A note comes up from NYT that they are having issues. I signed into my account, and still have the same problem! I tried go directly to the NYT app and searching for the article, still unable to read the full article. 🧐
How do these nimwits explain that autism exists in non-vaccinated kids at the same rate as vaccinated? In fact, a recent Dutch study of millions of kids showed that vaccination resulted in slightly less autism. Sadly, many people will have to learn the truth the hard way when their child suffered and/or dies of pertussis or measles. And when the unvaccinated kids still have autism.
And of course there is the ECHO Consortium study that shows there is a microbiome signature that predicts future autism in children as young as 6 weeks (Pre-Vaccine!)
They explain it by pressuring publishers and scientists to hide evidence contradicting their "narratives." Or firing them or forcing them out from NIH (Kevin D. Hall). And just not funding research by none "Party members."
Where is the evidence that the vaccine protects against measles when it was introduced in 1968 at the bottom of the exponential drop in cases and deaths since the 1800s?
Once again, thank you, Jess. Your main points are excellent and well documented. As you wrote, "We absolutely need more research into what drives autism, but if the upcoming government study uses the same kind of manipulation Mr. Geier and others previously employed to show a link between vaccines and autism, we can expect devastating consequences."
But I must take issue with the claim that most of the increase in autism is due to increasing awareness, standardized diagnostic tools, expanded screening and broadened criteria such folding Asperger's into ASD in 2013. The one citation in the NYT article supporting that claim is the Zeidan et al 2022 systematic review. That study briefly mentions their finding of a substantial increase in autism prevalence since their prior review. But much of the study is devoted to saying, without evidence, that other factors such as those explain it away.
In contrast, the direct evidence from epidemiological data is that we have experienced a strong, ongoing increase in case incidence, which is the appropriate measure, since approximately 1980. I am writing a systematic review starting from the Zeidan paper that examines all of the available evidence on the trend in autism case incidence.
I'm an epidemiologist who for many years has studied the question of how much of the observed increase is real and how much is an artifact of factors such as these. I have not yet found any valid evidence (*) of significant artifactual increases. And, I published what appears to be the only analytical method that can answer the question.
Please, don't make the mistake that many scientists have been making for years: conflating the valid conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism with the invalid assertion that there is no real increase. That has the unintended consequence of empowering anti-vaxxers. They can and do point to the denial of the increase as a coverup of something and claim that it's covering up a problem with vaccines.
* — if anyone knows of valid evidence that the increase in autism prevalence or incidence (not the same thing) was caused by something other than a true increase please share it with me. I've studied every paper I have heard of that supposedly shows that. Feel free to message me via Substack.
If vaccines “cause” autism then everyone who gets vaccinated would have autism.
Many vaccines have a (documented in their insert) causal relationship with cerebral edema. Meaning that sometimes cerebral edema happens as a result of vaccination.
Cerebral edema has a causal relationship with autism. Meaning that sometimes a person who experiences cerebral edema develops autism as a result.
Nobody is trying to hide the causal relationship between vaccination and autism. Instead they hide behind the definition of the word “cause”
Almost every single thing the “whacko” cite as being “caused” by vaccination really do have a causal relationship with vaccination.
Nearly everyone will tell me that I’m wrong instead of actually reading the manufacturer inserts.
Things that vaccine manufacturers report having a causal relationship with vaccination.
Cerebral edema
Neuropathy
Diabetes and other autoimmune diseases
Actual measles (not shedding, full blown contagious measles)
The list is actually quite long.
They even know the genetic markers for those most at risk.
Imagine your doctor saying “Your child’s DNA test results show they should not ever get vaccinated” and then having a world full of people who can’t define “cause” say they are wrong and you are irresponsible.
Nothing I have said is factually inaccurate yet I already know that every intelligent person who reads this will disagree with every point I’ve made.
The irony that an entire world full of intelligent people can be manipulated by the misuse of a single word.
It’s just like big tobacco saying nicotine isn’t addictive. It’s not. But it’s not nicotine anymore by the time it’s working on your brain.
Self fulfilling confirmation bias for big pharma isn’t smart. It isn’t responsible, and it certainly isn’t science.
You make oversimplifications, unfounded assumptions and factually incorrect contentions, showing that you're not nearly as knowledgeable and logical as you claim.
Nicotine itself crosses the blood-brain barrier largely unchanged, and it IS addictive.
Yes simplifications. I don’t write papers in a comment.
No incorrect assumptions.
No factually incorrect statements.
The standard form of nicotine is not meaningfully addictive. Once treated with ammonia nicotine becomes freebase nicotine which is a substantially different chemical in terms of the dopamine reward system. Cigarettes, e-cigs, etc contain freebase nicotine. This distinction allows people to say things like “nicotine isn’t additive” or “to my knowledge nicotine isn’t addictive” knowing full well that “nicotine” isn’t what they’re selling.
This is the exact same nuance of language used with the word “cause”.
Short list of SNPs. Whether homozygous, heterozygous, and in what combination matter but that’s a whole domain of expertise on its own.
The specific contraindications or risks vary there isn’t just one.
It is important to note that how these SNP’s interplay and present as an epigenetic whole is key. Individual SNP contributions can’t be reviewed and dismissed discretely.
"The pattern is clear– no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient because the goal isn't scientific truth but manufactured controversy to justify policy changes."
This can of course be taken many ways. Later in the article Jess says "...we know their playbook". Yes, and that can be taken many ways also. I would ask, "where do you think they learned the playbook?"
