Thank you for an honest and raw piece on autism. As the mother of a 32 year old on the spectrum who can’t keep a job and stopped trying before the pandemic, I appreciate it. I am so tired of the autism is cute crowd and specials like Love on the Spectrum who make it appear as though this is a lovable and easily manageable problem for most people. My heart goes out to you and your family.
My autistic son, another Jonathan, is 28, and I agree completely about the autism is cute image. 10 years ago, the DSM eliminated Aspergers Syndrome as a diagnosis and folded it into Autism Spectrum Disorder. This gave the public a distorted image of what autism actually looks like for the overwhelming majority of families. And it created the identity politics neurodiversity movement. Because people with Aspergers can speak for themselves and people with more profound autism cannot, this spread the idea that autism looks like Extraordinary Attorney Woo.
Thank you, Jill, for your article, and Bari, for publishing it. It is true that public services are not prepared to handle the tsunami of autistic adults who are in desperate need of services. In the short term, it is up to those parents who can to help fill in the gap. In our community, we started a nonprofit that provides job training and employment for autistic adults (we serve about 100 young people a year), and we are in the process of starting a group home. Yes, government needs to do more, but parents can do a lot. And the more parents start programs, the more models are out there to show what works and what doesn't.
agreed. i keep having people ask me if my 8 year old son is a genius, whether i've seen any extraordinary tendencies emerge. Is he the next Elon......I'm honestly just excited that he used a fork correctly today. Little things really
I have a 32 year-old son living with me. When he was tiny, I called him, "Sunny Jim." Absolutely no fear of anyone, no night terrors, always so very happy and well-behaved, loved by everybody instantly. He seemed quite precocious and dearly loved any machinery; I still have a video of him digging a giant hole with my backhoe on my farm, three years old and alone on the machine - so small that he had to stand behind the levers to operate them, rather than sitting on the seat.
Once he reached school age, it was a very different thing. He was very disruptive in school, with almost zero impulse control; a classroom observer's report related that the most amazing thing was that the other children could get anything done at all. He was eventually diagnosed with ADHD, and after more than a year of resisting, we put him on medication. As is the usual case, his behavior improved, but his grades did not.
He tested IQ 118 all across the board - basically high normal. His "splinter skills," we called them - such as self-taught computer programming - were nothing less than spectacular, but if he had no interest in a subject, he could not pass.
Fast forward. He is now 32, has never been able to hold a job, and lives with me. I'm working to get him out in the workforce, but secondarily planning long-term support for when I'm gone. (I just turned seventy.)
Jul 20, 2023·edited Jul 20, 2023Liked by Jill Escher
Sorry, Jim. My boy dropped out of college one semester shy of a biochem degree. He was diagnosed with ADHD as a sophomore and put on Adderall which was a wonder drug according to him. I'm not happy he's on it, his sleep schedule is so messed up. He also has OCD, co-morbidities are very common with Aspies. He can't hold a traditional job. All he's doing now is Door Dash. He does live independently but only because we pay his rent. He struggles so much with everyday life. We are fortunate that we can financially support him, unlike so many others. He has sisters and they know someday he will be their responsibility.
I had a psychiatry professor who told me that he was preordained for psychiatry. His mother was bipolar - then called manic-depressive psychosis, and he told me that as a high school chemistry lab assistant, he could still see in his mind's eye the lithium carbonate sitting on the shelf, and that he always thought how slipping a teaspoon of it into his mother's coffee would have let the family live a normal life. I have this horrible recurring thought that the answer to autism is somewhere right in front of our face, too, and we just cannot see it.
Could it be that these people like your son are simply not designed for a post modern society? Hunters, gatherers, high intuitive ones, broken things fixers, bakers, community mood creators / maintainers..?
I can’t help thinking about all these important human roles that got abandoned in a post industrial society.
I see why some disagree with you but I agree to the extent that getting jobs in the corporate world in large businesses is a lot harder for some than if they just grew up and did whatever dad did, as kids may have done pre 19th century. I work as a programmer and remember when my old (smaller) company hired this autistic guy who was very quirky and people had this attitude of "we took a chance on him" and I always wondered if it was hard for him to get a job elsewhere because he'd probably bomb the interviews. But he was very verbal, unlike the focus of the kids and young adults of this article.
For some. If I'd been caught a lot earlier.... Not a lot of help though if you are Classical/Kanners. For every idiot-savant who gets to be a media darling or whose particular whizz can be monetised, there will be 99 who never get out of the Terrible Twos and worse. I'd pretty much alienated my Mum and all my siblings long before I found out what was actually going on. I think we'll have to catch the train pretty much as, if not before, it derails. Once those neural pathways are set it is going to be very uphill even if it becomes possible.
I can see a use for AI here. Let's say the autistic person has a job like flipping burgers. The AI is hooked up to the incoming orders list, and can prompt the autist what to make. For a normal person this would mean displaying the orders list as is, but depending on the various ways the autistic person can become distracted or lose focus, they may need steering along various paths to get back on track. Steering inputs might include a generated voice talking continuously in their ear, visual cues (possibly delivered via augmented reality glasses), and bracelets or gloves that vibrate in a variety of ways. In short, turn the autist into an industrial robot with an AI control system. A single feedback system that also prompts for narratives like "go shopping", "do laundry" and "clean my room" would spread any available development funding over as much of patients' lives as possible, while allowing the control system to match the autist's mood over a whole day, not just a single activity.
Exactly. I'm actually not certain my boys would qualify (doesn't language delay exclude Aspergers's) but they are closer to that than to Jill's kids described in this piece and I feel weirdly guilty about even using the same words to describe such different levels of impairment and need.
I think this is a problem across the board in mental health. The dumbing down of mental illnesses into quirkiness, as well as the celebration of 'mental diversity' both do nothing for patients who are smack in the middle of a psychic hurricane and suffering.
I agree, Pippi and Charlie G. My sons has an ASD diagnosis but he is more "Good Doctor" version but without the savant situation. And even so, it isn't cute or any sort of identity to celebrate.
To me, I believe the intention is to bring awareness rather than to "cutify." I have an Aspie son and I welcome educating people on how to identify the characteristics so people can think "he's on the spectrum" rather than "he's a weirdo."
I’m all for efforts that increase opportunities and acceptance for those disabled by autism — I put my heart into many such efforts, at all ends of the spectrum. My primary concern however is with the research and policy spheres increasingly sugar coating autism.
To summarize: We have no idea what causes autism or why the numbers are suddenly exploding. But it’s definitely not the 70 plus injections of chemical immune stimulants and toxins that children born since the 1980s receive. The vaccine studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies prove they are totally safe and definitely don’t cause autism. Also, the only people who think the exploding number of childhood vaccines might have some negative consequences are conspiracy theorists and cranks, by definition. So it must be...well, just something else that we can’t put our finger on just yet.
Great summary. The post-truth doldrums must escalate to a truth typhoon if we want any meaningful change. We cannot rule out any variables like vaccines. Correlation is not causation and many factors should be analyzed, but the stonewalling and gaslighting about these injections raises alarm bells. Parental age has been going up on the same precipitous slope as the amount of mandated vaccines.
Two other environmental factors were not covered. One is the toxins in our water and food. Studies have found that almost half of the drinking water in the US is contaminated with forever chemicals like PFAS. Most of our food is full of GMOs, preservatives, and other chemicals that were not present a generation ago. The other is lifestyle. Screen time has replaced socialization for many, compounded by the heinous COVID lockdowns. Stress and atomization are bad for mental health, which does autism no favors.
As a parent, my heart goes out to Jill and any others who are caring for autistic children and adults. They deserve justice. We must have courage to fight for those who are unable to.
Thank you to The Free Press for advancing this vital dialogue.
All my daughters cannot conceive and suffer miscarriages. I had 4 healthy children without batting an eye as did all my friends of that era. What happened in a generation? Vaccines, GMOs, microplastics (all our food was in paper in the 60s) glyphosate spraying, and most of all stress. What we have done to our children is unforgivable.
Hell, we spray Roundup on crops that we've made resistant to it and think that's normal? Many of the substances we've introduced to modern life are relatively new and we have little to no idea of their effect. As if we can count on the FDA and EPA....
Actually, thalidomide was not approved in the US until the late 1990s, and then only for the cutaneous manifestations of leprosy. It later (around 2006) achieved approval to treat multiple myeloma, and it actually IS a bit of a miracle drug. The issues with phocomelia stemmed from use in Europe, and once the horrible effects on developing fetuses was discovered, led to the strengthening of laws (and the FDA) here in the US. See, at one point, the FDA actually WAS an agency working to protect patients. I believe those days are long gone. This book is an excellent historical reference source:
SciTechDaily lacks transparency as they do not disclose ownership on the website. Some online sources claim SciTechDaily is owned by DailyEDeals, a company that provides advertising and coupons to large chain stores. However, we are unable to confirm their ownership. Advertising generates revenue.
With the decline in socialization comes a rise in isolation. It is telling that loneliness is arguably the number one risk factor for premature mortality. An analysis of 300,000 people in 148 studies found that loneliness is associated with a 50% increase in mortality from any cause, making it comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and much more dangerous than obesity. It is very possible that it could contribute to autism in some way. (And yes, it's another reason why covid lockdowns were so incredibly stupid.)
This is so deeply important to talk about. Please keep sharing these articles and bringing this topic to the table. I can’t think of any factor that matters more for mental and even the physical health. Thank you.
To add to your environmental factors, go take a look at obesity metrics. Over 82% of Americans over 18 are overweight or obese. Pregnancies from obese mothers are known to cause hypoxia and malourishment of the fetus.
While I don’t doubt that this is responsible for a number of health issues, it seems that it would be very easy to show if there is a strong enough correlation with autism to explain even some of the rise. I’ve got to imagine that this has been done with some of the larger population studies.
Every time I cut up strawberries in non-summer months, I remember that as a child, there were NO strawberries other than in the summer, and we gorged ourselves! Same for all the summer fruits. The food and water supply have changed so dramatically, I tend to think this is a HUGE boulder that gov't doesn't want to look under - too scary.
Your conflation of “GMO’s” with environmental toxins puts your entire position in immediate doubt... We have been living with GMO’s since the beginning of plant domestication... typical visceral reaction to what is not “natural” dressed up as rationality
Roundup Corn was specifically bred to be used with RoudUp pesticide which has been ruled a carcinogen in Europe etc.... Yes, we have been engineering plants for eons, witness the tulip. But some of these GMOs are seriously f'd up. And we are now crossing mammal cells with plant cells etc. You trot out this claim but it's so broad as to be useless
I agree that it is possible to engineer a pathogen (perhaps Covid) but it’s also possible to create poison “naturally”. We would be foolish to turn our backs on GMO as we would other novel methods of farming. The devil is in the details (though I suspect many anti GMO types are more about religion of a sort than pragmatic rationality) also Round Up is surely a concern and the genetic engineering of plants to work with it makes one question but it does not necessarily follow that the plants are poisonous because they can resist poison but the concern is certainly understandable)
The environmental toxins affect the pregnant person. All municipal water supplies have carcinogenic compounds. We should ask about the kinds of stressors upon pregnant women as compared to in times past, although deep poverty and average poverty historically affected poor pregnant women. Therefore I mean toward toxins and the effect of radiation from all sources which cumulatively is a lot of disruptive radiation. The number of vaccines given in a short time is still a notable factor. So, might be anxiety and its resulting inflammatory effects on pregnant women. While women in the 19th c English working class suffered a lot of physical abuse from husbands and employment, social historians do not reveal the kind of anxiety and its companion, inflammation as we have known since the wars of the 20th c
We live in a world where the origin of a global pandemic was hidden from the populace for 3+ years when the powers- that-be knew the truth and we still believe everything the cdc and medical
Community say about vaccines. This said I do believe we Can have the vaccine conversation if we separate out the “traditional” vaccines from the new vaccines and discuss mono-valent vaccines VW the grouped and multi-use preserved (thimerisol) ones.
We have a terrible track record here in the US of engaging these debates from 10,000 feet and never set the specific terms of the conversation. We allow the opposition to discount our arguments because we do not speak about our concerns or assertions using careful language.
I opted out of natal vaccines (at birth) and demanded mono-valent (non-preserved) versions of vaccines for my children who had high risk due to heredity. Parents need to be staunch advocates.
All this said, the author’s kowtowing to ignore
Vaccines or environmental factors like plastics, chemicals, drugs, toxins etc. is surprising. And with the potential costs for care being assumed by the government, it is surprising to ignore these factors when determining causality would help pinpoint the culprits (corporations) who might help fund this care long term.
In the end progressive politics will ruin any interest in stemming the incidence of this disability. So vote from an informed standpoint and don’t allow your care for liberal ideas to enact bad ideas over the long term.
The author states that 1 in 36 children have autism yet a study on INSAR (International Society for Autism Research) found 1 in 271 Amish children met the Autism criteria. Am I missing something? Why the disparity?
My guess is that the Amish have kids at much younger ages than the average American.
The human body was not made to make kids in one's late 30's or 40's, and that includes both parents. Kids should be had in one's 20's.
The genetic material that's passed on to children degrades significantly as people age, hence the increased number of spontaneous abortions, or the difficulty to conceive at relatively older ages. Worse genes equal more congenital diseases.
Except lots of people who've had their kids in their twenties have children with autism. Also, before the era of birth control (aka nearly all of human history), women were having huge families, giving birth through their 30 and into their 40s with no high rates of autism to show for it.
All of which is to say: this argument is a red herring, brought to you by Pharma and its shills in the medical industrial complex and media. Don't fall for it.
“Also, before the era of birth control (aka nearly all of human history), women were having huge families, giving birth through their 30 and into their 40s with no high rates of autism to show for it.”
Provided of course, they didn’t die in childbirth - which, at one point in American history, they had a 1%-2% chance of doing with each birth.
True point. In 1992, were it not for the miracle of emergency C-sections, my oldest would have died in utero and I would have died while trying—with no possibility of success—to give birth to a stillborn baby.
I had a planned C-section, but yeah, my older daughter and I would be dead too. She was not only breech, but partially twisted to the side; the OB had to cut my uterus open even wider partway through. In the olden days, I probably would have bled to death trying unsuccessfully to push her out. Eerie to think about!
I had two children - one at 38 and the other at 41. Both healthy. I’m not convinced that is a cause of autism. Correlation, maybe. Increased risk factors having children later in life? Yes. But autism? Not provable at this point.
While this study does show some correlation with paternal age, I don’t think it shows a compelling enough relationship to explain what’s going on. And it shows no correlation with maternal age.
But many Amish women also continue having babies through their child bearing years ie into their early forties. I don’t understand this argument. Also historically speaking women still had children “late” -- yes they started young, but they kept bearing children as long as they were still capable of reproducing.
My mother (youngest of thirteen) was born when her mother was 44. Twelve of the thirteen children survived into adulthood and had children of their own--one child died from pneumonia at age 5.
Both my mother and her mother lived into their 80's with decent health overall.
As an aging boomer with autistic progeny, I despair we will ever find the cause of autism. When I look back on my childhood, the known potential sources of problems include: playing in the neighbors insulated (with asbestos) crawl space, riding my banana seat bike behind the DDT fogger: “I’m up in the clouds!”; pot smoked in high school (Mexican with that stuff the DEA sprayed on it); not to mention incidental forays with cocaine, opium, hash, meth, heroin, etc. It’s sounds like I’m a horrific druggie, but I promise you I was just a typical college student hanging out in the 70’s. It’s actually kind of ridiculous that no one seems to even consider the effect of the culturally encouraged drug experimentation that was (and still is?) rife in this country.
Both of my great grandmothers had 12 children. Which means they were still giving birth well into their 40s. Not uncommon for Catholic families of that generation. No autistic children.
My father was the 9th of 10 children. My grandmother was 40 when she gave birth to him and 42 when she had her last child. No autism. One of my husband's grandmothers had 12 kids, same story; the oldest of those kids had 15 children, same story. This new line of inquiry into autism causes is a made-up excuse to avoid asking the more obvious questions.
We also do not talk about the effects of drugs like cannabis. A 45 year old dad who's been smoking pot for 30 years - could that possibly have an effect on the genetic material in his sperm? Of course it could.
The rise in cannabis use correlates directly with the rise in autism.
I'm spitballing, but I will say that of the many parents I know with autistic kids, in almost every family the dad was/is a significant pot smoker. Of course, I know lots of pot smokers with healthy children, too.
My 19 year old step daughter was conceived when her mother was 21. She’s nonverbal & about as severely incapacitated as a person can be. She’s a perma-toddler, intelligence wise
It might be associated with the age of the mother when she has her first child (primigravidas) vs. later children (multi para). As a mother of three, I’ve experienced the storm of hormones that comes with pregnancy and childbirth. Perhaps they are protective of later pregnancies?
But if autism is severely disabling 3% of all children, there would be no way that wouldn't be obvious among the Amish.
More broadly, I wonder what cross-societal studies exist on this subject? Japanese? Rural vs urban? Mediterranean? African? All of these have radically different lifestyles and diets. That seems like a good place to start. Also compare Americans to Western Europeans... we're genetically similar, dietarily similar, and both WEIRD. Are there lots of autism cases in W. Europe? I don't know, but again, worth asking.
My Dad was an Infectious Disease MD, and I am father to Dustin, my vaccine injured son with Autism. Specific to my son in my longer article I identified "cause as":
"the root of Dusty’s autism was a combination of a genetic pre-disposition plus egregious environmental assaults."
"At some point in that first year, he had his third DPT vaccine dose. That was the shot that put him over the edge. He screamed for 24 hours, and the babbling stopped. The language that typically follows never came."
I just started following your Substack—it was recommended to me by another commenter. My heart and prayers go out to Dustin and you and your family.
I wish Bari had the open-mindedness/guts/honesty to feature your story, whether as an essay or an interview. But she has a glaring agenda here, and her biases have blinded her on this topic. :-(
As you know, my other son is in the Navy, and is fully vaccinated. I assume this, as his security clearance excludes me!!
This game of life is complicated. I appreciate Substack for the openness. Bari is on the right track. Thanks
PS - I am trying to not get sucked into the vaxx conversation, and prefer to make Dustin's world better. We have a really great team here at Endeavor21 - https://www.endeavor21.org
I appreciate and honor your focus on making Dustin's world better and not being sucked in. I know someone with a vax-injured son who takes the same useful approach. Vaccine safety is a critical issue, but one that can be fought for by the growing legions of people who have your back. If the pandemic has a silver lining, it's that it woke up many in the slumbering masses. For that I am grateful.
I asked my daughter who is pregnant with my first grandchild to please do more research on vaccines and don’t agree just Willy nilly. They give DTAP during pregnancy now. Oh hell no. Hep B at birth…double hell no.
We know from the Vaccine Court that there are a few rare vaccine reactions that cause brain injuries with Autism symptoms. The vaccine court has paid out the largest $$$$ to these cases because they engender lifelong dependency. However, looking at the numbers the increase in Autism to astronomic levels happened mostly after the rise of total vaccinations happened, pointing to different causes. My heart goes out to all, whether a vaccine injury or unexplained cause.
I grew up in the 40's and 50's. Every summer parents sweated bullets because in the warmer months polio reared it's ugly head. Every summer thousand of children came down with polio and were crippled for life and some died.
Jonas Salk solved this horrible fate with the polio vaccine. Polio is almost wiped out here in the US. Whooping cough, diphtheria and other diseases we now never hear of today were wiped out by vaccines.
Should we study and watch vaccines to find flaws? Yes, of course. But only an idiot would want to get rid of them. Twenty or thirty years ago WHO declared small pox to be eradicated in the world. Small pox has killed and disfigured millions of people but it was eradicated by the small pox vaccine.
I say again, only an idiot would want to get rid of vaccines!
Or, instead of getting rid of vaccines, we could test them properly for safety. And test the whole schedule, which is being constantly added to (the covid shot, which "protects" children against a virus that doesn't harm them, was added just this year). One could say that only an idiot would want to keep adding injections that haven't been inert-placebo tested to a schedule for children that has, itself, not been tested for cumulative safety.
Actually, polio is still here. It's just called other things. And so are "iron lungs" —they're called respirators. I highly recommend the book Dissolving Illusions by Dr. Suzanne Humphries for the evidenced-based history of disease decline that didn't make it into the medical books/establishment narrative. It's eye/mind opening.
Here's what I mean: when the Salk vaccine came out (which protected against the 2-3 most common strains of virus that triggered polio symptoms) and mass vax campaigns started, whenever people came down with those symptoms they were asked if they'd received the polio vaccine. If the answer was no they were then counted as a polio statistic. If they answered yes, they were not, and their paralytic symptoms were given a different name (e.g. acute transverse myelitis). That is the magic trick that dropped the polio numbers so shockingly, such that everyone began believing "the polio vaccine eradicated polio." No, it didn't. They just recategorized what "polio" is. There's far more to the story than that, but this gives you an idea of the "science" behind the narrative.
People love to say correlation isn’t causation when it suits their argument.
The diseases are gone is a statement of correlation, not causation.
Besides that, it matters less whether a disease disappears than whether our susceptibility to dying or or being permanently harmed from it decreases and disappears.
For instance, deaths and harm from measles had declined precipitously before the vaccine was on the market. Scientists and doctors honestly thought that nobody would want a measles vaccines. Parents certainly weren’t asking for it.
So, not unlike with Covid, a scare campaign was required in order to get people on board with the measles vaccine. The same thing is happening with a chicken pox vaccine. As fewer adults now have had chickenpox as children they’re more susceptible to scare campaigns about chicken pox, but any of us who had it as children know that this is a joke.
Well, we have flu vaccines every year and the flu doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I only bring that up to point out that all vaccines are not the same. Heck, for all we know only a specific vaccine could be the problem. Or a specific vaccine+some other factor(s). Or a combo of vaccines, etc etc. Or nothing to do with vaccines at all
Ultimately, as you said previously, we need to continue to study them, especially as we add more and more to what kids are getting. As it stands, we seem to approve any old drugs that may or may not even do what they claim. We also need to ask if all vaccines are necessary. If, say, polio is no longer a killer it was in the 50's (lets face it, we have made a few medical improvements since them) then maybe it isn't needed anymore (I am not suggesting this is actually the case, just as a hypothetical about how we can't assume that something from the past needs to remain forever the same).
Flu vaccines don't claim to prevent the disease 100%. Every years the flu virus mutates and that is why you take it every year.
This is an apocryphal example. When my wife and I moved back to the States we did not get the flu vaccine and we came down with the disease. We thought we had to die to get better.
That was 30 years ago. We get the vaccine every year now and we have never come down with the flu since.
And I have never gotten the vaccine and haven't gotten the flu in probably a decade. And when I do get it, it lasts a day or 2 tops, which I feel slightly bad. As for even more anecdotal evidence, most people I know that DO get the flu regularly is actually FROM the vaccine. They have worse symptoms from it than I did back when I last gotten it.
Again, I am not anti-vaccine. I have all my mandated shots, including Covid. I just don't get flu shots because the flu has never been a concern for me.
I AM however for more info, as I do not trust our institutions anymore, as they have proven they will lie to use if they find it convenient.
It occurs to me that we MIGHT want to stop spending so much time arguing about vaccines about which I suspect most people have already made up their minds and start thinking about what we can do to prevent the diseases that will need more vaccines down the pike.
Will Big Pharma give us a vaccine for the rise in peanut allergies - celiac disease gut problems - nervous disorders, etc. or will we seriously start considering what we might be doing to our food sources be they dairy, beef, chicken, fish ( think Tuna) etc.
One friend who now lives in Mexico told me that although she was always f very careful about what she ate, she was always sick in the States--stomach and bowel, issues, high blood pressure, no energy, etc. She finally said enough and moved to Mexico at the urging of friends hoping to find a magic cure. There was no magic - just a change in diet - . . . She now eats homemade tacos off food carts on the street - shops at the local truly organic markets for her veggies and fruit and plays pickle ball three times a week. Roundup is not used. -.
My sister lives in a late 19th century terrace. It has no foundations and you wouldn't have got away with building it seventy years ago, let alone now. Something that bleeding obvious a quote about it is attributed to Jesus.
We miss the FEKKIN' OBVIOUS ALL THE FEKKIN' TIME.
Let's hope your naivety doesn't come back and kick you in the teeth, eh?
