TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Vaccine court has thousands of individuals who claim vaccines caused their children's autism, with supporting documentation. This presents an opportunity to study these children and identify common factors that may have made them susceptible to injury. The speaker has inquired why such a study hasn't been conducted. The responses given are inadequate, such as suggesting someone else should do it or citing privacy concerns. The speaker believes parents would gladly share records for research if approached with trust. The speaker suspects the lack of interest stems from a pre-existing knowledge of the answer, echoing Dr. Healy's suggestion that the question is deliberately avoided.

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.

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.

The speaker says their first break with the Democratic Party was over a Rolling Stone piece about rising autism rates. As secretary, they commissioned a study of autism, because previous CDC studies claimed no link between vaccines and autism. However, the Institute of Medicine stated in 2001 that such a link was biologically plausible and criticized the CDC's vaccine schedule decision-making process, alleging industry capture of the ACIP panel. The speaker claims the CDC only conducted epidemiological studies using fraudulent techniques, instead of a range of studies recommended by the Institute of Medicine. They allege a 1999 CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, found an 1135% elevated autism risk in vaccinated children, but the CDC concealed and manipulated the data. The speaker says they will conduct observational, retrospective, and epidemiological studies, making databases public for independent scientists. Grant requests have been issued to the scientific community, with initial answers expected by September, and definitive answers within six months. The speaker expects these answers to differ from the status quo. They advocate for independent research over blindly trusting experts, and promise gold standard science, publishing protocols, peer reviews, raw data, and requiring replication of every study.

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.

Danish study on aluminum in vaccines should be retracted, scientists say. The article by doctor Hvid, an apologist for aluminum in vaccines from Denmark, was caught. The first appendix published with the journal was not the right one; after press hoopla, the correct statistics were published. Senior scientist Collie Blanowski analyzed and said, 'they lied.' There is a 'statistical correlation between higher doses of aluminum' in their data, showing that people who got more aluminum had higher rates of autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental problems, and it should be retracted. If you remember back in COVID, the surgosphere study was 'completely laced with fraudulent data, and it was retracted.'

"autism is such a tremendous, horror show what's happening in our country and some other countries, but mostly our country." "We will have announcements as promised in September." "We're finding interventions certain interventions now that are clearly almost certainly causing autism." "In 1970, the biggest epidemiological study in history was done in Wisconsin." "They looked at 900,000 children and they were looking for autism." "incident rate of point seven." "Today, our most recent numbers are one in every thirty one kids." "California, which has the best collection system, is reporting one out of every nineteen children American children as autism, one in every twelve point five boys." "So it's gone from one less than one in ten thousand in 1970 to one in twelve point five boys." "We will."

The speaker asks if there has been a study comparing the health outcomes of children following the CDC vaccination schedule and those who are unvaccinated. The other speaker says they are not aware of such a study and suggests it may be considered bad malpractice not to vaccinate a child. They discuss the possibility of a retrospective study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, but note the need to control for confounders. The speaker presents an exhibit showing higher rates of health conditions in vaccinated children and suggests the need for larger studies to confirm or refute these findings. The other speaker agrees.

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 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.

"Chronic disease has gone from twelve point eight percent in our children in the nineteen eighties to over fifty four percent of our kids now." "72 times we are altering the immune system of our children with our vaccine program." "There'd be one easy study to rule it out, compare vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children." "But we don't know because they've never done the study." "The vaccinated subjects were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis." "Six hundred percent more acute and chronic ear infections." "Four point four seven times the amount of speech disorders in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated." "Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero. There was zero brain dysfunction, zero diabetes, zero behavioral problems, zero learning disabilities, zero intellectual disabilities, zero tics, and zero other psychological disabilities."

Everything regarding vaccine policy will change due to better information. No vaccines given in the first six months of life have been tested, except for the DTP vaccine. According to the Institute of Medicine, the one study done on DTP found a link, but it was thrown out because it was based on the CDC's surveillance system, which they deemed no good. The speaker questions why the CDC lacks a functional surveillance system, especially since vaccines are exempt from prelicensing safety testing. The CDC's system captures fewer than one percent of vaccine injuries, rendering it worthless. The speaker pledges to fix the system and follow the science, including publishing all data sets, replicating studies, and publishing peer reviews, which the CDC has never done. This will provide the public with real answers for the first time.