I can't answer for Dr. Steier, but these are well-known authoritarian tactics; undermine trusted institutions so that only the leader and chosen narratives appear credible.
Target institutions: Trump, bobby and allies repeatedly attack HHS, NIH, CDC, FDA, and similar agencies, portraying them as corrupt or incompetent. Good vs. Evil, us vs. them.
Defund and delegitimize: Slash science & public-health budgets, weaken institutional capacity, then the weakness is used as proof of “failure.”
Discredit experts: By labeling scientists, epidemiologists, and regulators as liars or puppets, they erode trust in independent expertise.
Flood the zone with misinformation: Promoting conspiracy theories and contradictory claims creates confusion, making it harder for the public to know what’s true and whom to trust.
Consolidate power; only those pushing regime narratives get funding. Regime quashes/ censors contradictory evidence.
These are cassic moves to destroy confidence in neutral sources of truth, so that people look only to the strongman or the movement for guidance = Cult of personality - Orange and Bobby as saviors.
This approach doesn’t just question policies. It works to remake reality itself by sowing distrust and dependency, a hallmark of authoritarian political strategy.
Read Anne Applebaum, Jason Stanley - or go back to Hannah Ahrendt.
Yes, the playbook is well established. Many have used it. On all sides. It started long before this little snafu erupted. Decades ago at least. I read every day how red meat and processed meat are bad for you. They're lumped together so the red meat can be tarnished by the same brush. Convenient. Red meat is not bad for you. It's a lie. The vaunted authorities are as guilty as anyone of the same distortional tactics and politics-driven science. None have lily white reputations to fall back on. I'm very choosy about the official narrative. Some of it is pure rubbish. Just sayin'.
Fad diets and over hyped claims and warnings have always been around - more often the province of "the left." Over the last decade or so much of this has been wrapped up in or adjacent to the culture war stuff. The rightwing disinformation machine really embraced a lot of this with COVID, to undermine expertise, etc. But the all out authoritarian assault on reality is trump2/Heritage-P2025 stuff - facilitated by the tech titans.
Ok. I’m not trying to hassle you here. I’ve developed and validated test methods in biotech for decades. You’re right to question me and Jill Steier on genetic interactions or cause and effect. Keep an open mind as I will too. The key is people should not be mandated to inject themselves or their babies in order to go to school or work. Best of luck to you.
Can you show me one double blind contagion study for a virus. I believe Dr Stefan Lanka is offering or did offer a huge sum for anyone who could find one. He won in court over this.
I don’t study or care about contagion theory. It’s not related to this thread in any way.
You think because you don’t believe in virus then there can’t be virus in a vaccine. Ergo vaccines are safe. Which demonstrates that you’re not qualified to have an opinion on this subject.
Viral fragments are meant to be present but it’s adjuvants that do the work. Those aren’t imaginary. They’re things like aluminum. Is aluminum imaginary too?
Oooo oooo how about when we use virus to perform genetic engineering? We make that up to?
You’re irrational and looking for a forum to project in. Neat. Unsubscribe.
You are scientifically illiterate. Stop parroting and read the contagion studies, John Enders cytopath effect method, PCR method and computer algorithms. Don’t get mad, just do the work.
My doctor said that myself and my children’s SNPs are contraindicated with vaccination.
Then everyone I know told me that I’m an irresponsible loon.
So I studied and studied and studied. I’m not parroting a single thing. These facts I have said are strait from the CDC or from the vaccine manufacturer. Laymen reading scientific literature is half the problem.
If you trying to tell me that there isn’t a causal relationship between vaccination and autism, you’re either a liar, live in deliberate ignorance, or are yourself a parrot.
What do contagion studies have to do with vaccine injury?
Just read the CDC warnings and the vaccine insert literature. It’s right there.
So you’ve reviewed the contagion studies, the false positive negative controls for the cytopathic effect test method and the algorithms the PCR uses and still think virology is legit?
Contagion / Vaccine efficacy and vaccine related injury aren’t related in any way. Contagion studies justify collateral damage, not dismiss it as fact.
Focusing on a completely unrelated vector doesn’t sound like science to me at all.
The contagion myth justifies the false assumption that you will inhale invisible particles (never documented) and an injection of a piece of the invisible virus will tune your immune system through antibodies to attack the invisible particles so you don’t get sick. One falsehood piled on another. The whole house of cards falls when you dig into contagion, John Enders method and Cary Mullins’ original work.
Excellent opinion and subsequent article! Perhaps I am too easily dazzled, but the manner in which the graphics were revealed in conjunction with the text was impressive and helpful in my understanding. This took a great deal of work by you, and I tip my hat to your diligence!
Not to "diss" Dr. Steier and her excellent essay, but the graphics are courtesy of New York Times' "graphics editors," as per the byline. Subscribe if you like the look.
The New York Times often publishes articles with animated graphics like these. They are created by New York Times, and all the ones I have seen have Sara Chodosh listed as one of the people having done the graphics.
I read the New York Times daily, and my reading comprehension is high. I have a lot of interest in our healthcare system, and I would like to see it improved. We spend too much money (nearing 20% of GDP) to get so little.
Going after Bobby Kennedy because he may have stacked the deck on this autism study is premature. The study itself is a good idea. Autism is a big problem, and it seems to be growing. We should try to find out why.
If Bobby Kennedy does identify vaccines as the culprit, he should be criticized. He hasn't yet. Don't convict him for a crime he hasn't committed.
And I don't parrot anybody, least of all Bobby Kennedy. I'm not a member of his cult. I've long been a critic of his views and I opposed his nomination.