"I say again, only an idiot would want to get rid of vaccines!"
Agreed, and I would also say that only an idiot would want to get rid of antibiotics. But, like antibiotics, the excessive use of vaccines can create problems worse than the problem they claim to be solving. There is a sweet spot both for the use of antibiotics and vaccines, and we need to consider the risks in both cases.
What if the idiot was on the right track? What if the idiot suggested these 70 year old vaccines may contain flaws? Must we follow the edict of the non-idiot and not even look to see? Who is the idiot anyway?
I was fully vaccinated as a child, but I was a child in the 1950s and 1960s. My understanding is that kids today receive more vaccines, in higher doses, beginning earlier in childhood than was the case in the past. And the escalating use of vaccines correlates with escalating rates of autism, and we're still supposed to accept that there is no relation? The author links only to a couple bland, boilerplate, "Couldn't be the problem" statements. Why not deescalate? Why not start vaccinating later in infancy, according to a 60s or 70s model? Why not back off the front-loading? For the people who say "But what about epidemics?" It seems like the less intense dosing schedules did just fine in preventing them.
Did you not read what I said? "Should we study and watch vaccines to find flaws? Yes, of course." Also without these vaccines tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of lives have been saved by vaccines. Doesn't that account for anything?
what if it is your kid reacting to a vaccine and you have to appeal to the National Vaccine Compensation Program? What do you say for those families? Tough luck?
If the alleged vaccine injury is autism, then yes, it is tough luck. Autism is not listed as a vaccine injury under the National Vaccine Compensation Program since it’s been clinically proven that vaccines do not cause autism. Ask any law firm that specializes in vaccine injuries and they will tell you this is the case. There is a long list of what’s covered, but autism is not on the list.
Otoh, death is covered. So if your child dies from the vaccine, you can get compensation. When you go to get your child vaccinated, they give you a list of all the various things that can happen as side effects, including death, but not including autism. You have to sign a paper acknowledging that you were warned, but accept the risk or they won’t vaccinate your child.
Back in the olden timies when you had to go to the library to look thing up, as a kid I wanted to know the mortality rate of vaccines. I can't remember that far back but the number was minuscule.
If you save millions but a few dozen die, allergies, toxic reaction, etc. Do you halt the vaccine? I wouldn't. For the families of those who died it is a tragedy but to the millions it saved, it was a blessing.
But do you stop research into the reasons some get injured and most don't? That is what most of us, including RFK Jr. are asking? Saying collateral damage doesn't matter because it is rare is not a good argument to me.
you don't have to get rid of them, but questioning is vital in Medicine - otherwise we would be performing lobotomies, the doctor who developed it got a Nobel Prize for it.
Please listen to this: https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/aaron-siri-gives-testimony-on-the-floor-of-arizona-state-senate/ Also, what's happening is vaccines are not as effective as natural immunity, so diseases are coming back on the vaccinated. And just like if you asked people who watch left leaning new, what is the chance of dying from COVID, they would say 50% (it's less than 1%), if you looked at the acual number of children who were dying from these diseases, it's a very small percentage. This site has a lot of data: https://thehighwire.com/watch/
" say again, only an idiot would want to get rid of vaccines!"
The bad news is there is an unending supply of idiots these days. The good news is natural selection; deadly diseases are Uncle Chuck Darwin's way of eliminating those who won't use the latest treatments and preventions that technology makes possible.
I'm saying that extinction will be the ultimate fate of those who don't vaccinate. Because of the low vaccination rate, Covid stays in circulation, and who knows how deadly the next variant might be?
Covid vaccines do nothing to prevent circulation of the virus, they only reduce the intensity if/when you're infected. I was vaxxed and boosted, and got infected anyway, and I know many other people that had the same experience.
Your chance of getting or giving the covid virus is the same irregardless of being vaccinated per the latest research. The problem with covid is that it is a virus variant that was new to the human race and hence no immunities. Each successive mutation has caused an increase in infectivity and decrease in lethality. Co-vid will morph into a cold variant, it will always be here. Iv’e had the initial 2 and the booster, being a bit of a geezer. That being said all vaccines are not created equal, sadly the co-vid vaccine was weak tea, luckily the virus itself was also. Compare the average age of death of the Spanish flu to co-vid.
Polio is a success story. The rest of the 20th century infectious diseases (smallpox might be an exception to this for other reasons) had a 95% reduction in mortality and morbidity BEFORE the introduction of the vaccine to the population. And of course you fail to mention that the Salk Vaccine also caused cases of Polio and because of a manufacturing defect created 1000s of cases in the Western US and Canada. Sabin Vaccine turned out to be a better choice, but for political reasons he had to go to the USSR to test his vaccine. In 2 years he inoculated over 70 million Russian children to great success. The vaccine most of us baby boomers remember is the sugar cube Sabin vaccine given out at schools. There was a huge backlash against the Salk Vaccine after the manufacturing incident and people refused to take it until the Sabin Vaccine was introduced in the early 1960s. Even today, most of the world's Polio cases are vaccine derived strains. It's a success, but one that cost us in more Polio victims.
Yes, my ex contracted polio from the polio vaccine when he took it in Kentucky in the late 50s. Still glad we have a polio vaccine, but people minimize the fallout and complications. Similarly, I got swine flu from the swine flu vax. Had a slight cold when I took it and opted for the nasal version, not realizing a live vaccine would be much worse... I went home and immediately got a high fever and screaming headache. Unlike any cold I have ever had. I rarely run fevers even when I have the flu, etc, and the headache was unreal. I tried to report this adverse reaction to the federal Vaccine registry, VAERS, and was told my illness was simply "coincidental" They did not take my report. I also tried to tell the doctors at the clinic that gave me the vaccine, to warn them about giving the live nasal vaccine to people who are sick with colds etc. They too ignored me and treated me like a crank. This has not led me to have confidence in our vaccine monitoring agencies. I vaccinated and boosted myself and my son for Covid, but I nevertheless have concerns.
Agreed. Only a parent grossly unfamiliar with the underlying diseases they prevent would believe not vaccinating their children was a good idea. That said, I believe in bodily autonomy and think the state forcing people to put things into their body is extremely dangerous, so you have a complete right to be foolish if you want to. But don't bring your kid over to my house.
I largely agree with you, as long as we do not lump in the covid vaccines with the ones you list. They are in an entirely different category, for multiple reasons.
While I completely understand this perspective, I believe Polio was only serious for about 1% of people. If for example, the alternative was giving 3% of people autism, which route is preferable? It’s imperative that we at least have accurate data in order to make these important decisions.
Amazing she states so emphatically that it’s definitely NOT vaccines. Science ain’t what it used to be so you can exclude Nothing if you want to find out the truth of it. For God’s sake keep an open and humble mind Ms Escher
Yep, amazing how the establishment quickly moved to "let's not investigate the origins anymore" and it is cited 2x here. I posted the following comment :
“ Now, prevention of autism is pretty much off the table” - this is a red flag. Covid -19 showed us how many medical institutions ( public and private) are captured financially . If you can’t find it, you need to re-research everything again and question, always question. Were the previous research captured? Who financed? Who does it benefit?
Exactly! It’s just too painful for the parent to acknowledge that they gave the shot to the child. I have personal experience with this. This article started out from an extremely defensive point. Putting one’s head in the sand and denying the possibility that the pharmaceutical industry, fined billions of dollars for lies and deceit and wrongful death, is funding the studies and using that as your defense, gets us nowhere.
Agreed. It might not be the vaccines but then WHAT is it?? Seems environmental considering the recent rapid rise! In addition why the explosion of childhood vaccines? Finally how do we ever regain trust in our lying Scientific community and our criminal Pharma community?? Until there is serious accountability for past lies, coverups and crime no trust can be built.
There are enough anti-vaxers in America that it ought to be pretty easy to run autism tests on a set of them and a matched set of vaxing parents. If vaccines have a significant effect, such a study would find it. Robert Kennedy could fund such a thing himself, so why doesn't he?
What if it’s the mothers’ or the fathers’ vaccine history? Until and unless we know what *is* causing this, calling anything “nonsense” is wildly irresponsible.
The autism from vaccinations theory, once had some believability, but if you read the post, research now finds the changes in the brain for the most part exist at birth and probably happen in-utero. While, I do agree with RFK Jr. that we should thoroughly research the totality of giving children 70+ vaccines (this should have been done decades ago), he is just wrong about the Autism/Vaccines link. Why he hasn't admitted as such is a mystery as he now must know. It's my biggest issue with him. Just the fact that autism continues to explode in the last 20 years while total vaccinations remain flat should be a big red flag. Causality doesn't equal causation as she pointed out in the post.
What "research now finds" has everything to do with what research gets funded, and by whom. That theory does not take into account the legions of parents who had normally developing babies—healthy, meeting milestones like eye contact and smiling and typical infant engagement with others—who, post-vaccination, suddenly lost their social skills—no more eye contact, no smiling, no interpersonal engagement; new head banging, outbursts, etc..—and never returned to normal.
The Narrative™ needs to ignore the reality of those multitudes of parents. Once upon a time, before the era of ubiquitous camera phones, these parents were gaslit and told they were mistaken, they simply didn't realize their child wasn't developing normally. Fortunately, thanks to technology, those parents now have easily accessible and shareable before-and-after videos of their once healthy/now disabled children. Unfortunately, our dawning era of Big Tech censorship is making it harder to for those parents to share their evidence. People have to know someone to whom it happened, or have enough natural curiosity or skepticism to seek a bigger picture than what is officially acknowledged. I wholly believe vaccines are not the only cause of autism, but there is substantial real world evidence for anyone willing to look past the Narrative and its name-calling, that vaccines are *one* of the causes.
Yes, research on vaccines has been intentionally limited. Don't think you can say the same thing about autism, just that the answers haven't been figured out yet. As to ignoring the reality/accounts of mothers, you miss the point. The temporality of symptoms is often separated from the damage, especially in brain injuries/changes. Bi-polar/Schizophrenia disorders usually appear in late teens and early 20s even though the damage/changes in the brain existed for a long time. ALS is usually diagnosed after age 40. So parents observations can be taken into consideration and be consistent with a theory of in-utero damage/changes. With the large increase in autism most folks would logically think it was multi-factorial of which vaccinations might be a small part of the issue. The rapidly increasing rate of autism over the last 25 years, when the vaccination protocol remained flat would indicate other issues are going on here. Not an expert by any means, but if the scientist are finding brain differences then there must be a direct casual link to implicate a vaccination only approach which has yet to be found. FYI, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical in general of our current vaccination approach to public health. That doesn't necessarily equate vaccinations cause autism.
RFK Jr. has been beating the drum of toxic environmental hazards for 40 years. He got pulled (really more like dragged or guilted) into taking up the vaccine safety issue 20 years ago because of his work on mercury exposures in the environment. So he would agree with you that vaccines are not likely the sole cause of the autism explosion. But EVERYTHING should be looked at, and when it comes to the link between neurotoxins in vaccines and autism, despite the loud protestations that it's been "thoroughly researched" and "debunked," the actual science—meaning, that which hasn't been funded or conducted by people with perverse incentives to find no connection—suggests real issues, and the loud claims about reams of evidence against the hypothesis don't hold up to scrutiny. For an eye-opening, clear explanation of that scrutiny, if you're interested, here's an outstanding presentation to the Arizona Senate regarding the science vs the claims.
I was only reacting to the post which stated that the science had found brain differences in autistic individuals that can be traced back to in-utero in some cases. Our son had his first vaccine at age 16. Before he was born I went into the college's medical library that I was working at and looked for the science. Found that after 1990 or so there was no work done identifying risk/benefit analysis nor any attempt to identify co-morbidities or any way to see different risk profiles. What I did find from the 1970s and 1980s were a couple of small exploratory studies indicating that a family history of reactive diseases (asthma, food allergies, lupus, etc.) might create a higher risk of vaccine reactions/injuries which my wife's large family had a lot of. Also found a single study that said redheads might also have a higher risk profile (My wife is a redhead and even though at the time I didn't know it turns out my child is too). I also noted that the day 1 Hep B vaccine was on the schedule and that seemed crazy to me. So my wife and I declined that day one vaccination. And then continue to refuse as I kept reading and thinking about it. (One of my concentrations in graduate school was sociology of medicine and knowing what I did know it was easy to be critical of that section of public health practice). So, bottom line, is according to this post, there is evidence that the damage that causes autism happens before vaccinations. So, if that evidence does exist, then some, if not most of the autism has causes that aren't vaccinations. And logic from this new science would suggest that autism causes are environmental and occur in the mothers body. Now it could be that vaccinating a pregnant women might be one of the causes? But, I agree that no science should be off limits and we should explore all possibilities. But, dogma, wether anti-vax or pro-vax should not lead, but science should. Again, no expert.
I really appreciate you taking time to expand the context of your comment and views. The decision my husband and I made when we had our first, in 1992, were based on similar concerns to what you outlined (of the 7 risk factors then identified/recognized for adverse reactions, our baby girl had 4). So I'm in complete sympathy with your general stance, though I will say I lean towards skepticism regarding current autism research, as its conclusions too conveniently lend support to the orthodoxy. After 30 years of watching Pharma get away with capturing and corrupting our institutions of health and science, it has me too jaded to take such findings at face value. Not when the research into vaccine risks is so shady and/or lacking. As we already noted—the science that receives funding has everything to do with what gets defined as "known" vs. what is labeled as "debunked."
Well my families reactions to the vaccine show otherwise. We just took my grandaughter to the ER with seizures. Her brother quit talking for 2 years after his vaccine injection. Big Pharma makes a lot of money $$&&&. I too fell the pro studies are biased and do not know why CDC continues to refuse to consider VAERS reports and the multitude of anecdotal reports. Why Bari Weiss and the authors & journalist she pick state unequivocally that the vaccine -autism connection is a myth and has been thoroughly disproved is beyond me. Sorry this author may insist it’s been proved otherwise (and it’s clear she believes that) but why is her opinion any better than my observations and experience in my family ? I’m trained in scientific method. Good grief. My extended family has a preponderance of autism in this current generation yet it is absent from previous generations. One sure constant are these childhood vaccines.
My brother died of gliosarcoma about 3 years ago (a very rare brain tumor) and his neurosurgeon mentioned to him he had 3 other patients with this rare form of cancer and two of his associates had 2 each. I'm not a doctor or researcher but it's obvious to me there's something in our environment that's ubiquitous that's causing profound neurological damage. With the billions poured into medical research, why has no real advancement been made to uncover the culprits? Would it be bad for business if the researchers discovered popular products played a major role in this disaster?
While you disagree vehemently with RFK Jr re vaccines, you should agree that you cannot rule out vaccines as a contributing factor unless you study with an unvaccinated control group. That’s how science works.
Exactly. Where is the data comparing vaxxed and unvaxxed kids? Having a control group is a definitive way to compare these two groups. As Kennedy rightly points out, what is also needed are longitudinal safety studies on childhood vaccines. There are zero, as he discovered after he sued the FDA to produce those studies which Fauci claimed existed.
I have a control group of 4... my kids. Born 1075, 1982, 1991 and 1993. Never vaccinated and no childhood health issues. Another posted comment on Amish community. I'm sure vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups could be isolated to compare rates. It is not done because it will harm the profits of pharma that fund just about everything these days from doctors to hospitals to learning institutions to media to government. I sincerely hope RFK, Jr. gets traction in the Democratic race. There are other voices like his out there that are ignored at our own peril.
So it doesn’t matter that millions of children get vaccinated and don’t have autism? Is this fact just irrelevant? Is it worth risking the lives and health of children, putting them at risk for polio etc in order to satisfy the desire for 100% certainty regarding vaccines? Medicine is always always about weighing risks against rewards. That becomes problematic of course when it comes to public health policy because then were in the realm of public school mandates etc. It’s easy to sit back and critique this or that policy or study but the reality is people on the front lines are having to make hard decisions based on what we know. Measles, mumps, and whooping cough are serious diseases too.
None of what you are saying is the point. No one is disputing whether this or that disease or condition is a risk. The point is, we should have safety data as a matter of course for all medical interventions, especially shots given to children who have developing immune systems. We have no data on the effect of multiple vaccines on kids developing and future immune system. Don’t you want to know that? We’ve had ample time to study that and haven’t. The risk- benefit ratio should be crystal clear when taking any kind of intervention. That is currently NOT the case.
I think what other commenters are advocating for is better, more nuanced studies. Of course, it does matter that millions of vaccinated children don’t have autism. But what is the percentage that do? What are other variables? If vaccines can be shown to be a contributor, how can they be improved? I am not seeing a callous, knee- jerk all vaccines are bad attitude, but instead a yearning for more information so we can continue to refine our knowledge and approaches.
What would a good risk benefit ratio look like to you? Again, witness the millions and millions who are unaffected. You might find the link I provided to the table summarizing studies informative. There are in fact studies comparing the vaccinated and the vaccinated for incidence of autism.
The affected. That’s what we should be looking at. The ratio of affected to unaffected too - that’s part of the safety data. I’ll look at your study but a cursory look and I see it’s on a government site and the NIH no less, the propagates of the Covid vaccine “safe and effective” stance. Back to the relevant issue. Where is the long term safety data? What are the side effects? Don’t you want to know that? Shouldn’t we all be demanding it if we are expected to inject our kids?Honestly, I find the disinterest in knowing these facts, to say the least, surprising.
Let's assume for a moment that vaccines DO cause autism (if it is proven) and today one in approximately 40 children develop autism. If society believes that this is an acceptable tradeoff (and should include all the other potential "rare" adverse effects), then so be it. This should be part of informed consent.
But also, not just autism. My son has chronic eczema developed as an infant. No family history...ever. There are other chronic side effects that would be good to know about. So while it may be 40 children that develop autism, it could be another 40 kids that develop another type of chronic disease. When I hear the side effects of "leaky bowels" on some of the pharma ads on tv, I can't imagine why anyone want to risk getting any of those side effects?!? But the point is, each family should weigh risks/benefits for themselves but do not feel like the choice is theirs with mandated vaccines.
Well, it is time to attack the author and profess another area of our expertise. Today it's medicine. Tomorrow we put our war expert hats on, followed by sociology and who knows what else after that.
Since each person's genetic/chemical/biological composition is different, vaccines will never be a one-size-fits-all panacea. Which is the reason SCOTUS ruled that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe," the result of which was the vaccine injury compensation program.
As for the "serious" diseases you mention, it's important to understand rates of both cases and deaths were precipitously declining BEFORE the vaccines were even introduced. So again, not the panacea many people have been led to believe they are.
Parents (and others) with concerns about autism and toxic exposures from vaccines are not solely focused on MMR, though that's what the medical industrial complex and their MSM mouthpieces would have you believe. So even though this may seem like a great refutation of the question, it's really not.
The study is important because all this vaccine hysteria began with an article in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published in The Lancet, linking the MMR vaccine to autism. In 2010 the study was proven to be a fraud and Wakefield lost his U.K. medical license. While only dealing with the MMR vaccine, this article and the fear it generated morphed into the fear of all childhood vaccines and that morphed into the fear of the vaccine schedule and over-vaccination. All of these fears have been proven to be unfounded by hundreds of studies since 1998, including the vaccine schedule theory, and it’s all laid out in the Wikipedia article on “Vaccines and Autism”, as well as “History of Autism”. Yes, it’s Wikipedia, but the footnotes reference all the studies. Or you could read about it on the CHOP website (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia).
Except that study was not about MMR and autism, it was a study done by 13 gastroenterologists (of which Wakefield was only one) regarding 12 children with autism who all presented with similar unusual GI issues. (In fact, it was the first published study to make the now well-known gut-brain connection.) At the end of their brief 5-page study, the authors mentioned that the parents of 8 of the 12 children said the onset of the problems (GI and autism) began shortly after receiving an MMR immunization. The doctors also *specifically noted* they were not positing any causal connection, but including the parental reports with a suggestion that further study should be done.
Wakefield's career was decimated because he publicly stated he thought parents should avoid MMR until further investigations were completed, and that children should be given the monovalent vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella in the meantime. He and two other of the 13 doctors refused to recant in the face of threats to revoke their medical licenses (the other ten did). More than a decade la doctor, who had the financial means to pursue it all the way through the courts, was fully exonerated, in a scathing opinion, by the UK High Court of the (bogus) fraud charges. Wakefield did not have the money to take the same path and so did not receive an exoneration, and by then had moved to the U.S. anyway.
Wikipedia is a great source to get The Narrative™ and ditto for CHOP (home of the venerated vaccine machine Dr. Paul Profit—I mean, Offit). Here's a good review of the real history:
Sorry, Wakefield was found guilty of fraud and the coauthors who recanted did so as a result of the evidence produced against Wakefield, not because they were afraid of losing their licenses. Wakefield’s trial was the longest and most comprehensive in British medical history. The fellow who was exonerated (Wakefield never was) was exonerated, not because he had more money than Wakefield, but because he had different facts from Wakefield peculiar to himself. Dr. Offit is very much more the expert on this than you are, or his other detractors. My daughter used to work for CHOP and their integrity is unquestioned, except by people who like to believe in fairy tales that help them cope with their personal situations. My grandson has autism, though not profound. Still, debilitating enough to worry that he may need lifetime care. Our family is not interested in finding a scapegoat to blame, ie, vaccines. The overwhelming weight of the science is that vaccines are not to blame. In fact, there is no valid science to the contrary. Autism is not on the list of accepted vaccine injuries. This is from the websites of vaccine injury lawyers. The author of this TFP piece needs to do a follow up to clarify this for all the comment sceptics. It’s human nature to look for someone or something to blame when the unthinkable happens to you, but sometimes it just happens.
There is data comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. All you have to do is look it up. I always see people saying there aren't studies. Go to PUBmed and search for it. There are studies from Denmark that look at MMR recipients vs non and there is no difference in autism risk.
He's wealthy enough to find a study like this himself. Certainly the various anti-vax support groups are (since anti-vax is more prevalent the higher up the income curve you go.) So you ask a good question... where are those studies? Why haven't they been done?
Surprising how vehemently against RFK, Jr. the author AND Bari are.
I’m NOT a WOKE Progressive anything, but I just recently listened to RFK Jr. talk about “his beliefs” on a vaccine causation of autism - backed, by the way, by many scientists, MDs, etc., and if nothing else, RFK Jr. is at least keeping Autism in the news.
Give him credit for that!
Especially now that all the other WOKE “powers that be” want to “normalize it”. The same as the WOKE push to normalize obesity, pedophiles now called “Children Attracted Adults” hormone blockers and surgeries for Trans children, teaching sex to Pre K - 3rd graders, etc.! Apparently Autism has been added to their list.
Also, rather than badmouth him for “his opinion” LISTEN to what HE says, NOT form opinions based on what others say about him.
He said (I quote), “I have taken vaccines. My children have been given vaccines. I am not advocating for doing away with vaccines! I am advocating for MORE RESEARCH.”
Many vaccines have been/are lifesaving and many people champion those. But to ignore the fact that SOME people have been harmed by vaccines is ignoring inconvenient truths. If it doesn’t fit the WOKE Left narrative then it must be a Conspiracy Theory!
I'm really discouraged by Bari's mischaracterization of RFK Jr.'s position on vaccines. In fact, contrary to Bari's claim, he has NOT made his position of vaccines a "policy centerpiece" of his campaign. In fact, he EXPLICITLY has not—tells every interviewer (and I've been following him very closely) that he'd be happy to run his whole campaign without ever mentioning vaccines, but if he is asked he will answer questions about it. Bari's intro claim is the most dishonest and unfair statement I've ever seen her make. It actually has me reconsidering my financial support for TFP, which I've paid for from its inception. She seems blinded by emotion to the point of lying about someone with whom she disagrees. That's not the kind of honest and unbiased journalism I thought I was paying for.
Leah, I agree with you on RFK Jr. and his campaign. What I respect about him is his willingness to speak out in defense of HIS beliefs, without backing down “to win votes”. He has said, “You may not agree with my views, and I can accept that; however, I will always be transparent”
Listen, NOT voting for any candidate based on ONE of their opinions you don’t agree with (I believe) is beyond sensible. It’s like people who vote strictly on Abortion, or Gun Control and ignore all else.
