What drives me crazy is that these people are just unabashed grifters. Peter McCullough is part owner/chief science officer of The Wellness Company. https://www.twc.health/pages/leadership
That spike detox also cost $80 per month and has a subscription option. Why on earth would a person need a monthly subscription to such a product? Absolute grifting.
Also, check out the company staff. Their “Director of Epigenetics” is a Chiropractor. You seriously cannot make this stuff up.
Thanks so much for all you do. It’s amazing how soon after this dumpster fire of “Report” was released that you were able to systematically highlight its nonsensical flaws.
I can agree about this article. I suppose I am sharing a broader point that I have found very few spaces where discussion of risks is welcomed. Those who want to acknowledge them are shunned and seen as "quacks."
"Lack of research on the cumulative safety of the full pediatric schedule” means they are claiming that no one has studied overall vaccine schedule safety, which is false. The entire schedule has been studied extensively, including by the Institute of Medicine."
No, the entire schedule has not been studied extensively. Each vaccine is studied individually with little research on the effects of timing with regard to other vaccines. The IOM report in 2013 discussed this lack of research explicitly, but more than a decade later, there is little to no additional research published exploring different schedules and the effects of giving multiple vaccines in the same visit.
You're right that we don't have RCTs comparing different schedules—but that's because withholding vaccines from children violates medical ethics (equipoise) when we know vaccines prevent deadly diseases.
But we do have extensive real-world evidence. The VSD continuously monitors millions of children receiving the current schedule. Studies have compared outcomes between fully vaccinated children, partially vaccinated children, and those on delayed schedules. Post-licensure surveillance systems like VAERS and VSD specifically look for safety signals when vaccines are given together.
The 2013 IOM report you mentioned actually concluded the schedule is safe, noting that while they found few studies explicitly comparing alternative schedules, this was because the current schedule has been studied so thoroughly through decades of safety monitoring.
The demand for placebo-controlled trials of the entire schedule sets up an impossible standard... we can't ethically leave children unprotected from measles, polio, or pertussis just to create a control group. It's like demanding a placebo-controlled trial of parachutes.
The real-world evidence from billions of doses administered globally over decades, with multiple surveillance systems detecting even rare adverse events (like the 1 in 100,000 risk of intussusception with rotavirus vaccine), provides robust safety data. That's how we know the schedule works and is safe, and why we phrased things the way we did.
"The 2013 IOM report you mentioned actually concluded the schedule is safe"
Can you go ahead and cite the page and exact wording they used? I'm pretty sure they stated the "evidence is reassuring", but I don't recall anywhere they stated "the schedule is safe" but rather stated that "existing adverse event detection systems provide confidence that the existing <> schedule is safe". That's not remotely the same thing. And it is hardly surprising they wouldn't just state, "the schedule is safe", given that in 135 out of 158 cases they examined, the found insufficient evidence to reach any conclusion about the health condition being examined. That's the difference isn't it?
Opinion - "in our opinion, the available evidence suggests the schedule is safe"
Fact - "there is insufficient evidence"
In fact the committee said it was NOT asked to answer the question, "are vaccines safe?"
Note also you don't need to create a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, just a controlled study would add infinitely more science than we currently have on the vaccine schedule currently. By CDC estimates, there are some 200,000 unvaccinated (meaning, never having received any vaccine of any kind) children in the USA you can randomly select 10,000 from to study overall health outcomes, then compare to the overall health outcomes of the millions of children vaccinated to schedule you already have data on from the "decades of safety monitoring".
Thank you for your reply. I did not mention RCT's because I am aware of the ethical justifications for not conducting such a study. However, there is no reason not to explore such hypotheses through a retrospective study. Unfortunately, such studies are rarely published and do not provide adequate evidence to justify conclusions regarding the safety of the entire schedule.
The 2013 IOM report I mentioned specifically says "Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time
of review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule—for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies
....In summary, to consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire immunization schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability."