But I have been impressed by what he has done. He is no stuffed shirt like Xavier Becerra before him. He has gone in and fought. Loony Laura Loomer got one of his people, Vanay Prasad, kicked out of the FDA, and Bobby Kennedy got him brought back. Good for him.
Jay Bhattacharya has been a great choice too. He has long studied, as an economist with an MD at Stanford, how to improve the research grant process at the NIH. Now he can put his ideas into practice. The results are already starting to show.
I'm critical of Bobby Kennedy when he deserves it. But unlike others here, I'm not afraid to praise him when he deserves praise.
"Going after" Bobby for his repeated brazen lies, some counter to public health. And for pushing quackery, his multiple logical inconsistencies, multiple serious conflicts of interest and flagrant hypocrisy.
There's certainly a lot to criticize Bobby Kennedy for, as you point out. I'm just objecting to those who criticize him for conducting a study that found vaccines cause autism. He hasn't done that.
Thank you for a beautifully written article! What an exposé of the distorted data selection and analysis used by these abusers of the scientific method! Much appreciated. It is too be noted that people will take this info and spread it to counter the current assault on health, medicine, and science. I certainly will.
Loved the NYT article! Clear, concise and the graphics helped with simplification. Very cool btw. This is exactly the type of media attention needed to save vaccines. If only Fox News could do a piece on this issue.
Also, can you write another article like the NYT one but about how RFKjr and his team of propagandists profit from spreading anti-science rhetoric? Historically, currently and predicting future profits from changing the vaccine injury list. Exposing their profits the way they try accusing scientists of being Big Pharma shills. This topic needs to go viral imo.
The essay was superb and comprehensive, as was required. I would caution that, like the equally brilliant shoulders of the researchers & physicians upon which you stand, known & unknown, who brought us to this point, and are now sacrificed and missing from what once constituted the greatest public health conglomerate this country has ever seen, the battle has only begun. This band of incompetent grifters are undoubtedly already fashioning a response to this article, and will soon “flood the zone,” not with science, but again, with talking points and character insults prior to their “rollout.” We have had enough, and if anything, this article summarizes and confirms years of conclusive and unchallengeable genetic and epigenetic data that will withstand whatever they may propose. You have managed to succinctly gather the necessary data into a concise & precise argument. Applause.
Aluminum taken orally is not the same as aluminum injected. THIS is not even an argument.
What, Malone as RFK's right hand man isn't good enough to have making decisions about drugs y'all inject into your children.
You do know that it's unethical to test use babies and children in clinical trials?
So where is the safety data, I'm always reading that it exists, but to date,vive never seen it, gotten to read it, etc.
I'm referring to the CDC's recommended shots list which started to grow exponentially at the end of GenX.
What I find to be weird is that Boomers and GenX folks share the same spaces, air, etc with those generations after X. No?
I'm GenX, I had basic shots as a child, Boomers had less. YET, our generations do not have the physical & mental lists of issues like generations after X. This is a FACT.
They have been sensitized by shots to gluten, milk, gut health mightily affected. Thus is what causes the skin issues, allergies, etc.
ADHD is linked to being in utero of stressed parents.
Parent gave their parental authority away some time ago, now, they stand on the sidelines like they are some spectactor at an event. When something does come up, nit their fault.
I'm very familiar with the lists of autistic 'traits' .
What do y'all expect when they grow up in front of screens?
Pediatricians, some are finally stepping up and speaking out.
Numbers don't lie. This who do not buy into the CDC's poison schedule, never are in the office for sick visits.
So unbiased means things are looked at objectively and not subjectively. Biased means that you take all criteria and information in and draw conclusions based on factual findings and known issues. Nobody is saying that vaccines should be pulled from the market. What is happening is a pulling back of the curtain of adverse events that are not talked about enough or mentioned sufficiently so that each individual can make an "informed" decision. There are a lot of unknowns and what you have to do is work on the knowns. This is right out of the MMR warnings from CDC, Revised November 2024 (important date to take note of). Here are the warnings. Quoted: https://www.fda.gov/media/75191/download
Fact: "There is a risk of fever and associated febrile seizure in the first 2 weeks following immunization... For children with a history of febrile seizures or a family history, there is a small increase in risk."
Fact: "Transient thrombocytopenia has been reported within 4–6 weeks following vaccination... Carefully evaluate the potential risk and benefit in children with thrombocytopenia or those who experienced it after a previous dose."
These warnings are not conspiracy theories—they're published by the manufacturer and reviewed by regulatory bodies. Yet many individuals who report neurological injuries or severe adverse reactions are dismissed or gaslit, especially when their symptoms fall outside the narrow definitions used in clinical trials. If someone has been harmed and then told that it wasn't caused by something that already had a warning for it... who is being gaslit or stigmatized? Nobody is stigmatizing those who choose to get vaccinated. Everybody deserves the right to make that decision for themselves without being stigmatized on whether they do or do not choose to. Clear and factual information and informed consent is the key. And this would be without minimizing the severe or serious risks. In fact, a very close family member right after receiving the MMR experienced a fever of 107 right after and started convulsing on the way to the ER. So it does happen. Also it's been stated that there were fewer issues when the shots were given individually and not all together.
Fact: Multiple studies and CDC data confirm that the combined MMRV vaccine carries a higher risk of febrile seizures than giving MMR and varicella separately:
MMRV: ~7–8 febrile seizures per 10,000 children
MMR + Varicella separately: ~3–4 per 10,000 children
That’s nearly double the risk for the combo shot in children under 4 years old.