I am not a registered Democrat, but I always vote for the person NOT the Party. Sometimes it’s the lesser of two evils! If it is between Kennedy & Biden, I will vote for RFK Jr. in a heartbeat! I fear what another term of Biden/Harris will bring!
Or even worse -- just Harris. President Harris. Imagine. "Vaccines are exciting. They spur our imagination. Vaccines -- they affect us all. And vaccines -- they connect us all."
I am not a supporter at this time, but the interviews I have seen show he answers questions pretty directly about all his beliefs. It is easy to see why so many people like him. Normal politicians deflect so much now.
Dave, whether you are Left, Right or Independent, RFK Jr.‘s willingness to put himself out there, in an effort to try and bridge the divide that is literally tearing this Country apart
is resonating with a lot of people!
He’s the first person running for President, in recent memory, NOT running a campaign on “blame games” “outright lies” or “gotcha slogans”!
How truly inspiring it is to listen to someone I can disagree with on certain issues, and come away not feeling as if I’ve just been lectured, belittled or attacked for disagreeing!
No “You must be a MAGA deplorable White Supremacist racist” or “You have a serious case of TDS and must be a card carrying Socialist”
My partner & I were watching some politician spew his hateful blah, blah, blah on one of the MSM programs, when he turned to me and said, “Honey, let’s watch a Documentary on Serial Killers. We need to be distracted by something more uplifting” Sarcasm, of course, but we both needed a laughed.
Add me to the list of those who are discouraged by RFK Jr. bashing. I've read a bit about him, including the first few pages of his book, 'The Real Anthony Fauci,' and I will no longer allow my opinion of him to be manipulated by those who misquote him or otherwise malign him.
How many hundreds of successful lawsuits against polluters has this man won? Nutcases don't win lawsuits; they have them thrown out of court
I agree, the reflexive “I’m on not on Team Crackpot declaration” in the intro is a flashing neon sign that Bari and the Free Press had lost its way, but it’s only the latest of many such signs so I had already cancelled my subscription.
After all the revelations of deep corruption, widespread incompetence, and total lack of accountability involving public health “experts” and their political and media sycophants over the past three years, I can’t fathom any person with a modicum of curiosity and skepticism adopting blanket trust as their default position on this question of vaccines or other environmental causes.
Leah, I agree -- I was really disappointed with the mischaracterization of RFKjr in her intro as well. I also didn’t think she sounded that informed about the Vax convo when she interviewed him . She used MSM talking points/sound bites to come across as though she were the expert and he was just some crackpot when this man clearly has spent years and years researching and becoming an expert on this topic. He sounded much wiser than she, though I think she probably didn’t realize that. She was dismissive of anything he had to say about it even though she admitted she didn’t have time ton research it herself. I like so much about Bari, but this intro to today’s Stack really bummed me out. That said, I am hopeful that seeds of doubt have been planted that will niggle their way to the surface at some point. I was once her, to be honest. I vaxxed all my kids, happily, not knowing what I know now. I give everyone grace for being in that place I once was. It was seeds of doubt that accumulated to the point where I decided to do some deeper digging and then the scales were removed from my eyes once that happened. And there is no going back, once you know.
It’s called the free press…but it is definitely biased! I listened to her interview with RFKjr and her tone of voice was even different with him and almost rude!
I think part of his point is that not all vaccines target illnesses that are severe enough to justify the urgency with which vaccines are approved. Look at the RSV vaccine just approved. To my knowledge, RSV kills very few healthy children every year; yet, we now have a vaccine to try and prevent it. The vaccine was not tested in long term studies. So is RSV such a threat to society that we must skip the safety testing and get it into the bodies of as many babies as possible? This is the nuance missing in any vaccine discussion. But to have any questions or concerns is right-wing and conspiracy theory.
You couldn’t have said it better, RFK like most people including this author have opinions. He also has a book which I encourage people to read wherein he does not make these ridiculous blanket statements which he’s accused of, instead he provides a litany of academic research which is hardly about “vaccines cause autism” and more about “our legislators sold out to big pharma. And due to their corporate influence medical professionals will not even entertain furthering research to better understand their impact”
Nope, because he didn't state that. Your characterization of his remarks reflects the bending of reality that the Uniparty and its allies in MSM specialize in.
i concur, listen to the full comments RFK II made, during an off camera dinner party and discussion, and then revise your thoughts on his credibility.
Re Vaccines: they are "uncontrolled" by us today, as you may know that pharma has been given blanket immunity from any form of prosecution/penalties due to adverse side effects of vaccines, as well as many drugs that we now give out.
Pharma creates a vaccine and they go to the government to get it added to the vaccine schedule for children. In many states/cities, the vaccines are mandated for kids to attend school. Think of this classic vaccine overreach: HPV that is only found in women (see Matt Walsh's movie to confirm "what is a woman"), the vaccine is now on the schedule for Men/males/boys to receive the same shot as girls/ women in grade school.
And in 2020, Covid shot is mandated for your job!! Or you are fired in many cases. That is finally coming back to bite companies in the ass!!
Fast forward, now we clearly find that Covid shot and boosters have little to no demonstrated effect on stopping/curtailing covid across the world. Folks that say a million (US) folks died of covid are correct to a degree, but age and comorbidities are usually left out of the discussion. What we don't say is how many survived due to natural immunity. How many died due to the side effects of the shot. How many died "with covid" vs "from covid".
For todays topic, autism, I dont have a dog in the fight. I feel badly for those who do, and that there is no cure, nor will a vaccine do the same. My two cents is be vigilant on what you consume, look for options and don't blindly accept what is fed to you by others.
"Most men who get HPV never have symptoms. The infection usually goes away by itself. But, if HPV does not go away, it can cause genital warts or certain kinds of cancer. Talk to your healthcare provider about anything new or unusual on your penis, scrotum, anus, mouth, or throat".
"More than 90 percent of sexually active men and 80 percent of sexually active women will be infected with HPV in their lifetime."
"HPV infection can increase a man's risk of getting genital cancers, although these cancers are not common. HPV can also cause genital warts in men, just as in women. More than half of men who are sexually active in the U.S. will have HPV at some time in their life."
"The immune system fights most HPV infections and clears them from the body, usually within 2 years. But sometimes HPV infections can last longer. A longer infection with a “high-risk” HPV type can turn into cancer. It usually takes years for this to happen."
I agree, men can get HPV which is a STD, once a person begins to be sexually active. As these three notes (I found by "Google HPV in Men" ) above indicate, HPV impacting men, is very uncommon. The rare negative impact of HPV for men , is rare. What is surprising, and my comments allude to, is the recent trend to put this women's vaccine on the boys vaccine schedule. ALSO, as with any vaccine, the HPV vaccine will do nothing if the patient already has one or more of the up to 40 types of HPV. My issue is , it is one more vaccine on the schedule, that is very unlikely to have any positive effect for a male. Sorry, questioning vaccines these days. rich
With some but those were never really his supporters. Those are weak and a tragic bunch that if in East Germany during the cold war would have turned their neighbors over to the stasi who dissented from the government stated position.
NY Post published a recording which is why I believe the statement and think his words reflects his beliefs. My reaction to RFK was nice to have new winds blowing in politics, but his jews and chinese spared from Covid statement resembled a spit (one that could be the spit into the wind on his campaign).
What is disappointing is that if eyes hadn't seen and ears not heard, then I would also put it on journalists juggling words. It is so difficult to really know candidates which should not be politics as usual.
I am of Jewish ancestry, and I support RFK, Jr 100%. In fact, after I read your comment, I contributed another $25 to his campaign -- in your honor. So, thank you. You're very welcome. https://www.kennedy24.com/congratulations
RFK, Jr. never said covid was designed "to spare Jews." He said the virus was engineered in the Wuhan lab, and its furin cleavage sites offered some immunity to the Chinese, as you would expect since the Chinese were quite likely developing covid as a bioweapon. Over one million Chinese have died from covid, which is approximately the number who died in the US. So whatever advantage there was was far from complete.
The Jews and the Finns (anti-Finnatism, anyone?) also received some immunity from the bio-hacked furin cleavage sites. But this was just an accident, the luck of the genetic draw.
I think his point was that the Chinese government is most probably developing bio weapons that differentially spare ethnic Chinese. He cited evidence concerning COVID and Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews. The discussion was off the record and certainly worthy of debate. But how it turned into a debate about anti-semitism is beyond me.
Anna, if anything (I listened a couple times very closely) Kennedy was NOT at all being critical of Jewish people! Good Lord, I’m always amazed at how people hear what they want to hear!
The conversation was a discussion about what SOME have suggested, “COVID could have been engineered to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people”. RFK Jr. didn’t ever say that was HIS belief!
Hells Bells, people, can’t theories, opinions, beliefs be discussed without being accused of being a “Conspiracy Theorist”
Let me answer that … NOPE, not if you go against the WOKE Left narrative!
RFK Jr. doesn’t stand a chance against the WOKE Democrat Machine. Just like Trump, RFK Jr. can’t be controlled, so his credibility must be destroyed! And, as an Environmental Lawyer for 35 years (Trump a businessman) they aren’t bought & paid for Politicians! If you can’t be bought, you can’t be controlled.
I believe the NIH did a research finding that Jews and Chinese have more immunity, and it happens some groups may or may not be more susceptible to certain diseases
There were factors that made people more vulnerable toCovid…comorbidity having the most impact. While the government noted race groups in deaths attributed to COVID. There was no data published with a Jewish group and Chinese were listed as Asian. If NIH did research on race, it would be another example of gross incompetence by the government.
He didn’t actually say that in the way you are stating it . . The headline writers flooded the internet with it so nobody even wants to listen to the primary source material
Exhibit A. Kennedy said they were designed to be able to target certain ethnic groups. What he did not say was that they were used to do so, as you state above.
JoAnne, thanks for sharing the NY Post link; however, in listening to it closely, Kennedy is sharing information that SOME papers have been written stating “COVID was ethnically targeted to spare Jews & Chinese” … he ISN’T SAYING this as HIS FACTUAL BELIEF.
He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!
This was the same dinner party (?) Hillary confronted & scolded him for daring to run against Biden!
Bari is a neocon warmonger. She uses the vaccine issue to discredit RFKj but her goal is to censor him because RFKj wants to pursue peace and is a threat to neocons like Bari and Bill Krystol. Bari could give a rat's ass about autism. She along with fellow warmonger and mentor Brett Stephens will continue their despicable and shameful war against RFKj and align themselves with the likes of Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
In a recent inter-view, Kennedy told The Wall Street Journal his views on vaccines have been misconstrued and that he isn’t antivaccine. He said he has all the required childhood vaccines but isn’t vaccinated against Covid-19 and believes that vaccines should undergo more rigorous scrutiny.
So, maybe vaccines contribute to Autism, but dishonest and fraudulent studies only make people more wary of any scientific correlations. I have not seen a study that shows a concrete correlation. My Asperger's son started displaying symptoms by 8 days (he would not look at faces). He had almost no vaccinations at that point. I have fully vaxed him and he has improved over the years.
Why are all the articles descriptions hidden except the first? The spoiler alert thing makes it really hard to see what these articles are and makes the presentation looks shady
We also can't rule out space aliens infecting kids with autism through interdimensional wormholes opened directly into our children's brains. That doesn't mean we should spend any effort looking for warp-drive signatures though.
I've felt for a very long time that the staggering rise in autism is a very serious problem, and I can't for the life of me understand why there's no push to do tons more research on the causes, and why the medical establishment is so complacent. It's yet another reason why I've lost trust in the medical establishment. They're busy occupying their time on all the more politically trendy things like Covid and Trans.
Everyone tells me "Oh it's just diagnosed more now. Autistic people always existed in the same number." Why is everything being explained this way? "Oh there are always that many trans people. They just feel more comfortable coming out now." So often I feel like I'm living in a real version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and I'm the only one seeing horror and questioning but everyone around me have become pods and zombies.
Completely agree. Her comment about "only for the most privileged can autism be a superpower" really hits home. My cousin has twin boys with severe autism. What she has to handle day in and day out is extraordinary including one who threatens suicide on a weekly basis. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Meanwhile someone we know who most likely has some social anxiety continues to tell us she thinks she's on the spectrum. She's happily married, three kids, full-time job, etc. Stop already.
Back when in 1950 or so when Kinsey published his (in)famous sexual study, the estimate for adult males who were homosexual, that is fall in love/have sex with other men, was 3 to 4%.
I saw an article a few months ago in The Economist??, that estimated that number today to be around 3%.
So when you read that the exploding number of kids claiming to be trans (many of whom have autism as comorbidity) is just like gay numbers....that is false. Totally false.
Subversion of the American national dialogue by forces that serve the self-interested lie, as intended, go beyond the simple destruction of trust and hurl everything into anomie. Who know's what the truth is? And that's the point!! Important conversation's like this one fall by the wayside and moral reason goes begging. Across Substack stories of worthy lives, many in scientific R&D, career destroyed, grant dollar's and lab's seized. Live's, money and the future thrown into chaos by the feminist/D.E.I. and the crooked little fascist's it serve's. There are report's elsewhere on Substack today about complaint's that there is too much research emphasis on the birthing of healthy children by women and not enough about sustaining pregnancy for "trans" men, and as I remember, because it interfere's with testosterone injection's. That's propagandist gas lit crazy making at its best. And again, this important human conversation and countless others, vital to all our live's denied.
The truth, truth speaker's and fact's matter. This is a real fight and I applaud the bravery of (dare I use the word) the MOTHER fighting for, not only her children, but the live's of other's to come.
Yes, I'm so bored of people who are otherwise intelligent just handwaving away any curiosity and placing a big ol "it's just more awareness" stamp on clearly observable phenomenons. And then pat themselves on the back for being one of the "good guys"
Jesus Christ, hysterical progressive movements have all but destroyed almost every institution in our country, and clearly has captured almost all of healthcare.
No doubt parents across the country are horrified by this reality.
Yet, Evans, the (apparent 81 million) majority keep voting for the WOKE Left Progressives. And IF you dare go against THEIR narrative (like RFK Jr.) you are a “threat to Democracy” and a “Conspiracy Theorist”
They don’t, though. They vote for the long term coalition which includes the progressives. It’s a shame that the progressive faction seems ascendant. We ought to help the more moderate factions in the Democratic Party regain control. Maybe by crossing party lines to support them when they come up with something sensible?
Childhood vaccines have never been tested against placebo, so I don’t understand how anyone can say they are certainly safe. Can we please change the narrative and push Pharma to actually test these products against placebo so we can rule out the possibility that they may cause autism. The “mountain of evidence” you cite is all suspect until these products are tested properly.
Why are drug companies which have had previous felony convictions doing their own safety research? Very scientific! Also, once a shot is on the childhood schedule, there is a huge, sometimes mandated market with no liability for the pharmaceutical companies. It is absurd to assume current research—with zero placebo studies—proves safety.
To do so, test vaccines in children compared to unvaccinated children, would expose the placebo cohort to diseases like measles, mumps, polio etc. that we know vaccines prevent. It would be unethical.
Except measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc. are not deadly when contracted by healthy children. It would not be "unethical" in the slightest and there are plenty of parents who don't vaccinate whose children could participate as the control arm. This line of reasoning is superficial—a smoke screen. The covid shot also is on the CDC childhood vaccine schedule now and children are at literally ZERO risk of death from Covid. This is all about profits, not ethics.
I can attest to “not deadly”. I had measles, mumps and chickenpox as a kid (as did most of my school mates) with not much fanfare. Not pleasant but hardly a mass killer in most populations. Except maybe now this is a worry?
It does seem our population has lost a lot of herd immunity.--so perhaps today with our kids having weaker immune system (could this be a result of vaccines?), exposure to something like measles can result in a severe a reaction similar to that experienced by native Hawaiians with first exposure to Europeans. Alas, while our public health “experts” should be looking at cumulative impact of vaccines and medications on our children’s immune systems, weighing benefits vs risks, they don’t. Instead they just add more vaccines to the stick-em regime.
Bottom line: Seems to me this generation of kids is constantly sick with one virus or another, and I suspect it’s not just from over prescription of antibiotics.
Change “are not deadly” to “are rarely life threatening”. They can have life threatening complications. Also, chickenpox recurs in unvaccinated adults as shingles. Mumps in adult men can cause sterility.
I predate the vaccines. I had chickenpox, measles, and apparently silent mumps as a child. They were not at all fun.
I would have been thrilled to take a needle stick plus a day’s sore arm to avoid the weeks of misery I endured from Measles and chickenpox. I would especially like to have avoided Shingles, which clouded the cornea of my left eye and gave me nerve damage on that side, in addition to hurting like crazy.
How many commenters here so blasé about those diseases actually had them?
Snopes addresses the question of the occurrence of autism in the Amish. Apparently hard to get good data because a number of Amish do vaccinate their children.
This is a dumb argument. If you removed the vax requirement for schooling, daycare, etc then you would have no problem finding an unvaccinated cohort to compare against.
Yes, and we could probably find that cohort now among certain crunchy Californians or colonies of the religious orthodox, but I’m not sure either are civic minded enough to volunteer their children for research.
There are very many people who aren't "crunchy" Californians or orthodox who don't vaccinate. But you might not know that if you aren't well-read or researched (or a participant) in pro informed consent advocacy groups.
They don’t want to know the results. Since our vaccines became liability free, the childhood schedule has tripled and chronic disease in kids has gone from about 12 percent to 54 percent.
Do you think they would volunteer their children as participants in a placebo group for testing vaccines? And I can see a problem in that it would be difficult for scientists to do a blind study.
Well, having been swimming in these waters for 30 years I can tell you these parents were at the forefront of demands for such studies and would have participated. And they were ignored, smeared, and told it's "too unethical." Now, given the rise in the meantime of the surveillance state, the weakening of respect for parental rights, and the consequent specter of authoritarian overreach, I'm not so sure there'd be the line of volunteers we'd have seen in the past. Institutional trust has, understandably, tanked.
Also, I don't think a blinded study would be that difficult, tbh. And regardless, the challenge of it certainly isn't a good reason to throw our hands up and say, oh well, nevermind, let's just carry on with the status quo. Safety MUST be paramount. If they can do their control trials using non-inert placebos, there's no logical reason they can't do them properly using inert placebos.
When mass immunization programs started, the supposition was that vaccine immunity doesn't wane. That was discovered to be erroneous. So even with 100% vaccination rates, herd immunity cannot be achieved because no vaccine is 100% effective (ie. they all "leak") and, more importantly, vaccine immunity, being artificial, not only wears off over time, but wears off at differing intervals which is wholly dependent on the individual (eg. in one person a specific vaccine protection might last 20 years but in another with the same vaccine, protection might wear off in five years. It's random and unpredictable). So herd cannot be achieved by relying on vaccines.
Another way of saying this is that herd immunity is an artifact of populations in which *natural* lifelong immunity is acquired by the individuals contracting the disease and fighting it off with their own immune system, which then forever after recognizes the virus and defeats it early in subsequent exposures, such that at any given moment 95%+ of a population is protected. Also, crucially, maternal natural immunity protects nursing infants, who need the immunity received through their mother's milk until their own immune systems are mature enough to successfully fight off the virus and so acquire their own lifelong immunity. Mothers with vaccine (aka artificial) immunity do not pass on protective antibodies through their breastmilk, which stymies the nature-made system for protecting vulnerable infants. Now that we have 2-3 generations of widely vaccinated populations for many of these "childhood diseases" (they were called that because adults didn't contract them as they had already acquired lifelong natural immunity in their own childhoods...), we've totally messed up the system because nursing moms can no longer provide protection to their babies as they have no natural immunity themselves. Perfect example of humans presuming theirs is a better plan than God's.
It is my understanding that the only disease ever completely eradicated by vaccination is small pox. And that is because small pox has no animal reservoir. It was strictly spread human to human.
It's complicated because small pox inoculation has been around for over 200 years. So, we can't say if the improving material conditions, plus better medical care would have decreased morbidity and mortality 95% like it did for other 20th century diseases.
You wrote a lot of wrong things. I'm just going to focus on one very obviously wrong one: "Mothers with vaccine (aka artificial) immunity do not pass on protective antibodies through their breastmilk" which is rubbish. Breast cells don't "know the difference" between vaccine generated antibodies and non, because they aren't different. They get excreted into milk and absorbed
Sorry—that was sloppy writing on my part. The point is that artificial (aka vaccine-induced) immunity doesn’t last. So childhood MMR vaccines and boosters can not be relied upon by childbearing women for providing protection to nursing babies because mothers who don’t have natural immunity may no longer have antibodies.
Its not like natural immunity is guaranteed protection forever. It's definitely not. Vaccine immunity to some diseases, in some studies decreases faster, but here's the thing: You don't have to get Measles to get it! I would prefer widespread vaccine coverage limiting spread so my children never see that spectactularly infectious virus over dubious better transplacental transfer that would require their mother to have had Measles. Do you know what subacute sclerosing panencephalitis is?
We all had measles, mumps, etc. Polio was more serious, but no vax available for that until 50’s and most survived. Plus we have plenty of data for polio vax now. It’s the many new ones that are suspect and mostly not justifiable on a risk/benefit analysis.
I am of that generation and having known women who contracted measles while pregnant and people who were wheelchair bound after polio, I would not wish that on anyone when a vaccine is available.
Unless/until the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (releasing Pharma from any liability) is overturned, they have zero incentive to do these studies and/or make their products safer. It is one of the most stupid and harmful laws ever to be passed.
"The recent rise of the “neurodiversity” identity movement, where autism is reinvented as a natural difference to be celebrated, not investigated, prevented, or treated, has helped spread a fairy dust of complacency over the autism world." - The entire "I'm OK, you're OK" identity movement will eventually cripple if not destroy Western civilization. It is definitely preventing the much-needed research into autism. I don't need to improve, work on myself or my short-comings - I am perfect just like I am. Hell, I don't even need to be in a relationship, work (UBI), or leave the confines of virtual reality (create a world that I like). This article saddens me to the utmost degree, and I admire and have the utmost respect for the author and her journey to help her children and others.
Agree! I was attacked on Reddit for asking for help with my Asperger's son. Like I wasn't supporting his 'neurodiversity.' I accept him fully, and just want to help him achieve his goals. He wants to change.
Or any other health benchmarks. A close friend who is a clinical therapist in a safety net hospital says she no longer advises patients to lose weight, because 1) they won't do it anyway and 2) it's socially unfair to stigmatize them because of their weight. These are morbidly obese patients with multiple health issues, mainly diabetes.
I really appreciate that this addressed a need for looking more closely at subcategories of autism especially with the rise of identitarian component. One thing I'd say, is that causal factors for autism need to be identified, but I fail to understand why there is a pervasive belief that it is a single factor and not multi-factorial. Is this not something that might be a confluence of factors from the increased toxin load of the childhood vaccine schedule, to alterations in the microbiome because of diet and/or changes in birthing practices and breastfeeding, to the increased toxic load of our ambient environment, to hereditary components, and beyond - likely, things we can't even conceive of. As we look at some of these rising diseases, I think it's important that we recognize their inherent complexity and our inability to tease out a single reductive cause OR cure. Everything around us is multi-factorial, this will be, too.
YESS! My thoughts exactly. RFK’s book did not rule out other contributing factors and he rightfully took aim at WHEN and HOW vaccines are administered. He wasn’t like “All vaccines cause autism” he mentioned a multitude of variables specific to certain vaccines.
Yes, I would argue though that the way he approaches this in media does not communicate that. For example, he mentions it’s likely multi factorial in the Rogan interview one time and then spends almost 3 hours talking about things in a way that suggests vaccines cause autism. How we talk about an issue all the time (not just buried in books few people read) matters. It’s time we point people towards complexity.
a quick google search told me that based on current data there's almost a 2 to 1 ratio of autism in kids who were exclusively formula fed vs. breastfed...which basically tells you that either a. breast milk is protective or b. environmental toxins (found in lab based formula) are the culprit...or c. both.
And yet, correlation does not equal causation. Women who exclusively breast feed (EBF) probably have a "healthy user bias" - use less toxic cleaning supplies, had more vaginal deliveries, have more community and financial support, access to more organically grown/pasture-raised foods, have better nutrient status because of more nutrient dense food access. And likely all of the above and more. The question becomes, when you live in a world (actually these stats are just US) where less than 25% of kids are EBF by 6 months, 1/3 of deliveries are cesarean, cord blood is found to have hundreds of chemicals.... it's absolutely multi-factorial. AND moms aren't to blame. I just see a lot of people doing their best in a sea of information that is almost impossible to comb through. A world where everything from our complete disconnection from community and support to the toxin load of the food we eat is a factor in the rise of so many different diseases.
