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.

A recent study involving 99 million COVID vaccine recipients found increased risks of neurological and heart disorders, described as rare but significant. For example, the risk of brain swelling increased by 378%, myocarditis by 610%, and Guillain Barre syndrome by 286%. The cumulative risk of these adverse events raises questions about the overall safety of vaccines, especially considering the CDC's childhood vaccination schedule, which includes 72 doses without long-term safety trials. Each vaccine has a list of potential side effects, many serious, yet they are often labeled as rare. Historical data shows a rise in chronic illnesses among vaccinated children, suggesting a troubling trend. The notion that vaccine injuries are non-existent is misleading, as many children are experiencing adverse effects. It’s crucial to recognize and evaluate these risks comprehensively.

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.

The speaker discusses the length of clinical trials needed to determine if vaccines cause autism in children under 18 months. They mention that autism is generally diagnosed within the first couple of years of life and is believed to be a prenatal event. The speaker also states that vaccine trials typically require a year of follow-up. When asked about the number of children needed in clinical trials to detect autism and the trial duration, the speaker cannot provide specific numbers. They agree that the trials may not have been designed to determine if vaccines cause autism and suggest that larger database studies are needed. The speaker emphasizes that they are not stating vaccines cause autism.

Fully vaccinated children have a 5 times higher rate of autism compared to fully unvaccinated children, as shown in multiple studies. A study by James Lyons Wyler and Paul Thomas found very few cases of autism in unvaccinated children. Another study by Joy Garner's Control Group in 2022 revealed a 10 times higher autism rate in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children nationwide. Vaccinated children following the CDC schedule show a higher prevalence of autism.

The discussion addresses whether vaccines cause autism and whether relevant agencies will investigate this. Regarding the MMR vaccine, studies have failed to find a causal link to autism, including a large Danish study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children over years, which showed no difference in autism rates. For other vaccines like polio, there's less research specifically examining links to autism. While the speaker doesn't know the full literature extent, they haven't seen the same level of evidence for vaccines other than MMR. Biologically, it's considered unlikely that vaccines are the main reason for the documented rise in autism.

Pediatricians recommend getting both the valent and neococcal vaccines within the first three months of a baby's life. However, there are concerns about potential neurological damage and permanent effects. The incidence of these issues is not clear, as reactions are often not recognized or attributed to something else. Some children have experienced serious problems, including autism, which some believe is correlated with vaccines. However, the scientific community has dismissed this correlation. Vaccines have been crucial in eradicating diseases like polio, and without them, these diseases could resurface. The safety and effectiveness of vaccines are supported by numerous studies, although some claim they can cause tumors and other health issues.

Vaccines cause autism, according to the speaker. They claim that a graph showing the percentage of vaccinated children versus the age of their first vaccination indicates a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The speaker also suggests that there is a significant increase in autism incidence among children who receive the vaccine between 12 and 18 months compared to those who receive it after three years. They argue that the CDC refuses to conduct a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study because the results would reveal a high risk. The speaker questions the credibility of a study used to dismiss the vaccine-autism connection and calls for changes in vaccination policies.

Epidemiological studies are easily manipulated, and studies comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups are lacking. The CDC conducted such a study in 1999 under Thomas Verstraten, examining children who received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life compared to those vaccinated later or not at all. The study found a 1,135 percent elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children. This result was shocking, so the study was kept secret and manipulated through five iterations to bury the link.

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.

The speakers discuss the need for careful preclinical studies before licensing vaccines. They mention that large studies covering different age groups are necessary, but these data often come out later after the vaccine has been used in thousands or millions of people. The conversation then focuses on whether DTaP or Tdap vaccines cause autism. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between these vaccines and autism. While there are no studies showing a link, one study by anti-vaccination figures is mentioned, but it lacks legitimacy. The speakers emphasize the absence of positive evidence and the importance of administering vaccines to children. They also mention that there are no complaints about DTaP causing leprosy. The IOM's scientific review was conducted due to complaints about vaccines causing autism. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, the pediatrician is willing to tell parents that vaccines do not cause autism or leprosy because they prioritize the child's health. The IOM did not review whether DTaP causes sleep issues.

The speaker discusses the length of clinical trials needed to determine if vaccines cause autism in children under 18 months. They mention that autism is generally diagnosed within the first couple of years of life and is believed to be a prenatal event. The speaker also states that vaccine trials typically require a year of follow-up. When asked about the number of children needed in clinical trials to detect autism caused by vaccines, the speaker cannot provide an exact number but suggests that larger numbers are necessary for rare events like autism. They agree that the trials may not have been designed to determine if vaccines cause autism and that larger database studies are needed. The speaker also mentions the need for longer tracking of safety to assess autism risk.

