Over 300 pages of evidence from the CDC show that vaccines cause autism

11/20/2024 / By News Editors

Executive summary

Article republished from KirschSubstack.com)
I recently received a treasure trove of electronic documents from deep inside the CDC. These documents have never been made publicly available.

The documents include voice-recordings, emails, hand-written notes, diagrams, and data.

The often repeated claim that “vaccines don’t cause autism” is quite simply inconsistent with this evidence which can be authenticated.

I am working with Trevor Fitzgibbon to pitch this to all the mainstream media so that I’m not talking to an echo chamber with this data. It is much better if we can get the blue-pilled media to red-pill their peers; it’s unlikely to happen any other way.

This is a huge scandal and our kids having been paying the price for decades all because the CDC doesn’t want to publicly admit they were wrong

I spoke with a top journalist at Inside Edition who thought that it’s one of the biggest stories of the decade. He said he would try to interest his friends at 60 Minutes and other outlets in viewing the data (the story is too big for IE).

I will keep you apprised.

The documents can be authenticated by people inside and outside the CDC.

I’ve sent the documents to others on our side (just in case something happens to me).

Brian Hooker analyzed the CDC autism study data from the DeStefano paper; the evidence I received confirms what he found

The Hooker paper is published in the scientific peer-reviewed literature and is simply an analysis of the data that the CDC officials told CDC scientist William Thompson to destroy.

Look at the last row. The OR and p-value. We are done. Nobody has pointed out a calculation mistake in this paper. It passed two rounds of peer-review at TWO different medical journals!!

See the 3.86 odds ratio in the last row? See the .005 p-value? Those are damning. There is no way to explain such large effect sizes.

This is why Coleen Boyle ordered Thompson to destroy the subgroup data showing the high OR value: because they couldn’t make the signal go away so they made the data go away.

Also, the evidence I obtained shows that Coleen Boyle would have flatly refused to testify in Congress about the matter had US Congressman Bill Posey been able to follow through on his desire to have a hearing. Why would she do that if they weren’t hiding anything? Unfortunately, Posey was ordered by his peers in Congress to nix the investigation to protect the drug companies. That’s why it never happened.

OR= 3.86 with a p-value of .005 is an absolute train wreck.

It means that most of the autism in that subgroup is caused by vaccines.

There is no other viable explanation of the data.

If the MMR shots are safe with respect to autism, all the OR values in the table above should all be very close to 1 (and the p-values should be >0.10) because these are measure of the timing of the MMR shot (not the timing of the autism diagnosis) which has to be IRRELEVANT if the shots are safe.

How did the CDC respond to Thompson’s allegations that his boss Coleen Boyle illegally ordered him to destroy the subgroup analysis documents linking the MMR vaccine and autism?

The CDC did an internal investigation and talked to the people in the room where the incident happened. Four of them said it didn’t happen and that Thompson fabricated the whole story. The CDC internal investigation determined they were right because it was 4 against 1. That’s it.

But my evidence chest shows that all the evidence is consistent with his narrative about being ordered to trash the data they didn’t like.

And the DeStefano paper itself is evidence because the 3.86 odds ratio in the data should have been disclosed in the paper.

In science, you are not allowed to do a subgroup analysis, find a signal, and then not mention it in the paper. If you think the signal is false, you then need to provide the data showing it is false. You can’t unwind the video tape, destroy the evidence, and pretend it didn’t happen… that is unethical. You have to keep going down the rabbit hole. That’s how science works. It is illegal to destroy government data. And you never destroy any study data prior to publication of your study. That is unprecedented. Why would they do that? They did it to hide the signal because they couldn’t hide it through statistical manipulation.

Nobody can explain the pediatrician temporal data: the CDC switched topics when asked by a pediatrician to explain the data she observed

Pediatrician “L” (she didn’t want her named used until after she goes through her EMR records manually to confirm her estimates) estimates around 180 kids in her practice had rapid onset autism. Of those, she believes the majority happened within 2 week after a vaccination visit. She never thought about looking at the actual data so it could be close to 100% of the cases. EMR systems don’t track this, so you have to manually look at each case individually. She told me she would do that.

There is no way to explain these numbers if vaccines don’t trigger autism.

When she confronted the CDC and asked them “So how do you explain why autism cases are so likely to happen just after vaccination if vaccines don’t cause autism?” they just switch topics and point to what the peer-reviewed studies showed and avoid answering the question. Real scientists never switch topics when asked to explain data. Science is about the search for truth, not dismissing data you don’t like.

But Dr. L is hardly alone.

Pediatrician Doug Hulstedt did track the case history of all his incoming patients with autism. He has seen over 180 autistic kids in his 35 year career as a pediatrician. He is highly rated by his patients for his medical care.

Of the 44 kids with “rapid onset” autism, 100% of these cases happened within 14 days after a vaccination of one or more vaccines.

100%.

All Doug did was a medical history by asking for the vaccination records of the kids and the date that the autism was first noticed by the parents.

There is not a single study in the medical literature that looked at kids with rapid onset autism and plotted the date of the vaccine that was most proximate to the event, whether it was before or after. Why is that? Because it would find a huge signal. That’s why the studies never do it.

If vaccines don’t cause autism, there will be an equal number of cases where the “closest vaccine” to the onset data was before vs. after.

This is why these autism studies never find a signal. They always use a methodology which is not sensitive to timing. They never use the more sensitive measure I just describe. And most pediatricians if you ask them their numbers don’t know because they don’t track it. And pretty much all of them refuse to look at what their numbers are.