Fact: The data shows that separate shots had a lower risk profile, especially for febrile seizures and immune overload in sensitive children. When the vaccine manufacturer discontinued the single-antigen vaccines in 2009, it removed the ability to compare outcomes between separate and combined doses in real-world settings.
So in essence, if you remove the possibility of making a comparison or studying the differences between both the separate shots and the combined shots, you remove the evidence of the potential for increased risks. And this was done at times both in the UK and the US when there were questions and concerns with the combined MMR, which was introduced in 1971. So if there were manufacturing issues, which was the alleged reason (pretty weak excuse in my opinion), it was pretty conveniently timed for squashing any ability to do further studies between the two.
US (2009): Again when safety concerns came into play.
So personally, during a 1991 NY measles outbreak, I was unfortunate to get the measles at that age during the outbreak in that year. I was one of those 5,000 during 1990 and mid-1991. Over 21 died. A nurse that was taking care of some of my friends was one of them. So I'm not against vaccines by any means. And I'm not political for any side, I'm neutral. But I am for factual data that helps me make an informed decision. I was interviewed by the CDC that year and was re-vaccinated shortly after my ordeal. There are a lot of risks when you get the disease too. So that's a fact. I went through it at age 20. But would I like the ability to have separate vaccines if they truly are less risky? Of course. But how would someone know if that data is no longer available? That is probably the sickest I'd ever been in my entire life. So it's definitely an important decision for your health. But hiding or manipulating data for profit or some other nefarious purpose is evil. Patients deserve to know the truth without market spin and fraudulent ghostwritten articles. I've seen journalists who make blanket statements that completely defend status quo. Status quo is not working for the average USA life expectancy.
Third leading cause of death in USA are ADEs:
The American Society of Pharmacovigilance (ASP) estimates that ADEs account for 250,000 to 300,000 deaths annually, surpassing deaths from stroke and respiratory disease.
This includes:
Prescribing errors
Drug-drug interactions
Allergic reactions
Overdoses and misuse of prescription medications
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that occur even when medications are taken correctly.
So informed consent, not blind trust, is what people should be aiming for when they make decisions that affect them or their family members. But if that data is fraudulent or not sufficient and based on market and financial interests, then health safety takes 2nd or 3rd place. Demand more information from your doctor, dig for the facts, and don't turn it into a one side or the other issue. Objectivity requires factual evidence based on either personal experience or proven facts. When there are warnings in the documentation, read them and take them seriously. Do research beyond what the monograph says. If I'm buying a product, I read the reviews of real-world owners of that product. Would you not want to do that even more for vaccines and medications that you put into your body or that your family member is taking? Inform yourself with truth, not spin. It's a personal decision and nobody should make you feel bad for making that decision, one way or the other. But risk-benefit ratio is off if the information is a lie or biased toward the product. I don't only read the reviews on the product's manufacturer website. I don't think that I need to explain that reason. The bottom line is patients deserve to know the truth about the risks without minimization and without fraudulent studies.
Late reply but thank you for taking the time to write this up! I am absolutely convinced that your position is the best to take. When we think about vaccines in such binary terms as "to vax or never to vax", we skip crucial pieces of information that can hide right under our noses and that may mean the difference between life and death. Wish more people see and take the time to read this.
Outstanding!
Great work! Just an fyi, the link to the NYT article at the bottom is dead (at least for me)
Same!!
A note comes up from NYT that they are having issues. I signed into my account, and still have the same problem! I tried go directly to the NYT app and searching for the article, still unable to read the full article. 🧐
Is it working now?
Working for me now too!
It works on my computer!
🙌🏻
No. 😣
Not yet.
Who would pay the NYT to be propagandized?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/08/19/opinion/vaccines-autism-evidence.html?smid=url-share
How do these nimwits explain that autism exists in non-vaccinated kids at the same rate as vaccinated? In fact, a recent Dutch study of millions of kids showed that vaccination resulted in slightly less autism. Sadly, many people will have to learn the truth the hard way when their child suffered and/or dies of pertussis or measles. And when the unvaccinated kids still have autism.
And of course there is the ECHO Consortium study that shows there is a microbiome signature that predicts future autism in children as young as 6 weeks (Pre-Vaccine!)
They explain it by pressuring publishers and scientists to hide evidence contradicting their "narratives." Or firing them or forcing them out from NIH (Kevin D. Hall). And just not funding research by none "Party members."
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/medical-journal-rejects-kennedys-call-for-retraction-vaccine-study-2025-08-11/
https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r1765
Where is the evidence that the vaccine protects against measles when it was introduced in 1968 at the bottom of the exponential drop in cases and deaths since the 1800s?
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/vaccine-efficacy?utm_source=publication-search
Kiids that didn't get shots, autism exists at the same rate as those who did.
Lol.
Excellent article. I am sharing it with all of the pediatric residents and medical students I teach!
This article is truly fantastic
Once again, thank you, Jess. Your main points are excellent and well documented. As you wrote, "We absolutely need more research into what drives autism, but if the upcoming government study uses the same kind of manipulation Mr. Geier and others previously employed to show a link between vaccines and autism, we can expect devastating consequences."
But I must take issue with the claim that most of the increase in autism is due to increasing awareness, standardized diagnostic tools, expanded screening and broadened criteria such folding Asperger's into ASD in 2013. The one citation in the NYT article supporting that claim is the Zeidan et al 2022 systematic review. That study briefly mentions their finding of a substantial increase in autism prevalence since their prior review. But much of the study is devoted to saying, without evidence, that other factors such as those explain it away.