Think about what we've done with autism. Right? There's a whole big push of finding answers for autism. The problem with autism. It's not a one answer. No, it's a myriad of answers. It's really risk factors. What are the risk factors that puts my kid at risk for autism? And the risk factors could be you gave your kid antibiotics, could be mom was drinking a lot of alcohol during pregnancy, could be mom was stressed during pregnancy, could be maybe something in the vaccine. Right? But you can't talk about that because that kills, that starts hesitancy, that creates a narrative change, but we have to talk about that. We have to look at all the risk factors so we could say, okay, antibiotics on their own is not going to create autism because you have seen kids that took antibiotics and didn't get autism. Vaccines on their own are not going to create autism because we've seen kids that were vaccinated and are fine and never got autism. However, what are the cumulative risk factors?

We couldn't find any prelicensing safety trials for the 72 vaccines doses that are recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group. This lack of safety trials is concerning considering the widespread use of these vaccines.

We couldn't find a prelicensing safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines doses recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group.

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.

The speakers discuss the need for careful preclinical studies before licensing vaccines. They mention that large studies covering different age groups are necessary, but these data often come later after the vaccine has been used in thousands or millions of people. The conversation then focuses on whether DTaP or Tdap vaccines cause autism. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between these vaccines and autism. While there are no studies showing a link, one study by anti-vaccination figures is mentioned, but it lacks legitimacy. The speakers emphasize that there is no positive evidence to disprove the link. However, as a physician, one speaker states that vaccines do not cause autism and that they prioritize the health of the child over waiting for conclusive scientific evidence. The discussion also briefly mentions the possibility of DTaP causing leprosy, although there are no complaints about it. The IOM's review did not cover this topic.

The CDC conducted a study in 1999, led by Thomas Verstraten, comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The study examined children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first 30 days of life against those vaccinated later or not at all. The initial findings revealed an 1135% elevated risk of autism among vaccinated children. The researchers were shocked and allegedly kept the study secret. The study was manipulated through five iterations to bury the link. Older children were removed from the data, focusing on younger children too young for diagnosis. Data was stratified, and other unspecified tricks were employed.

Vaccines are neither safe, effective, necessary, nor harmless, and this has been a two-hundred-year indoctrination. No vaccine has ever been proven safe because true placebos aren't used, and subjects aren't followed long enough. Safety is determined by whether the vaccine causes immediate death. Long-term effects like asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD, ADHD, neurological problems, and autoimmune diseases are not monitored. The FDA arbitrarily decided in the early 1990s that side effects appearing more than 72 hours after vaccination are unrelated.