Exactly. In the 70's when formula came out it was touted as superior to breast milk. Only the wealthy women could afford it so it became an upper to upper middle class phenomena. Studies from the time showed that formula fed kids did better in school, had fewer illnesses and were better behaved than breastfed kids.
Fast forward a few decades and "attachment parenting" and breastfeeding are all the rage amongst the upper crust set and formula feeding is lower class, something the waitress or retail worker does because they don't have any maternity leave or a wealthy husband to support them. Studies now show that breastfed kids do better in school, have fewer illnesses and are better behaved than formula fed kids.
To be clear, I think breastfeeding is better, but clearly social class is the superior determining factor in how your kid turns out. As one pediatrician said in response to the breast vs bottle mommy wars, "I can't tell the bottle versus breast fed kids on the kindergarden playground, but I can tell which are from the trailer park and which are from the gated communities."
Good on you for pointing that out. It is an interesting correlation, none the less. I was wondering how SSRI use correlates with autism incidence. It's got to be environmental. Genetics just does not change overnight. Something people are ingesting or otherwise exposed to is involved in this. And it might be right under our noses. Maybe some highly touted vitamin (or the concoction it's commonly sold in) is causing this - where it's fine up to some level and causes problems in higher dosages. People routinely take 1000x RDA's on vitamins ever since Nelson Passwater's wildly popular book came out in the '70s.
They also get into the trans parenting danger zone using terms like "natural." Don't get me wrong, I am not buying into that nonsense, but doctors are clearly frightened by it.
Breastfeeding studies are inherently biased, considering they do not control for maternal IQ or income, which profoundly impacts how often children receive medical care throughout their lifetimes. In addition, recent studies have found traces of EDCs (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35437305/
Not to mention, they fail to assess the babies who receive colostrum from breast milk but are not breastfed afterward (many mothers use this method.) And countries like France, which have significantly fewer mothers that breastfeed, and when they do, it’s typically no longer than a month or so (breastfeeding beyond this point is considered taboo), have far less of an increase in autism diagnosis.
even if the studies are biased none of those variables account for autism. You can have a high IQ, high income, etc and your kid will still have autism. All I am saying is that exclusively formula fed kids (which the study was showing - not exclusively breast fed) do have higher rates of autism compared to the kids who were breast fed at some point for some period of time. regardless it can be a contributing but likely not the sole factor
And it could be an exposure of previous generations. I read a study years ago that posited multigenerational impacts. It is hard to do but a pretty closed group of Laplanders were studied who had high levels of diabetes. Unnaccountably high given their genetics and environment. The conclusion was that severe starvation of their grandparents had triggered it. I read this a lo-o-ong time ago so the details are fuzzy.
Bari for a person who is supposedly dedicating herself to challenging establishment dogma, you are at times shockingly unwilling to even consider challenges to establishment dogma.
Astoundingly, supposed anarchist group Antifa was pro mandate. I find it interesting that a group wrecking buildings and burning down the house supports Big Pharma forced shots.
But I especially found confounding the firing of thousands of Americans who would not take the vaccine while letting thousands flow into the country untested and unvaxxed. The policy seemed completely illogical.
The unvaxxed were mostly from the political opposition, and destroying their economy was a profound and long-lasting victory for the Cultural Revolution. That's why it was combined with the BLM purge.
It's completely logical when you understand their goals. We just need to stop pretending that it was about the virus.
Antifa showed up and clashed with demonstrators against the vaccine mandates at several rallies. It was reported in numerous newspapers. I believe they felt being anti vax in any way was a far right position.
My thoughts exactly, BD! IF you don’t kowtow to the WOKE Progressive Left you are immediately labeled a “Conspiracy Theorist” or as RFK Jr. is now, a “Threat to Democracy”
With all due respect, TFP makes a fool of itself going out of their way to demand that vaccines not be even a consideration as a factor in the rise of autism. You have also repeatedly misrepresented RFK Jr's position. He has never claimed that vaccines are 100% the cause. He has repeatedly said he believes its a distinct possibility due to the correlation between the rise in cases and the rapid expansion of the vaccine schedule (not to mention the ridiculously long history pharma, regulatory agencies, and "independent" researchers have of lying, corruption, bias and just plain old fallibility that coincidentally always seem to coincide with massive profits). He has also repeatedly said there are certainly a handful of other possibilities but he believes vaccines should be looked at more closely. Only an absolute moron would dig their heels in and refuse this extremely logical position.
The author basically says, I have no clue whats behind it but the rise in cases is real and the only thing we know is that the industry with the most criminal penalties leveled against it for lying about safety and funding "studies" that support those lies absolutely cannot be considered as a possible culprit. Its just stunning to me how often people will allow themselves to get burned by the exact same people and systems and continue to defend those people and systems.
We literally just had the worlds "top scientists" tell everyone that all the evidence on Covid "proves" it could not have been engineered only to find out they all were coordinating to lie to the public in order to defend the science that created the virus. They didnt even need to be bribed because the conflict of interest is stunningly obvious. OBVIOUSLY scientists who believe in GOF research will do anything to deflect from the fact that GOF research is responsible. And I suppose lets all just forget about the opioid crisis which was created by pharma, enabled by the regulatory agencies and backed by "countless studies" from "independent" researchers. I honestly just dont even know how anyone could put any trust into these institutions right now. Its really mind boggling.
To be clear, Im not saying vaccines absolutely are a factor in the development of autism, but I believe its possible and should be looked at further. I absolutely think its crazy that somehow vaccine "science" is different in the US than in other developed countries in Europe who magically do not have the same issue with autism as we do. I also think that in the absence of any real answer, only an absolute moron would ignore any possibility. Covid should have proved this to every person with a functioning brain.
Also, Kennedy has repeatedly volunteered to debate the science on this issue. A few years ago he was scheduled to debate at Yale with three doctors who all canceled at the last minute. He debated with three empty chairs with their names on them. He has both guts and a sense of humor. Biden can (sometimes) read off his card.
Its just wild to me that you have only 1 candidate who is even paying attention to this issue and the media, including TFP apparently, are going out of their way to discredit him. I keep coming back to the fact that the "science" is somehow different here than in other advanced countries in Europe and how apparently nobody finds that even remotely curious or worth looking into. It seems to me to be a stunning case of American exceptionalism to believe that everyone else is wrong and were right, even though there is such a long history of these companies putting profits over people. I have a deep respect for Bari and TFP (despite some language in my OP that I should probably have not used) but I am so amazed and disappointed in their approach to this issue.
In her interview with RFK he provides a really good example in the case of the chicken pox vaccine which England recommends against precisely because while it does prevent chicken pox, it leads to massive increases in shingles later in life, which is far more dangerous. Obviously, someone here is not prioritizing patient health but she didnt even engage on the point. I find the lack of curiosity here really mind boggling.
Couldn’t agree more with your assessment of pharma and the regulatory agencies. Particularly in regards to everything concerning covid and the opioid nightmare that they intentionally unleashed on the population. How anyone can blindly believe anything they say is hard to understand.
Oddly enough I just had this conversation with my mother. I told her that I don't remember one family growing up who had an autistic child (I grew up in the 70s). It doesn't mean that they didn't exist, but that the occurrence was so rare that an average person didn't know any family who had a child with it (I did know people who had low IQ children, particularly downs syndrome so it wasn't that there were no disabled children). Once I had children the number skyrocketed. I knew quite a few families who had children with autism so that would be starting in the early 90's. It is horrible that we still don't know what is causing it. I would ask you to take another look at the vaccine schedule but agree it could also be issues with our food supply, or something else that we haven't yet examined.
One reason you didn't know any family who had an autistic child in the 70s is that autistic children were commonly sent away. My second cousin was profoundly retarded, and autistic, and in the 70s, when he was a child, his parents institutionalized him. In 1967, there were almost 200,000 institutionalized mentally retarded people. Most of the institutions, whether they were bad or good, have been torn down now, and almost nobody sends away kids like this anymore.
Exactly. And that’s where I disagree with the author and Bari when they say that the increased numbers are not due to differences in current diagnostic methods. When I studied autism in the early 70’s the term applied almost exclusively to nonverbal kids who rocked constantly and did things like slam their heads into walls all day. In the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s people with autism and very low IQs (under 70 or so) were labeled mentally retarded and put into institutions and mental hospitals. One article I read said that the initial surge in autism diagnoses occurred when the government decided to close most of the mental hospitals and other institutions and all those people were released into the community and a lot of them were relabeled autistic. Parents today worry about how to care for adult autistic children because in the old days the government housed them and most people were okay with that.
If those institutions have mostly been closed, where are all those people with autism now? Seems if the rates were similar we’d be seeing middle-aged and elderly people with autism at the same rates as we see younger people. Yet, we don’t.
I think the answer may lie in the word "mostly." Closing institutions is a gradual process. Mainly, the way it works is that new/younger patients cease being admitted, whereas older patients stay institutionalized until they die. I have a friend whose brother still resides in one and is now in his early 60s. All of the patients there are older. Sometimes the institutions must consolidate as numbers of patients decrease over time.
I'm sure that accounts for some, but those institutions held many more people than those diagnosed with autism. I also don't believe people who were disabled with autism to the point of needing institutional care were being diagnosed at anywhere near the rates we see today. There's realistically no way to go exponentially from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 37 in a 30 year time span simply on the basis of better and wider diagnostic criteria. A three orders of magnitude increase in three decades signals a sea-change in something within the population itself.
My husband’s family is rife with members on the Autism Disorder Spectrum, ranging from a low IQ cousin who has been in a residential facility most of his life to a mother, brother, cousin, niece and nephew with what is clearly Asperger’s. With the exception of the low-functioning cousin, none of those born in the 60s and earlier received any diagnosis at all. They were just “oddballs”, “weird”, “had no social skills”, “lacked empathy” etc. I believe at least part of the surge in autism diagnoses is the identification and inclusion of Asperger’s.
In the 70s it was sex, drugs and rock and roll. Could it be that those who used recreational drugs is now coming back to haunt all of these "cool" people who took drugs and distained those of us who didn't take drugs is coming back to haunt the drug users?
This is just a guess, anal extrapolation. Drug use has sky rocketed and so has autism. Just asking.
Only if you don't include alcohol.................opium use was higher around the turn of the 19th century for another example. Cigarette use peaked in the 1960s. You need to widen your definition of "drugs."
Agree. I have five biological children and one who is adopted. Both my firstborn and my adopted child have level one autism spectrum disorder. Why? I have no idea. But 1/3 of my children having autism seems like a lot, doesn't it?
How telling - that concern for finding out the "why", is dwindling and relegated to the basement? So shocking and sad.
I put this disease in the similar category with Alzheimers - rampant and research has gotten nowhere in decades. Families across the country are devastated and exhausted by these diseases, with not much help in sight.
My understanding regarding Alzheimer's was that beginning in the 90s it was all about the "plaque buildup" and that is where all the research money went. It was apparently a rabbit hole.
I have nothing but admiration for Bari, but Christ when she drops into her “smart, nice people don’t believe these things” mode it is just pathetic. I have no idea what causes autism and my heart goes out to the families but to not look at vaccines or take them off the table seems insane.
Baris job is not to agree with her demographic, but to have the conversation. She brings this up, and brings on guests who discuss these taboo topics, because nobody else will. She knew perfectly well what RFKs stance on vaccines was, and brought him on anyway. If she just echo chambered all of her readers thoughts, she would be no better than liberal legacy media.
I think there should be a movement to have a control group population that doesn't vaccinate their kids. Will have interesting combinations with the illegal aliens that are importing their diseases into the US but I still want to see what happens.
Vaccines have been studied ad nauseum and definitively found to NOT cause autism. Use google, Wikipedia, WebMd, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the Mayo Clinic, etc. There are an endless number of reputable medical sources that have all this information laid out for you. Persistent belief that vaccines are the culprit is like some sort of cult people belong to.
You mean all the same sources that told us Covid shots were “safe and effective”? That getting the shot would protect you from getting Covid? That it would protect those around you? That people who questioned the science were making baseless claims? Those bastions of scientific knowledge and authority...?
The Covid vaccine IS safe and effective. No one ever said it would keep you from getting Covid. Not 100% anyway. I think it was rated perhaps at 80% or 90% effective on preventing infection, but almost 100% effective at keeping you out of the hospital and alive. That was the primary goal, ie, keeping people alive and out of the hospital. Preventing severe disease, especially in the vulnerable, such as the elderly, the immune compromised, and those with co-morbidities such as lung disease, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. All of these goals were achieved. Nothing more was ever promised.
And as for certain side effects, yes there are a tiny number, but they’re minuscule compared to the benefits. All vaccines have side effects. Most medicines have side effects. Life is not perfect and it’s a mistake to expect it to be.
Guess you missed the videos of Walenski and Fauci and Biden emphatically telling people if you get vaccinated you won’t get Covid, and you won’t pass it on to others. You’re spouting revisionist history that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in the video age.
“Revisionist History”. Resorting to fancy language are we? And the “video age”? Like that mysterious disappearing YouTube video Jennifer told me about?
Well, if you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Yale (it’s not CHOP, so that should help you). This is a complicated discussion as there are different vaccines, with different track records, and the vaccines have evolved as the virus has evolved, so that the variants could be addressed. None of this is simple, so looking for simple answers is a fool’s game.
Sorry—wasn’t trying to be fancy. I thought it was a widely used term, but maybe not.
In any case, university medical science is well known to be bought and paid for by Fauci and his grants from NIAID, which is to say, it’s all downstream of Pharma funding. So you may put your trust in it, but I don’t.
As to your point about none of this being simple, I wholly agree. And I would add, there was nothing more simple than immediately labeling a warp-speed novel treatment for a novel virus “safe and effective,” then demonizing anyone who questioned that designation.
All of which is to say: you do you and I’ll do me, and perhaps we’ll discover agreement in other arenas. 😊
Yes, it was promised that the vaccines would prevent infection. Pfizer claimed 95% efficacy in prevention of infection.
However, as they admitted from the start, Pfizer/BioNTech never tested impact of the vaccine on transmission. They claimed it was too difficult. This was explained in the trial documentation released in early 2021. What they did instead was choose very carefully which of their trial participants to test and which not to test. In the trial documentation, around 1500 participants showed covid-like symptoms yet were not tested. No rubric was provided or any description of how testing decisions were made.
Later, when it became perfectly obvious to everyone that vaccinated people were contracting covid, the story changed from "you won't get it" to "you won't get a severe case and it will keep you out of the hospital."
But that isn't true either. Thousands of people have died of covid post-vaccination. As of April 2022, 6 in 10 adults dying of covid were vaccinated. Those are CDC numbers. Thousands more vaccinated have been hospitalized.
And anyway it is untestable, since no one can know how they would have fared had they not been vaccinated. The control groups were all destroyed early on.
I think everyone knows that all vaccines have side effects and that life is not perfect. The covid vaccines were new technology, were rushed out, were given Emergency Use Authorization prematurely (and only after therapeutics were suppressed) and three years later, the efficacy is at best "jury out."
Your Yale link is not really a "Yale article," it is a fact sheet for consumers on a medical practice website (Yale Medicine). It's a product comparison with a sales pitch: yes, you should get vaccinated, here are the products from which you can choose.
I assumed most people would be familiar with the Pfizer trial documentation, the efficacy claims and the CDC numbers, but here you go:
A Pfizer exec, Janine Small, admitted in a hearing in October 2022 that the vaccine's impact on transmission was not tested before rollout. The fact checkers said "yes, this is old news" - which it is. It's covered in the trial documentation. But it wasn't reported *at the time of rollout* that Pfizer didn't test for impact on transmission. Which is why a lot of people are still surprised even today to hear it. I tried to tell my family about it in April 2021, but they didn't believe me.
Btw, that 95% efficacy rate was probably for the original virus, not all the variants that have emerged since then. I have a bunch of citations to add when I get back to my iPad. Some of those people who died may have gotten variants or they may have been so sick or otherwise compromised before getting infected that even the vaccine couldn't help them. 95% effective means 5% won't be saved. That could easily be thousands of people in a country as large as ours. Doesn't mean the vaccines didn't do what they said they would do. I don't believe anyone promised 100%. That type of success rate doesn't exist IRL and everyone either knows that or should. My husband had a laminectomy in May. It could have killed him but it didn't. Nothing in life is perfect. The Covid vaccines are modern day miracles. Be grateful.
Thank you for an honest and raw piece on autism. As the mother of a 32 year old on the spectrum who can’t keep a job and stopped trying before the pandemic, I appreciate it. I am so tired of the autism is cute crowd and specials like Love on the Spectrum who make it appear as though this is a lovable and easily manageable problem for most people. My heart goes out to you and your family.
My autistic son, another Jonathan, is 28, and I agree completely about the autism is cute image. 10 years ago, the DSM eliminated Aspergers Syndrome as a diagnosis and folded it into Autism Spectrum Disorder. This gave the public a distorted image of what autism actually looks like for the overwhelming majority of families. And it created the identity politics neurodiversity movement. Because people with Aspergers can speak for themselves and people with more profound autism cannot, this spread the idea that autism looks like Extraordinary Attorney Woo.
Thank you, Jill, for your article, and Bari, for publishing it. It is true that public services are not prepared to handle the tsunami of autistic adults who are in desperate need of services. In the short term, it is up to those parents who can to help fill in the gap. In our community, we started a nonprofit that provides job training and employment for autistic adults (we serve about 100 young people a year), and we are in the process of starting a group home. Yes, government needs to do more, but parents can do a lot. And the more parents start programs, the more models are out there to show what works and what doesn't.
agreed. i keep having people ask me if my 8 year old son is a genius, whether i've seen any extraordinary tendencies emerge. Is he the next Elon......I'm honestly just excited that he used a fork correctly today. Little things really
I have a 22 yo who still struggles with utensils, he has poor fine
motor skills. But boy oh boy, can he ever hit a golf ball.
I have a 32 year-old son living with me. When he was tiny, I called him, "Sunny Jim." Absolutely no fear of anyone, no night terrors, always so very happy and well-behaved, loved by everybody instantly. He seemed quite precocious and dearly loved any machinery; I still have a video of him digging a giant hole with my backhoe on my farm, three years old and alone on the machine - so small that he had to stand behind the levers to operate them, rather than sitting on the seat.
Once he reached school age, it was a very different thing. He was very disruptive in school, with almost zero impulse control; a classroom observer's report related that the most amazing thing was that the other children could get anything done at all. He was eventually diagnosed with ADHD, and after more than a year of resisting, we put him on medication. As is the usual case, his behavior improved, but his grades did not.
He tested IQ 118 all across the board - basically high normal. His "splinter skills," we called them - such as self-taught computer programming - were nothing less than spectacular, but if he had no interest in a subject, he could not pass.
Fast forward. He is now 32, has never been able to hold a job, and lives with me. I'm working to get him out in the workforce, but secondarily planning long-term support for when I'm gone. (I just turned seventy.)
There IS an answer for this. What is it?
Sorry, Jim. My boy dropped out of college one semester shy of a biochem degree. He was diagnosed with ADHD as a sophomore and put on Adderall which was a wonder drug according to him. I'm not happy he's on it, his sleep schedule is so messed up. He also has OCD, co-morbidities are very common with Aspies. He can't hold a traditional job. All he's doing now is Door Dash. He does live independently but only because we pay his rent. He struggles so much with everyday life. We are fortunate that we can financially support him, unlike so many others. He has sisters and they know someday he will be their responsibility.
I had a psychiatry professor who told me that he was preordained for psychiatry. His mother was bipolar - then called manic-depressive psychosis, and he told me that as a high school chemistry lab assistant, he could still see in his mind's eye the lithium carbonate sitting on the shelf, and that he always thought how slipping a teaspoon of it into his mother's coffee would have let the family live a normal life. I have this horrible recurring thought that the answer to autism is somewhere right in front of our face, too, and we just cannot see it.
Could it be that these people like your son are simply not designed for a post modern society? Hunters, gatherers, high intuitive ones, broken things fixers, bakers, community mood creators / maintainers..?
I can’t help thinking about all these important human roles that got abandoned in a post industrial society.
Could this be an answer..?
No offense meant, but no.
I see why some disagree with you but I agree to the extent that getting jobs in the corporate world in large businesses is a lot harder for some than if they just grew up and did whatever dad did, as kids may have done pre 19th century. I work as a programmer and remember when my old (smaller) company hired this autistic guy who was very quirky and people had this attitude of "we took a chance on him" and I always wondered if it was hard for him to get a job elsewhere because he'd probably bomb the interviews. But he was very verbal, unlike the focus of the kids and young adults of this article.
For some. If I'd been caught a lot earlier.... Not a lot of help though if you are Classical/Kanners. For every idiot-savant who gets to be a media darling or whose particular whizz can be monetised, there will be 99 who never get out of the Terrible Twos and worse. I'd pretty much alienated my Mum and all my siblings long before I found out what was actually going on. I think we'll have to catch the train pretty much as, if not before, it derails. Once those neural pathways are set it is going to be very uphill even if it becomes possible.
I can see a use for AI here. Let's say the autistic person has a job like flipping burgers. The AI is hooked up to the incoming orders list, and can prompt the autist what to make. For a normal person this would mean displaying the orders list as is, but depending on the various ways the autistic person can become distracted or lose focus, they may need steering along various paths to get back on track. Steering inputs might include a generated voice talking continuously in their ear, visual cues (possibly delivered via augmented reality glasses), and bracelets or gloves that vibrate in a variety of ways. In short, turn the autist into an industrial robot with an AI control system. A single feedback system that also prompts for narratives like "go shopping", "do laundry" and "clean my room" would spread any available development funding over as much of patients' lives as possible, while allowing the control system to match the autist's mood over a whole day, not just a single activity.
Really good thought.
Hello
That was a test
Hello, and welcome!
Agree. I am thankful that the Asperger's term is being used again. It might be on the same spectrum, but the symptoms display very differently
Exactly. I'm actually not certain my boys would qualify (doesn't language delay exclude Aspergers's) but they are closer to that than to Jill's kids described in this piece and I feel weirdly guilty about even using the same words to describe such different levels of impairment and need.
I think this is a problem across the board in mental health. The dumbing down of mental illnesses into quirkiness, as well as the celebration of 'mental diversity' both do nothing for patients who are smack in the middle of a psychic hurricane and suffering.
I agree, Pippi and Charlie G. My sons has an ASD diagnosis but he is more "Good Doctor" version but without the savant situation. And even so, it isn't cute or any sort of identity to celebrate.
To me, I believe the intention is to bring awareness rather than to "cutify." I have an Aspie son and I welcome educating people on how to identify the characteristics so people can think "he's on the spectrum" rather than "he's a weirdo."
I’m all for efforts that increase opportunities and acceptance for those disabled by autism — I put my heart into many such efforts, at all ends of the spectrum. My primary concern however is with the research and policy spheres increasingly sugar coating autism.
for all those wanting to dig further into the issue the midwestern Dr just brought out this piece explaining some possible causality for autism https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-do-vaccines-cause-autism?
Why are Xtianity, Judaism, and Islam all called "Abrahamic religions"?
To summarize: We have no idea what causes autism or why the numbers are suddenly exploding. But it’s definitely not the 70 plus injections of chemical immune stimulants and toxins that children born since the 1980s receive. The vaccine studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies prove they are totally safe and definitely don’t cause autism. Also, the only people who think the exploding number of childhood vaccines might have some negative consequences are conspiracy theorists and cranks, by definition. So it must be...well, just something else that we can’t put our finger on just yet.
Great summary. The post-truth doldrums must escalate to a truth typhoon if we want any meaningful change. We cannot rule out any variables like vaccines. Correlation is not causation and many factors should be analyzed, but the stonewalling and gaslighting about these injections raises alarm bells. Parental age has been going up on the same precipitous slope as the amount of mandated vaccines.