In contrast, the direct evidence from epidemiological data is that we have experienced a strong, ongoing increase in case incidence, which is the appropriate measure, since approximately 1980. I am writing a systematic review starting from the Zeidan paper that examines all of the available evidence on the trend in autism case incidence.
I'm an epidemiologist who for many years has studied the question of how much of the observed increase is real and how much is an artifact of factors such as these. I have not yet found any valid evidence (*) of significant artifactual increases. And, I published what appears to be the only analytical method that can answer the question.
Please, don't make the mistake that many scientists have been making for years: conflating the valid conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism with the invalid assertion that there is no real increase. That has the unintended consequence of empowering anti-vaxxers. They can and do point to the denial of the increase as a coverup of something and claim that it's covering up a problem with vaccines.
* — if anyone knows of valid evidence that the increase in autism prevalence or incidence (not the same thing) was caused by something other than a true increase please share it with me. I've studied every paper I have heard of that supposedly shows that. Feel free to message me via Substack.
The issue is layman use of the word “cause.”
If vaccines “cause” autism then everyone who gets vaccinated would have autism.
Many vaccines have a (documented in their insert) causal relationship with cerebral edema. Meaning that sometimes cerebral edema happens as a result of vaccination.
Cerebral edema has a causal relationship with autism. Meaning that sometimes a person who experiences cerebral edema develops autism as a result.
Nobody is trying to hide the causal relationship between vaccination and autism. Instead they hide behind the definition of the word “cause”
Almost every single thing the “whacko” cite as being “caused” by vaccination really do have a causal relationship with vaccination.
Nearly everyone will tell me that I’m wrong instead of actually reading the manufacturer inserts.
Things that vaccine manufacturers report having a causal relationship with vaccination.
Cerebral edema
Neuropathy
Diabetes and other autoimmune diseases
Actual measles (not shedding, full blown contagious measles)
The list is actually quite long.
They even know the genetic markers for those most at risk.
Imagine your doctor saying “Your child’s DNA test results show they should not ever get vaccinated” and then having a world full of people who can’t define “cause” say they are wrong and you are irresponsible.
Nothing I have said is factually inaccurate yet I already know that every intelligent person who reads this will disagree with every point I’ve made.
The irony that an entire world full of intelligent people can be manipulated by the misuse of a single word.
It’s just like big tobacco saying nicotine isn’t addictive. It’s not. But it’s not nicotine anymore by the time it’s working on your brain.
Self fulfilling confirmation bias for big pharma isn’t smart. It isn’t responsible, and it certainly isn’t science.
You make oversimplifications, unfounded assumptions and factually incorrect contentions, showing that you're not nearly as knowledgeable and logical as you claim.
Nicotine itself crosses the blood-brain barrier largely unchanged, and it IS addictive.
Yes simplifications. I don’t write papers in a comment.
No incorrect assumptions.
No factually incorrect statements.
The standard form of nicotine is not meaningfully addictive. Once treated with ammonia nicotine becomes freebase nicotine which is a substantially different chemical in terms of the dopamine reward system. Cigarettes, e-cigs, etc contain freebase nicotine. This distinction allows people to say things like “nicotine isn’t additive” or “to my knowledge nicotine isn’t addictive” knowing full well that “nicotine” isn’t what they’re selling.
This is the exact same nuance of language used with the word “cause”.
Heat doesn’t cause fire.
Sex doesn’t cause pregnancy.
Vaccines don’t cause autism.
They all have casual relationships.
I don’t use drugs. But I’m vaccine injured. My son is vaccine injured, and my doctor says my DNA markers are contraindicated with vaccination.
This is reality. Not your narrative.
If you think “Mumbo jumbo” perhaps this isn’t the topic for you.
Short list of SNPs. Whether homozygous, heterozygous, and in what combination matter but that’s a whole domain of expertise on its own.
The specific contraindications or risks vary there isn’t just one.
It is important to note that how these SNP’s interplay and present as an epigenetic whole is key. Individual SNP contributions can’t be reviewed and dismissed discretely.
1. Primary Immunodeficiency / Contraindications (Live Vaccines)
(Variants causing profound immune deficiency where live vaccines are unsafe)
IL2RG, ADA, RAG1, RAG2, BTK, CD40LG, STAT1, STAT2, IFNGR1, IFNGR2, IRF7, IRF9, IFNAR1, IFNAR2, TLR3, TLR7, POLG
2. Inflammasome / Adjuvant-Response Variants
(Studied for possible differential response to aluminum or TLR agonists)
NLRP3 rs35829419 (Q705K), NLRP3 rs10754558, P2RX7 rs3751143 (E496A), TLR4 rs4986790 (Asp299Gly), TLR4 rs4986791 (Thr399Ile), TLR2 rs5743708 (Arg753Gln)
3. Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine / Hyper-Responder SNPs
(Variants linked to stronger inflammatory signaling; not vaccine-specific, but relevant to immune reactivity)
IL1B rs16944 (−511 C/T), IL6 rs1800795 (−174 G/C), TNF rs1800629 (−308 G/A), NFKB1 rs28362491 (−94 ins/del ATTG)
4. Folate / Neurotransmitter Metabolism SNPs
(Well-known, common polymorphisms)
MTHFR: rs1801133 (C677T), rs1801131 (A1298C), rs2274976, rs13306561, rs4846048, rs1476413
COMT: rs4680 (Val158Met), rs4633, rs4818, rs6269, rs165599
That’s called irony. I’m spelling out the language molestation of others.