The transcript follows a documentary-style examination of rising chronic illness in American children and a contested view of vaccine safety and testing. It weaves together personal testimonies, investigative reporting, and expert interviews to present a narrative that vaccines may be linked to widespread health problems and that the safety science behind vaccination is insufficient or flawed in certain respects. Key claims about child health trends - A diverse set of pediatric health issues is described as increasingly common: ADHD, allergies, eczema, psoriasis, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s disease), IBS, sleep disorders, seizures, and neurological conditions. Several speakers list multiple conditions affecting children, suggesting a broad chronic disease trend. - A striking statistic cited: “More than forty percent of American children now have at least one chronic health condition” (Speaker 5). Relatedly, autism rates are described as rising from “one in ten thousand” decades ago to “one in thirty one” today (Speaker 5). - An overarching contention is that these rapid increases are unlikely to be explained by genetics alone, given the relatively fast pace of change in incidence. The central study and the “hidden” narrative - The documentary frames a study led by a scientist who allegedly conducted research into chronic disease and vaccination but chose not to publish due to fear of repercussions. Hidden-camera investigations and interviews are used to explore why such data might remain unpublished and how the medical establishment responds to dissenting findings. - The film positions Dr. Zervos (Marcus Zervos), an infectious disease expert at Henry Ford Health System, as a pivotal figure who agreed to a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study but reportedly did not publish the results, leading the filmmakers to pursue further inquiry with him and others. Vaccines, safety testing, and the placebo question - A core claim is that vaccines have not undergone the gold standard of safety testing: double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials for the entire childhood schedule. The film argues that no childhood vaccine has completed such a trial prior to licensure. - The hepatitis B vaccine (Recombivax HB) is used as an example: its pre-licensure safety data reportedly cover only five days after each dose, with no long-term control group, and section 6.1 of the insert notes five days of safety monitoring, raising questions about detecting longer-term autoimmune or neurological injuries. - Opposing voices acknowledge ethical constraints around placebo trials in the presence of existing vaccines, but the documentary challenges this by pointing out that certain comparator trials (e.g., Prevnar 13 vs Prevnar 7) were not against saline placebo, and thus do not establish a safety baseline. - A recurring metaphor is the “whiskey study” scenario to illustrate how non-saline placebo comparisons can mislead safety conclusions. Retrospective and observational studies; the vaccine-safety signal - The film emphasizes retrospective and observational studies as alternatives to randomized trials, arguing they can reveal safety signals when prospective trials are unavailable. It highlights the Henry Ford Health System’s data as a major retrospective study: a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated analysis based on a large, integrated health database. - According to the film, the Henry Ford study found that vaccinated children had higher risks across multiple chronic health categories. Specifically, ten years of follow-up suggested: - Vaccinated children were 2.5 times more likely to have a chronic health condition overall. - An approximate fourfold increased risk for chronic health conditions in certain analyses. - A 4.29-times higher risk for autism was not statistically significant due to small autism counts in the unvaccinated group, but substantial signals were observed in other neurodevelopmental outcomes. - The study reported markedly higher rates of autoimmune diseases (around six times higher) and various neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated group compared with unvaccinated peers. - In the ten-year window, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health condition versus 17% of unvaccinated children. - The documentary notes methodological limitations common to retrospective studies, such as follow-up differences and confounding factors, but argues that sensitivity analyses did not overturn the main findings. The vaccine schedule, broader policy, and dissent within the medical community - The narrative asserts that a large portion of physicians publicly defend vaccines as safe and effective, with long-standing support for vaccination policies and mandates. Yet it also recounts stories of physicians who faced professional pushback, licensing actions, or public criticism after raising questions about vaccine safety or suggesting alternative research paths. - The film mentions the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 report, which stated that there were over 150 injuries likely associated with vaccines that had not been studied, and it notes that no large, randomized comparisons between fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated populations had been published by major institutions (as of the report’s release). - The filmmakers recount efforts to obtain a definitive vaccination–unvaccinated study from Henry Ford and other institutions, with some figures expressing willingness to publish if the study clearly demonstrated that unvaccinated children fared better, while others face professional or political pressures. Vaccine advocacy versus safety concerns; the call for replication - Pro-vaccine voices in the film emphasize that vaccines have prevented millions of deaths and remain broadly safe, citing the historical success of vaccines and the large body of published research supporting vaccine effectiveness and safety. - Proponents of re-examination advocate replicating retrospective cohort analyses in other large health systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente, Harvard Pilgrim, CDC’s VSD) to test whether similar patterns emerge. They stress the ethical and scientific necessity of replication to determine whether the observed signals hold across populations. - The film closes with a call for replication and transparency: if the data are robust, publishing them could transform the understanding of off-target and non-specific effects of vaccination. If replicated, such studies could reshape how vaccines are administered and studied. The documentary also threads personal stories of vaccine injury, including cases of severe reactions after various vaccines and the emotional and logistical toll on families. It juxtaposes these individual tragedies with the broader debate over vaccine safety research, urging readers to consider the evidence, replication, and the possibility that current vaccine safety paradigms may require reassessment.

Excitement surrounds the discussion of Pfizer's top-selling drugs as of 2019, which includes four medications and one vaccine. The clinical trials for these drugs involved long-term safety follow-ups, often lasting several years with placebo control groups to assess various health impacts. In contrast, the vaccine Prevnar had only a six-month safety review, using another vaccine as a control rather than a true placebo. This raises concerns about the thoroughness of safety evaluations for childhood vaccines, which are administered multiple times in the first six months of life. The disparity in study lengths suggests that economic interests may drive pharmaceutical companies to minimize safety testing to expedite market entry, raising questions about regulatory oversight.

None of the vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have undergone proper testing. No childhood vaccine has completed a placebo-controlled clinical trial with sufficient duration and power to confirm its safety before being administered to millions of children in America. This is not an opinion; it can be verified by anyone visiting the FDA website, where the package inserts and clinical trial documents are available for review.

The CDC conducted a study in 1999, led by Thomas Verstraten, comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The study examined children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first 30 days of life versus those vaccinated later or not at all. The initial findings revealed an 1135% elevated risk of autism among vaccinated children. The researchers were shocked and allegedly kept the study secret. The study was manipulated through five iterations to bury the link. Older children were removed from the data, focusing on younger children too young for diagnosis. The data was stratified, and other tricks were employed.