Yes, our systems are relatively good at picking up on adverse events that occur soon after the vaccination, but not for the kind of health conditions reviewed in the unpublished Henry Ford study available only via congressional committee hearing testimony, "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study". Why hasn't such a study been published in a peer-reviewed journal? It been more than a decade since the IOM report came out discussing the need for such a study and recommending further research on the number, frequency, timing, order, and age vaccines are recommended.
So despite all the real world evidence, I don't think the claim that the safety data is robust is justified. Vaccine safety studies routinely run tests and publish conclusions with the null hypothesis assuming that there is no increase in adverse events. They are presuming the vaccine is safe, and unless evidence is found to the contrary, that presumption prevails. This is a formulation of the null hypothesis that favors the vaccine industry over the health of the general public.
You claim "The authors exploit a fundamental logical problem: it’s impossible to “prove” a negative. We can’t definitively prove vaccines don’t cause autism any more than we can prove they don’t cause people to become left-handed." But then say "The evidence remains clear: vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives, and vaccines don’t cause autism." So which is it?
Great question...this is an important distinction.
We can't prove a negative with absolute mathematical certainty (that's philosophically impossible), but we can follow where the evidence leads. After decades of research involving millions of children, the evidence consistently shows no link between vaccines and autism. It's like saying we can't "prove" gravity exists with 100% certainty, but we have overwhelming evidence that it does. Science works on the weight of evidence, not absolute proof.
The McCullough report exploits this distinction, demanding impossible proof while ignoring mountains of actual evidence. That's the logical fallacy we're calling out.
Here's another answer: the evidence shows no association between vaccines and autism at the population level. Hence, vaccines did not cause the increase. But proving that vaccines did not form a partial cause for any individuals is impossible. Even if they did, it would not have any implications for any other individuals.
I read your text carefully, and it seemed logical to me, but when you cited the Danish study with 1.2 million children as something relevant, you buried everything previously written. You are probably not a scientist, so you do not understand that this study is practically worthless. Read the study and the comments below it. Something as bad as it is written so that the media can shut up anti-vaxxers, but science immediately recognized that the research is worthless.
"It contradicts decades of rigorous research involving millions of children showing no link between vaccines and autism"
And yet when the IOM looked at DTaP vaccines (given multiple times before the first MMR) and autism just in the last decade, they couldn't find sufficient evidence to accept OR REJECT a causal relationship despite "decades of rigorous research involving millions of children". Crazy, huh?
When I saw this "study" beginning to propagate across SubStack, like you I reasonably looked for authors and publisher. I was surprised, but not shocked by the return of Andrew Wakefield as it was inevitable, or Zenodo, but whatever... This is not a "study" built on nuance, original investigation, a new examination or re-calculation of old data, or, like Peter McCullough's latest book, more than a half-assed, even lukewarm attempt to critically re-examine or reframe history. The scientific threshold is so low that even the credits seem disingenuous and self-promotional. As you say, they are literally "demanding impossible proof while ignoring mountains of actual evidence," and fueling a new generation of "talking points" to bolster the old talking points of "no saline placebos,"and "no vaccinated v unvaccinated controls" clinical trials, despite, literally millions and millions of vaccinated children worldwide for decades. And to top it off, claiming no conflicts of interests when "wellness grifters," operating under the radar at HHS have, literally become the bêtte noire of medicine. Thankfully, wiser minds and souls recognize and exclaim, like Hamlet, "Go to, I'll no more on it. It hath made me mad!"
I appreciate the rigor of this undertaking. As a parent and a firm believer in science, the issue in the vaccine debate is that defenders don't acknowledge ANY risks of vaccines at all. And this invalidates your claims. We have no space for an intellectual conversation about costs and benefits and the actual risks. I want to hear someone acknowledge risks of vaccines and defend them without making an ad hominem argument. Let's just discuss the risks because they exist. You lose concerned parents when you act as though any concerns are baseless.