In early 2017, the speaker and Robert Kennedy Jr. met with Tony Fauci and Francis Collins at the NIH to discuss vaccine safety concerns. They questioned the absence of double-blind placebo safety trials for childhood vaccines. According to the speaker, Fauci and Collins admitted that such trials are not conducted because they would be unethical. The speaker proposed a comparative study using the Vaccine Safety Data Link (VSD) to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, assessing rates of cancer, diabetes, ADD/ADHD, autism, Tourette's, lupus, and leukemia. The speaker claims this study could be completed quickly, but alleges that NIH officials stated they would never conduct it. The speaker suggests that if vaccines were proven safe through such a study, concerns about vaccine safety would disappear. The speaker believes the study has been done, but the data was manipulated to make vaccinated people appear healthier.

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 speaker discusses the issue of unvaccinated individuals and the lack of studies conducted by the government. They argue that giving the vaccine to everyone absolves the government of understanding its effects. However, they found studies in plain sight that compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Over 100 such studies are featured in the book, with very few coming from the federal government. The FDA claims it is not their job to conduct these studies, but the problem lies in the funding of studies by those who stand to profit from the products. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should be evaluating the risks associated with vaccines, especially when given together, but they have been negligent in doing so. The speaker suggests that vaccines should undergo placebo-controlled trials like other drugs.

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

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 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.

the corruption of science, which I believe you just said. That is almost your number one goal. Right? Is try to bring integrity and credibility back to science, which has been corrupted by the people who pay for it, by federal health agencies being captured by pharmaceutical industries, by big pharma, by big food. In 02/2002, CDC did an internal study of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia children looked at children who got the MLR vaccine on time and compared those to kids who got them later. The data from that study showed that black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited. The chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to come into a room with four other co authors by his boss, Frank DeStefano, who’s the head of the immunization safety press, ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies. And we're going to change that right now.

I asked if they could provide a single prelicensing placebo-controlled safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines required for American children. After searching, they claimed the documents were in Bethesda, but I never received them. We then sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Act. After a year, they acknowledged they could not locate any prelicensing safety trials for the mandated vaccines. These vaccines come with zero liability. I am not anti-vaccine; I believe in honesty and good science. I've spent 30 years advocating to remove mercury from fish, and no one ever labeled me as anti-fish.

02/2013, the Institute of Medicine, commissioned by HHS, reviewed the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule and concluded, "the studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted." It also stated, "there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe," and noted, "The IRM report did say it is, quote, possible to make the comparison, meaning through vaccinated, unvaccinated children, through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as the vaccine safety data link, end quote." Has it been done? I don't know. Has it been published? No. In 2017, ICAN sought this study; Del Bigtree met Dr. Marcus Zervos, who agreed to conduct it at Henry Ford. The study found vaccinated children had higher rates of asthma, atopic disease, autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders; ADHD occurred in the vaccinated but not unvaccinated; about 16,000 vs 2,000. After ten years, 57% vs 17% had at least one chronic health issue. It was not published because its findings did not fit the belief and policy that vaccines are safe; "we can protect children from infectious disease, and we can protect children from vaccine harms."

The speaker states that previous CDC studies on autism were epidemiological and designed to avoid finding a link. They claim the Institute of Medicine criticized the CDC's vaccine schedule decision-making, alleging the ASIP panel was captured by industry due to financial entanglements. The speaker says the Institute of Medicine recommended various studies, including animal models, which the CDC allegedly ignored, opting instead for manipulated epidemiological studies. They claim these studies didn't compare fully vaccinated to unvaccinated groups. According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten found an 1135% elevated autism risk in vaccinated children. They allege the CDC concealed and manipulated this study to bury the link by removing older children from the data and using other statistical tricks. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.

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.

The speaker claims previous studies indicating no link between certain factors and specific outcomes were flawed. They allege researchers eliminated older children from the data, stratified the data improperly, and used other "tricks." The speaker states that external literature shows over 100 studies indicating a link. They announce plans to conduct new observational, retrospective, and epidemiological studies, as originally recommended by the Institute of Medicine, using publicly available databases. They characterize this new approach as "real science."