Two other environmental factors were not covered. One is the toxins in our water and food. Studies have found that almost half of the drinking water in the US is contaminated with forever chemicals like PFAS. Most of our food is full of GMOs, preservatives, and other chemicals that were not present a generation ago. The other is lifestyle. Screen time has replaced socialization for many, compounded by the heinous COVID lockdowns. Stress and atomization are bad for mental health, which does autism no favors.
As a parent, my heart goes out to Jill and any others who are caring for autistic children and adults. They deserve justice. We must have courage to fight for those who are unable to.
Thank you to The Free Press for advancing this vital dialogue.
All my daughters cannot conceive and suffer miscarriages. I had 4 healthy children without batting an eye as did all my friends of that era. What happened in a generation? Vaccines, GMOs, microplastics (all our food was in paper in the 60s) glyphosate spraying, and most of all stress. What we have done to our children is unforgivable.
Hell, we spray Roundup on crops that we've made resistant to it and think that's normal? Many of the substances we've introduced to modern life are relatively new and we have little to no idea of their effect. As if we can count on the FDA and EPA....
Yes-maybe ask these folks about that FDA approved miracle drug, Thalidomide.
https://usthalidomide.org/group/member-levels/
Actually, thalidomide was not approved in the US until the late 1990s, and then only for the cutaneous manifestations of leprosy. It later (around 2006) achieved approval to treat multiple myeloma, and it actually IS a bit of a miracle drug. The issues with phocomelia stemmed from use in Europe, and once the horrible effects on developing fetuses was discovered, led to the strengthening of laws (and the FDA) here in the US. See, at one point, the FDA actually WAS an agency working to protect patients. I believe those days are long gone. This book is an excellent historical reference source:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1422397.Dark_Remedy
Yup
Thanks, Dude.
The use of seed oil also went up during that period.
You mistake correlation for causation.
A bit hyperbolic, eh? Plenty of women are still getting pregnant just fine, particularly those who are healthy (not overweight) and young.
Is unforgivable Nancy!
Although I don't watch any of TV news (propaganda channels), I am a voracious reader and I found this article about a month ago:
https://scitechdaily.com/a-drug-that-cures-autism-neuroscience-study-yields-promising-results/?expand_article=1
Let's hope this works. It is cheap and already FDA approved.
We have a close friend that started on it this Spring. The jury is out, but "cure" is always a strong. word for Autism families...
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for sharing this experience.
Cheap and FDA approved. But not for treatment of autism..You know how that goes. If big Pharma can't make money....
“Cheap and already FDA approved”. Sounds like a death knell to me.
Thanks for sharing!!!
Maybe just click bait.
SciTechDaily lacks transparency as they do not disclose ownership on the website. Some online sources claim SciTechDaily is owned by DailyEDeals, a company that provides advertising and coupons to large chain stores. However, we are unable to confirm their ownership. Advertising generates revenue.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scitechdaily/
A lot of technical stuff I didn’t understand and a reference to autism with no specificity
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-023-01959-7
The paper is open access, so you can judge for yourself as far as you are able.
Sounds like the Alzheimer's crap that is super expensive and never works.
Early doors. The first question I'd ask is where they sourced the mice.
I wondered that. How do you know a mouse is autistic?
With the decline in socialization comes a rise in isolation. It is telling that loneliness is arguably the number one risk factor for premature mortality. An analysis of 300,000 people in 148 studies found that loneliness is associated with a 50% increase in mortality from any cause, making it comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and much more dangerous than obesity. It is very possible that it could contribute to autism in some way. (And yes, it's another reason why covid lockdowns were so incredibly stupid.)
https://theconversation.com/loneliness-on-its-way-to-becoming-britains-most-lethal-condition-94775
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/01/feature-the-loneliness-pandemic
This is so deeply important to talk about. Please keep sharing these articles and bringing this topic to the table. I can’t think of any factor that matters more for mental and even the physical health. Thank you.
We can rule out the original argument that MMR vaccines are causally related to autism. The original article was exposed as a fraud.
See (former) Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield.
To add to your environmental factors, go take a look at obesity metrics. Over 82% of Americans over 18 are overweight or obese. Pregnancies from obese mothers are known to cause hypoxia and malourishment of the fetus.
While I don’t doubt that this is responsible for a number of health issues, it seems that it would be very easy to show if there is a strong enough correlation with autism to explain even some of the rise. I’ve got to imagine that this has been done with some of the larger population studies.
Every time I cut up strawberries in non-summer months, I remember that as a child, there were NO strawberries other than in the summer, and we gorged ourselves! Same for all the summer fruits. The food and water supply have changed so dramatically, I tend to think this is a HUGE boulder that gov't doesn't want to look under - too scary.
Your conflation of “GMO’s” with environmental toxins puts your entire position in immediate doubt... We have been living with GMO’s since the beginning of plant domestication... typical visceral reaction to what is not “natural” dressed up as rationality
Roundup Corn was specifically bred to be used with RoudUp pesticide which has been ruled a carcinogen in Europe etc.... Yes, we have been engineering plants for eons, witness the tulip. But some of these GMOs are seriously f'd up. And we are now crossing mammal cells with plant cells etc. You trot out this claim but it's so broad as to be useless
I agree that it is possible to engineer a pathogen (perhaps Covid) but it’s also possible to create poison “naturally”. We would be foolish to turn our backs on GMO as we would other novel methods of farming. The devil is in the details (though I suspect many anti GMO types are more about religion of a sort than pragmatic rationality) also Round Up is surely a concern and the genetic engineering of plants to work with it makes one question but it does not necessarily follow that the plants are poisonous because they can resist poison but the concern is certainly understandable)
The environmental toxins affect the pregnant person. All municipal water supplies have carcinogenic compounds. We should ask about the kinds of stressors upon pregnant women as compared to in times past, although deep poverty and average poverty historically affected poor pregnant women. Therefore I mean toward toxins and the effect of radiation from all sources which cumulatively is a lot of disruptive radiation. The number of vaccines given in a short time is still a notable factor. So, might be anxiety and its resulting inflammatory effects on pregnant women. While women in the 19th c English working class suffered a lot of physical abuse from husbands and employment, social historians do not reveal the kind of anxiety and its companion, inflammation as we have known since the wars of the 20th c
You mean pregnant WOMAN.
We live in a world where the origin of a global pandemic was hidden from the populace for 3+ years when the powers- that-be knew the truth and we still believe everything the cdc and medical
Community say about vaccines. This said I do believe we Can have the vaccine conversation if we separate out the “traditional” vaccines from the new vaccines and discuss mono-valent vaccines VW the grouped and multi-use preserved (thimerisol) ones.
We have a terrible track record here in the US of engaging these debates from 10,000 feet and never set the specific terms of the conversation. We allow the opposition to discount our arguments because we do not speak about our concerns or assertions using careful language.
I opted out of natal vaccines (at birth) and demanded mono-valent (non-preserved) versions of vaccines for my children who had high risk due to heredity. Parents need to be staunch advocates.
All this said, the author’s kowtowing to ignore
Vaccines or environmental factors like plastics, chemicals, drugs, toxins etc. is surprising. And with the potential costs for care being assumed by the government, it is surprising to ignore these factors when determining causality would help pinpoint the culprits (corporations) who might help fund this care long term.
In the end progressive politics will ruin any interest in stemming the incidence of this disability. So vote from an informed standpoint and don’t allow your care for liberal ideas to enact bad ideas over the long term.
The author who has been active in autism work for decades is kowtowing? Your bonafides are what, exactly?
You are proving my exact point. Thanks for being triggered. It’s exactly what I said 😂
Yes.
No
The author states that 1 in 36 children have autism yet a study on INSAR (International Society for Autism Research) found 1 in 271 Amish children met the Autism criteria. Am I missing something? Why the disparity?
Amish do not vaccinate, grow their own food and shun most modern conveniences emitting radiation.
They also do not use cannabis.
No one wants to talk about that, either.
Edit: There are studies about paternal cannabis use and autism - here is a recent one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6961656/
Probably why I could never be Amish :)
My guess is that the Amish have kids at much younger ages than the average American.
The human body was not made to make kids in one's late 30's or 40's, and that includes both parents. Kids should be had in one's 20's.
The genetic material that's passed on to children degrades significantly as people age, hence the increased number of spontaneous abortions, or the difficulty to conceive at relatively older ages. Worse genes equal more congenital diseases.
Except lots of people who've had their kids in their twenties have children with autism. Also, before the era of birth control (aka nearly all of human history), women were having huge families, giving birth through their 30 and into their 40s with no high rates of autism to show for it.
All of which is to say: this argument is a red herring, brought to you by Pharma and its shills in the medical industrial complex and media. Don't fall for it.
“Also, before the era of birth control (aka nearly all of human history), women were having huge families, giving birth through their 30 and into their 40s with no high rates of autism to show for it.”
Provided of course, they didn’t die in childbirth - which, at one point in American history, they had a 1%-2% chance of doing with each birth.
True point. In 1992, were it not for the miracle of emergency C-sections, my oldest would have died in utero and I would have died while trying—with no possibility of success—to give birth to a stillborn baby.
I had a planned C-section, but yeah, my older daughter and I would be dead too. She was not only breech, but partially twisted to the side; the OB had to cut my uterus open even wider partway through. In the olden days, I probably would have bled to death trying unsuccessfully to push her out. Eerie to think about!
👍🏻👍🏻
I had two children - one at 38 and the other at 41. Both healthy. I’m not convinced that is a cause of autism. Correlation, maybe. Increased risk factors having children later in life? Yes. But autism? Not provable at this point.
I had one at 30, my second at 32 and my third at 37. First two are neurotypical, third has Asperger’s. Father is 1.5 years older than me.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/older-parents-and-autism-risk-for-child-5199211
While this study does show some correlation with paternal age, I don’t think it shows a compelling enough relationship to explain what’s going on. And it shows no correlation with maternal age.
Correlation is not causation. And this is rather poor correlation.
But many Amish women also continue having babies through their child bearing years ie into their early forties. I don’t understand this argument. Also historically speaking women still had children “late” -- yes they started young, but they kept bearing children as long as they were still capable of reproducing.
My mother (youngest of thirteen) was born when her mother was 44. Twelve of the thirteen children survived into adulthood and had children of their own--one child died from pneumonia at age 5.
Both my mother and her mother lived into their 80's with decent health overall.
As an aging boomer with autistic progeny, I despair we will ever find the cause of autism. When I look back on my childhood, the known potential sources of problems include: playing in the neighbors insulated (with asbestos) crawl space, riding my banana seat bike behind the DDT fogger: “I’m up in the clouds!”; pot smoked in high school (Mexican with that stuff the DEA sprayed on it); not to mention incidental forays with cocaine, opium, hash, meth, heroin, etc. It’s sounds like I’m a horrific druggie, but I promise you I was just a typical college student hanging out in the 70’s. It’s actually kind of ridiculous that no one seems to even consider the effect of the culturally encouraged drug experimentation that was (and still is?) rife in this country.
It could be. I have a family member who has slight autism and has had about 1/2 of the recommended vaccines. His mother was 21 when he was born.
Both of my great grandmothers had 12 children. Which means they were still giving birth well into their 40s. Not uncommon for Catholic families of that generation. No autistic children.
My father was the 9th of 10 children. My grandmother was 40 when she gave birth to him and 42 when she had her last child. No autism. One of my husband's grandmothers had 12 kids, same story; the oldest of those kids had 15 children, same story. This new line of inquiry into autism causes is a made-up excuse to avoid asking the more obvious questions.
Could be. But then again you wouldn't be a good parent if you weren't inclined to straw-clutch for your child.
This was exactly my thought--
We also do not talk about the effects of drugs like cannabis. A 45 year old dad who's been smoking pot for 30 years - could that possibly have an effect on the genetic material in his sperm? Of course it could.
The rise in cannabis use correlates directly with the rise in autism.
I'm spitballing, but I will say that of the many parents I know with autistic kids, in almost every family the dad was/is a significant pot smoker. Of course, I know lots of pot smokers with healthy children, too.
My 19 year old step daughter was conceived when her mother was 21. She’s nonverbal & about as severely incapacitated as a person can be. She’s a perma-toddler, intelligence wise
It might be associated with the age of the mother when she has her first child (primigravidas) vs. later children (multi para). As a mother of three, I’ve experienced the storm of hormones that comes with pregnancy and childbirth. Perhaps they are protective of later pregnancies?
Amish kids aren’t diagnosed.
Then how would they get the 1 in 271 statistic?
But if autism is severely disabling 3% of all children, there would be no way that wouldn't be obvious among the Amish.
More broadly, I wonder what cross-societal studies exist on this subject? Japanese? Rural vs urban? Mediterranean? African? All of these have radically different lifestyles and diets. That seems like a good place to start. Also compare Americans to Western Europeans... we're genetically similar, dietarily similar, and both WEIRD. Are there lots of autism cases in W. Europe? I don't know, but again, worth asking.
A lot of late diagnosis going on in England. I'm fed up of tripping over other adult diagnosed Aspies.
This is an interesting possibility. Do Amish shun traditional healthcare/doctors as well?
Different criteria?
Well done.
My Dad was an Infectious Disease MD, and I am father to Dustin, my vaccine injured son with Autism. Specific to my son in my longer article I identified "cause as":
https://outsidein51.substack.com/p/pro-vaccine-safety-in-2023-where
"the root of Dusty’s autism was a combination of a genetic pre-disposition plus egregious environmental assaults."
"At some point in that first year, he had his third DPT vaccine dose. That was the shot that put him over the edge. He screamed for 24 hours, and the babbling stopped. The language that typically follows never came."
We are focused on building a better life for Dustin and his friends at https://www.endeavor21.org
#AeternusUmbra (watch forever)
I just started following your Substack—it was recommended to me by another commenter. My heart and prayers go out to Dustin and you and your family.
I wish Bari had the open-mindedness/guts/honesty to feature your story, whether as an essay or an interview. But she has a glaring agenda here, and her biases have blinded her on this topic. :-(
As you know, my other son is in the Navy, and is fully vaccinated. I assume this, as his security clearance excludes me!!
This game of life is complicated. I appreciate Substack for the openness. Bari is on the right track. Thanks
PS - I am trying to not get sucked into the vaxx conversation, and prefer to make Dustin's world better. We have a really great team here at Endeavor21 - https://www.endeavor21.org
I appreciate and honor your focus on making Dustin's world better and not being sucked in. I know someone with a vax-injured son who takes the same useful approach. Vaccine safety is a critical issue, but one that can be fought for by the growing legions of people who have your back. If the pandemic has a silver lining, it's that it woke up many in the slumbering masses. For that I am grateful.
Why were both sons vaccinated but only one has autism?
I cover it here -https://outsidein51.substack.com/p/pro-vaccine-safety-in-2023-where
Probably the same reason only some young boys get myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines. We’re all different.
Do you need to always be a jerk. I was hoping you and your partner Kevin were on an extended vacation. I
It certainly did wake up many.
I love the term you use "pro-vaccine safety" in your blog. It's so logical and fair-minded.
I asked my daughter who is pregnant with my first grandchild to please do more research on vaccines and don’t agree just Willy nilly. They give DTAP during pregnancy now. Oh hell no. Hep B at birth…double hell no.
We know from the Vaccine Court that there are a few rare vaccine reactions that cause brain injuries with Autism symptoms. The vaccine court has paid out the largest $$$$ to these cases because they engender lifelong dependency. However, looking at the numbers the increase in Autism to astronomic levels happened mostly after the rise of total vaccinations happened, pointing to different causes. My heart goes out to all, whether a vaccine injury or unexplained cause.
From 1986 - https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/us/reagan-signs-bill-on-drug-exports-and-payment-for-vaccine-injuries.html
I grew up in the 40's and 50's. Every summer parents sweated bullets because in the warmer months polio reared it's ugly head. Every summer thousand of children came down with polio and were crippled for life and some died.
Jonas Salk solved this horrible fate with the polio vaccine. Polio is almost wiped out here in the US. Whooping cough, diphtheria and other diseases we now never hear of today were wiped out by vaccines.
Should we study and watch vaccines to find flaws? Yes, of course. But only an idiot would want to get rid of them. Twenty or thirty years ago WHO declared small pox to be eradicated in the world. Small pox has killed and disfigured millions of people but it was eradicated by the small pox vaccine.
I say again, only an idiot would want to get rid of vaccines!
Or, instead of getting rid of vaccines, we could test them properly for safety. And test the whole schedule, which is being constantly added to (the covid shot, which "protects" children against a virus that doesn't harm them, was added just this year). One could say that only an idiot would want to keep adding injections that haven't been inert-placebo tested to a schedule for children that has, itself, not been tested for cumulative safety.
Look at the results. Polio, gone. Small pox, gone. I could go on and on.
Actually, polio is still here. It's just called other things. And so are "iron lungs" —they're called respirators. I highly recommend the book Dissolving Illusions by Dr. Suzanne Humphries for the evidenced-based history of disease decline that didn't make it into the medical books/establishment narrative. It's eye/mind opening.
https://www.amazon.com/Dissolving-Illusions-Disease-Vaccines-Forgotten/dp/1480216895/ref=sr_1_1?crid=38FKPCHNRG28J&keywords=dissolving+illusions+by+suzanne+humphries&qid=1689866811&sprefix=dissolving%2Caps%2C701&sr=8-1
I know polio is still around. Just this year a dozen cases popped up in the eastern states. but for all practical purposes it is all but eradicated.
Here's what I mean: when the Salk vaccine came out (which protected against the 2-3 most common strains of virus that triggered polio symptoms) and mass vax campaigns started, whenever people came down with those symptoms they were asked if they'd received the polio vaccine. If the answer was no they were then counted as a polio statistic. If they answered yes, they were not, and their paralytic symptoms were given a different name (e.g. acute transverse myelitis). That is the magic trick that dropped the polio numbers so shockingly, such that everyone began believing "the polio vaccine eradicated polio." No, it didn't. They just recategorized what "polio" is. There's far more to the story than that, but this gives you an idea of the "science" behind the narrative.
People love to say correlation isn’t causation when it suits their argument.
The diseases are gone is a statement of correlation, not causation.
Besides that, it matters less whether a disease disappears than whether our susceptibility to dying or or being permanently harmed from it decreases and disappears.
For instance, deaths and harm from measles had declined precipitously before the vaccine was on the market. Scientists and doctors honestly thought that nobody would want a measles vaccines. Parents certainly weren’t asking for it.
So, not unlike with Covid, a scare campaign was required in order to get people on board with the measles vaccine. The same thing is happening with a chicken pox vaccine. As fewer adults now have had chickenpox as children they’re more susceptible to scare campaigns about chicken pox, but any of us who had it as children know that this is a joke.
Well, we have flu vaccines every year and the flu doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I only bring that up to point out that all vaccines are not the same. Heck, for all we know only a specific vaccine could be the problem. Or a specific vaccine+some other factor(s). Or a combo of vaccines, etc etc. Or nothing to do with vaccines at all
Ultimately, as you said previously, we need to continue to study them, especially as we add more and more to what kids are getting. As it stands, we seem to approve any old drugs that may or may not even do what they claim. We also need to ask if all vaccines are necessary. If, say, polio is no longer a killer it was in the 50's (lets face it, we have made a few medical improvements since them) then maybe it isn't needed anymore (I am not suggesting this is actually the case, just as a hypothetical about how we can't assume that something from the past needs to remain forever the same).
Flu vaccines don't claim to prevent the disease 100%. Every years the flu virus mutates and that is why you take it every year.
This is an apocryphal example. When my wife and I moved back to the States we did not get the flu vaccine and we came down with the disease. We thought we had to die to get better.
That was 30 years ago. We get the vaccine every year now and we have never come down with the flu since.
And I have never gotten the vaccine and haven't gotten the flu in probably a decade. And when I do get it, it lasts a day or 2 tops, which I feel slightly bad. As for even more anecdotal evidence, most people I know that DO get the flu regularly is actually FROM the vaccine. They have worse symptoms from it than I did back when I last gotten it.
Again, I am not anti-vaccine. I have all my mandated shots, including Covid. I just don't get flu shots because the flu has never been a concern for me.
I AM however for more info, as I do not trust our institutions anymore, as they have proven they will lie to use if they find it convenient.
I think you mean anecdotal, not apocryphal.
I haven't had the flu in 30 years and I've never gotten the vaccine.
It occurs to me that we MIGHT want to stop spending so much time arguing about vaccines about which I suspect most people have already made up their minds and start thinking about what we can do to prevent the diseases that will need more vaccines down the pike.
Will Big Pharma give us a vaccine for the rise in peanut allergies - celiac disease gut problems - nervous disorders, etc. or will we seriously start considering what we might be doing to our food sources be they dairy, beef, chicken, fish ( think Tuna) etc.
One friend who now lives in Mexico told me that although she was always f very careful about what she ate, she was always sick in the States--stomach and bowel, issues, high blood pressure, no energy, etc. She finally said enough and moved to Mexico at the urging of friends hoping to find a magic cure. There was no magic - just a change in diet - . . . She now eats homemade tacos off food carts on the street - shops at the local truly organic markets for her veggies and fruit and plays pickle ball three times a week. Roundup is not used. -.
LP think the polio vac took 7 years of testing it wasn’t a 6 month job.
And after you're done with Dissolving Illusions, read Turtles All The Way Down.
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/childhood-vaccines-arent-tested-against.
My sister lives in a late 19th century terrace. It has no foundations and you wouldn't have got away with building it seventy years ago, let alone now. Something that bleeding obvious a quote about it is attributed to Jesus.
We miss the FEKKIN' OBVIOUS ALL THE FEKKIN' TIME.
Let's hope your naivety doesn't come back and kick you in the teeth, eh?
"I say again, only an idiot would want to get rid of vaccines!"
Agreed, and I would also say that only an idiot would want to get rid of antibiotics. But, like antibiotics, the excessive use of vaccines can create problems worse than the problem they claim to be solving. There is a sweet spot both for the use of antibiotics and vaccines, and we need to consider the risks in both cases.
What if the idiot was on the right track? What if the idiot suggested these 70 year old vaccines may contain flaws? Must we follow the edict of the non-idiot and not even look to see? Who is the idiot anyway?
I was fully vaccinated as a child, but I was a child in the 1950s and 1960s. My understanding is that kids today receive more vaccines, in higher doses, beginning earlier in childhood than was the case in the past. And the escalating use of vaccines correlates with escalating rates of autism, and we're still supposed to accept that there is no relation? The author links only to a couple bland, boilerplate, "Couldn't be the problem" statements. Why not deescalate? Why not start vaccinating later in infancy, according to a 60s or 70s model? Why not back off the front-loading? For the people who say "But what about epidemics?" It seems like the less intense dosing schedules did just fine in preventing them.
Because that would hurt profits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Did you not read what I said? "Should we study and watch vaccines to find flaws? Yes, of course." Also without these vaccines tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of lives have been saved by vaccines. Doesn't that account for anything?
Totally agree. Vaccinations may have flaws, but the data is irrefutable. They save countless lives and prevent life limiting infections.
what if it is your kid reacting to a vaccine and you have to appeal to the National Vaccine Compensation Program? What do you say for those families? Tough luck?
If the alleged vaccine injury is autism, then yes, it is tough luck. Autism is not listed as a vaccine injury under the National Vaccine Compensation Program since it’s been clinically proven that vaccines do not cause autism. Ask any law firm that specializes in vaccine injuries and they will tell you this is the case. There is a long list of what’s covered, but autism is not on the list.
Otoh, death is covered. So if your child dies from the vaccine, you can get compensation. When you go to get your child vaccinated, they give you a list of all the various things that can happen as side effects, including death, but not including autism. You have to sign a paper acknowledging that you were warned, but accept the risk or they won’t vaccinate your child.
if further study and watch to find flaws is indicated, how can the conclusion of not getting rid of them be made?
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe in vaccines and you don't. Let's leave it at that.
However, if you don't get the polio vaccine and contract the disease, I'll bet you money you'd wish you had taken the vaccine.
This conclusion is non sequitur.
Back in the olden timies when you had to go to the library to look thing up, as a kid I wanted to know the mortality rate of vaccines. I can't remember that far back but the number was minuscule.
If you save millions but a few dozen die, allergies, toxic reaction, etc. Do you halt the vaccine? I wouldn't. For the families of those who died it is a tragedy but to the millions it saved, it was a blessing.