You're absolutely right—vaccines carry risks, as do all medical interventions (and all things, even water!). We regularly discuss these real risks in our content: allergic reactions, fever, rare complications like intussusception with rotavirus vaccine. These deserve transparent discussion without question.
This particular article specifically addressed the claim that vaccines cause autism, which decades of research have FAILED to support. That's different from dismissing all vaccine concerns as baseless. We believe in acknowledging genuine risks while correcting specific false claims. When a report uses retracted papers to claim vaccines are the "leading preventable cause of autism," that needs to be addressed directly.
The distinction between real risks and debunked claims actually enables the nuanced risk-benefit conversation you're calling for. Conflating them makes that harder.
Hi there. My husband has gone down a pretty deep anti-vax rabbit hole and we have our first baby due in a few months. I am very much, and have always been pro vax. Can you suggest any podcasts or audiobooks which I could share with him, that are digestable?
Hello! I am one of the authors of this article and I can share some resources from the Unbiased Science team. Unbiased Science actually does have their own podcast. Here are just a few vaccine-related episodes that may be useful:
this is pharma propaganda by the credentialed liars, vaccine certainly cause neurological injuries, neuroinflammation, encephalitis & autism , you want to tell the thousands of parents of my autistic patients that had their child regress right after a wcc check they’re wrong? you guys are idiotic pharma propagandists and just sinful , please make sure to keep up with your mrna injections ☠️☠️☠️
Superb, absolutely Superb. Thank you
This is high praise coming from YOU, Dr. Iannuccilli. Thank you so much!
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the time you take to dismantle the anti-vax posts.
Thank you
Thanks so much for saying this, Doreen. We are happy it is helpful!
What drives me crazy is that these people are just unabashed grifters. Peter McCullough is part owner/chief science officer of The Wellness Company. https://www.twc.health/pages/leadership
What do they sell? Their best seller seems to be "The Ultimate Spike Detox" which is exactly what it sounds like (it detoxes your body from the spike protein from COVID-19 vaccines). See this fun commercial that was shown on Fox. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/TfgV/the-wellness-company-ultimate-spike-detox-unexplained-health-symptoms
That spike detox also cost $80 per month and has a subscription option. Why on earth would a person need a monthly subscription to such a product? Absolute grifting.
Also, check out the company staff. Their “Director of Epigenetics” is a Chiropractor. You seriously cannot make this stuff up.
So gross
Thanks so much for all you do. It’s amazing how soon after this dumpster fire of “Report” was released that you were able to systematically highlight its nonsensical flaws.
Thank you for taking the time to shine a light on this issue
I can agree about this article. I suppose I am sharing a broader point that I have found very few spaces where discussion of risks is welcomed. Those who want to acknowledge them are shunned and seen as "quacks."
"Lack of research on the cumulative safety of the full pediatric schedule” means they are claiming that no one has studied overall vaccine schedule safety, which is false. The entire schedule has been studied extensively, including by the Institute of Medicine."
No, the entire schedule has not been studied extensively. Each vaccine is studied individually with little research on the effects of timing with regard to other vaccines. The IOM report in 2013 discussed this lack of research explicitly, but more than a decade later, there is little to no additional research published exploring different schedules and the effects of giving multiple vaccines in the same visit.
You're right that we don't have RCTs comparing different schedules—but that's because withholding vaccines from children violates medical ethics (equipoise) when we know vaccines prevent deadly diseases.
But we do have extensive real-world evidence. The VSD continuously monitors millions of children receiving the current schedule. Studies have compared outcomes between fully vaccinated children, partially vaccinated children, and those on delayed schedules. Post-licensure surveillance systems like VAERS and VSD specifically look for safety signals when vaccines are given together.
The 2013 IOM report you mentioned actually concluded the schedule is safe, noting that while they found few studies explicitly comparing alternative schedules, this was because the current schedule has been studied so thoroughly through decades of safety monitoring.
The demand for placebo-controlled trials of the entire schedule sets up an impossible standard... we can't ethically leave children unprotected from measles, polio, or pertussis just to create a control group. It's like demanding a placebo-controlled trial of parachutes.