I like my unbiased science to be unbiased.
"The pattern is clear– no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient because the goal isn't scientific truth but manufactured controversy to justify policy changes."
This can of course be taken many ways. Later in the article Jess says "...we know their playbook". Yes, and that can be taken many ways also. I would ask, "where do you think they learned the playbook?"
I can't answer for Dr. Steier, but these are well-known authoritarian tactics; undermine trusted institutions so that only the leader and chosen narratives appear credible.
Target institutions: Trump, bobby and allies repeatedly attack HHS, NIH, CDC, FDA, and similar agencies, portraying them as corrupt or incompetent. Good vs. Evil, us vs. them.
Defund and delegitimize: Slash science & public-health budgets, weaken institutional capacity, then the weakness is used as proof of “failure.”
Discredit experts: By labeling scientists, epidemiologists, and regulators as liars or puppets, they erode trust in independent expertise.
Flood the zone with misinformation: Promoting conspiracy theories and contradictory claims creates confusion, making it harder for the public to know what’s true and whom to trust.
Consolidate power; only those pushing regime narratives get funding. Regime quashes/ censors contradictory evidence.
These are cassic moves to destroy confidence in neutral sources of truth, so that people look only to the strongman or the movement for guidance = Cult of personality - Orange and Bobby as saviors.
This approach doesn’t just question policies. It works to remake reality itself by sowing distrust and dependency, a hallmark of authoritarian political strategy.
Read Anne Applebaum, Jason Stanley - or go back to Hannah Ahrendt.
Yes, the playbook is well established. Many have used it. On all sides. It started long before this little snafu erupted. Decades ago at least. I read every day how red meat and processed meat are bad for you. They're lumped together so the red meat can be tarnished by the same brush. Convenient. Red meat is not bad for you. It's a lie. The vaunted authorities are as guilty as anyone of the same distortional tactics and politics-driven science. None have lily white reputations to fall back on. I'm very choosy about the official narrative. Some of it is pure rubbish. Just sayin'.
Fad diets and over hyped claims and warnings have always been around - more often the province of "the left." Over the last decade or so much of this has been wrapped up in or adjacent to the culture war stuff. The rightwing disinformation machine really embraced a lot of this with COVID, to undermine expertise, etc. But the all out authoritarian assault on reality is trump2/Heritage-P2025 stuff - facilitated by the tech titans.
Ok. I’m not trying to hassle you here. I’ve developed and validated test methods in biotech for decades. You’re right to question me and Jill Steier on genetic interactions or cause and effect. Keep an open mind as I will too. The key is people should not be mandated to inject themselves or their babies in order to go to school or work. Best of luck to you.
Can you show me one double blind contagion study for a virus. I believe Dr Stefan Lanka is offering or did offer a huge sum for anyone who could find one. He won in court over this.
I don’t study or care about contagion theory. It’s not related to this thread in any way.
You think because you don’t believe in virus then there can’t be virus in a vaccine. Ergo vaccines are safe. Which demonstrates that you’re not qualified to have an opinion on this subject.
Viral fragments are meant to be present but it’s adjuvants that do the work. Those aren’t imaginary. They’re things like aluminum. Is aluminum imaginary too?
Oooo oooo how about when we use virus to perform genetic engineering? We make that up to?
You’re irrational and looking for a forum to project in. Neat. Unsubscribe.
I believed as you do until I dug into this after Covid. Many of us are waking up. Focus on the methods and controls.
So how does your whackadoodle book propose that the contagious DNA fragments move from body to body and replicate?
I haven’t challenged germ theory. I haven’t even challenged vaccine efficacy.
I’m just shedding light on some of the risks people don’t believe are real.
Virology fails all of Koch’s postulates
Uh.. WTF
You are scientifically illiterate. Stop parroting and read the contagion studies, John Enders cytopath effect method, PCR method and computer algorithms. Don’t get mad, just do the work.
I’m literally a scientist. I’m parroting nothing.
My doctor said that myself and my children’s SNPs are contraindicated with vaccination.
Then everyone I know told me that I’m an irresponsible loon.
So I studied and studied and studied. I’m not parroting a single thing. These facts I have said are strait from the CDC or from the vaccine manufacturer. Laymen reading scientific literature is half the problem.
If you trying to tell me that there isn’t a causal relationship between vaccination and autism, you’re either a liar, live in deliberate ignorance, or are yourself a parrot.
What do contagion studies have to do with vaccine injury?
Just read the CDC warnings and the vaccine insert literature. It’s right there.
So you’ve reviewed the contagion studies, the false positive negative controls for the cytopathic effect test method and the algorithms the PCR uses and still think virology is legit?
Contagion / Vaccine efficacy and vaccine related injury aren’t related in any way. Contagion studies justify collateral damage, not dismiss it as fact.
Focusing on a completely unrelated vector doesn’t sound like science to me at all.
The contagion myth justifies the false assumption that you will inhale invisible particles (never documented) and an injection of a piece of the invisible virus will tune your immune system through antibodies to attack the invisible particles so you don’t get sick. One falsehood piled on another. The whole house of cards falls when you dig into contagion, John Enders method and Cary Mullins’ original work.
So now somebody who opposes germ theory is criticizing my scientific literacy?
Excellent opinion and subsequent article! Perhaps I am too easily dazzled, but the manner in which the graphics were revealed in conjunction with the text was impressive and helpful in my understanding. This took a great deal of work by you, and I tip my hat to your diligence!