But do you stop research into the reasons some get injured and most don't? That is what most of us, including RFK Jr. are asking? Saying collateral damage doesn't matter because it is rare is not a good argument to me.
e.g., "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." (Spock/Kirk Star Trek II)
Greater good?
you don't have to get rid of them, but questioning is vital in Medicine - otherwise we would be performing lobotomies, the doctor who developed it got a Nobel Prize for it.
I agree. Contrary to what the left says, science is never settled.
Please listen to this: https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/aaron-siri-gives-testimony-on-the-floor-of-arizona-state-senate/ Also, what's happening is vaccines are not as effective as natural immunity, so diseases are coming back on the vaccinated. And just like if you asked people who watch left leaning new, what is the chance of dying from COVID, they would say 50% (it's less than 1%), if you looked at the acual number of children who were dying from these diseases, it's a very small percentage. This site has a lot of data: https://thehighwire.com/watch/
There is also the fact that a mother who has had measles passes that immunity on to the child, a mother who has the vaccine doesn't.
the capitalist agenda works by creating subscribers for life. this is not long term health and its not sustainable.
vaccines are one of many solutions depending on the context of the situation.
" say again, only an idiot would want to get rid of vaccines!"
The bad news is there is an unending supply of idiots these days. The good news is natural selection; deadly diseases are Uncle Chuck Darwin's way of eliminating those who won't use the latest treatments and preventions that technology makes possible.
Are you saying let's go back to the early 1800s where people died like flies from diseases we don't even worry about today?
I'm saying that extinction will be the ultimate fate of those who don't vaccinate. Because of the low vaccination rate, Covid stays in circulation, and who knows how deadly the next variant might be?
Covid vaccines do nothing to prevent circulation of the virus, they only reduce the intensity if/when you're infected. I was vaxxed and boosted, and got infected anyway, and I know many other people that had the same experience.
Your chance of getting or giving the covid virus is the same irregardless of being vaccinated per the latest research. The problem with covid is that it is a virus variant that was new to the human race and hence no immunities. Each successive mutation has caused an increase in infectivity and decrease in lethality. Co-vid will morph into a cold variant, it will always be here. Iv’e had the initial 2 and the booster, being a bit of a geezer. That being said all vaccines are not created equal, sadly the co-vid vaccine was weak tea, luckily the virus itself was also. Compare the average age of death of the Spanish flu to co-vid.
Polio is a success story. The rest of the 20th century infectious diseases (smallpox might be an exception to this for other reasons) had a 95% reduction in mortality and morbidity BEFORE the introduction of the vaccine to the population. And of course you fail to mention that the Salk Vaccine also caused cases of Polio and because of a manufacturing defect created 1000s of cases in the Western US and Canada. Sabin Vaccine turned out to be a better choice, but for political reasons he had to go to the USSR to test his vaccine. In 2 years he inoculated over 70 million Russian children to great success. The vaccine most of us baby boomers remember is the sugar cube Sabin vaccine given out at schools. There was a huge backlash against the Salk Vaccine after the manufacturing incident and people refused to take it until the Sabin Vaccine was introduced in the early 1960s. Even today, most of the world's Polio cases are vaccine derived strains. It's a success, but one that cost us in more Polio victims.
Yes, my ex contracted polio from the polio vaccine when he took it in Kentucky in the late 50s. Still glad we have a polio vaccine, but people minimize the fallout and complications. Similarly, I got swine flu from the swine flu vax. Had a slight cold when I took it and opted for the nasal version, not realizing a live vaccine would be much worse... I went home and immediately got a high fever and screaming headache. Unlike any cold I have ever had. I rarely run fevers even when I have the flu, etc, and the headache was unreal. I tried to report this adverse reaction to the federal Vaccine registry, VAERS, and was told my illness was simply "coincidental" They did not take my report. I also tried to tell the doctors at the clinic that gave me the vaccine, to warn them about giving the live nasal vaccine to people who are sick with colds etc. They too ignored me and treated me like a crank. This has not led me to have confidence in our vaccine monitoring agencies. I vaccinated and boosted myself and my son for Covid, but I nevertheless have concerns.
Agreed. Only a parent grossly unfamiliar with the underlying diseases they prevent would believe not vaccinating their children was a good idea. That said, I believe in bodily autonomy and think the state forcing people to put things into their body is extremely dangerous, so you have a complete right to be foolish if you want to. But don't bring your kid over to my house.
I largely agree with you, as long as we do not lump in the covid vaccines with the ones you list. They are in an entirely different category, for multiple reasons.
I agree.
While I completely understand this perspective, I believe Polio was only serious for about 1% of people. If for example, the alternative was giving 3% of people autism, which route is preferable? It’s imperative that we at least have accurate data in order to make these important decisions.
Except for the fact that ALL diseases were on a precipitous decline BEFORE the vaccines were even introduced.
EXACTLY. thank you for saying it perfectly.
Amazing she states so emphatically that it’s definitely NOT vaccines. Science ain’t what it used to be so you can exclude Nothing if you want to find out the truth of it. For God’s sake keep an open and humble mind Ms Escher
Yep, amazing how the establishment quickly moved to "let's not investigate the origins anymore" and it is cited 2x here. I posted the following comment :
“ Now, prevention of autism is pretty much off the table” - this is a red flag. Covid -19 showed us how many medical institutions ( public and private) are captured financially . If you can’t find it, you need to re-research everything again and question, always question. Were the previous research captured? Who financed? Who does it benefit?
Exactly! It’s just too painful for the parent to acknowledge that they gave the shot to the child. I have personal experience with this. This article started out from an extremely defensive point. Putting one’s head in the sand and denying the possibility that the pharmaceutical industry, fined billions of dollars for lies and deceit and wrongful death, is funding the studies and using that as your defense, gets us nowhere.
Agreed. It might not be the vaccines but then WHAT is it?? Seems environmental considering the recent rapid rise! In addition why the explosion of childhood vaccines? Finally how do we ever regain trust in our lying Scientific community and our criminal Pharma community?? Until there is serious accountability for past lies, coverups and crime no trust can be built.
There are enough anti-vaxers in America that it ought to be pretty easy to run autism tests on a set of them and a matched set of vaxing parents. If vaccines have a significant effect, such a study would find it. Robert Kennedy could fund such a thing himself, so why doesn't he?
It’s not the vaccines. Get off this nonsense.
What if it’s the mothers’ or the fathers’ vaccine history? Until and unless we know what *is* causing this, calling anything “nonsense” is wildly irresponsible.
If OJ didn't do it, who did?
Good one.
To be fair, I stole it from my wife :)
My thoughts exactly
The autism from vaccinations theory, once had some believability, but if you read the post, research now finds the changes in the brain for the most part exist at birth and probably happen in-utero. While, I do agree with RFK Jr. that we should thoroughly research the totality of giving children 70+ vaccines (this should have been done decades ago), he is just wrong about the Autism/Vaccines link. Why he hasn't admitted as such is a mystery as he now must know. It's my biggest issue with him. Just the fact that autism continues to explode in the last 20 years while total vaccinations remain flat should be a big red flag. Causality doesn't equal causation as she pointed out in the post.
What "research now finds" has everything to do with what research gets funded, and by whom. That theory does not take into account the legions of parents who had normally developing babies—healthy, meeting milestones like eye contact and smiling and typical infant engagement with others—who, post-vaccination, suddenly lost their social skills—no more eye contact, no smiling, no interpersonal engagement; new head banging, outbursts, etc..—and never returned to normal.
The Narrative™ needs to ignore the reality of those multitudes of parents. Once upon a time, before the era of ubiquitous camera phones, these parents were gaslit and told they were mistaken, they simply didn't realize their child wasn't developing normally. Fortunately, thanks to technology, those parents now have easily accessible and shareable before-and-after videos of their once healthy/now disabled children. Unfortunately, our dawning era of Big Tech censorship is making it harder to for those parents to share their evidence. People have to know someone to whom it happened, or have enough natural curiosity or skepticism to seek a bigger picture than what is officially acknowledged. I wholly believe vaccines are not the only cause of autism, but there is substantial real world evidence for anyone willing to look past the Narrative and its name-calling, that vaccines are *one* of the causes.
Yes, research on vaccines has been intentionally limited. Don't think you can say the same thing about autism, just that the answers haven't been figured out yet. As to ignoring the reality/accounts of mothers, you miss the point. The temporality of symptoms is often separated from the damage, especially in brain injuries/changes. Bi-polar/Schizophrenia disorders usually appear in late teens and early 20s even though the damage/changes in the brain existed for a long time. ALS is usually diagnosed after age 40. So parents observations can be taken into consideration and be consistent with a theory of in-utero damage/changes. With the large increase in autism most folks would logically think it was multi-factorial of which vaccinations might be a small part of the issue. The rapidly increasing rate of autism over the last 25 years, when the vaccination protocol remained flat would indicate other issues are going on here. Not an expert by any means, but if the scientist are finding brain differences then there must be a direct casual link to implicate a vaccination only approach which has yet to be found. FYI, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical in general of our current vaccination approach to public health. That doesn't necessarily equate vaccinations cause autism.
RFK Jr. has been beating the drum of toxic environmental hazards for 40 years. He got pulled (really more like dragged or guilted) into taking up the vaccine safety issue 20 years ago because of his work on mercury exposures in the environment. So he would agree with you that vaccines are not likely the sole cause of the autism explosion. But EVERYTHING should be looked at, and when it comes to the link between neurotoxins in vaccines and autism, despite the loud protestations that it's been "thoroughly researched" and "debunked," the actual science—meaning, that which hasn't been funded or conducted by people with perverse incentives to find no connection—suggests real issues, and the loud claims about reams of evidence against the hypothesis don't hold up to scrutiny. For an eye-opening, clear explanation of that scrutiny, if you're interested, here's an outstanding presentation to the Arizona Senate regarding the science vs the claims.
https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/aaron-siri-gives-testimony-on-the-floor-of-arizona-state-senate/
I wish I could "like"your comment 1,000x. Exactly my issue , who is "funding" and the incentives are not good towards an unbiased approach
Oh and thanks for the video........seen clips but not the whole video.
I was only reacting to the post which stated that the science had found brain differences in autistic individuals that can be traced back to in-utero in some cases. Our son had his first vaccine at age 16. Before he was born I went into the college's medical library that I was working at and looked for the science. Found that after 1990 or so there was no work done identifying risk/benefit analysis nor any attempt to identify co-morbidities or any way to see different risk profiles. What I did find from the 1970s and 1980s were a couple of small exploratory studies indicating that a family history of reactive diseases (asthma, food allergies, lupus, etc.) might create a higher risk of vaccine reactions/injuries which my wife's large family had a lot of. Also found a single study that said redheads might also have a higher risk profile (My wife is a redhead and even though at the time I didn't know it turns out my child is too). I also noted that the day 1 Hep B vaccine was on the schedule and that seemed crazy to me. So my wife and I declined that day one vaccination. And then continue to refuse as I kept reading and thinking about it. (One of my concentrations in graduate school was sociology of medicine and knowing what I did know it was easy to be critical of that section of public health practice). So, bottom line, is according to this post, there is evidence that the damage that causes autism happens before vaccinations. So, if that evidence does exist, then some, if not most of the autism has causes that aren't vaccinations. And logic from this new science would suggest that autism causes are environmental and occur in the mothers body. Now it could be that vaccinating a pregnant women might be one of the causes? But, I agree that no science should be off limits and we should explore all possibilities. But, dogma, wether anti-vax or pro-vax should not lead, but science should. Again, no expert.
I really appreciate you taking time to expand the context of your comment and views. The decision my husband and I made when we had our first, in 1992, were based on similar concerns to what you outlined (of the 7 risk factors then identified/recognized for adverse reactions, our baby girl had 4). So I'm in complete sympathy with your general stance, though I will say I lean towards skepticism regarding current autism research, as its conclusions too conveniently lend support to the orthodoxy. After 30 years of watching Pharma get away with capturing and corrupting our institutions of health and science, it has me too jaded to take such findings at face value. Not when the research into vaccine risks is so shady and/or lacking. As we already noted—the science that receives funding has everything to do with what gets defined as "known" vs. what is labeled as "debunked."
Vaccination protocol has NOT remained flat over the last 25 years.
Well my families reactions to the vaccine show otherwise. We just took my grandaughter to the ER with seizures. Her brother quit talking for 2 years after his vaccine injection. Big Pharma makes a lot of money $$&&&. I too fell the pro studies are biased and do not know why CDC continues to refuse to consider VAERS reports and the multitude of anecdotal reports. Why Bari Weiss and the authors & journalist she pick state unequivocally that the vaccine -autism connection is a myth and has been thoroughly disproved is beyond me. Sorry this author may insist it’s been proved otherwise (and it’s clear she believes that) but why is her opinion any better than my observations and experience in my family ? I’m trained in scientific method. Good grief. My extended family has a preponderance of autism in this current generation yet it is absent from previous generations. One sure constant are these childhood vaccines.
I fucking love your response.
My brother died of gliosarcoma about 3 years ago (a very rare brain tumor) and his neurosurgeon mentioned to him he had 3 other patients with this rare form of cancer and two of his associates had 2 each. I'm not a doctor or researcher but it's obvious to me there's something in our environment that's ubiquitous that's causing profound neurological damage. With the billions poured into medical research, why has no real advancement been made to uncover the culprits? Would it be bad for business if the researchers discovered popular products played a major role in this disaster?
Very bad for business, in fact I’d imagine Big Pharma closing down any further discussion on this topic.
Because i try not to make sweeping generalisations from anecdote, no matter how sad, I looked at life expectancy, which is rising
While you disagree vehemently with RFK Jr re vaccines, you should agree that you cannot rule out vaccines as a contributing factor unless you study with an unvaccinated control group. That’s how science works.
Exactly. Where is the data comparing vaxxed and unvaxxed kids? Having a control group is a definitive way to compare these two groups. As Kennedy rightly points out, what is also needed are longitudinal safety studies on childhood vaccines. There are zero, as he discovered after he sued the FDA to produce those studies which Fauci claimed existed.
I have a control group of 4... my kids. Born 1075, 1982, 1991 and 1993. Never vaccinated and no childhood health issues. Another posted comment on Amish community. I'm sure vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups could be isolated to compare rates. It is not done because it will harm the profits of pharma that fund just about everything these days from doctors to hospitals to learning institutions to media to government. I sincerely hope RFK, Jr. gets traction in the Democratic race. There are other voices like his out there that are ignored at our own peril.
So it doesn’t matter that millions of children get vaccinated and don’t have autism? Is this fact just irrelevant? Is it worth risking the lives and health of children, putting them at risk for polio etc in order to satisfy the desire for 100% certainty regarding vaccines? Medicine is always always about weighing risks against rewards. That becomes problematic of course when it comes to public health policy because then were in the realm of public school mandates etc. It’s easy to sit back and critique this or that policy or study but the reality is people on the front lines are having to make hard decisions based on what we know. Measles, mumps, and whooping cough are serious diseases too.
None of what you are saying is the point. No one is disputing whether this or that disease or condition is a risk. The point is, we should have safety data as a matter of course for all medical interventions, especially shots given to children who have developing immune systems. We have no data on the effect of multiple vaccines on kids developing and future immune system. Don’t you want to know that? We’ve had ample time to study that and haven’t. The risk- benefit ratio should be crystal clear when taking any kind of intervention. That is currently NOT the case.
I think what other commenters are advocating for is better, more nuanced studies. Of course, it does matter that millions of vaccinated children don’t have autism. But what is the percentage that do? What are other variables? If vaccines can be shown to be a contributor, how can they be improved? I am not seeing a callous, knee- jerk all vaccines are bad attitude, but instead a yearning for more information so we can continue to refine our knowledge and approaches.
What would a good risk benefit ratio look like to you? Again, witness the millions and millions who are unaffected. You might find the link I provided to the table summarizing studies informative. There are in fact studies comparing the vaccinated and the vaccinated for incidence of autism.
The affected. That’s what we should be looking at. The ratio of affected to unaffected too - that’s part of the safety data. I’ll look at your study but a cursory look and I see it’s on a government site and the NIH no less, the propagates of the Covid vaccine “safe and effective” stance. Back to the relevant issue. Where is the long term safety data? What are the side effects? Don’t you want to know that? Shouldn’t we all be demanding it if we are expected to inject our kids?Honestly, I find the disinterest in knowing these facts, to say the least, surprising.
Let's assume for a moment that vaccines DO cause autism (if it is proven) and today one in approximately 40 children develop autism. If society believes that this is an acceptable tradeoff (and should include all the other potential "rare" adverse effects), then so be it. This should be part of informed consent.
But also, not just autism. My son has chronic eczema developed as an infant. No family history...ever. There are other chronic side effects that would be good to know about. So while it may be 40 children that develop autism, it could be another 40 kids that develop another type of chronic disease. When I hear the side effects of "leaky bowels" on some of the pharma ads on tv, I can't imagine why anyone want to risk getting any of those side effects?!? But the point is, each family should weigh risks/benefits for themselves but do not feel like the choice is theirs with mandated vaccines.
Well, it is time to attack the author and profess another area of our expertise. Today it's medicine. Tomorrow we put our war expert hats on, followed by sociology and who knows what else after that.
Since each person's genetic/chemical/biological composition is different, vaccines will never be a one-size-fits-all panacea. Which is the reason SCOTUS ruled that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe," the result of which was the vaccine injury compensation program.
As for the "serious" diseases you mention, it's important to understand rates of both cases and deaths were precipitously declining BEFORE the vaccines were even introduced. So again, not the panacea many people have been led to believe they are.
Whoops, 1975, I don't have a century old child!
Anyone questioning that is a serious pedant:)
BTW: here are epidemiological studies showing that lack of a link between MMR and autism. Yes epidemiological studies are not double blind placebo studies but they are important and informative: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9464417/#:~:text=Comparison%20of%20the%20rate%20of,%2Dadjusted%20analyses%20%5B4%5D.
Parents (and others) with concerns about autism and toxic exposures from vaccines are not solely focused on MMR, though that's what the medical industrial complex and their MSM mouthpieces would have you believe. So even though this may seem like a great refutation of the question, it's really not.
The study is important because all this vaccine hysteria began with an article in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published in The Lancet, linking the MMR vaccine to autism. In 2010 the study was proven to be a fraud and Wakefield lost his U.K. medical license. While only dealing with the MMR vaccine, this article and the fear it generated morphed into the fear of all childhood vaccines and that morphed into the fear of the vaccine schedule and over-vaccination. All of these fears have been proven to be unfounded by hundreds of studies since 1998, including the vaccine schedule theory, and it’s all laid out in the Wikipedia article on “Vaccines and Autism”, as well as “History of Autism”. Yes, it’s Wikipedia, but the footnotes reference all the studies. Or you could read about it on the CHOP website (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia).
Except that study was not about MMR and autism, it was a study done by 13 gastroenterologists (of which Wakefield was only one) regarding 12 children with autism who all presented with similar unusual GI issues. (In fact, it was the first published study to make the now well-known gut-brain connection.) At the end of their brief 5-page study, the authors mentioned that the parents of 8 of the 12 children said the onset of the problems (GI and autism) began shortly after receiving an MMR immunization. The doctors also *specifically noted* they were not positing any causal connection, but including the parental reports with a suggestion that further study should be done.
Wakefield's career was decimated because he publicly stated he thought parents should avoid MMR until further investigations were completed, and that children should be given the monovalent vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella in the meantime. He and two other of the 13 doctors refused to recant in the face of threats to revoke their medical licenses (the other ten did). More than a decade la doctor, who had the financial means to pursue it all the way through the courts, was fully exonerated, in a scathing opinion, by the UK High Court of the (bogus) fraud charges. Wakefield did not have the money to take the same path and so did not receive an exoneration, and by then had moved to the U.S. anyway.
Wikipedia is a great source to get The Narrative™ and ditto for CHOP (home of the venerated vaccine machine Dr. Paul Profit—I mean, Offit). Here's a good review of the real history:
https://globalpossibilities.org/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/
Sorry, Wakefield was found guilty of fraud and the coauthors who recanted did so as a result of the evidence produced against Wakefield, not because they were afraid of losing their licenses. Wakefield’s trial was the longest and most comprehensive in British medical history. The fellow who was exonerated (Wakefield never was) was exonerated, not because he had more money than Wakefield, but because he had different facts from Wakefield peculiar to himself. Dr. Offit is very much more the expert on this than you are, or his other detractors. My daughter used to work for CHOP and their integrity is unquestioned, except by people who like to believe in fairy tales that help them cope with their personal situations. My grandson has autism, though not profound. Still, debilitating enough to worry that he may need lifetime care. Our family is not interested in finding a scapegoat to blame, ie, vaccines. The overwhelming weight of the science is that vaccines are not to blame. In fact, there is no valid science to the contrary. Autism is not on the list of accepted vaccine injuries. This is from the websites of vaccine injury lawyers. The author of this TFP piece needs to do a follow up to clarify this for all the comment sceptics. It’s human nature to look for someone or something to blame when the unthinkable happens to you, but sometimes it just happens.
Which he won that lawsuit, KLS!
There is data comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. All you have to do is look it up. I always see people saying there aren't studies. Go to PUBmed and search for it. There are studies from Denmark that look at MMR recipients vs non and there is no difference in autism risk.
He's wealthy enough to find a study like this himself. Certainly the various anti-vax support groups are (since anti-vax is more prevalent the higher up the income curve you go.) So you ask a good question... where are those studies? Why haven't they been done?
Surprising how vehemently against RFK, Jr. the author AND Bari are.
I’m NOT a WOKE Progressive anything, but I just recently listened to RFK Jr. talk about “his beliefs” on a vaccine causation of autism - backed, by the way, by many scientists, MDs, etc., and if nothing else, RFK Jr. is at least keeping Autism in the news.
Give him credit for that!
Especially now that all the other WOKE “powers that be” want to “normalize it”. The same as the WOKE push to normalize obesity, pedophiles now called “Children Attracted Adults” hormone blockers and surgeries for Trans children, teaching sex to Pre K - 3rd graders, etc.! Apparently Autism has been added to their list.
Also, rather than badmouth him for “his opinion” LISTEN to what HE says, NOT form opinions based on what others say about him.
He said (I quote), “I have taken vaccines. My children have been given vaccines. I am not advocating for doing away with vaccines! I am advocating for MORE RESEARCH.”
Many vaccines have been/are lifesaving and many people champion those. But to ignore the fact that SOME people have been harmed by vaccines is ignoring inconvenient truths. If it doesn’t fit the WOKE Left narrative then it must be a Conspiracy Theory!
I'm really discouraged by Bari's mischaracterization of RFK Jr.'s position on vaccines. In fact, contrary to Bari's claim, he has NOT made his position of vaccines a "policy centerpiece" of his campaign. In fact, he EXPLICITLY has not—tells every interviewer (and I've been following him very closely) that he'd be happy to run his whole campaign without ever mentioning vaccines, but if he is asked he will answer questions about it. Bari's intro claim is the most dishonest and unfair statement I've ever seen her make. It actually has me reconsidering my financial support for TFP, which I've paid for from its inception. She seems blinded by emotion to the point of lying about someone with whom she disagrees. That's not the kind of honest and unbiased journalism I thought I was paying for.
Leah, I agree with you on RFK Jr. and his campaign. What I respect about him is his willingness to speak out in defense of HIS beliefs, without backing down “to win votes”. He has said, “You may not agree with my views, and I can accept that; however, I will always be transparent”
Listen, NOT voting for any candidate based on ONE of their opinions you don’t agree with (I believe) is beyond sensible. It’s like people who vote strictly on Abortion, or Gun Control and ignore all else.
I am not a registered Democrat, but I always vote for the person NOT the Party. Sometimes it’s the lesser of two evils! If it is between Kennedy & Biden, I will vote for RFK Jr. in a heartbeat! I fear what another term of Biden/Harris will bring!
Or even worse -- just Harris. President Harris. Imagine. "Vaccines are exciting. They spur our imagination. Vaccines -- they affect us all. And vaccines -- they connect us all."
Ha! Nancy, would be funny if not so frightening!
Now just remember, kids. Every vote for Grampa Biden is also a vote for Prexy Kamala.