The real-world evidence from billions of doses administered globally over decades, with multiple surveillance systems detecting even rare adverse events (like the 1 in 100,000 risk of intussusception with rotavirus vaccine), provides robust safety data. That's how we know the schedule works and is safe, and why we phrased things the way we did.
"The 2013 IOM report you mentioned actually concluded the schedule is safe"
Can you go ahead and cite the page and exact wording they used? I'm pretty sure they stated the "evidence is reassuring", but I don't recall anywhere they stated "the schedule is safe" but rather stated that "existing adverse event detection systems provide confidence that the existing <> schedule is safe". That's not remotely the same thing. And it is hardly surprising they wouldn't just state, "the schedule is safe", given that in 135 out of 158 cases they examined, the found insufficient evidence to reach any conclusion about the health condition being examined. That's the difference isn't it?
Opinion - "in our opinion, the available evidence suggests the schedule is safe"
Fact - "there is insufficient evidence"
In fact the committee said it was NOT asked to answer the question, "are vaccines safe?"
Note also you don't need to create a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, just a controlled study would add infinitely more science than we currently have on the vaccine schedule currently. By CDC estimates, there are some 200,000 unvaccinated (meaning, never having received any vaccine of any kind) children in the USA you can randomly select 10,000 from to study overall health outcomes, then compare to the overall health outcomes of the millions of children vaccinated to schedule you already have data on from the "decades of safety monitoring".
Thank you for your reply. I did not mention RCT's because I am aware of the ethical justifications for not conducting such a study. However, there is no reason not to explore such hypotheses through a retrospective study. Unfortunately, such studies are rarely published and do not provide adequate evidence to justify conclusions regarding the safety of the entire schedule.
The 2013 IOM report I mentioned specifically says "Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time
of review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule—for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies
....In summary, to consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire immunization schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability."
Yes, our systems are relatively good at picking up on adverse events that occur soon after the vaccination, but not for the kind of health conditions reviewed in the unpublished Henry Ford study available only via congressional committee hearing testimony, "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study". Why hasn't such a study been published in a peer-reviewed journal? It been more than a decade since the IOM report came out discussing the need for such a study and recommending further research on the number, frequency, timing, order, and age vaccines are recommended.
So despite all the real world evidence, I don't think the claim that the safety data is robust is justified. Vaccine safety studies routinely run tests and publish conclusions with the null hypothesis assuming that there is no increase in adverse events. They are presuming the vaccine is safe, and unless evidence is found to the contrary, that presumption prevails. This is a formulation of the null hypothesis that favors the vaccine industry over the health of the general public.
Link to Impact of Childhood Vaccination study:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf
You claim "The authors exploit a fundamental logical problem: it’s impossible to “prove” a negative. We can’t definitively prove vaccines don’t cause autism any more than we can prove they don’t cause people to become left-handed." But then say "The evidence remains clear: vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives, and vaccines don’t cause autism." So which is it?
Great question...this is an important distinction.
We can't prove a negative with absolute mathematical certainty (that's philosophically impossible), but we can follow where the evidence leads. After decades of research involving millions of children, the evidence consistently shows no link between vaccines and autism. It's like saying we can't "prove" gravity exists with 100% certainty, but we have overwhelming evidence that it does. Science works on the weight of evidence, not absolute proof.
The McCullough report exploits this distinction, demanding impossible proof while ignoring mountains of actual evidence. That's the logical fallacy we're calling out.
Thanks for engaging with the nuances here.
Here's another answer: the evidence shows no association between vaccines and autism at the population level. Hence, vaccines did not cause the increase. But proving that vaccines did not form a partial cause for any individuals is impossible. Even if they did, it would not have any implications for any other individuals.