Not to "diss" Dr. Steier and her excellent essay, but the graphics are courtesy of New York Times' "graphics editors," as per the byline. Subscribe if you like the look.
"By Jessica Steier
Graphics by Sara Chodosh and Taylor Maggiacomo"
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/storytelling-through-infographics-taylor-maggiacomo/
I'm sure they were supplied with the material by Dr. Steier, though. They worked together.
The New York Times often publishes articles with animated graphics like these. They are created by New York Times, and all the ones I have seen have Sara Chodosh listed as one of the people having done the graphics.
I read the New York Times daily, and my reading comprehension is high. I have a lot of interest in our healthcare system, and I would like to see it improved. We spend too much money (nearing 20% of GDP) to get so little.
Going after Bobby Kennedy because he may have stacked the deck on this autism study is premature. The study itself is a good idea. Autism is a big problem, and it seems to be growing. We should try to find out why.
If Bobby Kennedy does identify vaccines as the culprit, he should be criticized. He hasn't yet. Don't convict him for a crime he hasn't committed.
And I don't parrot anybody, least of all Bobby Kennedy. I'm not a member of his cult. I've long been a critic of his views and I opposed his nomination.
But I have been impressed by what he has done. He is no stuffed shirt like Xavier Becerra before him. He has gone in and fought. Loony Laura Loomer got one of his people, Vanay Prasad, kicked out of the FDA, and Bobby Kennedy got him brought back. Good for him.
Jay Bhattacharya has been a great choice too. He has long studied, as an economist with an MD at Stanford, how to improve the research grant process at the NIH. Now he can put his ideas into practice. The results are already starting to show.
I'm critical of Bobby Kennedy when he deserves it. But unlike others here, I'm not afraid to praise him when he deserves praise.
"Going after" Bobby for his repeated brazen lies, some counter to public health. And for pushing quackery, his multiple logical inconsistencies, multiple serious conflicts of interest and flagrant hypocrisy.
There's certainly a lot to criticize Bobby Kennedy for, as you point out. I'm just objecting to those who criticize him for conducting a study that found vaccines cause autism. He hasn't done that.
"I'm just objecting to those who criticize him for conducting a study that found vaccines cause autism. He hasn't done that."
He uses bullsh-t or misinterpreted evidence for his arguments ALL of the time. And you're a staunch defender of his lies, shown by above links.
Now I am done with your game.
Thank you for a beautifully written article! What an exposé of the distorted data selection and analysis used by these abusers of the scientific method! Much appreciated. It is too be noted that people will take this info and spread it to counter the current assault on health, medicine, and science. I certainly will.
Loved the NYT article! Clear, concise and the graphics helped with simplification. Very cool btw. This is exactly the type of media attention needed to save vaccines. If only Fox News could do a piece on this issue.
Also, can you write another article like the NYT one but about how RFKjr and his team of propagandists profit from spreading anti-science rhetoric? Historically, currently and predicting future profits from changing the vaccine injury list. Exposing their profits the way they try accusing scientists of being Big Pharma shills. This topic needs to go viral imo.
Thank you for all your hard work!!
The essay was superb and comprehensive, as was required. I would caution that, like the equally brilliant shoulders of the researchers & physicians upon which you stand, known & unknown, who brought us to this point, and are now sacrificed and missing from what once constituted the greatest public health conglomerate this country has ever seen, the battle has only begun. This band of incompetent grifters are undoubtedly already fashioning a response to this article, and will soon “flood the zone,” not with science, but again, with talking points and character insults prior to their “rollout.” We have had enough, and if anything, this article summarizes and confirms years of conclusive and unchallengeable genetic and epigenetic data that will withstand whatever they may propose. You have managed to succinctly gather the necessary data into a concise & precise argument. Applause.
This guest assay is amazing! Epic. Insightful.
I want RFK's brain worm to get off its butt and finish doing God's work.
Great article!! Happy belated birthday!! Is the link to the article free, or paywall? I'm not really Substack savvy to know the difference?
Unfortunately, NYT is paywalled but I linked to a gift article! Does it work?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/08/19/opinion/vaccines-autism-evidence.html?unlocked_article_code=1.fU8.9sZk.NROYXhTXCBeG&smid=url-share
Yes!
Aluminum taken orally is not the same as aluminum injected. THIS is not even an argument.
What, Malone as RFK's right hand man isn't good enough to have making decisions about drugs y'all inject into your children.
You do know that it's unethical to test use babies and children in clinical trials?
So where is the safety data, I'm always reading that it exists, but to date,vive never seen it, gotten to read it, etc.
I'm referring to the CDC's recommended shots list which started to grow exponentially at the end of GenX.
What I find to be weird is that Boomers and GenX folks share the same spaces, air, etc with those generations after X. No?
I'm GenX, I had basic shots as a child, Boomers had less. YET, our generations do not have the physical & mental lists of issues like generations after X. This is a FACT.
They have been sensitized by shots to gluten, milk, gut health mightily affected. Thus is what causes the skin issues, allergies, etc.
ADHD is linked to being in utero of stressed parents.
Parent gave their parental authority away some time ago, now, they stand on the sidelines like they are some spectactor at an event. When something does come up, nit their fault.
I'm very familiar with the lists of autistic 'traits' .
What do y'all expect when they grow up in front of screens?
Pediatricians, some are finally stepping up and speaking out.
Numbers don't lie. This who do not buy into the CDC's poison schedule, never are in the office for sick visits.
You mentioned EBP, I'm a huge fan.
