immunogens that's in the vaccines." "That those adjuvants, whether it be aluminum or other substances, those by themselves are dangerous." "they refused to do a true placebo controlled trial like with saline." "they almost all were nearly eradicated before the introduction of the vaccine." "That is not true." "It's reproducible, occurs at two months, four months, and six months." "And most of those deaths are within either days to a couple of weeks of the vaccine."

Speaker argues, "if this was a religion, if this was Christianity, this is their Jesus. Vaccines is their Jesus." He says Stanley Plotkin "has finally given in and admitted that ... we were all exactly right" and "We never did the safety trials on any of the vaccines." "We win lawsuits against government agencies." Aaron Siri and others testified before Congress, saying, "you've never done a proper safety trial." In cross-examination, it is asserted that "the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected" and "It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism." He also testifies that "hep b vaccine cannot cause autism?" "That's correct." The dialogue notes "There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism," but "Not studies that I feel are credible." The speaker concludes: "This book is not worth the paper it's written on."

"I don't know what happened in 1990. There was no plague that was killing children that we had tripled the amount of vaccines." "Happened after 1989? The vaccine schedule mourn to 26 more vaccines. Agreed. Are all of them absolutely necessary? They wanna make money." "It's twice as many as anywhere else in in 30 countries in the Western world." "But We give twice as many shots as any of those countries." "Should you should educate yourself. We wanna empower parents to educate themselves." "Do we need to have the chickenpox? Do we need the hepatitis b shot on the second day of life?" "I don't think we can afford to assume that the people who are charged with our our public health any longer have our best interest at heart all the time." "Parents have to take have to make their own decisions, educated decisions."

The speaker states they would not give their children the measles, mumps vaccine, claiming that measles was deadly in the early 1900s, but is now easily survivable, especially with Vitamin A. They claim studies show that contracting measles can make children healthier and more resistant to diseases later in life. The speaker denies causing a measles outbreak in Samoa, stating the Prime Minister had already banned the vaccine after deaths, and that people died from a bad vaccine imported from Australia, not measles. The speaker asserts that vaccines cause autism, citing a CDC study that showed an elevated risk of autism in children who received the hepatitis B vaccine within their first 30 days. They claim that studies disproving this link were fraudulent, conducted by "biostitutes" paid by the CDC, and that the lead scientist, Paul Thorensen, is a fugitive wanted for stealing money. The speaker claims there are hundreds of studies linking vaccines to autism and neurological injuries.

Will you assure mothers that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? If the data supports it, I will. The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. Parents are concerned about giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn when the disease is primarily transmitted through drug use and sex. I vaccinated my children but chose to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until school age. There needs to be an honest debate about vaccines, especially regarding COVID-19, where risks differ significantly between age groups. Healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID. We should remain open-minded about vaccine safety and autism, as we don't fully understand its causes. Science evolves, and we must be humble in our conclusions. The rationale for immediate vaccination against hepatitis B exists, but if a mother's status is known, vaccination can be delayed.

If your kids were young now, would you vaccinate them for measles and mumps? No, I had measles as a child, and it was common. In the early 1900s, about 10,000 Americans died from it, mostly malnourished children. Healthy kids rarely die from measles, and studies show childhood measles can lead to better health later on. Regarding Samoa, I didn't convince anyone not to vaccinate; the prime minister had already banned it after vaccine-related deaths. No one died from measles there; it was due to a bad vaccine. I still believe vaccines cause autism. A CDC study showed a 150% increased risk of autism in children who received the hepatitis B vaccine early. Many studies, which I reference in my book, link vaccines to neurological injuries. The CDC's claims against this are propaganda influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.