I read your text carefully, and it seemed logical to me, but when you cited the Danish study with 1.2 million children as something relevant, you buried everything previously written. You are probably not a scientist, so you do not understand that this study is practically worthless. Read the study and the comments below it. Something as bad as it is written so that the media can shut up anti-vaxxers, but science immediately recognized that the research is worthless.
"It contradicts decades of rigorous research involving millions of children showing no link between vaccines and autism"
And yet when the IOM looked at DTaP vaccines (given multiple times before the first MMR) and autism just in the last decade, they couldn't find sufficient evidence to accept OR REJECT a causal relationship despite "decades of rigorous research involving millions of children". Crazy, huh?
Thank you, Jess and co-authors. I'm impressed that you took the time to do this, including reviewing over 300 references!
I subscribed to all the co-authors who have Substacks.
Why on earth would these authors do this? What is their motivation?
When I saw this "study" beginning to propagate across SubStack, like you I reasonably looked for authors and publisher. I was surprised, but not shocked by the return of Andrew Wakefield as it was inevitable, or Zenodo, but whatever... This is not a "study" built on nuance, original investigation, a new examination or re-calculation of old data, or, like Peter McCullough's latest book, more than a half-assed, even lukewarm attempt to critically re-examine or reframe history. The scientific threshold is so low that even the credits seem disingenuous and self-promotional. As you say, they are literally "demanding impossible proof while ignoring mountains of actual evidence," and fueling a new generation of "talking points" to bolster the old talking points of "no saline placebos,"and "no vaccinated v unvaccinated controls" clinical trials, despite, literally millions and millions of vaccinated children worldwide for decades. And to top it off, claiming no conflicts of interests when "wellness grifters," operating under the radar at HHS have, literally become the bêtte noire of medicine. Thankfully, wiser minds and souls recognize and exclaim, like Hamlet, "Go to, I'll no more on it. It hath made me mad!"
I appreciate the rigor of this undertaking. As a parent and a firm believer in science, the issue in the vaccine debate is that defenders don't acknowledge ANY risks of vaccines at all. And this invalidates your claims. We have no space for an intellectual conversation about costs and benefits and the actual risks. I want to hear someone acknowledge risks of vaccines and defend them without making an ad hominem argument. Let's just discuss the risks because they exist. You lose concerned parents when you act as though any concerns are baseless.
You're absolutely right—vaccines carry risks, as do all medical interventions (and all things, even water!). We regularly discuss these real risks in our content: allergic reactions, fever, rare complications like intussusception with rotavirus vaccine. These deserve transparent discussion without question.
This particular article specifically addressed the claim that vaccines cause autism, which decades of research have FAILED to support. That's different from dismissing all vaccine concerns as baseless. We believe in acknowledging genuine risks while correcting specific false claims. When a report uses retracted papers to claim vaccines are the "leading preventable cause of autism," that needs to be addressed directly.
The distinction between real risks and debunked claims actually enables the nuanced risk-benefit conversation you're calling for. Conflating them makes that harder.
Hi there. My husband has gone down a pretty deep anti-vax rabbit hole and we have our first baby due in a few months. I am very much, and have always been pro vax. Can you suggest any podcasts or audiobooks which I could share with him, that are digestable?
Hello! I am one of the authors of this article and I can share some resources from the Unbiased Science team. Unbiased Science actually does have their own podcast. Here are just a few vaccine-related episodes that may be useful:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6U6vAw572epSoBtpC6twrF?si=c9d10d3e16124708
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2dphlAdaQxjZyhKhNpXu4m?si=9e2c46cd41cc4a2d
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3cidvQj3eSDLolpQ9kOzdv?si=3725e4b6bb5f497f
We would also like to share the following resource: https://science.feedback.org/
I hope this is helpful!!
this is pharma propaganda by the credentialed liars, vaccine certainly cause neurological injuries, neuroinflammation, encephalitis & autism , you want to tell the thousands of parents of my autistic patients that had their child regress right after a wcc check they’re wrong? you guys are idiotic pharma propagandists and just sinful , please make sure to keep up with your mrna injections ☠️☠️☠️