I am not a supporter at this time, but the interviews I have seen show he answers questions pretty directly about all his beliefs. It is easy to see why so many people like him. Normal politicians deflect so much now.
What other candidate has sat down for at least 6 hour long interviews and answered all questions and not had a list of approved questions????????
I agree this is a blind spot for her.
Dave, whether you are Left, Right or Independent, RFK Jr.‘s willingness to put himself out there, in an effort to try and bridge the divide that is literally tearing this Country apart
is resonating with a lot of people!
He’s the first person running for President, in recent memory, NOT running a campaign on “blame games” “outright lies” or “gotcha slogans”!
How truly inspiring it is to listen to someone I can disagree with on certain issues, and come away not feeling as if I’ve just been lectured, belittled or attacked for disagreeing!
No “You must be a MAGA deplorable White Supremacist racist” or “You have a serious case of TDS and must be a card carrying Socialist”
My partner & I were watching some politician spew his hateful blah, blah, blah on one of the MSM programs, when he turned to me and said, “Honey, let’s watch a Documentary on Serial Killers. We need to be distracted by something more uplifting” Sarcasm, of course, but we both needed a laughed.
Best comment. I was disappointed by this characterization also.
Add me to the list of those who are discouraged by RFK Jr. bashing. I've read a bit about him, including the first few pages of his book, 'The Real Anthony Fauci,' and I will no longer allow my opinion of him to be manipulated by those who misquote him or otherwise malign him.
How many hundreds of successful lawsuits against polluters has this man won? Nutcases don't win lawsuits; they have them thrown out of court
Excellent point!
I agree, the reflexive “I’m on not on Team Crackpot declaration” in the intro is a flashing neon sign that Bari and the Free Press had lost its way, but it’s only the latest of many such signs so I had already cancelled my subscription.
After all the revelations of deep corruption, widespread incompetence, and total lack of accountability involving public health “experts” and their political and media sycophants over the past three years, I can’t fathom any person with a modicum of curiosity and skepticism adopting blanket trust as their default position on this question of vaccines or other environmental causes.
Well said. Defies rationality.
Leah, I agree -- I was really disappointed with the mischaracterization of RFKjr in her intro as well. I also didn’t think she sounded that informed about the Vax convo when she interviewed him . She used MSM talking points/sound bites to come across as though she were the expert and he was just some crackpot when this man clearly has spent years and years researching and becoming an expert on this topic. He sounded much wiser than she, though I think she probably didn’t realize that. She was dismissive of anything he had to say about it even though she admitted she didn’t have time ton research it herself. I like so much about Bari, but this intro to today’s Stack really bummed me out. That said, I am hopeful that seeds of doubt have been planted that will niggle their way to the surface at some point. I was once her, to be honest. I vaxxed all my kids, happily, not knowing what I know now. I give everyone grace for being in that place I once was. It was seeds of doubt that accumulated to the point where I decided to do some deeper digging and then the scales were removed from my eyes once that happened. And there is no going back, once you know.
I have had these same thoughts.... it’s very frustrating.
It’s called the free press…but it is definitely biased! I listened to her interview with RFKjr and her tone of voice was even different with him and almost rude!
I agree with you!
Completely agreed, we've started seeing a lot of cherry picking from Bari on issues she agrees with/doesn't recently
I think part of his point is that not all vaccines target illnesses that are severe enough to justify the urgency with which vaccines are approved. Look at the RSV vaccine just approved. To my knowledge, RSV kills very few healthy children every year; yet, we now have a vaccine to try and prevent it. The vaccine was not tested in long term studies. So is RSV such a threat to society that we must skip the safety testing and get it into the bodies of as many babies as possible? This is the nuance missing in any vaccine discussion. But to have any questions or concerns is right-wing and conspiracy theory.
You couldn’t have said it better, RFK like most people including this author have opinions. He also has a book which I encourage people to read wherein he does not make these ridiculous blanket statements which he’s accused of, instead he provides a litany of academic research which is hardly about “vaccines cause autism” and more about “our legislators sold out to big pharma. And due to their corporate influence medical professionals will not even entertain furthering research to better understand their impact”
When RFK jr. stated that COVID was designed to spare Jews and Chinese ... did he lose any credibility in your opinion?!
Nope, because he didn't state that. Your characterization of his remarks reflects the bending of reality that the Uniparty and its allies in MSM specialize in.
i concur, listen to the full comments RFK II made, during an off camera dinner party and discussion, and then revise your thoughts on his credibility.
Re Vaccines: they are "uncontrolled" by us today, as you may know that pharma has been given blanket immunity from any form of prosecution/penalties due to adverse side effects of vaccines, as well as many drugs that we now give out.
Pharma creates a vaccine and they go to the government to get it added to the vaccine schedule for children. In many states/cities, the vaccines are mandated for kids to attend school. Think of this classic vaccine overreach: HPV that is only found in women (see Matt Walsh's movie to confirm "what is a woman"), the vaccine is now on the schedule for Men/males/boys to receive the same shot as girls/ women in grade school.
And in 2020, Covid shot is mandated for your job!! Or you are fired in many cases. That is finally coming back to bite companies in the ass!!
Fast forward, now we clearly find that Covid shot and boosters have little to no demonstrated effect on stopping/curtailing covid across the world. Folks that say a million (US) folks died of covid are correct to a degree, but age and comorbidities are usually left out of the discussion. What we don't say is how many survived due to natural immunity. How many died due to the side effects of the shot. How many died "with covid" vs "from covid".
For todays topic, autism, I dont have a dog in the fight. I feel badly for those who do, and that there is no cure, nor will a vaccine do the same. My two cents is be vigilant on what you consume, look for options and don't blindly accept what is fed to you by others.
thanks
Richard, RFK Jr has made a fatal mistake … he dares to run against “the MOST POPULAR President in American history”
in his own Party! By damn, he must be STOPPED!
Ask any WOKE Left Democrat!
sorry year for covid mandate was 2021, rf
Men definitely get HPV. HPV causes some cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal and penile cancers.
"Most men who get HPV never have symptoms. The infection usually goes away by itself. But, if HPV does not go away, it can cause genital warts or certain kinds of cancer. Talk to your healthcare provider about anything new or unusual on your penis, scrotum, anus, mouth, or throat".
"More than 90 percent of sexually active men and 80 percent of sexually active women will be infected with HPV in their lifetime."
"HPV infection can increase a man's risk of getting genital cancers, although these cancers are not common. HPV can also cause genital warts in men, just as in women. More than half of men who are sexually active in the U.S. will have HPV at some time in their life."
"The immune system fights most HPV infections and clears them from the body, usually within 2 years. But sometimes HPV infections can last longer. A longer infection with a “high-risk” HPV type can turn into cancer. It usually takes years for this to happen."
I agree, men can get HPV which is a STD, once a person begins to be sexually active. As these three notes (I found by "Google HPV in Men" ) above indicate, HPV impacting men, is very uncommon. The rare negative impact of HPV for men , is rare. What is surprising, and my comments allude to, is the recent trend to put this women's vaccine on the boys vaccine schedule. ALSO, as with any vaccine, the HPV vaccine will do nothing if the patient already has one or more of the up to 40 types of HPV. My issue is , it is one more vaccine on the schedule, that is very unlikely to have any positive effect for a male. Sorry, questioning vaccines these days. rich
Thanks, was wondering if his comment would hurt him with his supporters.
With some but those were never really his supporters. Those are weak and a tragic bunch that if in East Germany during the cold war would have turned their neighbors over to the stasi who dissented from the government stated position.
JoAnne, what you stated is exactly what MSM (propaganda arm of the WOKE Left) said.
I am NOT campaigning for RFK Jr. but when I hear him speak and what he says is totally taken out of context it infuriates me.
He’s also been given Trumps place as “The Greatest Threat to Democracy” because he dares to run against the Biden Regime.
Typical politics at it’s finest!
NY Post published a recording which is why I believe the statement and think his words reflects his beliefs. My reaction to RFK was nice to have new winds blowing in politics, but his jews and chinese spared from Covid statement resembled a spit (one that could be the spit into the wind on his campaign).
What is disappointing is that if eyes hadn't seen and ears not heard, then I would also put it on journalists juggling words. It is so difficult to really know candidates which should not be politics as usual.
Curious about what you think of Naomi Wolf's stance on what RFK Jr said: https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/this-jewess-says-rfk-jr-is-right
Oh, I see, RFKj is a "new wind blowing"? Kind of like a Bob Dylan song. Just an insignificant blip. I urge you to not fear room 101!
I am of Jewish ancestry, and I support RFK, Jr 100%. In fact, after I read your comment, I contributed another $25 to his campaign -- in your honor. So, thank you. You're very welcome. https://www.kennedy24.com/congratulations
RFK, Jr. never said covid was designed "to spare Jews." He said the virus was engineered in the Wuhan lab, and its furin cleavage sites offered some immunity to the Chinese, as you would expect since the Chinese were quite likely developing covid as a bioweapon. Over one million Chinese have died from covid, which is approximately the number who died in the US. So whatever advantage there was was far from complete.
The Jews and the Finns (anti-Finnatism, anyone?) also received some immunity from the bio-hacked furin cleavage sites. But this was just an accident, the luck of the genetic draw.
Totally agree, Nancy!
😀
I think his point was that the Chinese government is most probably developing bio weapons that differentially spare ethnic Chinese. He cited evidence concerning COVID and Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews. The discussion was off the record and certainly worthy of debate. But how it turned into a debate about anti-semitism is beyond me.
Anna, if anything (I listened a couple times very closely) Kennedy was NOT at all being critical of Jewish people! Good Lord, I’m always amazed at how people hear what they want to hear!
The conversation was a discussion about what SOME have suggested, “COVID could have been engineered to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people”. RFK Jr. didn’t ever say that was HIS belief!
Hells Bells, people, can’t theories, opinions, beliefs be discussed without being accused of being a “Conspiracy Theorist”
Let me answer that … NOPE, not if you go against the WOKE Left narrative!
RFK Jr. doesn’t stand a chance against the WOKE Democrat Machine. Just like Trump, RFK Jr. can’t be controlled, so his credibility must be destroyed! And, as an Environmental Lawyer for 35 years (Trump a businessman) they aren’t bought & paid for Politicians! If you can’t be bought, you can’t be controlled.
Bingo!
I believe the NIH did a research finding that Jews and Chinese have more immunity, and it happens some groups may or may not be more susceptible to certain diseases
There were factors that made people more vulnerable toCovid…comorbidity having the most impact. While the government noted race groups in deaths attributed to COVID. There was no data published with a Jewish group and Chinese were listed as Asian. If NIH did research on race, it would be another example of gross incompetence by the government.
He didn’t actually say that in the way you are stating it . . The headline writers flooded the internet with it so nobody even wants to listen to the primary source material
He didn't say that Debbie Wasserman Shultz did. Please get your facts straight.
Exhibit A. Kennedy said they were designed to be able to target certain ethnic groups. What he did not say was that they were used to do so, as you state above.
Designed by who? Who was he saying designed Covid to do this?
JoAnne can you share the literature or video of him saying that?
https://nypost.com/2023/07/15/rfk-jr-says-covid-was-ethnically-targeted-to-spare-jews/
JoAnne, thanks for sharing the NY Post link; however, in listening to it closely, Kennedy is sharing information that SOME papers have been written stating “COVID was ethnically targeted to spare Jews & Chinese” … he ISN’T SAYING this as HIS FACTUAL BELIEF.
He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!
This was the same dinner party (?) Hillary confronted & scolded him for daring to run against Biden!
Bari is a neocon warmonger. She uses the vaccine issue to discredit RFKj but her goal is to censor him because RFKj wants to pursue peace and is a threat to neocons like Bari and Bill Krystol. Bari could give a rat's ass about autism. She along with fellow warmonger and mentor Brett Stephens will continue their despicable and shameful war against RFKj and align themselves with the likes of Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
In a recent inter-view, Kennedy told The Wall Street Journal his views on vaccines have been misconstrued and that he isn’t antivaccine. He said he has all the required childhood vaccines but isn’t vaccinated against Covid-19 and believes that vaccines should undergo more rigorous scrutiny.
100% this!
Please define, in detail, exactly what "WOKE" means and its usage in your comments.
The problem is that the original science by Andrew Wakefield that associated vaccines with autism was fraudulent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
So, maybe vaccines contribute to Autism, but dishonest and fraudulent studies only make people more wary of any scientific correlations. I have not seen a study that shows a concrete correlation. My Asperger's son started displaying symptoms by 8 days (he would not look at faces). He had almost no vaccinations at that point. I have fully vaxed him and he has improved over the years.
There are currently over 250 studies done since Wakefield's study that support his findings. Here are 222 of them: https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/214-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link#
Thank you for sharing. There are other studies that dispute these findings, including a meta analysis of all the studies. Let’s agree to disagree.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-autism-and-vaccines
That analysis only looks at 10 studies; hardly an overwhelming refutation of the 250+ that say otherwise.
Why are all the articles descriptions hidden except the first? The spoiler alert thing makes it really hard to see what these articles are and makes the presentation looks shady
Not sure what you're seeing, but I see the title and full abstract of every (now 222 and counting) study. Maybe it's your browser?
Precisely!!
We also can't rule out space aliens infecting kids with autism through interdimensional wormholes opened directly into our children's brains. That doesn't mean we should spend any effort looking for warp-drive signatures though.
I've felt for a very long time that the staggering rise in autism is a very serious problem, and I can't for the life of me understand why there's no push to do tons more research on the causes, and why the medical establishment is so complacent. It's yet another reason why I've lost trust in the medical establishment. They're busy occupying their time on all the more politically trendy things like Covid and Trans.
Everyone tells me "Oh it's just diagnosed more now. Autistic people always existed in the same number." Why is everything being explained this way? "Oh there are always that many trans people. They just feel more comfortable coming out now." So often I feel like I'm living in a real version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and I'm the only one seeing horror and questioning but everyone around me have become pods and zombies.
I agree. The medical community must stay focused on pursuing the truth rather than a narrative. Biology rather than identity should be the North Star.
I knew only one autistic person growing up. Now several of my friends have severely autistic children. It's not your imagination.
Completely agree. Her comment about "only for the most privileged can autism be a superpower" really hits home. My cousin has twin boys with severe autism. What she has to handle day in and day out is extraordinary including one who threatens suicide on a weekly basis. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Meanwhile someone we know who most likely has some social anxiety continues to tell us she thinks she's on the spectrum. She's happily married, three kids, full-time job, etc. Stop already.
Good to get back to the topic and not have RFJ, Jr boyfans taking up all the discussion.
QX, I am gay and 67.
Back when in 1950 or so when Kinsey published his (in)famous sexual study, the estimate for adult males who were homosexual, that is fall in love/have sex with other men, was 3 to 4%.
I saw an article a few months ago in The Economist??, that estimated that number today to be around 3%.
So when you read that the exploding number of kids claiming to be trans (many of whom have autism as comorbidity) is just like gay numbers....that is false. Totally false.
Subversion of the American national dialogue by forces that serve the self-interested lie, as intended, go beyond the simple destruction of trust and hurl everything into anomie. Who know's what the truth is? And that's the point!! Important conversation's like this one fall by the wayside and moral reason goes begging. Across Substack stories of worthy lives, many in scientific R&D, career destroyed, grant dollar's and lab's seized. Live's, money and the future thrown into chaos by the feminist/D.E.I. and the crooked little fascist's it serve's. There are report's elsewhere on Substack today about complaint's that there is too much research emphasis on the birthing of healthy children by women and not enough about sustaining pregnancy for "trans" men, and as I remember, because it interfere's with testosterone injection's. That's propagandist gas lit crazy making at its best. And again, this important human conversation and countless others, vital to all our live's denied.
The truth, truth speaker's and fact's matter. This is a real fight and I applaud the bravery of (dare I use the word) the MOTHER fighting for, not only her children, but the live's of other's to come.
Thanks for introducing me to the word "anomie." Perfectly sums up today's society.
I reference that movie all the time! It’s the *perfect* way to describe our bizarre state of affairs!
Yes, I'm so bored of people who are otherwise intelligent just handwaving away any curiosity and placing a big ol "it's just more awareness" stamp on clearly observable phenomenons. And then pat themselves on the back for being one of the "good guys"
You're not alone in feeling this way!
This is the most informative piece I've ever read about autism. Given the ground it covered, it was admirably concise.
I had one question: are there good statistics about the prevalence and increase in autism in other countries?
Thank you for informing us about this important issue.
My thoughts exactly. Is the astounding rise in autism primarily a finding in western societies or is it happening uniformly around the world.
language-policing neurodiversity advocates”…..
Jesus Christ, hysterical progressive movements have all but destroyed almost every institution in our country, and clearly has captured almost all of healthcare.
No doubt parents across the country are horrified by this reality.
Yet, Evans, the (apparent 81 million) majority keep voting for the WOKE Left Progressives. And IF you dare go against THEIR narrative (like RFK Jr.) you are a “threat to Democracy” and a “Conspiracy Theorist”
They don’t, though. They vote for the long term coalition which includes the progressives. It’s a shame that the progressive faction seems ascendant. We ought to help the more moderate factions in the Democratic Party regain control. Maybe by crossing party lines to support them when they come up with something sensible?
We’re at the point of such absurdity that we’re now being told that a pregnant mother hoping for a “normal” baby is morally wrong. https://open.substack.com/pub/colinwright/p/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-house?r=1edokh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Childhood vaccines have never been tested against placebo, so I don’t understand how anyone can say they are certainly safe. Can we please change the narrative and push Pharma to actually test these products against placebo so we can rule out the possibility that they may cause autism. The “mountain of evidence” you cite is all suspect until these products are tested properly.
Why are drug companies which have had previous felony convictions doing their own safety research? Very scientific! Also, once a shot is on the childhood schedule, there is a huge, sometimes mandated market with no liability for the pharmaceutical companies. It is absurd to assume current research—with zero placebo studies—proves safety.
To do so, test vaccines in children compared to unvaccinated children, would expose the placebo cohort to diseases like measles, mumps, polio etc. that we know vaccines prevent. It would be unethical.
Except measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc. are not deadly when contracted by healthy children. It would not be "unethical" in the slightest and there are plenty of parents who don't vaccinate whose children could participate as the control arm. This line of reasoning is superficial—a smoke screen. The covid shot also is on the CDC childhood vaccine schedule now and children are at literally ZERO risk of death from Covid. This is all about profits, not ethics.
I can attest to “not deadly”. I had measles, mumps and chickenpox as a kid (as did most of my school mates) with not much fanfare. Not pleasant but hardly a mass killer in most populations. Except maybe now this is a worry?
It does seem our population has lost a lot of herd immunity.--so perhaps today with our kids having weaker immune system (could this be a result of vaccines?), exposure to something like measles can result in a severe a reaction similar to that experienced by native Hawaiians with first exposure to Europeans. Alas, while our public health “experts” should be looking at cumulative impact of vaccines and medications on our children’s immune systems, weighing benefits vs risks, they don’t. Instead they just add more vaccines to the stick-em regime.
Bottom line: Seems to me this generation of kids is constantly sick with one virus or another, and I suspect it’s not just from over prescription of antibiotics.
Change “are not deadly” to “are rarely life threatening”. They can have life threatening complications. Also, chickenpox recurs in unvaccinated adults as shingles. Mumps in adult men can cause sterility.
I predate the vaccines. I had chickenpox, measles, and apparently silent mumps as a child. They were not at all fun.
I would have been thrilled to take a needle stick plus a day’s sore arm to avoid the weeks of misery I endured from Measles and chickenpox. I would especially like to have avoided Shingles, which clouded the cornea of my left eye and gave me nerve damage on that side, in addition to hurting like crazy.
How many commenters here so blasé about those diseases actually had them?
What about unvaccinated groups like the Amish? What are the autism rates ?
1 in 271 according to this study.
https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper7336.html
Snopes addresses the question of the occurrence of autism in the Amish. Apparently hard to get good data because a number of Amish do vaccinate their children.
Snopes is not a reliable source of information
Prevalence Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among the Old Order Amish
?
This is a dumb argument. If you removed the vax requirement for schooling, daycare, etc then you would have no problem finding an unvaccinated cohort to compare against.
Yes, and we could probably find that cohort now among certain crunchy Californians or colonies of the religious orthodox, but I’m not sure either are civic minded enough to volunteer their children for research.
There are very many people who aren't "crunchy" Californians or orthodox who don't vaccinate. But you might not know that if you aren't well-read or researched (or a participant) in pro informed consent advocacy groups.
If there are so many people willing to expose their children to diseases we vaccinate against why aren't the studies being done?
They don’t want to know the results. Since our vaccines became liability free, the childhood schedule has tripled and chronic disease in kids has gone from about 12 percent to 54 percent.
Do you think they would volunteer their children as participants in a placebo group for testing vaccines? And I can see a problem in that it would be difficult for scientists to do a blind study.
Well, having been swimming in these waters for 30 years I can tell you these parents were at the forefront of demands for such studies and would have participated. And they were ignored, smeared, and told it's "too unethical." Now, given the rise in the meantime of the surveillance state, the weakening of respect for parental rights, and the consequent specter of authoritarian overreach, I'm not so sure there'd be the line of volunteers we'd have seen in the past. Institutional trust has, understandably, tanked.
Also, I don't think a blinded study would be that difficult, tbh. And regardless, the challenge of it certainly isn't a good reason to throw our hands up and say, oh well, nevermind, let's just carry on with the status quo. Safety MUST be paramount. If they can do their control trials using non-inert placebos, there's no logical reason they can't do them properly using inert placebos.
We should have herd immunity on those diseases by now. I know parents who did not vaccinate or put of off. They are out there.
When mass immunization programs started, the supposition was that vaccine immunity doesn't wane. That was discovered to be erroneous. So even with 100% vaccination rates, herd immunity cannot be achieved because no vaccine is 100% effective (ie. they all "leak") and, more importantly, vaccine immunity, being artificial, not only wears off over time, but wears off at differing intervals which is wholly dependent on the individual (eg. in one person a specific vaccine protection might last 20 years but in another with the same vaccine, protection might wear off in five years. It's random and unpredictable). So herd cannot be achieved by relying on vaccines.
Another way of saying this is that herd immunity is an artifact of populations in which *natural* lifelong immunity is acquired by the individuals contracting the disease and fighting it off with their own immune system, which then forever after recognizes the virus and defeats it early in subsequent exposures, such that at any given moment 95%+ of a population is protected. Also, crucially, maternal natural immunity protects nursing infants, who need the immunity received through their mother's milk until their own immune systems are mature enough to successfully fight off the virus and so acquire their own lifelong immunity. Mothers with vaccine (aka artificial) immunity do not pass on protective antibodies through their breastmilk, which stymies the nature-made system for protecting vulnerable infants. Now that we have 2-3 generations of widely vaccinated populations for many of these "childhood diseases" (they were called that because adults didn't contract them as they had already acquired lifelong natural immunity in their own childhoods...), we've totally messed up the system because nursing moms can no longer provide protection to their babies as they have no natural immunity themselves. Perfect example of humans presuming theirs is a better plan than God's.
It is my understanding that the only disease ever completely eradicated by vaccination is small pox. And that is because small pox has no animal reservoir. It was strictly spread human to human.
It's complicated because small pox inoculation has been around for over 200 years. So, we can't say if the improving material conditions, plus better medical care would have decreased morbidity and mortality 95% like it did for other 20th century diseases.
I would presume so but that has nothing to do with eradication of the virus by vaccine because it has no animal reservoir.
Great info. Thank you. I stand corrected.
AMEN!
You wrote a lot of wrong things. I'm just going to focus on one very obviously wrong one: "Mothers with vaccine (aka artificial) immunity do not pass on protective antibodies through their breastmilk" which is rubbish. Breast cells don't "know the difference" between vaccine generated antibodies and non, because they aren't different. They get excreted into milk and absorbed
Sorry—that was sloppy writing on my part. The point is that artificial (aka vaccine-induced) immunity doesn’t last. So childhood MMR vaccines and boosters can not be relied upon by childbearing women for providing protection to nursing babies because mothers who don’t have natural immunity may no longer have antibodies.
Its not like natural immunity is guaranteed protection forever. It's definitely not. Vaccine immunity to some diseases, in some studies decreases faster, but here's the thing: You don't have to get Measles to get it! I would prefer widespread vaccine coverage limiting spread so my children never see that spectactularly infectious virus over dubious better transplacental transfer that would require their mother to have had Measles. Do you know what subacute sclerosing panencephalitis is?