What does that have to do with shots?
Please refer back to the beginning of my comment.
So unbiased means things are looked at objectively and not subjectively. Biased means that you take all criteria and information in and draw conclusions based on factual findings and known issues. Nobody is saying that vaccines should be pulled from the market. What is happening is a pulling back of the curtain of adverse events that are not talked about enough or mentioned sufficiently so that each individual can make an "informed" decision. There are a lot of unknowns and what you have to do is work on the knowns. This is right out of the MMR warnings from CDC, Revised November 2024 (important date to take note of). Here are the warnings. Quoted: https://www.fda.gov/media/75191/download
Fact: "Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia; syncope."
Fact: "There is a risk of fever and associated febrile seizure in the first 2 weeks following immunization... For children with a history of febrile seizures or a family history, there is a small increase in risk."
Fact: "Transient thrombocytopenia has been reported within 4–6 weeks following vaccination... Carefully evaluate the potential risk and benefit in children with thrombocytopenia or those who experienced it after a previous dose."
These warnings are not conspiracy theories—they're published by the manufacturer and reviewed by regulatory bodies. Yet many individuals who report neurological injuries or severe adverse reactions are dismissed or gaslit, especially when their symptoms fall outside the narrow definitions used in clinical trials. If someone has been harmed and then told that it wasn't caused by something that already had a warning for it... who is being gaslit or stigmatized? Nobody is stigmatizing those who choose to get vaccinated. Everybody deserves the right to make that decision for themselves without being stigmatized on whether they do or do not choose to. Clear and factual information and informed consent is the key. And this would be without minimizing the severe or serious risks. In fact, a very close family member right after receiving the MMR experienced a fever of 107 right after and started convulsing on the way to the ER. So it does happen. Also it's been stated that there were fewer issues when the shots were given individually and not all together.
Fact: Multiple studies and CDC data confirm that the combined MMRV vaccine carries a higher risk of febrile seizures than giving MMR and varicella separately:
MMRV: ~7–8 febrile seizures per 10,000 children
MMR + Varicella separately: ~3–4 per 10,000 children
That’s nearly double the risk for the combo shot in children under 4 years old.
Fact: The data shows that separate shots had a lower risk profile, especially for febrile seizures and immune overload in sensitive children. When the vaccine manufacturer discontinued the single-antigen vaccines in 2009, it removed the ability to compare outcomes between separate and combined doses in real-world settings.
So in essence, if you remove the possibility of making a comparison or studying the differences between both the separate shots and the combined shots, you remove the evidence of the potential for increased risks. And this was done at times both in the UK and the US when there were questions and concerns with the combined MMR, which was introduced in 1971. So if there were manufacturing issues, which was the alleged reason (pretty weak excuse in my opinion), it was pretty conveniently timed for squashing any ability to do further studies between the two.
United Kingdom (1998–2002): After public concern over MMR safety—especially following the Wakefield controversy—the UK removed single shots. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3136032/
US (2009): Again when safety concerns came into play.
So personally, during a 1991 NY measles outbreak, I was unfortunate to get the measles at that age during the outbreak in that year. I was one of those 5,000 during 1990 and mid-1991. Over 21 died. A nurse that was taking care of some of my friends was one of them. So I'm not against vaccines by any means. And I'm not political for any side, I'm neutral. But I am for factual data that helps me make an informed decision. I was interviewed by the CDC that year and was re-vaccinated shortly after my ordeal. There are a lot of risks when you get the disease too. So that's a fact. I went through it at age 20. But would I like the ability to have separate vaccines if they truly are less risky? Of course. But how would someone know if that data is no longer available? That is probably the sickest I'd ever been in my entire life. So it's definitely an important decision for your health. But hiding or manipulating data for profit or some other nefarious purpose is evil. Patients deserve to know the truth without market spin and fraudulent ghostwritten articles. I've seen journalists who make blanket statements that completely defend status quo. Status quo is not working for the average USA life expectancy.
Third leading cause of death in USA are ADEs:
The American Society of Pharmacovigilance (ASP) estimates that ADEs account for 250,000 to 300,000 deaths annually, surpassing deaths from stroke and respiratory disease.
This includes:
Prescribing errors
Drug-drug interactions
Allergic reactions
Overdoses and misuse of prescription medications
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that occur even when medications are taken correctly.
So informed consent, not blind trust, is what people should be aiming for when they make decisions that affect them or their family members. But if that data is fraudulent or not sufficient and based on market and financial interests, then health safety takes 2nd or 3rd place. Demand more information from your doctor, dig for the facts, and don't turn it into a one side or the other issue. Objectivity requires factual evidence based on either personal experience or proven facts. When there are warnings in the documentation, read them and take them seriously. Do research beyond what the monograph says. If I'm buying a product, I read the reviews of real-world owners of that product. Would you not want to do that even more for vaccines and medications that you put into your body or that your family member is taking? Inform yourself with truth, not spin. It's a personal decision and nobody should make you feel bad for making that decision, one way or the other. But risk-benefit ratio is off if the information is a lie or biased toward the product. I don't only read the reviews on the product's manufacturer website. I don't think that I need to explain that reason. The bottom line is patients deserve to know the truth about the risks without minimization and without fraudulent studies.
Late reply but thank you for taking the time to write this up! I am absolutely convinced that your position is the best to take. When we think about vaccines in such binary terms as "to vax or never to vax", we skip crucial pieces of information that can hide right under our noses and that may mean the difference between life and death. Wish more people see and take the time to read this.