We all had measles, mumps, etc. Polio was more serious, but no vax available for that until 50’s and most survived. Plus we have plenty of data for polio vax now. It’s the many new ones that are suspect and mostly not justifiable on a risk/benefit analysis.
I am of that generation and having known women who contracted measles while pregnant and people who were wheelchair bound after polio, I would not wish that on anyone when a vaccine is available.
There are plenty of unvaccinated children (by parental choice) out there who would no doubt be perfectly happy to participate in such studies.
Except, Reese, their are already numbers of children who’s parents refuse to vaccinate.
I’ve read about these children who are homeschooled in Amish communities, tho I may be mistaken.
I don’t think you are correct...
Unless/until the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (releasing Pharma from any liability) is overturned, they have zero incentive to do these studies and/or make their products safer. It is one of the most stupid and harmful laws ever to be passed.
"The recent rise of the “neurodiversity” identity movement, where autism is reinvented as a natural difference to be celebrated, not investigated, prevented, or treated, has helped spread a fairy dust of complacency over the autism world." - The entire "I'm OK, you're OK" identity movement will eventually cripple if not destroy Western civilization. It is definitely preventing the much-needed research into autism. I don't need to improve, work on myself or my short-comings - I am perfect just like I am. Hell, I don't even need to be in a relationship, work (UBI), or leave the confines of virtual reality (create a world that I like). This article saddens me to the utmost degree, and I admire and have the utmost respect for the author and her journey to help her children and others.
Agree! I was attacked on Reddit for asking for help with my Asperger's son. Like I wasn't supporting his 'neurodiversity.' I accept him fully, and just want to help him achieve his goals. He wants to change.
Stay strong and don't let those who don't live your life define it.
Thank you. “Normal” is now frowned upon as though we should have no benchmarks for cognitive development.
Or any other health benchmarks. A close friend who is a clinical therapist in a safety net hospital says she no longer advises patients to lose weight, because 1) they won't do it anyway and 2) it's socially unfair to stigmatize them because of their weight. These are morbidly obese patients with multiple health issues, mainly diabetes.
Very thoughtful reply and I’m sure the author appreciates it. I agree.
Hopefully we can come back to a place of balance.
I really appreciate that this addressed a need for looking more closely at subcategories of autism especially with the rise of identitarian component. One thing I'd say, is that causal factors for autism need to be identified, but I fail to understand why there is a pervasive belief that it is a single factor and not multi-factorial. Is this not something that might be a confluence of factors from the increased toxin load of the childhood vaccine schedule, to alterations in the microbiome because of diet and/or changes in birthing practices and breastfeeding, to the increased toxic load of our ambient environment, to hereditary components, and beyond - likely, things we can't even conceive of. As we look at some of these rising diseases, I think it's important that we recognize their inherent complexity and our inability to tease out a single reductive cause OR cure. Everything around us is multi-factorial, this will be, too.
Exactly! EVERYTHING should be on the table.
YESS! My thoughts exactly. RFK’s book did not rule out other contributing factors and he rightfully took aim at WHEN and HOW vaccines are administered. He wasn’t like “All vaccines cause autism” he mentioned a multitude of variables specific to certain vaccines.
Yes, I would argue though that the way he approaches this in media does not communicate that. For example, he mentions it’s likely multi factorial in the Rogan interview one time and then spends almost 3 hours talking about things in a way that suggests vaccines cause autism. How we talk about an issue all the time (not just buried in books few people read) matters. It’s time we point people towards complexity.
Given the autism "spectrum" I'm wondering whether the condition itself isn't a range of phenomenon rather than a single, discreet phenomenon.
It's increasingly complicated if the question becomes "what environmental factors affect or effect different expressions of autism."
All the more reason to approach the studies with different approaches and an open mind.
a quick google search told me that based on current data there's almost a 2 to 1 ratio of autism in kids who were exclusively formula fed vs. breastfed...which basically tells you that either a. breast milk is protective or b. environmental toxins (found in lab based formula) are the culprit...or c. both.
And yet, correlation does not equal causation. Women who exclusively breast feed (EBF) probably have a "healthy user bias" - use less toxic cleaning supplies, had more vaginal deliveries, have more community and financial support, access to more organically grown/pasture-raised foods, have better nutrient status because of more nutrient dense food access. And likely all of the above and more. The question becomes, when you live in a world (actually these stats are just US) where less than 25% of kids are EBF by 6 months, 1/3 of deliveries are cesarean, cord blood is found to have hundreds of chemicals.... it's absolutely multi-factorial. AND moms aren't to blame. I just see a lot of people doing their best in a sea of information that is almost impossible to comb through. A world where everything from our complete disconnection from community and support to the toxin load of the food we eat is a factor in the rise of so many different diseases.
Exactly. In the 70's when formula came out it was touted as superior to breast milk. Only the wealthy women could afford it so it became an upper to upper middle class phenomena. Studies from the time showed that formula fed kids did better in school, had fewer illnesses and were better behaved than breastfed kids.
Fast forward a few decades and "attachment parenting" and breastfeeding are all the rage amongst the upper crust set and formula feeding is lower class, something the waitress or retail worker does because they don't have any maternity leave or a wealthy husband to support them. Studies now show that breastfed kids do better in school, have fewer illnesses and are better behaved than formula fed kids.
To be clear, I think breastfeeding is better, but clearly social class is the superior determining factor in how your kid turns out. As one pediatrician said in response to the breast vs bottle mommy wars, "I can't tell the bottle versus breast fed kids on the kindergarden playground, but I can tell which are from the trailer park and which are from the gated communities."
Good on you for pointing that out. It is an interesting correlation, none the less. I was wondering how SSRI use correlates with autism incidence. It's got to be environmental. Genetics just does not change overnight. Something people are ingesting or otherwise exposed to is involved in this. And it might be right under our noses. Maybe some highly touted vitamin (or the concoction it's commonly sold in) is causing this - where it's fine up to some level and causes problems in higher dosages. People routinely take 1000x RDA's on vitamins ever since Nelson Passwater's wildly popular book came out in the '70s.
Yes. I've been saying this for years about user bias. It's not random who breastfeeds, at least not in the US.
Yet a medical journal article I read said that doctors should not call breast feeding more natural because that would encourage anti-vax thought.
Journal article is from 2016 for those wondering:
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4154
Gross.
They also get into the trans parenting danger zone using terms like "natural." Don't get me wrong, I am not buying into that nonsense, but doctors are clearly frightened by it.
OMFG.
Breastfeeding studies are inherently biased, considering they do not control for maternal IQ or income, which profoundly impacts how often children receive medical care throughout their lifetimes. In addition, recent studies have found traces of EDCs (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35437305/
Not to mention, they fail to assess the babies who receive colostrum from breast milk but are not breastfed afterward (many mothers use this method.) And countries like France, which have significantly fewer mothers that breastfeed, and when they do, it’s typically no longer than a month or so (breastfeeding beyond this point is considered taboo), have far less of an increase in autism diagnosis.
even if the studies are biased none of those variables account for autism. You can have a high IQ, high income, etc and your kid will still have autism. All I am saying is that exclusively formula fed kids (which the study was showing - not exclusively breast fed) do have higher rates of autism compared to the kids who were breast fed at some point for some period of time. regardless it can be a contributing but likely not the sole factor
And it could be an exposure of previous generations. I read a study years ago that posited multigenerational impacts. It is hard to do but a pretty closed group of Laplanders were studied who had high levels of diabetes. Unnaccountably high given their genetics and environment. The conclusion was that severe starvation of their grandparents had triggered it. I read this a lo-o-ong time ago so the details are fuzzy.
Well said!
Bari for a person who is supposedly dedicating herself to challenging establishment dogma, you are at times shockingly unwilling to even consider challenges to establishment dogma.
She seems to only be skeptical in certain directions. For stuff she is already on board with, she doesn't seem to feel the need to question.
The fish don't feel the water....
You have to wonder why this topic is suddenly political and why anyone that brings up vaccines is immediately persona non grata.
Astoundingly, supposed anarchist group Antifa was pro mandate. I find it interesting that a group wrecking buildings and burning down the house supports Big Pharma forced shots.
Things that make you go hmmmm.
They said that people against the federal mandate were fascist right-wingers, demonstrating ignorance of what both of those mean.
That's how you can recognizing propaganda brainwashing.
But I especially found confounding the firing of thousands of Americans who would not take the vaccine while letting thousands flow into the country untested and unvaxxed. The policy seemed completely illogical.
The unvaxxed were mostly from the political opposition, and destroying their economy was a profound and long-lasting victory for the Cultural Revolution. That's why it was combined with the BLM purge.
It's completely logical when you understand their goals. We just need to stop pretending that it was about the virus.
Precisely.
Who are the spokespeople for ANTIFA and how was their pro-mandate stance collected?
Antifa showed up and clashed with demonstrators against the vaccine mandates at several rallies. It was reported in numerous newspapers. I believe they felt being anti vax in any way was a far right position.
Not astounding to me. It is all of a piece with state control.
My thoughts exactly, BD! IF you don’t kowtow to the WOKE Progressive Left you are immediately labeled a “Conspiracy Theorist” or as RFK Jr. is now, a “Threat to Democracy”
I had to pause while reading this. It is heartbreaking. She’s a saint of a parent.
Agreed and Jill's friend who couldn't get her own son, Mu, out of their home when it caught on fire. It broke my heart.
I had to take a beat when I read that. Just this mention brings me to tears again.
Yes!
Me too. Such a tragedy.
I had to pause and reflect on this as well, the visual in my mind was heartbreaking
With all due respect, TFP makes a fool of itself going out of their way to demand that vaccines not be even a consideration as a factor in the rise of autism. You have also repeatedly misrepresented RFK Jr's position. He has never claimed that vaccines are 100% the cause. He has repeatedly said he believes its a distinct possibility due to the correlation between the rise in cases and the rapid expansion of the vaccine schedule (not to mention the ridiculously long history pharma, regulatory agencies, and "independent" researchers have of lying, corruption, bias and just plain old fallibility that coincidentally always seem to coincide with massive profits). He has also repeatedly said there are certainly a handful of other possibilities but he believes vaccines should be looked at more closely. Only an absolute moron would dig their heels in and refuse this extremely logical position.
The author basically says, I have no clue whats behind it but the rise in cases is real and the only thing we know is that the industry with the most criminal penalties leveled against it for lying about safety and funding "studies" that support those lies absolutely cannot be considered as a possible culprit. Its just stunning to me how often people will allow themselves to get burned by the exact same people and systems and continue to defend those people and systems.
We literally just had the worlds "top scientists" tell everyone that all the evidence on Covid "proves" it could not have been engineered only to find out they all were coordinating to lie to the public in order to defend the science that created the virus. They didnt even need to be bribed because the conflict of interest is stunningly obvious. OBVIOUSLY scientists who believe in GOF research will do anything to deflect from the fact that GOF research is responsible. And I suppose lets all just forget about the opioid crisis which was created by pharma, enabled by the regulatory agencies and backed by "countless studies" from "independent" researchers. I honestly just dont even know how anyone could put any trust into these institutions right now. Its really mind boggling.
To be clear, Im not saying vaccines absolutely are a factor in the development of autism, but I believe its possible and should be looked at further. I absolutely think its crazy that somehow vaccine "science" is different in the US than in other developed countries in Europe who magically do not have the same issue with autism as we do. I also think that in the absence of any real answer, only an absolute moron would ignore any possibility. Covid should have proved this to every person with a functioning brain.
Also, Kennedy has repeatedly volunteered to debate the science on this issue. A few years ago he was scheduled to debate at Yale with three doctors who all canceled at the last minute. He debated with three empty chairs with their names on them. He has both guts and a sense of humor. Biden can (sometimes) read off his card.
Its just wild to me that you have only 1 candidate who is even paying attention to this issue and the media, including TFP apparently, are going out of their way to discredit him. I keep coming back to the fact that the "science" is somehow different here than in other advanced countries in Europe and how apparently nobody finds that even remotely curious or worth looking into. It seems to me to be a stunning case of American exceptionalism to believe that everyone else is wrong and were right, even though there is such a long history of these companies putting profits over people. I have a deep respect for Bari and TFP (despite some language in my OP that I should probably have not used) but I am so amazed and disappointed in their approach to this issue.
In her interview with RFK he provides a really good example in the case of the chicken pox vaccine which England recommends against precisely because while it does prevent chicken pox, it leads to massive increases in shingles later in life, which is far more dangerous. Obviously, someone here is not prioritizing patient health but she didnt even engage on the point. I find the lack of curiosity here really mind boggling.
Yes but then they get to sell the shingles vaccine to the same people who got the chicken pox vaccine....
Couldn’t agree more with your assessment of pharma and the regulatory agencies. Particularly in regards to everything concerning covid and the opioid nightmare that they intentionally unleashed on the population. How anyone can blindly believe anything they say is hard to understand.
YES!! Thank you!
Oddly enough I just had this conversation with my mother. I told her that I don't remember one family growing up who had an autistic child (I grew up in the 70s). It doesn't mean that they didn't exist, but that the occurrence was so rare that an average person didn't know any family who had a child with it (I did know people who had low IQ children, particularly downs syndrome so it wasn't that there were no disabled children). Once I had children the number skyrocketed. I knew quite a few families who had children with autism so that would be starting in the early 90's. It is horrible that we still don't know what is causing it. I would ask you to take another look at the vaccine schedule but agree it could also be issues with our food supply, or something else that we haven't yet examined.
One reason you didn't know any family who had an autistic child in the 70s is that autistic children were commonly sent away. My second cousin was profoundly retarded, and autistic, and in the 70s, when he was a child, his parents institutionalized him. In 1967, there were almost 200,000 institutionalized mentally retarded people. Most of the institutions, whether they were bad or good, have been torn down now, and almost nobody sends away kids like this anymore.
Exactly. And that’s where I disagree with the author and Bari when they say that the increased numbers are not due to differences in current diagnostic methods. When I studied autism in the early 70’s the term applied almost exclusively to nonverbal kids who rocked constantly and did things like slam their heads into walls all day. In the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s people with autism and very low IQs (under 70 or so) were labeled mentally retarded and put into institutions and mental hospitals. One article I read said that the initial surge in autism diagnoses occurred when the government decided to close most of the mental hospitals and other institutions and all those people were released into the community and a lot of them were relabeled autistic. Parents today worry about how to care for adult autistic children because in the old days the government housed them and most people were okay with that.
If those institutions have mostly been closed, where are all those people with autism now? Seems if the rates were similar we’d be seeing middle-aged and elderly people with autism at the same rates as we see younger people. Yet, we don’t.
I think the answer may lie in the word "mostly." Closing institutions is a gradual process. Mainly, the way it works is that new/younger patients cease being admitted, whereas older patients stay institutionalized until they die. I have a friend whose brother still resides in one and is now in his early 60s. All of the patients there are older. Sometimes the institutions must consolidate as numbers of patients decrease over time.
I'm sure that accounts for some, but those institutions held many more people than those diagnosed with autism. I also don't believe people who were disabled with autism to the point of needing institutional care were being diagnosed at anywhere near the rates we see today. There's realistically no way to go exponentially from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 37 in a 30 year time span simply on the basis of better and wider diagnostic criteria. A three orders of magnitude increase in three decades signals a sea-change in something within the population itself.
I wasn't trying to account for the entire phenomenon, just the institutionalized older patients you mentioned.
Almost 200k? That's bigger than the skyrocketing rate that the article writer mentioned.
My husband’s family is rife with members on the Autism Disorder Spectrum, ranging from a low IQ cousin who has been in a residential facility most of his life to a mother, brother, cousin, niece and nephew with what is clearly Asperger’s. With the exception of the low-functioning cousin, none of those born in the 60s and earlier received any diagnosis at all. They were just “oddballs”, “weird”, “had no social skills”, “lacked empathy” etc. I believe at least part of the surge in autism diagnoses is the identification and inclusion of Asperger’s.
In the 70s it was sex, drugs and rock and roll. Could it be that those who used recreational drugs is now coming back to haunt all of these "cool" people who took drugs and distained those of us who didn't take drugs is coming back to haunt the drug users?
This is just a guess, anal extrapolation. Drug use has sky rocketed and so has autism. Just asking.
Sex and drugs are hardly new.
Substitute jazz for rock and roll in the 1930's, 40's, & 50's.
There's your answer.
Drug use skyrocketed in the 60s and 70s.
Only if you don't include alcohol.................opium use was higher around the turn of the 19th century for another example. Cigarette use peaked in the 1960s. You need to widen your definition of "drugs."
Do you have any empirical evidence that there was more drug use in the 60's & 70's?
https://www.bewellbuzz.com/wellness-buzz/1970-present-explore-health/
Do you really think drug use has declined in the US?
There was no LSD prior to the 60s. Regardless, I think it would be pretty easy for scientists to find out if drug use was causing autism.
They are still not admitting to drug use and HIV causing the AIDS crisis in gay men........
Of course they're not new. But surely you are not contending that there is less marijuana use in the US today than there was in the 60s and 70s?
Good question, Lonesome.
Agree. I have five biological children and one who is adopted. Both my firstborn and my adopted child have level one autism spectrum disorder. Why? I have no idea. But 1/3 of my children having autism seems like a lot, doesn't it?
How telling - that concern for finding out the "why", is dwindling and relegated to the basement? So shocking and sad.
I put this disease in the similar category with Alzheimers - rampant and research has gotten nowhere in decades. Families across the country are devastated and exhausted by these diseases, with not much help in sight.
Thanks for this excellent piece, Jill. Godspeed.
You can only look where you are allowed to look.
Bingo.
My understanding regarding Alzheimer's was that beginning in the 90s it was all about the "plaque buildup" and that is where all the research money went. It was apparently a rabbit hole.
I agree - I have read the same thing.
I have nothing but admiration for Bari, but Christ when she drops into her “smart, nice people don’t believe these things” mode it is just pathetic. I have no idea what causes autism and my heart goes out to the families but to not look at vaccines or take them off the table seems insane.
Baris job is not to agree with her demographic, but to have the conversation. She brings this up, and brings on guests who discuss these taboo topics, because nobody else will. She knew perfectly well what RFKs stance on vaccines was, and brought him on anyway. If she just echo chambered all of her readers thoughts, she would be no better than liberal legacy media.
Opposite side of the coin. Think Bari is a hypocritical fraud.
But what if it's not "pathetic?" What if it's "right?"
I've been with Bari since she launched. This is my last month as she dupped many of us and is a absolute fraud.
I think there should be a movement to have a control group population that doesn't vaccinate their kids. Will have interesting combinations with the illegal aliens that are importing their diseases into the US but I still want to see what happens.
Vaccines have been studied ad nauseum and definitively found to NOT cause autism. Use google, Wikipedia, WebMd, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the Mayo Clinic, etc. There are an endless number of reputable medical sources that have all this information laid out for you. Persistent belief that vaccines are the culprit is like some sort of cult people belong to.
You mean all the same sources that told us Covid shots were “safe and effective”? That getting the shot would protect you from getting Covid? That it would protect those around you? That people who questioned the science were making baseless claims? Those bastions of scientific knowledge and authority...?
The Covid vaccine IS safe and effective. No one ever said it would keep you from getting Covid. Not 100% anyway. I think it was rated perhaps at 80% or 90% effective on preventing infection, but almost 100% effective at keeping you out of the hospital and alive. That was the primary goal, ie, keeping people alive and out of the hospital. Preventing severe disease, especially in the vulnerable, such as the elderly, the immune compromised, and those with co-morbidities such as lung disease, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. All of these goals were achieved. Nothing more was ever promised.
And as for certain side effects, yes there are a tiny number, but they’re minuscule compared to the benefits. All vaccines have side effects. Most medicines have side effects. Life is not perfect and it’s a mistake to expect it to be.
Guess you missed the videos of Walenski and Fauci and Biden emphatically telling people if you get vaccinated you won’t get Covid, and you won’t pass it on to others. You’re spouting revisionist history that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in the video age.
“Revisionist History”. Resorting to fancy language are we? And the “video age”? Like that mysterious disappearing YouTube video Jennifer told me about?
Well, if you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Yale (it’s not CHOP, so that should help you). This is a complicated discussion as there are different vaccines, with different track records, and the vaccines have evolved as the virus has evolved, so that the variants could be addressed. None of this is simple, so looking for simple answers is a fool’s game.
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison
Sorry—wasn’t trying to be fancy. I thought it was a widely used term, but maybe not.
In any case, university medical science is well known to be bought and paid for by Fauci and his grants from NIAID, which is to say, it’s all downstream of Pharma funding. So you may put your trust in it, but I don’t.
As to your point about none of this being simple, I wholly agree. And I would add, there was nothing more simple than immediately labeling a warp-speed novel treatment for a novel virus “safe and effective,” then demonizing anyone who questioned that designation.
All of which is to say: you do you and I’ll do me, and perhaps we’ll discover agreement in other arenas. 😊
Yes, it was promised that the vaccines would prevent infection. Pfizer claimed 95% efficacy in prevention of infection.
However, as they admitted from the start, Pfizer/BioNTech never tested impact of the vaccine on transmission. They claimed it was too difficult. This was explained in the trial documentation released in early 2021. What they did instead was choose very carefully which of their trial participants to test and which not to test. In the trial documentation, around 1500 participants showed covid-like symptoms yet were not tested. No rubric was provided or any description of how testing decisions were made.
Later, when it became perfectly obvious to everyone that vaccinated people were contracting covid, the story changed from "you won't get it" to "you won't get a severe case and it will keep you out of the hospital."
But that isn't true either. Thousands of people have died of covid post-vaccination. As of April 2022, 6 in 10 adults dying of covid were vaccinated. Those are CDC numbers. Thousands more vaccinated have been hospitalized.
And anyway it is untestable, since no one can know how they would have fared had they not been vaccinated. The control groups were all destroyed early on.
I think everyone knows that all vaccines have side effects and that life is not perfect. The covid vaccines were new technology, were rushed out, were given Emergency Use Authorization prematurely (and only after therapeutics were suppressed) and three years later, the efficacy is at best "jury out."
Read the Yale article I cited. Where are your citations?
Your Yale link is not really a "Yale article," it is a fact sheet for consumers on a medical practice website (Yale Medicine). It's a product comparison with a sales pitch: yes, you should get vaccinated, here are the products from which you can choose.
I assumed most people would be familiar with the Pfizer trial documentation, the efficacy claims and the CDC numbers, but here you go:
CDC numbers: https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/Rates-of-COVID-19-Cases-or-Deaths-by-Age-Group-and/d6p8-wqjm
Efficacy claims at time of rollout: Check your Yale link, they're replicated there
Pfizer trial documentation: https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download
A Pfizer exec, Janine Small, admitted in a hearing in October 2022 that the vaccine's impact on transmission was not tested before rollout. The fact checkers said "yes, this is old news" - which it is. It's covered in the trial documentation. But it wasn't reported *at the time of rollout* that Pfizer didn't test for impact on transmission. Which is why a lot of people are still surprised even today to hear it. I tried to tell my family about it in April 2021, but they didn't believe me.
Btw, that 95% efficacy rate was probably for the original virus, not all the variants that have emerged since then. I have a bunch of citations to add when I get back to my iPad. Some of those people who died may have gotten variants or they may have been so sick or otherwise compromised before getting infected that even the vaccine couldn't help them. 95% effective means 5% won't be saved. That could easily be thousands of people in a country as large as ours. Doesn't mean the vaccines didn't do what they said they would do. I don't believe anyone promised 100%. That type of success rate doesn't exist IRL and everyone either knows that or should. My husband had a laminectomy in May. It could have killed him but it didn't. Nothing in life is perfect. The Covid vaccines are modern day miracles. Be grateful.
Whoops. Sorry Ann P, it is you that is the COVIDIAN Cult member.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/serious-doubt-raised-about-covid-19-vaccine-safety-after-forced-release-of-15000-pages-of-clinical-trial-data_5414614.html?utm_source=epochHG&utm_campaign=CFP&src_src=epochHG&src_cmp=CFP
And yet, ironically, all of your sources have been captured by the Pharma cult.